Pootsie (from Lisburn) has been unveiled as Minister for Culture Arts and Leisure
From the Irish Times
-------------------
------------------
Paisley reveals DUP ministers for Stormont Assembly
The DUP today named former Ulster Unionist Arlene Foster as the party's Minister for the Environment in the next Stormont government which is to be restored on May 8th.
Ms Foster, who defected to the Democratic Unionists three years ago, is an Assembly member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
DUP deputy leader Peter Robinson, North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds and Lagan Valley Assembly member Edwin Poots will be the ministers of finance, enterprise and culture respectively.
Party leader the Rev Ian Paisley appointed his son, Ian Junior, to the junior minister role in the Office of First and Deputy First Minister.
His father will be sworn in as First Minister on May 8th alongside Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister.
Dr Paisley also announced that Lagan Valley MP Jeffrey Donaldson would be one of the party's four members on the Northern Ireland Policing Board.
The party leader was in optimistic mood on the steps of Stormont as he announced his team.
"I think we should rejoice that great confidence is born in the hearts of the majority of people in Northern Ireland," he said. "I am amazed by the responses on the streets, on the phone and in every place I visit.
"People here are not Democratic Unionists but who are grateful to us for all that we have achieved."
Mr Donaldson will be joined on the policing board by Upper Bann MP David Simpson, North Down Assembly member Peter Weir and West Tyrone Assembly member Tom Buchanan.
In the Assembly, Iris Robinson will chair the Health Committee, shadowing Ulster Unionist Minister Michael McGimpsey.
East Antrim MP Sammy Wilson will chair the education committee, South Antrim MP the Rev William McCrea will chair the agriculture committee and East Derry MP Gregory Campbell will chair of the social development committee.
Mr Donaldson was also named as the chairman of the new Assembly institutional review committee.
Dr Paisley would not be drawn on the reason why Foyle Assembly member William Hay was not included in the list of announcements today, having served on the Policing Board.
However, Mr Hay's absence fuelled speculation that he will be the DUP's nominee when the Assembly elects a new Speaker next month.
A very sad day, but not the end of the fight. The Maze plans will have to be approved by the full executive not just Poots and there are already a significant number of NOs and a small number of UNDECIDEDs, who will all have to vote to spend up to £400 million on a vainty project and then go back, to their constituents and explain why there local school/hospital/youth club/library is closing.
Leaving the Maze plans aside, Edwin Poots definitely does not come across as a champion of sport, arts or culture. He seems a bit of a sour-puss from the 'tie-up-the-swings-and-shut-the-gates-on-a-Sunday' wing of the DUP. Is he is a big fan of the Arts and can people see him beng a big enthusiast for the Irish language, these being part of his remit?
Poots has all the charisma of a used nappy!
Jezuz even Sammy "pants down" would have been a better choice!!
Personally I'm not bothered whether it's built or not, but if it is.. then yes the GAA should be in.
Not boverred Do I look bovvered? :o
While I am anti maze I have to say that the fact that a village idiot like poots can gain any sort of power is possibly even more concerning.
Personally couldn't care less about it either but on the Poots thing, I was reading an article about him a few weeks ago and apparently he's a lot sharper than he looks. The piece may have been by the DUP sycophant Suzanne Breen though so I'm not sure if the portrait was very credible.
Quote from: Donagh on April 16, 2007, 04:24:40 PM
Personally couldn't care less about it either but on the Poots thing, I was reading an article about him a few weeks ago and apparently he's a lot sharper than he looks. The piece may have been by the DUP sycophant Suzanne Breen though so I'm not sure if the portrait was very credible.
I had the 'pleasure' of meeting him and he could barely string a coherent sentence together. It's sad that fcukwits, like Poots, can get elected nevermind being given a ministerial role. He also has shown no previous interest in sport or culture (apart from the Maze obviously) and doesn't list anything 'cultural' on his biogs.
in fairness donagh, being smarter than you look isnt an achievement when you look like that
No matter SammyG, the way the DUP are going to be doing things, he'll be moved onto another ministerial post in 6-12 months time.
Quote from: nifan on April 16, 2007, 04:30:12 PM
in fairness donagh, being smarter than you look isnt an achievement when you look like that
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Sammy....can I nominate a charity to receive that £20? "The Captain Kennedy Benevolent Fund" will do nicely. Or just buy 4 copies of our new cd when it comes out.
Quote from: The Gs Man on April 16, 2007, 07:46:37 PM
Sammy....can I nominate a charity to receive that £20? "The Captain Kennedy Benevolent Fund" will do nicely. Or just buy 4 copies of our new cd when it comes out.
The bet involved building the stadium and using it. There's a long, long way to go before it's built and even longer before there's anybody playing at it.
Wouldn't mind a promo CD, in the meantime. ;)
edwin poots - man of culture...
(http://www.lisburnccm.co.uk/images/aboutus/image/Cllr%20Poots.smaller5jpg.jpg)
Edwin Poots - Man of Culture...
(http://www.colossusblog.com/mt/archives/images/gollum%2520maquette.jpg)
O Neill in the bathtub 8)
I predict that Poots will have an overnight conversion to Maze sceptic, duck issues of Irish language sensitivity, and become a regular at Castle Ward.
With him at the helm and a village idiot as Committee Chair, the civil servants will be busy (thats a first) making as well as implementing policy.
He looks like yer man from Man about Dog.
The thick fella.
Poots was on Fat Boy Fat's Radio six counties show, this morning and refused to back the Maze (in fact he refused to answer any direct questions at all) lots of 'it'll be up to the executive', 'I'll base my judgement on the evidence' etc etc. Hopefully good news if the leading Maze cheerleader is getting cold feet. ;)
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2007, 11:48:10 AM
in fact he refused to answer any direct questions at all)
He'll go a long way so
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2007, 11:48:10 AM
Poots was on Fat Boy Fat's Radio six counties show, this morning and refused to back the Maze (in fact he refused to answer any direct questions at all) lots of 'it'll be up to the executive', 'I'll base my judgement on the evidence' etc etc. Hopefully good news if the leading Maze cheerleader is getting cold feet. ;)
Obviously he'll do what his boss tells him to do. Which probably means it'll come down to a deal between SF and DUP...
QuoteWhich probably means it'll come down to a deal between SF and DUP.
How do you lads feel about Planet Earth politics breaking through in NI?
Quote from: Billys Boots on April 17, 2007, 12:17:22 PM
QuoteWhich probably means it'll come down to a deal between SF and DUP.
How do you lads feel about Planet Earth politics breaking through in NI?
Scary thought!!! :o
Planet earth politics in Ni
sure youve been playing politics with national stadia down there for years now Billy. We are only new to the game.
Quote from: Billys Boots on April 17, 2007, 12:17:22 PM
QuoteWhich probably means it'll come down to a deal between SF and DUP.
How do you lads feel about Planet Earth politics breaking through in NI?
It's fecking weird. Emailing a politician with a question and getting an answer, rather than a rant about 'themuns', is not how things usually work.
QuoteIt's fecking weird.
Enjoy it while it's still a novelty. ;)
Quote from: 5iveTimes on April 17, 2007, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: dubnut on April 17, 2007, 11:34:36 AM
He looks like yer man from Man about Dog.
The thick fella.
(http://www.vujer.com/material/files/Man_about_dog(2004)1.jpg)
Edwin Poots enjoys a day in Clonmel
:D :D :D :D :D :D QUALITY
Nice to see that political maturity is alive and well in our new wee Assembly. I read that David McNarry recently referred to gaelic games as a "foreign sport" in a debate about the Long Kesh regeneration programme.
The discussion in this week's meeting included debate on comparative spending for minority languages and who should sit before the Committee in the remaining weeks until recess. When the Gaelic Athletic Association was suggested as part of a future briefing on the National Stadium proposals, Deputy Chair David McNarry MLA (Strangford) caused some consternation amongst some of his Committee colleagues when he referred to Gaelic sport as "foreign".
When will these idiots grow up.
Having said the above, the DUP seem to show increasing political maturity!!!!
19 June:
"A new national stadium at the Maze will proceed if an alternative is not proposed by the end of this month, the minister in charge has insisted. Edwin Poots said the process "cannot go on indefinitely".
The plan is for a 35,000-seater stadium for soccer and rugby, and the provision of more seats for GAA fans.
Mr Poots, the minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, met developers proposing a Belfast site, but was not satisfied that their plans were viable.
He said the Maze/Long Kesh Site was the only site able to accommodate "a potentially viable shared Stadium for all the sports involved - soccer, rugby and gaelic games".
He added: "A multi-sports stadium must be delivered to meet the 2012 Olympics timetable, it must be supported by the governing bodies of the relevant sports, be economically viable and be consistent with government's wider objectives of a shared future."
I know I'm being pedantic here Fiodoir, but I'll just point out that Poots did not describe this as a "national" stadium as the BBC report suggests, but as a "multi-sports stadium". Poots is on message even if the BBC aren't.
I really wish they would stop rattling on about the olympics, whatever the views on the stadium there are many more important issues than this.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 19, 2007, 11:34:00 AM
Having said the above, the DUP seem to show increasing political maturity!!!!
19 June:
"A new national stadium at the Maze will proceed if an alternative is not proposed by the end of this month, the minister in charge has insisted. Edwin Poots said the process "cannot go on indefinitely".
Not his call to make. There is no way on earth, that he will have been through all the required processes/accountability/VFM checks by the end of the month. And after all that he then has to get Robinson's department to sign the cheque.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 19, 2007, 11:34:00 AM
The plan is for a 35,000-seater stadium for soccer and rugby, and the provision of more seats for GAA fans.
More fairytales. This was proposed by Poots, but there have been NO DETAILS of how this could be achieved in terms of either the mechanics of doing it or the costs involved.
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 19, 2007, 11:34:00 AM
Mr Poots, the minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, met developers proposing a Belfast site, but was not satisfied that their plans were viable.
Interesting that he is prepared to accept the Maze plans with no viable business case but not the BCC proposals. :o
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 19, 2007, 11:34:00 AM
He said the Maze/Long Kesh Site was the only site able to accommodate "a potentially viable shared Stadium for all the sports involved - soccer, rugby and gaelic games".
::)
Quote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on June 19, 2007, 11:34:00 AM
He added: "A multi-sports stadium must be delivered to meet the 2012 Olympics timetable, it must be supported by the governing bodies of the relevant sports, be economically viable and be consistent with government's wider objectives of a shared future."
More lies. The Maze is not included on the list of Olympic sites and even if it was, there is no way that the budget would be approved on the basis of a couple (at most) of Under 21 football matches at the Olympics, when numerous other venues already exist.
I don't see why Robinson would have a problem signing the cheque – it's not his money i.e. was the money for this not previously allocated by the NIO? It doesn't affect the money given to the Assembly. If the money is not spent it isn't used. Also, regarding required processed, checks ete, did we not elect these clowns to cut through all of that excessive bureaucratic bullshite?
QuoteQuote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on Today at 11:34:00 AM
The plan is for a 35,000-seater stadium for soccer and rugby, and the provision of more seats for GAA fans.
More fairytales. This was proposed by Poots, but there have been NO DETAILS of how this could be achieved in terms of either the mechanics of doing it or the costs involved.
Wrong Sammy - the only fairytale here is in your head.
I have told you time and time again that the design specification passed to the architects HOK is for a variable 35k seated / 45k seated & standing capacity.
The job of the architect is to prouce a design based on the specification.
The architects are currently producing their design and will deliver shortly.
All three sports bodies will decide to proceed / bolt on the basis of the proposed design and agreement on satisfactory business terms.
As a GAA fan, I applaud the DUP ministers maturity on insisting that any stadium must be acceptable to all sports bodies, across our divide.
Afaik, the Belfast backers have made no meaningful attempt to engage the GAA or cater for their needs. I can't recall them ever acknowledging the existence of the GAA. Imho, ignoring the most attended sports in NI, exposes that their intention was always to create a mini "orange dome".
Well done in sticking to the governments cross community "shared space" agenda. Its economic madness to develop duplicate facilities for different sports that could easily share.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 01:07:14 PM
Afaik, the Belfast backers have made no meaningful attempt to engage the GAA or cater for their needs. In fact, I can't recall the existence of the GAA even being mentioned by them. That alone, ignoring the most attended sports in NI, exposes that their intention was always to create a mini orange dome.
There is much in your post with which I disagree, but the above is so outrageous I cannot let it pass without comment.
The facts are these. Originally, there were four sites considered, three in Belfast, plus the Maze. Both soccer and rugby were happy to consider Belfast, but all three sites were vetoed by the GAA. I would guess this was partly because some of the sites were difficult for GAA fans due to locality, access etc, but also because a Belfast stadium would detract from Casement.
Therefore, since the Government insisted that they would only spend our taxes on a shared stadium, the IFA is too skint to resist and Ulster rugby doesn't much care either way, we were left with the Maze as a
fait accompli. Not only that, but with the original plan being for a 28,000 seater stadium, the GAA also made it clear that they would not consider anything less than a 40,000 capacity - hence the increase to 42,000 - despite this being more than soccer or rugby required. (I don't blame the GAA for negotiating their case from a position of strength, btw, though I do feel the Government could have been more even-handed between the three sports).
Anyhow, entirely separately from this, a number of private developers saw the opportunity to build a multi-use sports stadium in Belfast, on a couple of possible sites. Belfast City Council considered these, then plumped for the "Durnien" proposal at Ormeau Park. Durnien has made it quite clear that he wishes to build a stadium which would be financially viable on its own terms, without the need for subsidy from the taxpayers. He has no particular axe to grind as to which sports are staged in the stadium, but Gaelic sports were never going to be a possibility, since
the GAA had itself specifically ruled out any stadium in Belfast when the Maze was being considered. And in any case, the proposed site is probably not big enough to stage Gaelic games, but is perfectly adequate for soccer or rugby. Further, his proposed capacity of around 25,000 is exactly in tune with soccer's ideal requirements, as is the Belfast location. (Ditto its suitability for Ulster Rugby, as an "overflow" for occasional big games when Ravenhill's 12,000 capacity is too small) This is why he offered this stadium for those two sports - if there was greater demand for e.g. Pro-Celebrity Log Rolling, I've no doubt he'd stage that instead.
As for your disgraceful slur about this being a "mini orange dome", the
primary activity which he envisages will financially justify his proposal is to be greyhound racing. Somehow, I can't see him restricting the racing only to Protestant dogs...
P.S. The Ormeau Park Proposal has received support from across the Chamber in Belfast City Council which is, as you know, a democratically elected and accountable body. By contrast, those orignally behind the Maze proposal were unelected and unaccountable Government appointees, none of them from Northern Ireland.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 01:07:14 PM
QuoteQuote from: Fiodoir Ard Mhacha on Today at 11:34:00 AM
The plan is for a 35,000-seater stadium for soccer and rugby, and the provision of more seats for GAA fans.
More fairytales. This was proposed by Poots, but there have been NO DETAILS of how this could be achieved in terms of either the mechanics of doing it or the costs involved.
Wrong Sammy - the only fairytale here is in your head.
I have told you time and time again that the design specification passed to the architects HOK is for a variable 35k seated / 45k seated & standing capacity.
The job of the architect is to prouce a design based on the specification.
The architects are currently producing their design and will deliver shortly.
All three sports bodies will decide to proceed / bolt on the basis of the proposed design and agreement on satisfactory business terms.
You seem to be confusing two different issues. What you say is 100% correct but it does not have any correaltion to what Poots said. There are no current proposals for a stadium with variable capacity.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 01:07:14 PM
As a GAA fan, I applaud the DUP ministers maturity on insisting that any stadium must be acceptable to all sports bodies, across our divide.
I have no idea what you mean by 'across the divide'. Football and rugby are 100% cross-community in terms of players, supporters, administration etc.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 01:07:14 PM
Afaik, the Belfast backers have made no meaningful attempt to engage the GAA or cater for their needs. I can't recall them ever acknowledging the existence of the GAA. Imho, ignoring the most attended sports in NI, exposes that their intention was always to create a mini "orange dome".
Not just a ridiculous slur (how can a venue for cross-community sports bodies be an 'orange dome') but also factually incorrect. The Durnien proposals are open to all and they have stated that they will welcome GAA (or any other sports) and that they will build a financially viable stadium with no requirement for public money. The GAA refused to even discuss Belfast as an option.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 01:07:14 PM
Well done in sticking to the governments cross community "shared space" agenda. Its economic madness to develop duplicate facilities for different sports that could easily share.
The arguments are nothing to do with any 'shared space agenda', they are to do with the complete lack of financial viablility. The Maze proposals do not add up and can't be made to add up.
QuoteOriginally, there were four sites considered, three in Belfast, plus the Maze. Both soccer and rugby were happy to consider Belfast, but all three sites were vetoed by the GAA.
I disagree with your assertion that the GAA vetoed anything.
They are alleged (NIO officials talking to NI soccer fans) to have said that all three Belfast sites put to them were unsuitable.
To date, no detailed explanation has emerged from the GAA re the actual reason.
There has been speculation that the GAA were unconvinced that their supporters would be able to travel to/from the sites without risking sectarian abuse.
Quote
I would guess this was partly because some of the sites were difficult for GAA fans due to locality, access etc, but also because a Belfast stadium would detract from Casement.
You can guess what you like, but as stated above, most speculation centres on perceived risk for GAA fans on Belfast.
For the record, the only elements within the GAA on record as being concerned about the impact on Casement are Antrim GAA, who as its proprietors might be expected to take that reaction. GAA HQ, Ulster Council and Down GAA officials are all on record as endorsing the Maze.
Quote
Therefore, since the Government insisted that they would only spend our taxes on a shared stadium, the IFA is too skint to resist and Ulster rugby doesn't much care either way, we were left with the Maze as a fait accompli. Not only that, but with the original plan being for a 28,000 seater stadium, the GAA also made it clear that they would not consider anything less than a 40,000 capacity - hence the increase to 42,000 - despite this being more than soccer or rugby required. (I don't blame the GAA for negotiating their case from a position of strength, btw, though I do feel the Government could have been more even-handed between the three sports).
I imagine most people in NI have no objection to developing shared facilities, minimising wasteful sectarian duplication of facilities.
Re capacity, it is clear to all but the most blinkered that gaelic football, as the most attended Northern Irish sport, requires a stadium that will accomodate the crowds that it attracts.
Surely the capacity should be as large as required to cater for all three sports. The proposed 35k seated / 45k seated & standing capacity sounds sensible and has been agreed by all three governing bodies.
Are you seriously suggesting that the stadium should have been limited to the crowds that NI soccer attracts? To illustrate, look at the 2005 attendance figures:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Here are the latest full year attendance figures that I could find:
2005 Ulster Teams Championship attendances.
(NOTE that these exclude the qualifier series matches).
USFC: Armagh V Tyrone 61000
USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone 32000
USFC: Derry V Armagh 27633
USFC: Donegal V Armagh 25622
USFC: Tyrone V Cavan 23441
USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh 23107
USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal 18227
USFC: Tyrone V Down 18200
USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan 16492
USFC: Monaghan V Derry 16314
USFC: Cavan V Antrim 10500
USFC: Replay Cavan V Antrim 3865
AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin 78514
AIQF: Armagh V Laois 32187
AISF: Tyrone V Armagh 65858
AIF: Tyrone V Kerry 82112
Note that these are official figures.
Earlier round games in particular will probably show figures lower than the real attendances - Non-paying kids aren't taken into account.
--------------------------------
Northern Ireland figures:
Competitve NI soccer matches played in the same period.
Northern Ireland V Azerbaijan 11909
Northern Ireland V England 14069
Northern Ireland V Wales 13451
JJB Irish Cup Final 2005 Portadown V Larne 5,431
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Quote
Anyhow, entirely separately from this, a number of private developers saw the opportunity to build a multi-use sports stadium in Belfast, on a couple of possible sites. Belfast City Council considered these, then plumped for the "Durnien" proposal at Ormeau Park. Durnien has made it quite clear that he wishes to build a stadium which would be financially viable on its own terms, without the need for subsidy from the taxpayers. He has no particular axe to grind as to which sports are staged in the stadium, but Gaelic sports were never going to be a possibility, since the GAA had itself specifically ruled out any stadium in Belfast when the Maze was being considered.
A few points:
Pure fantasy to describe the Durnien proposal as a privately financed when the prime city centre site it needs is to be gifted by the council for free. How much would Ormeau Park be on the open market? Tens if not hundreds of millions I guess.
Thats one hell of a subsidy for starters. Gifting this land without providing for the most popular games in Northern Ireland would expose BCC to legal action on equality grounds.
Disregarding the above, it would be up to the developer to persuade a potential client that the the development was suitable for them.
Afaik, Durnien made no attempt to persuade the GAA to consider his development.
The fact that the site is too small anyway (as you admit below) suggests that there never was any intention to accomodate gaelic games.
Quote
And in any case, the proposed site is probably not big enough to stage Gaelic games, but is perfectly adequate for soccer or rugby. Further, his proposed capacity of around 25,000 is exactly in tune with soccer's ideal requirements, as is the Belfast location. (Ditto its suitability for Ulster Rugby, as an "overflow" for occasional big games when Ravenhill's 12,000 capacity is too small) This is why he offered this stadium for those two sports - if there was greater demand for e.g. Pro-Celebrity Log Rolling, I've no doubt he'd stage that instead.
As for your disgraceful slur about this being a "mini orange dome", the primary activity which he envisages will financially justify his proposal is to be greyhound racing. Somehow, I can't see him restricting the racing only to Protestant dogs...
P.S. The Ormeau Park Proposal has received support from across the Chamber in Belfast City Council which is, as you know, a democratically elected and accountable body. By contrast, those orignally behind the Maze proposal were unelected and unaccountable Government appointees, none of them from Northern Ireland.
I make no apology for describing the durnien proposal an "orange dome". If you deliberately exclude the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, then that is what it will be perceived as.
It is the exclusion of a whole section of the northern irish community that is the real disgrace. Especially if the council ever gifted them 10's of millions.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 02:05:16 PM
There is much in your post with which I disagree, but the above is so outrageous I cannot let it pass without comment.
God forbid you could ever leave anything without comment ::)
Quote from: Donagh on June 19, 2007, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 02:05:16 PM
There is much in your post with which I disagree, but the above is so outrageous I cannot let it pass without comment.
God forbid you could ever leave anything without comment ::)
Quality Donagh! ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 19, 2007, 03:09:27 PM
Quote from: Donagh on June 19, 2007, 03:01:40 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 02:05:16 PM
There is much in your post with which I disagree, but the above is so outrageous I cannot let it pass without comment.
God forbid you could ever leave anything without comment ::)
Quality Donagh! ;D ;D ;D ;D
And God forbid that either of you could "play the ball", rather than "the man"... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 03:23:31 PM
And God forbid that either of you could "play the ball", rather than "the man"... ::)
If you want to play by those rules, take your ball and fcuk off over to Slugger.
Quote from: SammyG on April 16, 2007, 12:52:52 PM
A very sad day, but not the end of the fight. The Maze plans will have to be approved by the full executive not just Poots and there are already a significant number of NOs and a small number of UNDECIDEDs, who will all have to vote to spend up to £400 million on a vainty project and then go back, to their constituents and explain why there local school/hospital/youth club/library is closing.
:D
feckin brilliant news this, I could not be happier. ;D
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 02:58:47 PM
QuoteOriginally, there were four sites considered, three in Belfast, plus the Maze. Both soccer and rugby were happy to consider Belfast, but all three sites were vetoed by the GAA.
I disagree with your assertion that the GAA vetoed anything.
They are alleged (NIO officials talking to NI soccer fans) to have said that all three Belfast sites put to them were unsuitable.
To date, no detailed explanation has emerged from the GAA re the actual reason.
There has been speculation that the GAA were unconvinced that their supporters would be able to travel to/from the sites without risking sectarian abuse.
Quote
I would guess this was partly because some of the sites were difficult for GAA fans due to locality, access etc, but also because a Belfast stadium would detract from Casement.
You can guess what you like, but as stated above, most speculation centres on perceived risk for GAA fans on Belfast.
For the record, the only elements within the GAA on record as being concerned about the impact on Casement are Antrim GAA, who as its propietors might be expected to take that reaction. GAA HQ, Ulster Council and Down GAA officials are all on record as endorsing the Maze.
Quote
Therefore, since the Government insisted that they would only spend our taxes on a shared stadium, the IFA is too skint to resist and Ulster rugby doesn't much care either way, we were left with the Maze as a fait accompli. Not only that, but with the original plan being for a 28,000 seater stadium, the GAA also made it clear that they would not consider anything less than a 40,000 capacity - hence the increase to 42,000 - despite this being more than soccer or rugby required. (I don't blame the GAA for negotiating their case from a position of strength, btw, though I do feel the Government could have been more even-handed between the three sports).
I imagine most people in NI have no objection to developing shared facilities, minimising wasteful sectarian duplication of facilities.
Re capacity, it is clear to all but the most blinkered that gaelic football, as the most attended Northern Irish sport, requires a stadium that will accomodate the crowds that it attracts. Surely the capacity should be large enough to cater for all three sports.
Are you seriously suggesting that the stadium should have been limited to the crowds that NI soccer attracts?
Quote
Anyhow, entirely separately from this, a number of private developers saw the opportunity to build a multi-use sports stadium in Belfast, on a couple of possible sites. Belfast City Council considered these, then plumped for the "Durnien" proposal at Ormeau Park. Durnien has made it quite clear that he wishes to build a stadium which would be financially viable on its own terms, without the need for subsidy from the taxpayers. He has no particular axe to grind as to which sports are staged in the stadium, but Gaelic sports were never going to be a possibility, since the GAA had itself specifically ruled out any stadium in Belfast when the Maze was being considered.
A few points:
Pure fantasy to describe the Durnien proposal as a privately financed when the prime city centre site it needs is to be gifted by the council for free. How much would Ormeau Park be on the open market? Tens if not hundreds of millions I guess.
Thats one hell of a subsidy for starters. Gifting this land without providing for the most popular games in Northern Ireland would expose BCC to legal action on equality grounds.
Disregarding the above, it would be up to the developer to persuade a potential client that the the development was suitable for them.
Afaik, Durnien made no attempt to persuade the GAA to consider his development.
The fact that the site is too small anyway (as you admit below) suggests that there never was any intention to accomodate gaelic games.
Quote
And in any case, the proposed site is probably not big enough to stage Gaelic games, but is perfectly adequate for soccer or rugby. Further, his proposed capacity of around 25,000 is exactly in tune with soccer's ideal requirements, as is the Belfast location. (Ditto its suitability for Ulster Rugby, as an "overflow" for occasional big games when Ravenhill's 12,000 capacity is too small) This is why he offered this stadium for those two sports - if there was greater demand for e.g. Pro-Celebrity Log Rolling, I've no doubt he'd stage that instead.
As for your disgraceful slur about this being a "mini orange dome", the primary activity which he envisages will financially justify his proposal is to be greyhound racing. Somehow, I can't see him restricting the racing only to Protestant dogs...
P.S. The Ormeau Park Proposal has received support from across the Chamber in Belfast City Council which is, as you know, a democratically elected and accountable body. By contrast, those orignally behind the Maze proposal were unelected and unaccountable Government appointees, none of them from Northern Ireland.
I make no apology for describing the durnien proposal an "orange dome". If you deliberately exclude the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, then that is what it will be perceived as.
It is the exclusion of a whole section of the northern irish community that is the real disgrace. Especially if the council ever gifted them 10's of millions.
So much bullshit.
The GAA has made it perfectly clear that they would only consider the Maze i.e. they were not prepared to consider Belfast (irrespective of thier reasons). Therefore, Durnien (who, as Sammy has pointed out, would be prepared to include them) would have no opportunity to include them, since the GAA themselves has ruled it out. Why can't you comprehend that?
As for having a shared stadium, no-one I know in rugby or soccer has any objection to sharing with GAA or any other sport in principle. However, in practice, the greater pitch size for GAA means poor viewing for soccer/rugby; the enlarged capacity for GAA detracts from the atmosphere for soccer and rugby, and the location, whilst acceptable to GAA, which has a different support base, is not a good one for either of the other sports.
I am not suggesting that the capacity be restricted to soccer-sized crowds at the expense of GAA, merely pointing out that the three codes have differing needs which do not suit a "one size fits all" approach. They've found exactly the same in e.g. Australia, where they build separate facilities for RL/RU/Soccer and Aussie Rules/cricket, or the USA, where they separate e.g. American Football from Baseball. (And btw, your figures for NI international soccer are misleading, since UEFA imposes a maximum 14,000 limit on capacity, further reduced by the need for segregation, away fans etc)
As for the "value" of Ormeau Park, your contention about the "market value" of Ormeau Park is utter nonsense, since BCC cannot offer it on the open market for normal commercial development. Rather, it is preserved for leisure purposes. As such, Durnien is proposing to take a small, little-used corner of the park and present a modern multi-use stadium to the Council, available for a whole range of leisure activities, such as sports, cultural events and concerts. And in any case, how is the Maze site for "free", when the Government could easily sell it for e.g. development for low-cost social housing?
As for your suggestion that allowing Ormeau to be used for this purpose would leave BCC open to challenge on "equality" grounds is risible. Durnien's proposal is supported by elected representatives from
both communities (also the local SDLP MP for the area); besides, they have a legal department to advise on all such matters - but perhaps you know better!
As for your contention that the Ormeau proposal would "exclude a whole section of the NI community", I've not heard such twisted logic in a long time - even on this forum. Quite simply, Durnien is proposing a stadium to stage a whole host of events and activities, all of which are entirely cross-community at every level. He's not envisaging e.g. swimming, equestrian sports, motor sports, cricket, hockey or athletics and the only reason he's not considering GAA is because the GAA itself has made it perfectly clear they don't want to be involved (as is their right). That said, it is pretty rich to cry "sectarianism" for not including the only major sport in NI which fails to garner any significant degree of cross-community participation or support, whilst including others which do...
P.S. That last comment is not meant as a "dig" at GAA, btw, but is merely stating the situation as it exists, in a (hopefully) non-perjorative manner.
Quote from: Donagh on June 19, 2007, 03:25:03 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 03:23:31 PM
And God forbid that either of you could "play the ball", rather than "the man"... ::)
If you want to play by those rules, take your ball and fcuk off over to Slugger.
So still no comment on what I actually posted, then. ::)
Anyhow, I'll f**k off when I'm good and ready - I hardly need your permission or instruction, thank you very much. :-*
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 03:23:31 PM
God forbid you could ever leave anything without comment ::)
Quality Donagh! ;D ;D ;D ;D
[/quote]
And God forbid that either of you could "play the ball", rather than "the man"... ::)
[/quote]
Will you stop with that "play the ball" catchphrase of yours ::)
It was a funny comment and I acknowledged it, jesus lighten up.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 04:01:32 PM
So still no comment on what I actually posted, then. ::)
Told you before I don't read your long-winded inane bullshite posts.
Given that only 17,500 turned-up, when it was effectively free in for a lot of people, in gorgeous weather, for the Antrim v Derry gaelic match the weekend before last, wouldn't a stadium of over 40,000 seem a bit soulless?
Couldn't the GAA be persuaded to come on-board at a smaller venue in Belfast City Centre?
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 19, 2007, 04:03:35 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 03:23:31 PM
God forbid you could ever leave anything without comment ::)
Quality Donagh! ;D ;D ;D ;D
And God forbid that either of you could "play the ball", rather than "the man"... ::)
[/quote]
Will you stop with that "play the ball" catchphrase of yours ::)
It was a funny comment and I acknowledged it, jesus lighten up.
[/quote]
I'll replace "play the man" with "shoot the messenger" if you like. And, of course, I'll dispense with it entirely when/if you or Donagh bother actually to address my point...
(If that's not too hard, that is)
Quote from: Donagh on June 19, 2007, 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 04:01:32 PM
So still no comment on what I actually posted, then. ::)
Told you before I don't read your long-winded inane bullshite posts.
To dismiss as "inane" or "bullshit" what you've not even read and to tell the writer to "f**k off" when you have no more proprietorial rights over this Board than anyone else is the very definition of bigotry (in my book).
So if you don't wish to appear an uncouth bigot, why don't you either address the issues, or move on to the next thread? After all, other posters manage one or the other perfectly well.
Quote from: GweylTah on June 19, 2007, 05:40:36 PM
Given that only 17,500 turned-up, when it was effectively free in for a lot of people, in gorgeous weather, for the Antrim v Derry gaelic match the weekend before last, wouldn't a stadium of over 40,000 seem a bit soulless?
Couldn't the GAA be persuaded to come on-board at a smaller venue in Belfast City Centre?
The majority of that crowd knew they were going to be standing in baking heat under no cover at a more than likely one sided match (which it was).
The weather was so good it may have taken a lot of people away from the game
As well as that where in Belfast would you count it safe for the average GAA fan from West Tyrone or South Armagh for example to drive up and leave his car for a big GAA game in Belfast safely, with whatever little flags and ribbons hangiung from the car.
I've spent many years in Belfast and still wouldn't dare walk outside of the student area in a GAA top.
Have done in my day and got quite a bit of abuse.
Can you imagine the field day some people would have destroying cars, etc
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 05:54:35 PM
I'll replace "play the man" with "shoot the messenger" if you like. And, of course, I'll dispense with it entirely when/if you or Donagh bother actually to address my point...
(If that's not too hard, that is)
Ah for f**k sake, so I am not permitted to ackowledge a funny comment unless I give an in-depth commentary on the title topic??
I'll say it again Evil Genuis, lighten up. ;)
Quote from: GweylTah on June 19, 2007, 05:40:36 PM
Given that only 17,500 turned-up, when it was effectively free in for a lot of people, in gorgeous weather, for the Antrim v Derry gaelic match the weekend before last, wouldn't a stadium of over 40,000 seem a bit soulless?
Couldn't the GAA be persuaded to come on-board at a smaller venue in Belfast City Centre?
Yes Gweltyah you are correct, especially as Derry versus Antrim is the biggest drawing game in Ulster these days ::)
Still got more there than Northern Ireland get at their games :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: ExiledGael on June 19, 2007, 06:09:24 PM
The majority of that crowd knew they were going to be standing in baking heat under no cover at a more than likely one sided match (which it was).
The weather was so good it may have taken a lot of people away from the game
Oh, I see, the weather was TOO good.
Anyway, you obviously never go near the centre of Belfast, the place is coming down with GAA shirts, rugby tops and T-shirts and the usual assortment of football tops. People seem to adopt a live and let live attitude to them.
The weather was too hot in my opinion, I was one of the many who came home badly burnt on the day!
It seemed to be too much for the fans to take actually, there was a weird atmosphere.
I have spent a lot of time around the city centre, it may not be as bad as it once was but you're still likely to get a bit of abuse, if you meet a few scumbags drifting in from whatever side
Anyway the other proposed sites are not in the city centre, indeed they're verging on strongly protestant areas
Quote from: ExiledGael on June 19, 2007, 07:04:47 PMAnyway the other proposed sites are not in the city centre, indeed they're verging on strongly protestant areas
Sorry but which 'Protestant' areas are verging on any of the proposed Belfast sites? Of the 3 proposed sites 2 are completely neutral (Ormeau and Titanic) and the 3rd is a predominately Nationalist area (North Foreshore).
With all the moaning from the soccer and rugby crowds I think the GAA should have pulled the plug on the idea long ago. We dont need a new stadium anyway. The soccer and rugby crowd could then have went alone and built there stadium in Belfast with much smaller Government assistance. It may not have been financially viable but thats there problem. I see someone is taking a dig about 17,500 people being at the Derry Antrim game. As I said on another thread the combined attendance at Tyrone games in 2005 was over half a million - how long would have taken to get this combined attendance at Ulster or NI matches? Thats only 1 county to as compared to 6 and 9 for NI and Ulster.
The sites may be neutral but it's the immediate surrounding areas I would be concerned about.
The Titanic area is in East Belfast, no distance from the Newtownards Road, always seen as a protestant area to me, infact about as loyalist as you'd get, imagine GAA fans going through there. There's always potential for trouble near Short Strand.
The Ormeau Park area is just off the Ravenhill Road, again a very protestant area.
Unaware of the North Foreshore plan
Don't want the GAA to have anything to do with the stadium anyway.
Evil Genus,
QuoteQuote from: Donagh on Today at 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on Today at 04:01:32 PM
So still no comment on what I actually posted, then. Roll Eyes
Told you before I don't read your long-winded inane bullshite posts.
To dismiss as "inane" or "bullshit" what you've not even read and to tell the writer to "f**k off" when you have no more proprietorial rights over this Board than anyone else is the very definition of bigotry (in my book).
And the first words of your reply to my last post were......wait for it........
QuoteSo much bullshit.
fascinatingly hypocritical
QuoteGiven that only 17,500 turned-up, when it was effectively free in for a lot of people, in gorgeous weather, for the Antrim v Derry gaelic match the weekend before last, wouldn't a stadium of over 40,000 seem a bit soulless?
Evil Genus,
as already stated on this thread, the proposed capacity is a variable 35k / 42k.
I would imagine that the GAA would retain 35k capacity when it suited, and increase it to 42k partially seated when needed.
You're right - not all GAA matches attract capacity crowds, to illustrate here are the latest full year attendance figures that I could find:
You can see that two of the pre semi-final matches had crowds of over 42k.
four of the pre semi-final matches had crowds of over 30k.
eight of the pre semi-final matches had crowds of over 20k.
Imho, all these matches would be well suited to a new 35/42k multi sports stadium.
2005 Ulster Teams Championship attendances.
(NOTE that these exclude the qualifier series matches).
| USFC: Armagh V Tyrone | 61000 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone | 32000 |
| USFC: Derry V Armagh | 27633 |
| USFC: Donegal V Armagh | 25622 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Cavan | 23441 |
| USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh | 23107 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal | 18227 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Down | 18200 |
| USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan | 16492 |
| USFC: Monaghan V Derry | 16314 |
| USFC: Cavan V Antrim | 10500 |
| USFC: Replay Cavan V Antrim | 3865 |
| |
| AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin | 78514 |
| AIQF: Armagh V Laois | 32187 |
| AISF: Tyrone V Armagh | 65858 |
| AIF: Tyrone V Kerry | 82112 |
Note that these are official figures.
Earlier round games in particular will probably show figures lower than the real attendances - Non-paying kids aren't taken into account.
--------------------------------
Northern Ireland figures:
Competitve NI soccer matches played in the same period.
Northern Ireland V Azerbaijan 11909
Northern Ireland V England 14069
Northern Ireland V Wales 13451
JJB Irish Cup Final 2005 Portadown V Larne 5,431
---------------------------------
The new stadium factor for the first few years genberally leads to increased attendances (as seen at Croker and Millenium).
The extra capacity gives all three associations a valuable marketing tool in opening up their games to new audiences.
The NI soccer brigade in particular should have more confidence in their ability to draw a crowd.
Look at those soccer figures - they're pitiful.
A new stadium, in a new neutral location might draw out thousands of new fans who wouldn't want to go to the village.
Somebody on the board said recently that the NI jersey has sold 40k copies - surely the soccer marketing men should be able to translate that into bums on seats for you. If not, why not, what's the problem?
You should have more confidence in yourselves and stop sniping at an organisation that has managed to make their games attractive family days out.
Accept the reality that GAA is currently more popular, move on, and start taking a good hard look at yourselves.
Well said
Evil Genus,
QuoteThe GAA has made it perfectly clear that they would only consider the Maze
Prove it.
All you have to go on is media speculation and alleged quotes from NIO spokesmen to NI soccer fans.
To have chosen the Maze, the GAA must have considered the Belfast locations before rejecting them. Common sense really.
As for the Maze location, it is itself a compromise on the GAA's part.
Think about it, the GAA could have stormed in and reminded everybody that we are the future anchor tenant, that we will provide most money to maintain the venue in future.
It could have demanded that it be in Armagh, Dungannon, or somewhere handier, on current figures for the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL EVER USE THE STADIUM.
That it didn't shows a level of grace and compromise lacking in any input from NI soccer fans.
Think even harder - Look at those 2005 attendance figures again.
Do you really expect NI soccer fans to be able to demand that the stadium be located where they want, and to hell with the wishes of those who will use it most?
What makes an insignificant but vocal rump who attract 35k a year really think that they can dictate to an organisation that attracts 500 000 in the same year?
Jumped up little farts, the lot of you. Your over exposure in themedia has you thinking that you're more important than you really are.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PMas already stated on this thread, the proposed capacity is a variable 35k / 45k.
I would imagine that the GAA would retain 35k capacity when it suited, and increase it to 45k partially seated when needed.
Can you please stop repeating this nonsense? You've already admitted that this is nothig more than a potential marketting proposal, with no plans or budget to actually implement it. And that's without looking at the actual issues of how you move stands around?
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
Imho, all these matches would be well suited to a new 35/45k multi sports stadium.
How many do you think will actually be played at the Maze and when do you think the GAA will be prepared to let us have a list of proposed matches, as they have refused so far?
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
The new stadium factor for the first few years genberally leads to increased attendances (as seen at Croker and Millenium).
The extra capacity gives all three associations a valuable marketing tool in opening up their games to new audiences.
Interesting that you choose Croker and the MS as examples. Can you tell me whether those two stadia are in city centre locations and conform to all the accepted wisdom of stadium design or if they're in a field in the middle of nowhere? ;)
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
The NI soccer brigade in particular should have more confidence in their ability to draw a crowd.
The issue of 'drawing a crowd' is totally irrelevant. The Maze is an unsustainable white elephant, whether we draw a crowd or not.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
Look at those soccer figures - they're pitiful.
Full to capacity with an extra 4 or 5K looking for tickets is hardly pitiful.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
A new stadium, in a new neutral location might draw out thousands of new fans who wouldn't want to go to the village.
100% agree, who's mentioned anybody going to the Village? No-one is seriously suggesting staying at WP and all the Belfast options are totally neutral.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
Somebody on the board said recently that the NI jersey has sold 40k copies - surely the soccer marketing men should be able to translate that into bums on seats for you. If not, why not, what's the problem?
Totally nonsensical argument on so many levels.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
You should have more confidence in yourselves and stop sniping at an organisation that has managed to make their games attractive family days out.
Accept the reality that GAA is currently more popular, move on, and start taking a good hard look at yourselves.
Totally agree, for all the problems with the GAA, marketing is not one of them. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion though.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:32:45 PMProve it.
All you have to go on is media speculation and alleged quotes from NIO spokesmen to NI soccer fans.
To have chosen the Maze, the GAA must have considered the Belfast locations before rejecting them. Common sense really.
Nonsense the GAA vetoed Belfast, out of hand. They said that the only option acceptable to them was the Maze.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:32:45 PM
As for the Maze location, it is itself a compromise on the GAA's part.
Think about it, the GAA could have stormed in and reminded everybody that we are the future anchor tenant, that we will provide most money to maintain the venue in future.
More lies, the IFA will be the anchor tennant not the GAA. The GAA will only use the stadium when required.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:32:45 PM
It could have demanded that it be in Armagh, Dungannon, or somewhere handier for the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL EVER USE THE STADIUM.
A stadium in Armagh or Dungannon would make more sense than one in a field in the middle of nowhere.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:32:45 PM
That it didn't shows a level of grace and compromise lacking in any input from NI soccer fans.
What are you on about? We have studied the proposals and come to a decision, based on the information available, the GAA gave a take it or leave it ultimatum but somehow you twist it to be NI fans who won't compromise. ::)
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:32:45 PM
Think even harder - Look at those 2005 attendance figures again.
Do you really expect NI soccer fans to be able to demand that the stadium be located where they want, and to hell with the wishes of those who will use it most?
Not at all and that is not what the argument is about (as you well know). The issues are about infrastructure and economic viability, the capacity is a minor inconvenience, rather than a major issue.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:32:45 PM
What makes an insignificant but vocal rump who attract 35k a year really think that they can dictate to an organisation that attracts 500 000 in the same year?
Jumped up little farts, the lot of you. Your over exposure in themedia has you thinking that you're more important than you really are.
More abusive bollix. ::)
Quote
Quote from: snatter on Today at 08:22:18 PM
as already stated on this thread, the proposed capacity is a variable 35k / 45k.
I would imagine that the GAA would retain 35k capacity when it suited, and increase it to 45k partially seated when needed.
Can you please stop repeating this nonsense?
Sorry Sammy, I'm still right and you're still wrong. We've been here before:
SammyG - very forgetful, very thick or very stubborn?
As already stated, the most recent proposal for the Maze is for a 35000 seater for ifa / irfu games and a 42000 seated/standing capacity for GAA.
In the interest of correctness, the most recent proposal for the Maze is for a 35000 seater for ifa / irfu games and a 42000 seated/standing capacity for GAA.
And if you don't believe me:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6149096.stm
READ THE FIRST WORDS OF THE REPORT:
THE BBC HAS LEARNED THAT PLANS FOR A NEW SPORTS STADIUM AT THE MAZE HAVE BEEN REDRAWN
There's even a video (with sound) if you have trouble digesting printed words that you don't like.
Current Maze status:
The design team have taken the requirements and are now working on detailed plans to implement them:
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6288213.stm
QuoteYou've already admitted that this is nothig more than a potential marketting proposal
Bollocks. I've said nothing of the sort. Again - Prove it.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 08:22:18 PM
Imho, all these matches would be well suited to a new 35/45k multi sports stadium.
How many do you think will actually be played at the Maze and when do you think the GAA will be prepared to let us have a list of proposed matches, as they have refused so far?
Sammy,
how can the GAA give a definitive list when they don't know the teams in the matches.
You've been lurking here for so long, you're bound to know that the exact make up of any Ulster / All-Ireland match can't be determined in advance. If for example, Cavan were playing Monaghan in an Ulster Final, they might bow to local pressure and play it in Clones.
That being said, it is my opinion that in a typical year the Ulster Final, at least one Ulster SF, one Aussie rules, and at least one AIQ match would be played.
Imho, there's no question of the GAA not using it to the full. The Down secretary issued statements to that effect over a year ago.
I gave you a link to the comments many months ago.
Looking at the matches played in 2005, I would guess that the following would have gone to the maze:
USFC: Armagh V Tyrone 61000
USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone 32000
USFC: Derry V Armagh 27633
USFC: Tyrone V Cavan 23441
USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh 23107
USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal 18227
USFC: Tyrone V Down 18200
USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan 16492
AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin 78514
AIQF: Armagh V Laois 32187
Even the semi (AISF: Tyrone V Armagh 65858) might have been given to Ulster.
Additionally factor in any aussie rules match.
FFS Snatter this is getting boring. You are quoting the marketting proposal, it's in the BBC link that you provided. This is nothing more than a kite-flying exercise by Poots, there are NO PLANS AND NO BUDGET to make the stadium have different capacities at different times. There isn't even a discussion paper to look at options of how it might be done or any examples of any other stadia that have changing capacity.
Also as discussed (loads of times) the capacity issue is irrelevant the problem is infrastruture.
Quote from: ExiledGael on June 19, 2007, 07:23:20 PM
Don't want the GAA to have anything to do with the stadium anyway.
Is that because it would be being shared with foreign games?
If your view is representative of GAA fans, then perhaps someone would tell the Ulster GAA, for if there is hostility, disinterest or no need in the GAA in a new, shared facility, then it seems a mixture of spite and farce that GAA vetoes on size, location and pitch size (OK, that one's reasonable) are currently forcing this issue.
SammyG,
QuoteFFS Snatter this is getting boring. You are quoting the marketting proposal, it's in the BBC link that you provided. This is nothing more than a kite-flying exercise by Poots, there are NO PLANS AND NO BUDGET to make the stadium have different capacities at different times. There isn't even a discussion paper to look at options of how it might be done or any examples of any other stadia that have changing capacity.
you're right, it is boring but again, in the interest of correctness, I have to reaffirm that you wrong.
This capacity is not a marketing proposal - rather, these are redrafted specifications that have been agreed by all associations and have submitted to HOK.
HOK will very shortly produce their design proposal on the basis of a 35k / 42k capacity.
I read around the time of the assembly elections that it is due shortly.
We'll all find out what the proposal is then.
In the menatime, you can warp your thoughts any way you like.
Quote from: snatter on February 27, 2007, 01:09:41 PM
SammyG,
funny - you say there are Quoteno plans/details
to provide dual capacity of 42k/35k.
You then say that you agree with the BBC report, the first line of which says
QuoteTHAT PLANS FOR A NEW SPORTS STADIUM AT THE MAZE HAVE BEEN REDRAWN
.....
QuoteThe new plan will see a 35,000 seater venue for soccer and rugby, but some seats would be removed to allow up to 12,000 GAA fans to stand.
QuoteThe government hoped the new plans will accommodate fans from all three sports.
So there you have it Sammy. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't make it untrue.
In fact posters, read the article yourselves and make your own minds up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6149096.stm
Plan for new Maze stadium redrawn
The BBC has learned that plans for a new sports stadium at the Maze have been redrawn after talks with the three sports who would use the arena.
They were changed after a meeting with officials from the three sports - GAA, soccer and rugby - who will use it.
The new plan will see a 35,000 seater venue for soccer and rugby, but some seats would be removed to allow up to 12,000 GAA fans to stand.
The government hoped the new plans will accommodate fans from all three sports.
The original capacity for the proposed all-seater stadium was 30,000.
It was then increased to 42,000 largely to accommodate the GAA, but soccer fans were outraged claiming Northern Ireland international games would rarely, if ever, attract attendances of that size.
They argued that the atmosphere at games would suffer from there being so many empty seats.
Compromise
Now, as a compromise, there will be a 35,000 seat capacity for soccer and rugby games - while the stadium will be re-configured for GAA with 5,000 seats taken out and up to 12,000 fans being allowed to stand as is the case at Croke Park.
When contacted by the BBC a spokesman for the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure said: "Following the recent meeting of the Maze/Long Kesh monitoring group with the three main sports all stakeholders involved in the development of the site agreed the way forward for the stadium plan.
"This included the incorporation of seating and standing flexibility into the stadium design process. The second round design bids are due back on the 28 November and government expect to appoint the preferred bidder by Christmas."
It also hoped to seek expressions of interests for naming rights for the new stadium next month.
A number of international companies are understood to be interested.
The minister responsible for the Maze, David Hanson, said recently that a decision on whether or not the stadium would go ahead will not be made until the end of 2007.
Demolition of the Maze site is expected to be completed in November 2007.
Belfast City Council has a rival plan to build a 25,000 seat stadium at Ormeau Park.
Developers have been asked to submit final bids by the end of February and the Council says its hopes to be in a position to select a preferred developer by May.
Snatter
Ok I give up, you win, if you believe it's agreed (as you clearly do), what is the plan, what is the budget, how will it work?
QuoteInteresting that you choose Croker and the MS as examples. Can you tell me whether those two stadia are in city centre locations and conform to all the accepted wisdom of stadium design or if they're in a field in the middle of nowhere?
As compared to the Emirates and Twickenham, both inner city sites and both choked by appalling congestion on match days.
The big problem with Ormeau, and indeed anywhere in Ni is the lack of any meaningful public transport architecture.
Think again. The vast majority of fans who will use the Maze stadium (using latest 2005 attendance figures as quoted earlier), will be GAA fans originating from the rural south and western counties of Northern Ireland. It will lead to much less congestion if they don't have to travel into Belfast.
The numbers travelling from Belfast will be small and insignificant in comparison, eg for NI soccer matches
QuoteSnatter
Ok I give up, you win, if you believe it's agreed (as you clearly do), what is the plan, what is the budget, how will it work?
I AM right regarding capacity specifications - have patience and wait for the HOK design proposal.
In the meantime, you can stop pedalling crap.
As for budget - my expectation would be that this won't differ from any other project - get teh design in, cost it, agree contributions, sign contracts if happy / walk away if not.
I'm sure many prooperty developers oon the forum could give more details, but that's the gist.
ps - I'm still waiting for you to prove your unfounded comments below, or withdraw them:
Quote
Quote
You've already admitted that this is nothig more than a potential marketting proposal
Bollocks. I've said nothing of the sort. Again - Prove it.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:31:21 PMThink again. The vast majority of fans who will use the Maze stadium (using latest 2005 attendance figures as quoted earlier), will be GAA fans originating from the rural south and western counties of Northern Ireland. It will lead to much less congestion if they don't have to travel into Belfast.
The numbers travelling from Belfast will be small and insignificant in comparison, eg for NI soccer matches
It doesn't matter if you're travelling from Belfast, Derry, Armagh, Dublin or London, there is no way of getting a crowd to the Maze and no budget or capacity to fix it. That is the whole crux of the issue.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:35:32 PM
QuoteSnatter
Ok I give up, you win, if you believe it's agreed (as you clearly do), what is the plan, what is the budget, how will it work?
I AM right regarding capacity specifications - have patience and wait for the HOK design proposal.
In the meantime, you can stop pedalling crap.
As for budget - my expectation would be that this won't differ from any other project - get teh design in, cost it, agree contributions, sign contracts if happy / walk away if not.
I'm sure many prooperty developers oon the forum could give more details, but that's the gist.
ps - I'm still waiting for you to prove your unfounded comments below, or withdraw them:
Quote
Quote
You've already admitted that this is nothig more than a potential marketting proposal
Bollocks. I've said nothing of the sort. Again - Prove it.
You've just proved it yourself. You've posted a marketting proposal and admitted that there are no details. ::)
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 08:22:18 PM
The NI soccer brigade in particular should have more confidence in their ability to draw a crowd.
The issue of 'drawing a crowd' is totally irrelevant. The Maze is an unsustainable white elephant, whether we draw a crowd or not.
Quote from: snatter on Today at 08:22:18 PM
Look at those soccer figures - they're pitiful.
Full to capacity with an extra 4 or 5K looking for tickets is hardly pitiful.
Quote from: snatter on Today at 08:22:18 PM
A new stadium, in a new neutral location might draw out thousands of new fans who wouldn't want to go to the village.
100% agree, who's mentioned anybody going to the Village? No-one is seriously suggesting staying at WP and all the Belfast options are totally neutral.
Quote from: snatter on Today at 08:22:18 PM
Somebody on the board said recently that the NI jersey has sold 40k copies - surely the soccer marketing men should be able to translate that into bums on seats for you. If not, why not, what's the problem?
Totally nonsensical argument on so many levels.
Quote from: snatter on Today at 08:22:18 PM
You should have more confidence in yourselves and stop sniping at an organisation that has managed to make their games attractive family days out.
Accept the reality that GAA is currently more popular, move on, and start taking a good hard look at yourselves.
Totally agree, for all the problems with the GAA, marketing is not one of them. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion though.
The relevance was that Gwaytah had drawn attention to what he perceived to be small attendances at teh Antrim v Derry match. He surmised that the GAA would have no need for a large capacity.
I had to highlight the full attendance 2005 figures, and in doing so, I wished to highlight that Gwaytah's problem with capacity possibly lay in the inability of NI soccer to market itself and get its support base to actually turn up and watch a match.
Quote from: SammyG on June 19, 2007, 09:40:00 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:35:32 PM
QuoteSnatter
Ok I give up, you win, if you believe it's agreed (as you clearly do), what is the plan, what is the budget, how will it work?
I AM right regarding capacity specifications - have patience and wait for the HOK design proposal.
In the meantime, you can stop pedalling crap.
As for budget - my expectation would be that this won't differ from any other project - get teh design in, cost it, agree contributions, sign contracts if happy / walk away if not.
I'm sure many prooperty developers oon the forum could give more details, but that's the gist.
ps - I'm still waiting for you to prove your unfounded comments below, or withdraw them:
Quote
Quote
You've already admitted that this is nothig more than a potential marketting proposal
Bollocks. I've said nothing of the sort. Again - Prove it.
You've just proved it yourself. You've posted a marketting proposal and admitted that there are no details. ::)
Bollocks Sammy. The 35k / 42k capacity is the basis on which the GAA are proceeding.
As fate has it, I have just today submitted a final specification to my architect to design an extension.
When he produces his design, I will cost it, sign a contract and hopefully get some Latvian to build it.
Nothing different with the MAze, but as I say, we're getting very close to the design proposal from HOK being ready.
Whats the betting that it will be published at the end of the month when Poots doesn't get any stadium proposals from Belfast that cater for all three sports.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 09:31:21 PM
Think again. The vast majority of fans who will use the Maze stadium (using latest 2005 attendance figures as quoted earlier), will be GAA fans originating from the rural south and western counties of Northern Ireland. It will lead to much less congestion if they don't have to travel into Belfast.
The numbers travelling from Belfast will be small and insignificant in comparison, eg for NI soccer matches
It doesn't matter if you're travelling from Belfast, Derry, Armagh, Dublin or London, there is no way of getting a crowd to the Maze and no budget or capacity to fix it. That is the whole crux of the issue.
As I said, the numbers travelling from Belfast ( or London ) will be insignificant for most matches at the Maze.
The vast vast majority of people going to the Maze will be going to watch gaelic football and congestion will be reduced if they don't have to travel into Belfast.
The M1 has a higher capacity than all roads to Clones combined, so I imagine that congestion won't be any worse than we're used to.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:44:39 PMBollocks Sammy. The 35k / 42k capacity is the basis on which the GAA are proceeding.
How can they be proceeding if they don't know what's on offer or how much it will cost or even if it's possible.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:44:39 PM
As fate has it, I have just today submitted a final specification to my architect to design an extension.
When he produces his design, I will cost it, sign a contract and hopefully get some Latvian to build it.
Correct but that is the opposite of your Maze stance. You are accepting the Maze without any plans or costings.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:44:39 PM
Nothing different with the MAze, but as I say, we're getting very close to the design proposal from HOK being ready.
Whats the betting that it will be published at the end of the month when Poots doesn't get any stadium proposals from Belfast that cater for all three sports.
Again more nonsense. The Belfast proposal doesn't currently include the GAA, because they have said no. The option is still there for the GAA to come on board, if they wish. The Belfast developers can't be punished because one sport doesn't want to use their stadium.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:49:49 PMThe M1 has a higher capacity than all roads to Clones combined, so I imagine that congestion won't be any worse than we're used to.
Are you suggesting that Clones has only one two lane road and no other access? :o
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 08:32:45 PM
As for the Maze location, it is itself a compromise on the GAA's part.
Think about it, the GAA could have stormed in and reminded everybody that we are the future anchor tenant, that we will provide most money to maintain the venue in future.
More lies, the IFA will be the anchor tennant not the GAA. The GAA will only use the stadium when required.
Imo, there's no dispute that the GAA will be the anchor tenant.
An anchor tenant is one who draws the crowds in and makes a development viable, eg supports subsidiary profit generators like bars / cafes, etc.
On a footfall basis, on the figures from the probable 2005 mathces I gave you earlier, the GAA would bring in 350k + versus the IFA's 35k.
Oh and here's the definition of an anchor tenant to confirm my reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_tenant
Gweyltah - thats nonsense. The only reason some gaa people are against the stadium is because we are already well catered for and are not sure if we need another stadium. There's also no way the gaa will agree to a stadium in Belfast - big matches are based around a relaxed atmosphere before the game and each possible location in Belfast would mean having to pass close to loyalist areas and there would be the potential for attacks/trouble.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 09:49:49 PM
The M1 has a higher capacity than all roads to Clones combined, so I imagine that congestion won't be any worse than we're used to.
Are you suggesting that Clones has only one two lane road and no other access? Shocked
Not at all - the capacity of a route is related to the perceived number of vehicles it can safely carry per hour.
I didn't think I'd have to explain that one to you.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:02:59 PMNot at all - the capacity of a route is related to the perceived number of vehicles it can safely carry per hour.
Exactly, so explain to me how one two lane road, can carry the same capacity as all the roads in Clones (or any other town or city in Ireland)?
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 09:44:39 PM
As fate has it, I have just today submitted a final specification to my architect to design an extension.
When he produces his design, I will cost it, sign a contract and hopefully get some Latvian to build it.
Correct but that is the opposite of your Maze stance. You are accepting the Maze without any plans or costings.
Sammy,
are you quick to type and slow to read?
I've said many times ( in this thread alone) that all three bodies will have to decide the basis on which to proceed (or not proceed) once the design proposal is produced by HOK, costed, and contrbution levels have been agreed between all stakeholders.
Keep up.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 10:02:59 PM
Not at all - the capacity of a route is related to the perceived number of vehicles it can safely carry per hour.
Exactly, so explain to me how one two lane road, can carry the same capacity as all the roads in Clones (or any other town or city in Ireland)?
The M1 is a motorway that allows safe passing, higher speeds and therefore higher capacity.
As any GAA fan knows, the roads around Clones don't allow safe passing and high speeds.
The joining capacity post-event would be lower at Clones.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:06:23 PM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 09:44:39 PM
As fate has it, I have just today submitted a final specification to my architect to design an extension.
When he produces his design, I will cost it, sign a contract and hopefully get some Latvian to build it.
Correct but that is the opposite of your Maze stance. You are accepting the Maze without any plans or costings.
Sammy,
are you quick to type and slow to read?
I've said many times ( in this thread alone) that all three bodies will have to decide the basis on which to proceed (or not proceed) once the design proposal is produced by HOK, costed, and contrbution levels have been agreed between all stakeholders.
Keep up.
Right this a new strategy to completely change your argument and agree with me. Interesting tactic. ;) A few posts ago it was all agreed.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:08:37 PM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 10:02:59 PM
Not at all - the capacity of a route is related to the perceived number of vehicles it can safely carry per hour.
Exactly, so explain to me how one two lane road, can carry the same capacity as all the roads in Clones (or any other town or city in Ireland)?
The M1 is a motorway that allows safe passing, higher speeds and therefore higher capacity.
As any GAA fan knows, the roads around Clones don't allow safe passing and high speeds.
The joining capacity post-event would be lower at Clones.
What has the capacity of the M1 got to do with anything? The M1 won't go to the Maze or have you seen some new 'proposal', that you're going to quote as fact?
QuoteThe Belfast proposal doesn't currently include the GAA, because they have said no. The option is still there for the GAA to come on board, if they wish. The Belfast developers can't be punished because one sport doesn't want to use their stadium.
Sammy,
afaik, at no stage were the GAA invited or approached in any way about the Durnian proposal.
To ignore the largest spectator sport in NI, and all the revenue they bring, shows that they never had any intention of GAA involvment.
From the outset the Durnian proposal had a 22k capacity - much too low to be of any use to the GAA (again see 2005 figures), but just big enough to recreate another mini Windsor).
Oh, and as if you were in any doubt, and as Evil Genus has already pointed out in this thread - the Ormeau developemnt isn't (and never was) big enough to accommodate gaelic games.
Yep, despite being surropunded by open parkland, they managed to select a plot that was just too small.
No coincidence there -
they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
Quote from: SammyG on June 19, 2007, 10:11:35 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:06:23 PM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 09:44:39 PM
As fate has it, I have just today submitted a final specification to my architect to design an extension.
When he produces his design, I will cost it, sign a contract and hopefully get some Latvian to build it.
Correct but that is the opposite of your Maze stance. You are accepting the Maze without any plans or costings.
Sammy,
are you quick to type and slow to read?
I've said many times ( in this thread alone) that all three bodies will have to decide the basis on which to proceed (or not proceed) once the design proposal is produced by HOK, costed, and contrbution levels have been agreed between all stakeholders.
Keep up.
Right this a new strategy to completely change your argument and agree with me. Interesting tactic. ;) A few posts ago it was all agreed.
No Sammy,
go back and read again - the design specifications were all agreed. The project would proceed to the next stage on that basis. The next stage (as with all development proposals) will put meat on the bones.
All parties to agree / disagree once the design has been costed and terms proposed.
I've consistently being saying that to you - not just in this thread, but for months.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:18:37 PMNo Sammy,
go back and read again - the design specifications were all agreed.
How can the design specifications be agreed if they haven't even been written yet?
Quote from: Tyrone Dreamer on June 19, 2007, 10:02:22 PM
Gweyltah - thats nonsense. The only reason some gaa people are against the stadium is because we are already well catered for and are not sure if we need another stadium. There's also no way the gaa will agree to a stadium in Belfast - big matches are based around a relaxed atmosphere before the game and each possible location in Belfast would mean having to pass close to loyalist areas and there would be the potential for attacks/trouble.
I stand by my point - with the GAA and supporters, it's either not wanted or not needed and would hardly ever be used, yet it effectively holds the whole thing to ransom.
It is mean-spirited in the extreme, and will be a horrensous waste of money (hundreds of millions of pounds of all of our money down the drain) when there are easier solutions and much more deserving causes to be addressed in our society.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 10:18:37 PM
No Sammy,
go back and read again - the design specifications were all agreed.
How can the design specifications be agreed if they haven't even been written yet?
Says who? You?
HTF are you to know what is and isn't written?
Are you some sort of lycra tighted patrolman of the skies, reading all post sent from Stormont to Glasgow?
Common sense dictates that if HOK are producing a detailed design proposal, then they would have to do do it based on a set of written specs.
I can't imagine them doing a detailed design on the basis of word of mouth, flowchart or jigsaw.
As said many times before, the associations are proceeding on the basis of the 35k / 42k capacity.
The architects HOK will produce a detailed design proposal.
It will be costed.
The associations will then individually have to decide to proceed / not proceed based on the design and cost.
Simple really.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:30:50 PM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 10:18:37 PM
No Sammy,
go back and read again - the design specifications were all agreed.
How can the design specifications be agreed if they haven't even been written yet?
Says who? You?
HTF are you to know what is and isn't written?
Are you some sort of lycra tighted patrolman of the skies, reading all post sent from Stormont to Glasgow?
Common sense dictates that if HOK are producing a detailed design proposal, then they would have to do do it based on a set of written specs.
I can't imagine them doing a detailed design on word of mouth or a fuzzy idea.
As said many times before, the associations are proceeding on the basis of the 35k / 42k capacity.
You're making this up as you go along. I'll repeat again THERE ARE NO PROPOSALS or PLANS or BUDGET for a variable capacity. I know because we have done numerous Freedom of Information requests, had questions asked in Parliament and in the Assembly, had written answers from the various departments etc etc etc None of these have produced any plans or even as much as a briefing document. You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la but that won't make Poots lies become truth.
Quote
I stand by my point - with the GAA and supporters, it's either not wanted or not needed and would hardly ever be used, yet it effectively holds the whole thing to ransom.
It is mean-spirited in the extreme, and will be a horrensous waste of money (hundreds of millions of pounds of all of our money down the drain) when there are easier solutions and much more deserving causes to be addressed in our society.
yeah, you're right. I don't believe those attendance figues quoted.
We all know that only about 670 people in a bog somewhere west of lisburn play it.
Yeah like why should any govenrment even begin to start accommodating some backward sport that attracts 500 000 spectators a year.
Lets give it to some sport that I watch that attracts only a tenth of that.
Let those other weirdos stand on a cold wet bank in some bog somewhere. Thats what they like.
Lets just ignore what the GAA HQ and GAA President have said - we all know they're liars and won't use it.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 10:30:50 PM
Quote
Quote from: snatter on Today at 10:18:37 PM
No Sammy,
go back and read again - the design specifications were all agreed.
How can the design specifications be agreed if they haven't even been written yet?
Says who? You?
HTF are you to know what is and isn't written?
Are you some sort of lycra tighted patrolman of the skies, reading all post sent from Stormont to Glasgow?
Common sense dictates that if HOK are producing a detailed design proposal, then they would have to do do it based on a set of written specs.
I can't imagine them doing a detailed design on word of mouth or a fuzzy idea.
As said many times before, the associations are proceeding on the basis of the 35k / 42k capacity.
You're making this up as you go along. I'll repeat again THERE ARE NO PROPOSALS or PLANS or BUDGET for a variable capacity. I know because we have done numerous Freedom of Information requests, had questions asked in Parliament and in the Assembly, had written answers from the various departments etc etc etc None of these have produced any plans or even as much as a briefing document. You can keep sticking your fingers in your ears and going la la la but that won't make Poots lies become truth.
Well Sammy, that says more about you than me, the bbc, all mainstream media, the gaa, in fact everybody associated with this project put together.
If you're right and everybody else is wronmg, fair enough.
Just a word of warning - don't go trawling through that evil google thing - it lies as well.
And you know the day that the design proposal gets published - well everybody knows that's National Tell A Lie Day, and nothing reported then is true.
And that big concrete thing outside Lisburn in 7 years time - thats made of marshmallow and doesn't exist either.
Keep dreaming Sammy. A nice wee 20k stadium of your own. Thats all Sammy wants for Chrtistmas
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:04:10 PM
Evil Genus,
QuoteQuote from: Donagh on Today at 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on Today at 04:01:32 PM
So still no comment on what I actually posted, then. Roll Eyes
Told you before I don't read your long-winded inane bullshite posts.
To dismiss as "inane" or "bullshit" what you've not even read and to tell the writer to "f**k off" when you have no more proprietorial rights over this Board than anyone else is the very definition of bigotry (in my book).
And the first words of your reply to my last post were......wait for it........
QuoteSo much bullshit.
fascinatingly hypocritical
No hypocrisy whatever. When I post, Donagh calls it "bullshit", whilst admitting that he hasn't even read it.
I read your post, concluded it was largely bullshit, and stated why.
Feel free to disagree with me, call my posts bullshit, if you like. But don't lump me in with the likes of Donagh, who wilfully refuses to debate anything difficult with which he disagrees, preferring instead just to dismiss it as worthless, whilst personally abusing the poster.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 10:54:00 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:04:10 PM
Evil Genus,
QuoteQuote from: Donagh on Today at 04:26:08 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on Today at 04:01:32 PM
So still no comment on what I actually posted, then. Roll Eyes
Told you before I don't read your long-winded inane bullshite posts.
To dismiss as "inane" or "bullshit" what you've not even read and to tell the writer to "f**k off" when you have no more proprietorial rights over this Board than anyone else is the very definition of bigotry (in my book).
And the first words of your reply to my last post were......wait for it........
QuoteSo much bullshit.
fascinatingly hypocritical
No hypocrisy whatever. When I post, Donagh calls it "bullshit", whilst admitting that he hasn't even read it.
I read your post, concluded it was largely bullshit, and stated why.
Feel free to disagree with me, call my posts bullshit, if you like. But don't lump me in with the likes of Donagh, who wilfully refuses to debate anything difficult with which he disagrees, preferring instead just to dismiss it as worthless, whilst personally abusing the poster.
bullshit
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
You should have more confidence in yourselves and stop sniping at an organisation that has managed to make their games attractive family days out.
Accept the reality that GAA is currently more popular, move on, and start taking a good hard look at yourselves.
I have been watching NI for more years than I care to remember, including in home crowds of up to 45,000. I have every confidence that with the right stadium, built to the right design and in an appropriate location, NI could greatly increase its crowds. However, NI soccer fans are overwhelmingly in agreement that the Maze proposal is none of these things. Further, it will be hugely expensive, so that even a fraction of soccer's share would suffice either to purchase and rebuild Windsor, or make Ormeau Park (or another stadium in Belfast) financially viable for soccer (and rugby). In which case, I would be more than happy to see the GAA receive its cash share of the cost of the Maze, to do what it wishes.
As for the rest of your post, I have not been "sniping" at the GAA (on this topic, at least!), I admire the way they promote themselves to family audiences, I have no difficulty in accepting that it is more popular in NI than soccer (at least in terms of attendances) and as for taking a good hard look at ourselves, if you could bear to read through my posts on this Board :o, I would hope you'll not find I've been blind to the inadequacies of the people who run (misrun, more like) my game.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 11:06:44 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:22:18 PM
You should have more confidence in yourselves and stop sniping at an organisation that has managed to make their games attractive family days out.
Accept the reality that GAA is currently more popular, move on, and start taking a good hard look at yourselves.
I have been watching NI for more years than I care to remember, including in home crowds of up to 45,000. I have every confidence that with the right stadium, built to the right design and in an appropriate location, NI could greatly increase its crowds. However, NI soccer fans are overwhelmingly in agreement that the Maze proposal is none of these things. Further, it will be hugely expensive, so that even a fraction of soccer's share would suffice either to purchase and rebuild Windsor, or make Ormeau Park (or another stadium in Belfast) financially viable for soccer (and rugby). In which case, I would be more than happy to see the GAA receive its cash share of the cost of the Maze, to do what it wishes.
As for the rest of your post, I have not been "sniping" at the GAA (on this topic, at least!), I admire the way they promote themselves to family audiences, I have no difficulty in accepting that it is more popular in NI than soccer (at least in terms of attendances) and as for taking a good hard look at ourselves, if you could bear to read through my posts on this Board :o, I would hope you'll not find I've been blind to the inadequacies of the people who run (misrun, more like) my game.
Evil Genus,
bullshit ;)
QuoteIn which case, I would be more than happy to see the GAA receive its cash share of the cost of the Maze, to do what it wishes......I have no difficulty in accepting that it is more popular in NI than soccer (at least in terms of attendances)
Out of interest, in your scenario, should the amount given to each sport be
1. equal, irrespective of attendances and fanbase.
2. calculated in accordance with need, ie directly proportional to the crowds that each sport attracts
3. related to the development cost of each stadium, bearing in mind that GAA stadia are proportionally more expensive to build.
Build her at the maze and they will come. ;)
Glentoran and ni supporters will have to travel a few mile to see their beloved team play the likes of Tasmania and the faroes and still not win, ;) the GAA get to pick and choose when they play there and they have the most clout gven that they are the biggest draw out of everybody involved. ;D
Oh and I await with baited breath for the time when big rab from owc takes the monument out by the root.................and he isnt joking. :D
get used to it sammy, the maze stadium is on the way, i hope you enjoy your new abode. :D
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 08:32:45 PM
Evil Genus,
QuoteThe GAA has made it perfectly clear that they would only consider the Maze
Prove it.
All you have to go on is media speculation and alleged quotes from NIO spokesmen to NI soccer fans.
To have chosen the Maze, the GAA must have considered the Belfast locations before rejecting them. Common sense really.
As for the Maze location, it is itself a compromise on the GAA's part.
Think about it, the GAA could have stormed in and reminded everybody that we are the future anchor tenant, that we will provide most money to maintain the venue in future.
It could have demanded that it be in Armagh, Dungannon, or somewhere handier, on current figures for the VAST MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WILL EVER USE THE STADIUM.
That it didn't shows a level of grace and compromise lacking in any input from NI soccer fans.
Think even harder - Look at those 2005 attendance figures again.
Do you really expect NI soccer fans to be able to demand that the stadium be located where they want, and to hell with the wishes of those who will use it most?
What makes an insignificant but vocal rump who attract 35k a year really think that they can dictate to an organisation that attracts 500 000 in the same year?
Jumped up little farts, the lot of you. Your over exposure in themedia has you thinking that you're more important than you really are.
OK, I'll re-phrase: the GAA made it clear that they would only
accept the Maze from the four options presented to them. (And by the way, whatever their reasons for this, I have nowhere criticised them for using their position of strength to negotiate the deal which best suited them.) As for "Dungannon or somewhere handier", that is a red herring, since the Government never offered anywhere else, and would have refused had the GAA asked, since unlike the Maze, they do not already own suitable sites elsewhere.
As for the position of NI soccer fans, it is nothing to do with "good grace", never mind anti-GAA sentiment. For a whole variety of reasons, too long to go into here, the Maze proposal is very unsuitable to our requirements. And whether we be "anchor tenants" or otherwise, if we sign a long lease as tenants and find that the fans' fears are correct, we will end up with a financial noose round our neck which could throttle us.
Or put it another way, if the Government insisted on siting the stadium in e.g. an area of Belfast where GAA fans would feel unsafe travelling to and from, would you expect the GAA to sign up to that? Of course not. However, the difference is that whilst the GAA is in a position to manage without a new stadium, soccer is not. Therefore, it is only natural that we should resent the Government (
not the GAA) for forcing us into a stadium which we don't want and can't afford.
As for our being "jumped up little farts", 90% of the fans I've discussed it with would accept if a modest fraction of the overall cost of the Maze (all our taxes, by the way) were allocated towards soccer, so that we could build a modern, but modest stadium, of a design to our choosing, in a location which best enables us to increase our support. If that were done, no reasonable soccer fan could or should deny GAA and rugby receiving their share
pro rata, to spend as they wish.
And best of all, the majority of people in NI who are not sports fans (or who are, but have more pressing priorities) would benefit from the overall saving being spent on education, health and the like.
P.S. I don't know where you got your 35k a year figure for NI attendances, but its both wrong in itself, plus it fails to take into account those matches which would have sold many more tickets, had UEFA not imposed severe restrictions on attendances at Windsor. For example, if we were allowed to stand, as with e.g. GAA or Rugby, attendances from that alone would have been half as big again (at least)
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:40:59 PM
Keep dreaming Sammy. A nice wee 20k stadium of your own. Thats all Sammy wants for Chrtistmas
Wrong on capacity, wrong on who I think should be accomodated but sure you seem to be wrong on most things, so it's hardly a surprise.
QuoteHowever, the difference is that whilst the GAA is in a position to manage without a new stadium, soccer is not.
I've never quite got my head around this.
Whats to stop the IFA fundraising and borrowing in the same way that the GAA does?
The gaa never stopped investing in grounds just because for most of the last century the Brit govt gave them sweet fa.
Why the dependency culture?
Why not consider doing it yourselves?
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:40:58 PM
The relevance was that Evil Genus had drawn attention to what he perceived to be small attendances at teh Antrim v Derry match. He surmised that the GAA would have no need for a large capacity.
I had to highlight the full attendance 2005 figures, and in doing so, I wished to highlight that Evil Genus's problem with capacity possibly lay in the inability of NI soccer to market itself and get its support base to actually turn up and watch a match.
Wrong. I made no comment whatever on the attendance at the Antrim v Derry, or any other GAA match. If the GAA considers that the Maze is appropriate for their crowds at the matches they allocate to it, then good for them. I am merely arguing the case for my sport.
As for the Gaa crowd figures you have quoted from 2005, I've not bothered to check the figures you gave for soccer by way of comparison. However, I think you've screwed up when talking about "the same period" for soccer. Presumably this is because your GAA figures are for the
summer of 2005, when soccer has its close season? (I could point to crap GAA crowds in the middle of winter! ;))
QuoteP.S. I don't know where you got your 35k a year figure for NI attendances, but its both wrong in itself, plus it fails to take into account those matches which would have sold many more tickets, had UEFA not imposed severe restrictions on attendances at Windsor. For example, if we were allowed to stand, as with e.g. GAA or Rugby, attendances from that alone would have been half as big again (at least)
Apologies, my arithmetic, IFA big match combined attendances (as shown in my earlier posts) should have been 47k, not 37k. Still way short of 500k, but wrong nonetheless.
Of course the England (and possbily Wales) figures would have been higher.
Last week SammyG reckoned that NI's natural support was itro 20/22k. Tonight he had it around 3/5k above the 2005 figures, ie max 18k. I believe he's undereestimating in order to scupper the MAze.
By highlighting the figures, I've being trying to draw out some sort of inner belief within you guys that you can actually fill the Maze.
You can't have it both ways - be so insignificant as to not be able to use the Maze, or be so important that all plans have to be done your way, or not at all.
That's what I've been trying to get at.
There's an inconsistency at the base of your argument.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 11:38:44 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:40:58 PM
The relevance was that Evil Genus had drawn attention to what he perceived to be small attendances at teh Antrim v Derry match. He surmised that the GAA would have no need for a large capacity.
I had to highlight the full attendance 2005 figures, and in doing so, I wished to highlight that Evil Genus's problem with capacity possibly lay in the inability of NI soccer to market itself and get its support base to actually turn up and watch a match.
Wrong. I made no comment whatever on the attendance at the Antrim v Derry, or any other GAA match. If the GAA considers that the Maze is appropriate for their crowds at the matches they allocate to it, then good for them. I am merely arguing the case for my sport.
As for the Gaa crowd figures you have quoted from 2005, I've not bothered to check the figures you gave for soccer by way of comparison. However, I think you've screwed up when talking about "the same period" for soccer. Presumably this is because your GAA figures are for the summer of 2005, when soccer has its close season? (I could point to crap GAA crowds in the middle of winter! ;))
Not so, I googled NI international attendances for the whole of 2005. Out of fairness I even spent half an hour trying to get he Bass Irish Cup figures. I was shocked how low they were given the media coverage it gets. Feel free to amend if you can dig out any other matches I missed.
The gaa figures are official end of year stats published on their website as a pdf. If you really wanted them, I could dig around.
I only gave big matches because it is these big matches presumably that would be played in a big stadium.
Many winter nfl matches might be lucky to get 5 to 10k.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:42:18 PMApologies, my arithmetic, IFA big match combined attendances (as shown in my earlier posts) should have been 47k, not 37k. Still way short of 500k, but wrong nonetheless.
More meaningless bullshit that totally ignores the facts.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:42:18 PM
Of course the England (and possbily Wales) figures would have been higher.
Correct
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:42:18 PM
Last week SammyG reckoned that NI's natural support was itro 20/22k. Tonight he had it around 3/5k above the 2005 figures, ie max 18k.
When did I say anything about an 18K capacity? Sorry to get personal but I've got to ask are you on glue?
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:42:18 PM
I believe he's undereestimating in order to scupper the MAze.
For the millionth time the issues with the MAze have nothing to do with capacity. It wouldn't matter if the capacity was 10K or 100K it would still be unworkable.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:42:18 PM
By highlighting the figures, I've being trying to draw out some sort of inner belief within you guys that you can actually fill the Maze.
No one will fill the Maze because it is NOT POSSIBLE to get 30-40K people to the Maze and back again.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:42:18 PM
You can't have it both ways - be so insignificant as to not be able to use the Maze, or be so important that all plans have to be done your way, or not at all.
Christ almighty you really couldn't make this shite up. The GAA are the only people calling for their way or no way, not the IFA. Also I repeat again CAPACITY IS NOT AN ISSUE.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:42:18 PM
That's what I've been trying to get at.
So you've made up a straw man argument and even though it's been refuted you contniue to discuss it. Brilliant, you really can't fault logic like that.
Snatter's rather worked-up by this matter - either on a wind-up, a vested interest, or in a panic (rather like Minister Poots) that the whole thing's about to be exposed (by experiened professional economists and planners) as an unviable and fraudulent and monumental disaster-in-waiting.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 11:42:18 PM
Apologies, my arithmetic, IFA big match combined attendances (as shown in my earlier posts) should have been 47k, not 37k. Still way short of 500k, but wrong nonetheless.
More meaningless bullshit that totally ignores the facts.
sammy,
what's bullshit and what's facts?
In my world, official attendances are facts.
I can't see bullshit here, only facts.
Feel free to navigate into the real world and prove / disprove these facts as you see fit.
I won't stay up waiting.
Apparently this development was done using the same sort of plans that snatter has for the Maze ;)
(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i158/ukric2001/14062007043.jpg)
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:52:37 PM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 11:42:18 PM
Apologies, my arithmetic, IFA big match combined attendances (as shown in my earlier posts) should have been 47k, not 37k. Still way short of 500k, but wrong nonetheless.
More meaningless bullshit that totally ignores the facts.
sammy,
what's bullshit and what's facts?
In my world, official attendances are facts.
I can't see bullshit here, only facts.
Feel free to navigate into the real world and prove / disprove these facts as you see fit.
I won't stay up waiting.
The attendance figures are bullshit because you are refusing to factor in the FACT that half the ground is closed, due to a mixture of Government and IFA incompetence and new UEFA regulations. This has been explained to you several times but you choose to ignore it. Had the capacity been available we would have had between 20 and 25K for all home matches. What would the attendance be at Ulster GAA matches if they were forced to be all-seater, with good line of sight for all spectators, provision for 'away' supporters etc?
QuoteSnatter's rather worked-up by this matter - either on a wind-up, a vested interest, or in a panic (rather like Minister Poots) that the whole thing's about to be exposed (by experiened professional economists and planners) as an unviable and fraudulent and monumental disaster-in-waiting
Good grief! Are the telepathists moving in on me as well?
I thought I was merely attempting to explore the reasons why so many of you guys are so frenzied in your opposition to a shared space multi sports stadium, accepatable to the governing bodies of all three main sports bodies, deliverable before the 2012 olympics.
I thought you would welcome an all too rare attempt at balancing the debate.
After all, the voice of the GAA fan isn't heard too often in this debate, despite having the largest attendances by far.
No sense of panic or being wound up here I assure you.
Thanks for your concern.
Keep studying the telepathy.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:15:58 PM
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
This is a disgraceful lie. Either produce your evidence that the people behind the Durnien proposal and its supporters - including Nationalist councillors and the local SDLP MP - are anti-GAA, or withdraw it.
Durnien is a developer who is solely concerned with making a profit: that's what developers do. He feels he's seen a gap in the market for a multi-use sports stadium in Belfast, whereby if BCC permits a section of its land (currently parkland) to be used for alternative leisure purposes, he can build a stadium without needing public subsidy and get his money back (with a hoped-for profit) from the operating of it. And the city of Belfast gets a new facility.
As such, Durnien frankly doesn't care which events are staged. However, since the GAA has made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in another stadium in addition to Casement anywhere in the city, they are simply not going to come on board. And whilst no-one is blaming the GAA for deciding that, neither can you blame Durnien for it, either.
Consequently, it appears Durnien hopes for Greyhound Racing, presumably staged 2 or 3 evenings a week year-round, to provide the bulk of the stadium's revenue, with additional income from soccer, rugby, pop concerts and God knows what else.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:57:20 PMI thought I was merely attempting to explore the reasons why so many of you guys are so frenzied in your opposition to a shared space multi sports stadium, accepatable to the governing bodies of all three main sports bodies, deliverable before the 2012 olympics.
Who is against any of those things?
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:57:20 PM
I thought you would welcome an all too rare attempt at balancing the debate.
After all, the voice of the GAA fan isn't heard too often in this debate, despite having the largest attendances by far.
That would be interesting. When are you going to start?
Quote from: SammyG on June 19, 2007, 11:56:33 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:52:37 PM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on Today at 11:42:18 PM
Apologies, my arithmetic, IFA big match combined attendances (as shown in my earlier posts) should have been 47k, not 37k. Still way short of 500k, but wrong nonetheless.
More meaningless bullshit that totally ignores the facts.
sammy,
what's bullshit and what's facts?
In my world, official attendances are facts.
I can't see bullshit here, only facts.
Feel free to navigate into the real world and prove / disprove these facts as you see fit.
I won't stay up waiting.
The attendance figures are bullshit because you are refusing to factor in the FACT that half the ground is closed, due to a mixture of Government and IFA incompetence and new UEFA regulations. This has been explained to you several times but you choose to ignore it. Had the capacity been available we would have had between 20 and 25K for all home matches. What would the attendance be at Ulster GAA matches if they were forced to be all-seater, with good line of sight for all spectators, provision for 'away' supporters etc?
They're not bullshit, they're official published attendance figures.
I accept that windsor is a decrepit, half santioned dump and that it is not allowed to hold more.
I contend that with 45k NI jersies sold, your fanbase is more than capable of making a sizeable dent in any 35k stadium.
If Tyrone V Armagh can get 65k, surely you guys can hit 30k no problem?
What's wrong with your confidence?
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:00:34 AMI contend that with 45k NI jersies sold, your fanbase is more than capable of making a sizeable dent in any 35k stadium.
If Tyrone V Armagh can get 65k, surely you guys can hit 30k no problem?
What's wrong with your confidence?
This is the last time that I'm going to repeat this. I'll put it in block capitals in bold, if you still choose to ignore it then I give up.
CAPACITY IS NOT THE ISSUE
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 11:38:44 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 09:40:58 PM
The relevance was that Evil Genus had drawn attention to what he perceived to be small attendances at teh Antrim v Derry match. He surmised that the GAA would have no need for a large capacity.
I had to highlight the full attendance 2005 figures, and in doing so, I wished to highlight that Evil Genus's problem with capacity possibly lay in the inability of NI soccer to market itself and get its support base to actually turn up and watch a match.
Wrong. I made no comment whatever on the attendance at the Antrim v Derry, or any other GAA match. If the GAA considers that the Maze is appropriate for their crowds at the matches they allocate to it, then good for them. I am merely arguing the case for my sport.
As for the Gaa crowd figures you have quoted from 2005, I've not bothered to check the figures you gave for soccer by way of comparison. However, I think you've screwed up when talking about "the same period" for soccer. Presumably this is because your GAA figures are for the summer of 2005, when soccer has its close season? (I could point to crap GAA crowds in the middle of winter! ;))
Evil Genus,
you're right it wasn't you, but GweylTah who made the comments. apologies - this thread is getting a bit hectic for one lone gaa man to stand up against the owc tide at the minute.
Regardless, it in no detracts from my reply to Sammy - I had to give GweylTah fully balanced figures to prove that the GAA could easily utilise the Maze.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 12:04:38 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:00:34 AMI contend that with 45k NI jersies sold, your fanbase is more than capable of making a sizeable dent in any 35k stadium.
If Tyrone V Armagh can get 65k, surely you guys can hit 30k no problem?
What's wrong with your confidence?
This is the last time that I'm going to repeat this. I'll put it in block capitals in bold, if you still choose to ignore it then I give up.
CAPACITY IS NOT THE ISSUE
It is with GweylTah, as evidenced earlier in this thread.
Somebody by the name of SammyG got pretty heated over capacity as well.
He kept denying reality, thinking that HOK weren't going to design a dual capacity 35k/42k stadium. Silly boy.
He gopt so worked up he kept referring to official attendance figures as bullshit.
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:11:55 PM
Out of interest, in your scenario, should the amount given to each sport be
1. equal, irrespective of attendances and fanbase.
2. calculated in accordance with need, ie directly proportional to the crowds that each sport attracts
3. related to the development cost of each stadium, bearing in mind that GAA stadia are proportionally more expensive to build.
Frankly, I'm not bothered which of those methods one chooses, or some other. I would be quite happy to leave it to an independent panel to determine. This is because the Maze will unquestionably cost over £100million of taxpayers' money. If we were to take half of that - say £50 million - then any reasonable share for soccer would be adequate either to get Ormeau Park off the ground, or purchase/re-develop Windsor, or upgrade Blanchflower Park etc to suit the needs of soccer.
And when GAA and rugby receive their share, I will be entirely pleased for both those sports.
Most of all, as a taxpayer, I will be delighted for my fellow taxpayers for the considerable saving we will all make from not being saddled with "NI's Millennium Dome".
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:08:07 AMSomebody by the name of SammyG got pretty heated over capacity as well.
He kept denying reality, thinking that HOK weren't going to design a dual capacity 35k/42k stadium. Silly boy.
Here you go again with the bullshit. The issue of the 'moving stands' has nothing to do with the capcity it is to do with the fact that there is no plan and no budget to build stands that move and no other stadia that have moving stands. It wouldn't matter if you were talking about 10K/20K or 35k/42K or 75K/100K it still won't work.
Silly boy indeed. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 12:11:49 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:08:07 AMSomebody by the name of SammyG got pretty heated over capacity as well.
He kept denying reality, thinking that HOK weren't going to design a dual capacity 35k/42k stadium. Silly boy.
Here you go again with the bullshit. The issue of the 'moving stands' has nothing to do with the capcity it is to do with the fact that there is no plan and no budget to build stands that move and no other stadia that have moving stands. It wouldn't matter if you were talking about 10K/20K or 35k/42K or 75K/100K it still won't work.
Silly boy indeed. ::)
Who said anything about moving stands?
Maybe HOK will implement them, maybe they'll simply remove seats and allow some GAA fans to accomodate the bigger crowds that gaelic football attracts.
Stay patient. All will be revealed soon.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:16:00 AM
Who said anything about moving stands?
Maybe HOK will implement them, maybe they'll simply remove seats and allow some GAA fans to accomodate the bigger crowds that gaelic football attracts.
Stay patient. All will be revealed soon.
Stadia with removeable seats are not permitted by FIFA/UEFA so that would rule the IFA out of the Maze.
Excellent news, can't wait for the formal announcement. ;)
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:37:07 PM
QuoteHowever, the difference is that whilst the GAA is in a position to manage without a new stadium, soccer is not.
I've never quite got my head around this.
Whats to stop the IFA fundraising and borrowing in the same way that the GAA does?
The gaa never stopped investing in grounds just because for most of the last century the Brit govt gave them sweet fa.
Why the dependency culture?
Why not consider doing it yourselves?
There are a whole host of reasons why soccer in NI is skint, some valid, many not. But whatever the cause, we are where we are and we have to deal with it.
And quite simply, UEFA and FIFA are imposing ever stricter stadium requirements and Windsor will not be allowed to be used for much longer. We need a new stadium soon, otherwise we will have to play our matches outside NI, which of itself would make it impossible for the IFA to fundraise/borrow etc the millions needed for a new stadium.
If you seek an equivalent, look at the position of the FAI, who have had to rent Croke whilst they re-develop Lansdowne (at Government expense, btw).
Except that no such alternative is open to the IFA, since even if the GAA were to allow it (and Hell would likely freeze over before they'd accommodate the NI soccer team!), trhere is not a single GAA ground in the whole of the six counties which would be acceptable to FIFA*.
* - Please don't ask why this should be so; there are pages and pages of Regulations on the subject, trust me.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:15:58 PM
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
This is a disgraceful lie. Either produce your evidence that the people behind the Durnien proposal and its supporters - including Nationalist councillors and the local SDLP MP - are anti-GAA, or withdraw it.
My evidence?
The plot is allegedly too small to accomodate gaelic games.
My source? None other than yourself earlier in this thread. As you said yourself
Quote"And in any case, the proposed site is probably not big enough to stage Gaelic games,"
How therefore can my statement possibly be a lie?
If you deliberately develop a stadium on a plot that is too small to accomodate gaelic football, then it is clear that the development does not cater for gaelic. Pretty obvious I'd say.
Nowhere did I say that anybody was anti-GAA.
What I did say and I repeat:
afaik, at no stage were the GAA invited or approached in any way about the Durnian proposal.
To ignore the largest spectator sport in NI, and all the revenue they bring, shows that they never had any intention of GAA involvment.
From the outset the Durnian proposal had a 22k capacity - much too low to be of any use to the GAA (again see 2005 figures), but just big enough to recreate another mini Windsor).
Oh, and as if you were in any doubt, and as Evil Genus has already pointed out in this thread - the Ormeau developemnt isn't (and never was) big enough to accommodate gaelic games.
Yep, despite being surrounded by open parkland, they managed to select a plot that was just too small.
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
I make no apology for describing the durnien proposal an "orange dome".
If you deliberately exclude the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, then, rightly or wrongly, that is what it will be perceived as.
It is the exclusion of a whole section of the northern irish community that is the real disgrace.
Especially if the council ever gifted them 10's of millions.
Imho, this developer has made a strategic mistake in not attempting to court the GAA and persudade them that Ormeau (or another site) are suitable. They have missed out on an opportunity to avail of millions of once-off funding.
I can't explain why the development company has apparently chosen not to involve the GAA, only it can.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 20, 2007, 12:21:30 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 11:37:07 PM
QuoteHowever, the difference is that whilst the GAA is in a position to manage without a new stadium, soccer is not.
I've never quite got my head around this.
Whats to stop the IFA fundraising and borrowing in the same way that the GAA does?
The gaa never stopped investing in grounds just because for most of the last century the Brit govt gave them sweet fa.
Why the dependency culture?
Why not consider doing it yourselves?
There are a whole host of reasons why soccer in NI is skint, some valid, many not. But whatever the cause, we are where we are and we have to deal with it.
And quite simply, UEFA and FIFA are imposing ever stricter stadium requirements and Windsor will not be allowed to be used for much longer. We need a new stadium soon, otherwise we will have to play our matches outside NI, which of itself would make it impossible for the IFA to fundraise/borrow etc the millions needed for a new stadium.
If you seek an equivalent, look at the position of the FAI, who have had to rent Croke whilst they re-develop Lansdowne (at Government expense, btw).
Except that no such alternative is open to the IFA, since even if the GAA were to allow it (and Hell would likely freeze over before they'd accommodate the NI soccer team!), trhere is not a single GAA ground in the whole of the six counties which would be acceptable to FIFA*.
* - Please don't ask why this should be so; there are pages and pages of Regulations on the subject, trust me.
Problem solved in two easy steps
1. start fundraising to build a new stadium of your own
2. play your games in scotland until the new stadium is built.
or if you like
Problem solved in two easy steps
1. don't fundraise to build a new stadium of your own
2. play your games in scotland until the new Maze stadium is built.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 12:20:11 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:16:00 AM
Who said anything about moving stands?
Maybe HOK will implement them, maybe they'll simply remove seats and allow some GAA fans to accomodate the bigger crowds that gaelic football attracts.
Stay patient. All will be revealed soon.
Stadia with removeable seats are not permitted by FIFA/UEFA so that would rule the IFA out of the Maze.
Excellent news, can't wait for the formal announcement. ;)
They'll do what they did at Croker on hill 16 - have removable permanent seating.
Problem solved.
Night night.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:31:23 AM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 12:20:11 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:16:00 AM
Who said anything about moving stands?
Maybe HOK will implement them, maybe they'll simply remove seats and allow some GAA fans to accomodate the bigger crowds that gaelic football attracts.
Stay patient. All will be revealed soon.
Stadia with removeable seats are not permitted by FIFA/UEFA so that would rule the IFA out of the Maze.
Excellent news, can't wait for the formal announcement. ;)
They'll do what they did at Croker on hill 16 - have removable permanent seating.
Problem solved.
I'll repeat again as it seems to take you three or four goes before you read things. REMOVEABLE SEATS ARE NOT ALLOWED BY FIFA/UEFA.
The FAI got a special dispensation for the Hill as it was only temporary whilst LR was being built, they would not have been allowed to use it under any other circumstances.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:26:10 AM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:15:58 PM
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
This is a disgraceful lie. Either produce your evidence that the people behind the Durnien proposal and its supporters - including Nationalist councillors and the local SDLP MP - are anti-GAA, or withdraw it.
My evidence?
The plot is allegedly too small to accomodate gaelic games.
My source? None other than yourself earlier in this thread. As you said yourself
Quote"And in any case, the proposed site is probably not big enough to stage Gaelic games,"
How therefore can my statement possibly be a lie?
If you deliberately develop a stadium on a plot that is too small to accomodate gaelic football, then it is clear that the development does not cater for gaelic. Pretty obvious I'd say.
Nowhere did I say that anybody was anti-GAA.
What I did say and I repeat:
afaik, at no stage were the GAA invited or approached in any way about the Durnian proposal.
To ignore the largest spectator sport in NI, and all the revenue they bring, shows that they never had any intention of GAA involvment.
From the outset the Durnian proposal had a 22k capacity - much too low to be of any use to the GAA (again see 2005 figures), but just big enough to recreate another mini Windsor).
Oh, and as if you were in any doubt, and as Evil Genus has already pointed out in this thread - the Ormeau developemnt isn't (and never was) big enough to accommodate gaelic games.
Yep, despite being surrounded by open parkland, they managed to select a plot that was just too small.
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
I make no apology for describing the durnien proposal an "orange dome".
If you deliberately exclude the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, then, rightly or wrongly, that is what it will be perceived as.
It is the exclusion of a whole section of the northern irish community that is the real disgrace.
Especially if the council ever gifted them 10's of millions.
Imho, this developer has made a strategic mistake in not attempting to court the GAA and persudade them that Ormeau (or another site) are suitable. They have missed out on an opportunity to avail of millions of once-off funding.
I can't explain why the development company has apparently chosen not to involve the GAA, only it can.
Durnien is a private developer, under no obligation to include/exclude anyone. He considers that a 25,000 seater stadium at Ormeau offers the best economic model for him to build and operate a viable stadium. However, even if the GAA were prepared to come to Belfast -
a fact you consistently ignore - 25,000 is clearly inadequate for their purposes.
Consequently, to build a significantly larger stadium would cost more, take up more of the park, and make the stadium as a whole considerably less attractive to spectators at any other events required to be held.
As for your denying that Durnien etc are anti-GAA, your use of emotive phrases like "the Orange dome" and "they never wanted a GAA player about the place" seemed pretty much to me like you were accusing them of being anti-Catholic (not to put too fine a point on it).
As for whether Durnien has made a "strategic mistake" in ignoring a paying GAA audience, then I suggest you take that up with him. I daresay he knows a hell of a sight more about the economics of property development than you and I combined will ever know.
But even that will be irrelevant, since one of the few things which everyone else agrees on (except you) is that the GAA has simply no interest in any new stadium which might be built in Belfast, for a whole host of reasons. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO WAY THAT DURNIEN CAN BE BLAMED FOR NOT INCLUDING GAA IN HIS PROPOSED STADIUM DEVELOPMENT. (And I make no apologies for shouting, since I know of no other way of getting that across to you, short of writing it on a bit of paper, finding out where you live, and coming round and pinning it on your
arse, er, front door! :()
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:08:07 AM
He [Sammy] got so worked up he kept referring to official attendance figures as bullshit.
The official attendance figures you quoted are not "bullshit" in the sense that they are incorrect, they are "bullshit" in the sense that they are misleading i.e. if fans were allowed to stand at Windsor in the same way they are e.g. at GAA matches, then the attendances would have been considerably bigger (at several matches, at least).
Sammy goes further since he considers that attendances (large or small) are irrelevant to soccer fans objections to the Maze. I personally disagree, though I accept his contention that a whole host of other, more pressing factors make the Maze unsuitable for soccer.
Soccer works brilliantly at Croker (suppose I would say that given my seats are in the centre lower section of the Hogan) so I see no problem at all with varying pitch sizes etc.
This is test to see if the powers that be can withstand the lobbying from the monoculural fringe of the six county's sporting (and I use the term loosely) fraternity ie the North's soccer supporters (which varies from 6000 in bad times to 15,000 in relatively reasonable times).
The new provincial stadium must be built at Long Kesh. FFS look at the tailback on the M1 when there's a game at Casement attracting between 10,000 to 20,000 only!
QuoteLand worth around £0.5bn to the public purse is being handed over free to private developers as part of the Maze stadium proposal, an academic claimed today.
Mike Smyth from the University of Ulster claimed the sports minister Edwin Poots was plotting to create another Millennium Dome pushed through by political pressure.
He said up to 1,000 homes could be built on acres of land within the site which, if sold at commercial rates, would add £0.5bn to public coffers and front-line services.
A few initial thoughts on this report (still unpublished, so taking press coverage as reasonably accurate an spin free in the interim).
Point 1:
Any mention in this report of the value of land at Ormeau Park proposed to be given to a different private developer for a soccer only facility?
Point 2:
I must admit to be suprised at the suggested 30k cap on capacity.
Did Mike Smith look at GAA attendance figures like those posted earlier in the thread for 2005?
Surely they justify a greater capacity than 30k.
The GAA top brass have conssitently said we need a 40k caacity.
This has been independently verified as sensible by the department of economics at Uninversity College Cork. Link to their full analysis to follow.
Surely the GAA must reply to this report asap to assert that we need a 40k + capacity.
Can UCC economists stan up to the UUJ economist? Who's rioght in the battle of ecademics?
Point 3:
Did the report study the geographic origin of fans travelling to any proposed stadium?
Again looking at 2005 attendance figues, it's clear that the vast majority of fans would come from the south and west of Ulster to watch gaelic football.
For this vast majority, travelling to the maze is more convenient and offers less congestion for both the M1 and Belfast on match days.
Point 4:
The OWC crowd here reckon that their natural support base is about 25k (latest estimate from SammyG).
A 30k stadium would leave only a 5k capacity for away fans, as oppsed to 10k under the current Maze plan.
Surely halving the number of away fans totally wipes out half the benefit of the much hyped tourist benefit to the local economy.
Would NI PLC not be better off with 10k international visitors to the Maze than 5k to some Belfast stadium?
Any links available online to this report to gauge if it is accurate and comprehensive in its methodology?
Just thought I'd let you know,Professor Mike Smyth is a former Armagh Hurler. He of all people should know the dangers to Gaels of siting a stadium anywhere in Belfast outwith the nationalist West.
Surely the cost of land on Ormeau would be more than the cost of land at Maze?
Quote from: 5iveTimes on June 20, 2007, 12:20:21 PM
I believe a lot more land is being given over to the project at The Maze/Long Kesh.
Will the proposed stadium at Ormeau Park cater for Gaelic Games?
Fivetimes,
how about reading the thread?
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:26:10 AM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:15:58 PM
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
This is a disgraceful lie. Either produce your evidence that the people behind the Durnien proposal and its supporters - including Nationalist councillors and the local SDLP MP - are anti-GAA, or withdraw it.
My evidence?
The plot is allegedly too small to accomodate gaelic games.
My source? None other than yourself earlier in this thread. As you said yourself
Quote"And in any case, the proposed site is probably not big enough to stage Gaelic games,"
How therefore can my statement possibly be a lie?
If you deliberately develop a stadium on a plot that is too small to accomodate gaelic football, then it is clear that the development does not cater for gaelic. Pretty obvious I'd say.
Nowhere did I say that anybody was anti-GAA.
What I did say and I repeat:
afaik, at no stage were the GAA invited or approached in any way about the Durnian proposal.
To ignore the largest spectator sport in NI, and all the revenue they bring, shows that they never had any intention of GAA involvment.
From the outset the Durnian proposal had a 22k capacity - much too low to be of any use to the GAA (again see 2005 figures), but just big enough to recreate another mini Windsor).
Oh, and as if you were in any doubt, and as Evil Genus has already pointed out in this thread - the Ormeau developemnt isn't (and never was) big enough to accommodate gaelic games.
Yep, despite being surrounded by open parkland, they managed to select a plot that was just too small.
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
I make no apology for describing the durnien proposal an "orange dome".
If you deliberately exclude the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, then, rightly or wrongly, that is what it will be perceived as.
It is the exclusion of a whole section of the northern irish community that is the real disgrace.
Especially if the council ever gifted them 10's of millions.
Imho, this developer has made a strategic mistake in not attempting to court the GAA and persudade them that Ormeau (or another site) are suitable. They have missed out on an opportunity to avail of millions of once-off funding.
I can't explain why the development company has apparently chosen not to involve the GAA, only it can.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 20, 2007, 11:51:30 AM
The new provincial stadium must be built at Long Kesh. FFS look at the tailback on the M1 when there's a game at Casement attracting between 10,000 to 20,000 only!
Good grief! You've made some pretty idiotic remarks in your time, but that beats them all.
You say crowds of 10-20,000 at Casement cause serious tailbacks on the M1 for GAA matches, when at least some of those crowds will be living reasonably local to the stadium (so won't be using the M1), or will be accessing Casement from other directions utilising alternative routes.
How much WORSE will it be at the Maze, for crowds of up to 42,000 approaching the Maze from every direction, with all of them having to be funnelled onto the self-same M1, from where they will need to hit the bottleneck of a spur road to the stadium (incidentally yet to be built, at a cost of millions alone)?
And that is merely considering GAA matches which are mostly played in summer, on Sunday afternoons. How much worse will it be for soccer or rugby, in winter weather and the dark, when fans are using the M1 to attend Wednesday or Friday evening games, at the self-same time as the Belfast rush hour is piling onto the motorway?
With no public transport to the Maze to speak of, a 42,000 crowd will see up to 20,000 cars simultaneously trying to use what is effectively a two lane dual carriageway to the one spot. Not only that, but the total lack of infrastructure around the stadium will mean that they will all be aiming to arrive and depart at exactly the same time, unlike say, Clones or Windsor, where at least fans can "stagger" their arrival and departure, along a greater variety of access and egress routes.
If the Maze ever should be built, and
if it should attract large crowds to start with, the ensuing traffic chaos alone is likely to be a severe deterrent to anyone coming back a second time.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 20, 2007, 12:12:26 PM
Just thought I'd let you know,Professor Mike Smyth is a former Armagh Hurler. He of all people should know the dangers to Gaels of siting a stadium anywhere in Belfast outwith the nationalist West.
He wasn't asked where in Belfast a stadium for Gaelic fans should be sited, even though there already is a stadium in the obvious location.
Rather, he was asked where a multi-sport stadium for NI should be sited, and his opinion is that if it is at the Maze, it will be another Millennium Dome (i.e. fiasco).
Not only that, but he and his fellow authors estoimate that a "lost-opportunity" cost of £500 million (i.e. for redevelopment for much-needed housing) should be added to the actual construction and infrastructure costs of the stadium.
At this rate, the whole bloody thing is going to end up costing all of us more than the new Wembley! >:(
Time for this nonsense to stop and for Poots to be removed from this issue - if he doesn't see sense, there WILL be a legal challenge over his conflict of interest.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2682612.ece
£550m stadium gamble
Maze blueprint 'flawed' according to new report
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
By David Gordon
Controversial plans for a new sports stadium at the former Maze Prison site will involve the Government handing over land worth up to £547.5m to a private developer, a group of academics claimed today.
The figure is quoted in a University of Ulster study - commissioned by Belfast City Council - that brands the Maze blueprint "flawed" and argues for a Belfast location for a stadium.
The authors also stated that up to 1,000 new homes could be permitted within the 365-acre ex-prison site, making it a much more lucrative deal for a developer.
Belfast Council is at the forefront of the anti-Maze lobby and is hoping an eleventh hour rethink by the Government will lead to alternative locations within the city being re-examined.
As expected, the university study published today has come down in favour of an "in-town" location for a new stadium, claiming this would secure significantly greater economic benefits in terms of tourism, investment and regeneration.
It backed a 20,000-30,000 seater development within Belfast that would be " built to be filled and used frequently".
The newly-published UU report also stated that the blueprint for the Maze area would involve the entire 365 acres being handed over to a private developer.
It said this land is worth an estimated £365m but zoning for new homes within the site could be increased from its present level of 200 to 1,000, potentially pushing the value up to £547.5m.
The UU report claimed it was "open to question" whether "such a potentially large contribution from the public purse" could be justified "at a time of mounting public expenditure constraint".
Commenting on the £547.5m handover figure, co-author and well-known economist Mike Smyth said: "You have to start with the question why would a developer be so bullish and so willing to undertake a fairly substantial commercial risk with this.
"The answer is that he or she is expects a pay back on their initial outlay.
"It has to be something of that order to make the investment and the risk pay back."
He also said: "We are going into a period when we don't have as much money and if we are contemplating free care for the elderly, if we are contemplating following Scotland in reducing university fees for Northern Ireland students where will that money come from and between a third and half a billion pounds would be very useful."
Belfast City Council has been pushing Ormeau Park as an alternative location.
Council leisure committee chairman Bob Stoker said: "Belfast was never properly considered the first time round and the report provides irrefutable independent evidence of the need to go back to the drawing board."
The Stormont executive is expected to take a final decision on the stadium in the autumn. Sports Minister Edwin Poots has given no indication that he intends to overturn the direct rule decision in favour of the Maze.
Mr Poots, whose constituency includes the ex-prison site, yesterday accused Belfast Council of "bombast and bluster" on the issue and said it has until the end of this month to table a detailed city centre stadium plan.
The Minister also said: "A multi-sports stadium must be delivered to meet the 2012 Olympics timetable, it must be supported by the governing bodies of the relevant sports, be economically viable and be consistent with government's wider objectives of a shared future."
Government sources were today describing the findings of the University report as predictable.
It was also being stated that a developer of an Ormeau Park stadium would require the high-value Maysfield Leisure Centre site as part of the deal.
End the debate. The GAA, Ulster Rugby and even the monocultural IFA have agreed unanimously in principle on the Long Kesh site. End of story, let the bulldozers bulldoze anon. Do not spoil this unprecedented agreement and let those in OWC who wish to live in the past stay there
Quote from: Donagh on June 20, 2007, 12:16:54 PM
Surely the cost of land on Ormeau would be more than the cost of land at Maze?
Not so, in fact nothing like it. Land only has value if you can do something with it. There is no reason why (much needed) housing can't be built at the Maze, giving a development value estimated in this Report of £500 million. Otherwise, when HMG "gifted" this site to NI, that is how much we all forego if they
don't build houses on it. And that is before we pick up the tab for building a £100 m+ stadium, instead.
Re. Ormeau, obviously being in Belfast, the land would have greater value, but ONLY if it was possible to develop it commercially, which it is NOT, since BCC would NEVER get planning permission to do so.
However, PP is likely to be more forthcoming if they can demonstrate a switch of use from one Leisure purpose (parkland), to another leisure purpose (multi-sports stadium), especially if the social necessity of a sewage upgrade along the site were not affected.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 20, 2007, 12:58:38 PM
End the debate.
That's right, end the debate before everybody realises what a bad idea it is to give away a site with a development value of £547 million for the building of 1,000 houses, in order to build a sports stadium instead, which an independent Report tells us is will be another Millennium Dome unless built in an in-town location.
And that's before the Government spunks another £100m+ up the wall in actually building the bloody thing, plus associated motorway upgrades! :o
Tell me, what have you got against selling the Maze site for development, using £400 million for schools, housing and hospitals etc and dividing the remaining £100 million amongst the three sports, for them to do with what they wish?
That way, with its share the GAA could e.g. improve/enlarge Casement or other NI venues, whilst continuing to play their big Ulster games VAT-free at Clones or Croke, all without having to pay a penny rent to the Government for the Maze.
That would also leave enough for soccer to buy themselves out of their Lease with Linfield and either purchase and redevelop Windsor or move into Ormeau Park.
And I don't see Ulster rugby being too unhappy at receiving an extra few million quid of a windfall, either, seeing as they have never shown any enthusiasm for the Maze and will not play more than one or two matches (max) there, should it ever be built.
UUJ report just published online:
http://www.publicaffairs.ulster.ac.uk/podcasts/STADIUMBCC.pdf
I think its a good idea if everybody gets stuck into it to establish what weighting has been given to GAA, ie by far the most attended spectator sport in NI.
To repeat, here are some initial questions:
Point 1:
Any mention in this report of the value of land at Ormeau Park proposed to be given to a different private developer for a soccer only facility?
Point 2:
I must admit to be suprised at the suggested 30k cap on capacity.
Did Mike Smith look at GAA attendance figures like those posted earlier in the thread for 2005?
Surely they justify a greater capacity than 30k.
The GAA top brass have conssitently said we need a 40k caacity.
This has been independently verified as sensible by the department of economics at Uninversity College Cork. Link to their full analysis to follow.
Surely the GAA must reply to this report asap to assert that we need a 40k + capacity.
Can UCC economists stan up to the UUJ economist? Who's rioght in the battle of ecademics?
Point 3:
Did the report study the geographic origin of fans travelling to any proposed stadium?
Again looking at 2005 attendance figues, it's clear that the vast majority of fans would come from the south and west of Ulster to watch gaelic football.
For this vast majority, travelling to the maze is more convenient and offers less congestion for both the M1 and Belfast on match days.
Point 4:
The OWC crowd here reckon that their natural support base is about 25k (latest estimate from SammyG).
A 30k stadium would leave only a 5k capacity for away fans, as oppsed to 10k under the current Maze plan.
Surely halving the number of away fans totally wipes out half the benefit of the much hyped tourist benefit to the local economy.
Would NI PLC not be better off with 10k international visitors to the Maze than 5k to some Belfast stadium?
Feel free to add more.
Complete rubbish by economists who (like all economists) like in a virtual world far divorced from reality.
The North of Ireland soccer team's support varies between 5,000 and 15,000 (ie it will be heading in the 5000 direction once again after the forthcoming defeats by Iceland, Spain and Sweden).
Anyone knows that a stadium at the Maze is the answer, with convenient access to mhe motorway and rail links and a 42,000 capacity could attract Irish Rugby internationals as well as GAA AI Quarter Finals etc, not to mention rock concerts, Papal Visits, Special Olympics and the like
Papal visits? Jaysus Tony dont get them riled!!!
they will of course say they have no problem with this ;)
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 01:26:33 PM
UUJ report just published online:
http://www.publicaffairs.ulster.ac.uk/podcasts/STADIUMBCC.pdf
I think its a good idea if everybody gets stuck into it to establish what weighting has been given to GAA, ie by far the most attended spectator sport in NI.
To repeat, here are some initial questions:
Point 1:
Any mention in this report of the value of land at Ormeau Park proposed to be given to a different private developer for a soccer only facility?
Point 2:
I must admit to be suprised at the suggested 30k cap on capacity.
Did Mike Smith look at GAA attendance figures like those posted earlier in the thread for 2005?
Surely they justify a greater capacity than 30k.
The GAA top brass have conssitently said we need a 40k caacity.
This has been independently verified as sensible by the department of economics at Uninversity College Cork. Link to their full analysis to follow.
Surely the GAA must reply to this report asap to assert that we need a 40k + capacity.
Can UCC economists stan up to the UUJ economist? Who's rioght in the battle of ecademics?
Point 3:
Did the report study the geographic origin of fans travelling to any proposed stadium?
Again looking at 2005 attendance figues, it's clear that the vast majority of fans would come from the south and west of Ulster to watch gaelic football.
For this vast majority, travelling to the maze is more convenient and offers less congestion for both the M1 and Belfast on match days.
Point 4:
The OWC crowd here reckon that their natural support base is about 25k (latest estimate from SammyG).
A 30k stadium would leave only a 5k capacity for away fans, as oppsed to 10k under the current Maze plan.
Surely halving the number of away fans totally wipes out half the benefit of the much hyped tourist benefit to the local economy.
Would NI PLC not be better off with 10k international visitors to the Maze than 5k to some Belfast stadium?
Feel free to add more.
All,
this report is nothing more than appallingly unbalanced pro Belfast proaganda.
Don't give it any credence whatsoever.
It practically ignores the issues of Northern Ireland's political geography and instead says (section 7.4) that NI should just do what is done elsewhere.
It admits that all three sports can't co-exist in Belfast (section 7.4) , then recommends that the stadium be put there anyway.
Ie, a de facto exclusion of the GAA.
It conveniently ignores real actual GAA attendance figures whilst hypothesing on what crowds might attend a match at a stadium.
Looking at international figures and NI's population, it calulates 30k.
Sorry, but international figures don't to take into account the incredibly high per capita turnout of GAA fans.
It ignores real attendace figures at GAA matches regulary topping 30k by some margin. See earlier posts in this thread for 2005 GAA figures.
It states boldly (section 6.2) that the GAA has no need for a new stadium , despite the GAA Strategic Review identifying exactly the opposite.
The Srategic Review was published 2 years ago and the projected 40k Ulster stadium was endorsed by UCC economists.
Two years is surely enough time for them to have read the SR report and UCC analysis.
The spatial analysis (section 5, 5.3 theme 3) focuses in on public transport, emphasising the better public transport facilities of Belfast.
Amazingly, it makes no attempt at looking at the mode of travel that spectators would actually use in getting to the stadium.
Again looking at the 2005 Attendance figures I posted earlier in teh thread, it doesn't take a phd to work out that most users of the stadium would be GAA fans, and by virtue of having no alternative, will travel by car. Tubes , trains, trams and river boat are of no use if you're coming from Lisbellaw, Derrytrasna, Strabane, Kilkeel, wherever.
I hope some of the Irish News journos / contributors get stuck into it straight away.
It's really lazy and onesided. A case of telling their customer (BCC) what it wants to hear.
Panic is spreading .... people are onto this Millennium-Dome-In-Waiting.
Where's the Northern Mary Harney to knock sense into people like Poots and his dim-witted, subservient, good-at-spending-taxpayers-money civil servant allies, and scrap this spend-thrifters jamboree?
Quote from: GweylTah on June 20, 2007, 02:14:29 PM
Panic is spreading .... people are onto this Millennium-Dome-In-Waiting.
Where's the Northern Mary Harney to knock sense into people like Poots and his dim-witted, subservient, good-at-spending-taxpayers-money civil servant allies, and scrap this spend-thrifters jamboree?
No panic here. Just analysis of the facts.
You could do worse than try to read the report yourself, or even reply to some of the actual points being made in this thread.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 01:26:33 PM
UUJ report just published online:
http://www.publicaffairs.ulster.ac.uk/podcasts/STADIUMBCC.pdf
I think its a good idea if everybody gets stuck into it to establish what weighting has been given to GAA, ie by far the most attended spectator sport in NI.
To repeat, here are some initial questions:
Point 1:
Any mention in this report of the value of land at Ormeau Park proposed to be given to a different private developer for a soccer only facility?
Point 2:
I must admit to be suprised at the suggested 30k cap on capacity.
Did Mike Smith look at GAA attendance figures like those posted earlier in the thread for 2005?
Surely they justify a greater capacity than 30k.
The GAA top brass have conssitently said we need a 40k caacity.
This has been independently verified as sensible by the department of economics at Uninversity College Cork. Link to their full analysis to follow.
Surely the GAA must reply to this report asap to assert that we need a 40k + capacity.
Can UCC economists stan up to the UUJ economist? Who's rioght in the battle of ecademics?
Point 3:
Did the report study the geographic origin of fans travelling to any proposed stadium?
Again looking at 2005 attendance figues, it's clear that the vast majority of fans would come from the south and west of Ulster to watch gaelic football.
For this vast majority, travelling to the maze is more convenient and offers less congestion for both the M1 and Belfast on match days.
Point 4:
The OWC crowd here reckon that their natural support base is about 25k (latest estimate from SammyG).
A 30k stadium would leave only a 5k capacity for away fans, as oppsed to 10k under the current Maze plan.
Surely halving the number of away fans totally wipes out half the benefit of the much hyped tourist benefit to the local economy.
Would NI PLC not be better off with 10k international visitors to the Maze than 5k to some Belfast stadium?
Feel free to add more.
To take your points in order.
The land at Ormeau has little or no intrinsic economic value, since BCC would
never get Planning Permission (nor should it, imo) to redevelop a scarce inner-city public, leisure amenity for industrial/retail/housing purposes etc.
However, it has a reasonable/good chance of obtaining PP for a change of use from one leisure purpose to another.
Further, under the proposed scheme, BCC will NOT be "handing over" the site to a private developer. Rather, Durnien is saying that if he is allowed to build a stadium on the site, he hopes to get his investment plus profit, from
operating the stadium (i.e. renting it out ot tenants, users, concerts etc). BCC will still own the land, Durnien will build a stadium for the city, and it needn't cost the Ratepayers anything.
Compare that with the Maze, where the Government is proposing spending £100m+ of taxpayers money on a stadium, thereby preventing it achieving half a billion pounds for development and the building of 1,000 much-needed homes.
Second, the Authors will have looked at a whole variety of factors when determining the optimum capacity and electing for 30,000. I don't know whether they considered GAA, but you might consider this. The GAA has said it doesn't wish to play in the city - that is their choice. But if they should change their mind, and the extra pitch size/footprint required doesn't scupper the economics of the deal, then it is open to them to move in as a tenant, and sell Casement. After all, Casement only has a capacity of
32,000, but is much less modern than Ormeau would be. And if the GAA in Ulster needs a larger capacity, they can continue to do what they do at present in the absence of the Maze i.e. play thier bigger games VAT-free in Clones or Croke.
As regards congestion for GAA fans travelling to Ormeau. I fail to see how approaching Belfast, the transport hub of the whole of the North East of the island, via a number of access routes in any direction, including rail and bus as well as private, is going to be harder than getting to the Maze, which has
no public transport and only
one dual carriageway to accommodate up to 20,000 cars all arriving and depating at the same time, along an (as yet to be built) spur road in and out of the stadium. If either the spur or the motorway itself should be blocked by, say an accident, there will be total gridlock - as already happens today, from time to time, with much less convergence.
As for soccer supporters, for international matches, the home team only has to allocate 10% of places to away fans i.e. 3k (some teams don't take that many to Belfast, btw). The Maze proposal envisages 35k seats total for soccer, so the away allocation will be only 500 more! However, there is a serious problem for away fans travelling to the Maze, namely, there isn't a hotel within 5 miles of the stadium, so they will have to stay in Belfast, come what may. And considering none of these will have a car (obviously), they will be relying on buses to take them out to the Maze. That's right, up to 3,500 thousand of them queuing at the Ulsterbus depot in Great Victoria Street at the same time! f**k me, it doesn't bear thinking about...
By contrast, if built in Belfast, they can fly into George Best Airport, take a 10 minute cab into the city centre, check into their hotel, nip out onto the Golden Mile for a drink, then walk to Ormeau Park via a footbridge built through the old Gasworks.
Feel free to add more of your "points" - knocking them down is as easy as shooting fish in a barrell! ;)
Would you not think that if a stadium was built someone might think of building hotels, pubs restaurants nearby?
Not that much of a stretch of the imagination.
As they say, if you build it, they will come ;)
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 02:11:33 PM
this report is nothing more than appallingly unbalanced pro Belfast proaganda.
Don't give it any credence whatsoever.
It must be the influence of that well-known anti-GAA, pro-Belfast propagandist, Prof. Mike Smyth.
I wonder is he any relation to the Prof. Mike Smyth whom Fearon tells us is a former Armagh hurler? :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 02:38:39 PM
Would you not think that if a stadium was built someone might think of building hotels, pubs restaurants nearby?
Not that much of a stretch of the imagination.
As they say, if you build it, they will come ;)
Who is going to build a pub or hotel that will only be used for a couple of hours, 6 or 8 times a year?
Getting back to the topic, great to see that the independent report confirms what everybody already knew. I now await Poots and co's publication of their business case, with interest.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 20, 2007, 01:34:44 PM
Anyone knows that a stadium at the Maze is the answer, with convenient access to mhe motorway and rail links and a 42,000 capacity could attract Irish Rugby internationals as well as GAA AI Quarter Finals etc, not to mention rock concerts, Papal Visits, Special Olympics and the like
Tell me, Tony, do you honestly believe all the crap you post, or is it that you hope it will somehow magically come true if you repeat it often enough?
The Maze has
no access to the Motorway, nor does it have
any train links. The former would have to be built at a cost of millions. NIR has no plans, budget or intention of building a rail link and even if it did, the deployment of every single train they possess could carry not much more than 1,000 passengers per hour along a single route.
The IRFU will only stage a maximum of three or four minor internationals per year (Italy, Romania, Canada etc) outside of the new Lansdowne, and these will need to be shared equally with the redeveloped Thomond Park.
I have no idea how many AI Quarter Finals the GAA would consider staging in Ulster each year, but what would be wrong with Clones? It's present capacity is not much less than the Maze, it has already been built using GAA funds, there are proposals to extend it (afaik) and it has the added bonus of being VAT-free and without any rent needing to be paid to the British Government, either.
As for rock concerts, no promoter has yet expressed the slightest interest in the Maze, nor is any likely to, since 42,000 is too big for the average band, but too small for the really big groups like U2, who only ever feature Slane etc on the infrequent occasions they stage gigs in Ireland.
As for the Special Olympics, these are held once every four years. Ireland hosted the last one in 2003. I doubt if Ireland can expect to host them a second time before the 22nd Century.
And as for your prospective Papal Visit, Ireland can expect one of these an average of every 1600 years (if past history is anything to go by). Personally, I would have no objection whatever to His Holiness revisiting; however, I cannot believe that 42,000 would be nearly enough to accommodate all those wishing to see him.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:08:55 PM
Who is going to build a pub or hotel that will only be used for a couple of hours, 6 or 8 times a year?
6-8 times just? Between NI Internationals, freindlies, soccer Cup finals, Rugby games, GAA matches, surely more than 6-8? :-\
The soccer alone would have more than that!
If a stadium is built there, facilities will be built around it. I have yet to see a stadium built in the western world, a bit out of the way, that wasnt followed by outside investment into local facilities, including housing & appartments, this would be a great attraction to many young men looking for a place to live.
There are too many opportunists out there to prevent this from happening.
You paint a picture of a lone stadium with tumbleweeds blowing past it most of the year, this simply wont happen.
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 02:38:39 PM
Would you not think that if a stadium was built someone might think of building hotels, pubs restaurants nearby?
Not that much of a stretch of the imagination.
As they say, if you build it, they will come ;)
"If you build it, people will come".
Somehow, I hardly think a work of fiction about Baseball, featuring the ghosts of the long dead members of the Chicago White Sox, is really a justification for spending over £100 million of taxpayers money on a site which has a development value of half a billion pounds for housing.
After all, in the 18 years since "Field of Dreams" originally came out, no-one has thought to build a baseball stadium in a Mid-West cornfield yet, which suggests that it's not such a good idea. In fact, even the original movie set built at the time has failed to take off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_of_Dreams_%28Dubuque_County%2C_Iowa%29
P.S. When they brought out Superman, did you "really believe a man can fly"? Because I'm sorry to disillusion you, but that was fiction, too, along with Star Wars, Mary Poppins and the idea that it was the Americans who won the Second World War... :o
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:08:55 PM
Who is going to build a pub or hotel that will only be used for a couple of hours, 6 or 8 times a year?
6-8 times just? Between NI Internationals, freindlies, soccer Cup finals, Rugby games, GAA matches, surely more than 6-8? :-\
The soccer alone would have more than that!
NI will use the stadium 3 to 4 times a year, 1 Irish Cup Final, no rugby matches (they've already said numerous times that they won't be using it and are renovating Ravenhill), so that gives us either 4 or 5. The GAA have refused to say if or when they'll use the stadium but looking at the attendance figures (from snatters post) I can't see more than a couple of matches a year maybe 3 if we're being generous and they don't mind pissing the county grounds off. So that gives us a total of 6 to 8.
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 03:22:25 PM
If a stadium is built there, facilities will be built around it. I have yet to see a stadium built in the western world, a bit out of the way, that wasnt followed by outside investment into local facilities, including housing & appartments, this would be a great attraction to many young men looking for a place to live.
Can you give me some examples of these 'out of the way' stadia? Because your info completely contradicts all of the tons of independent research that has been carried out.
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 03:22:25 PM
There are too many opportunists out there to prevent this from happening.
You paint a picture of a lone stadium with tumbleweeds blowing past it most of the year, this simply wont happen.
Why do you think it won't happen? It happened in Istanbul, it happened at the Madjedski in Reading, it happened to Giants Stadium in New Jersey, why do you think the Maze will be different to every other stadium in the world?
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 20, 2007, 03:30:37 PM
Somehow, I hardly think a work of fiction about Baseball, featuring the ghosts of the long dead members of the Chicago White Sox, is really a justification for spending over £100 million of taxpayers money on a site which has a development value of half a billion pounds for housing.
P.S. When they brought out Superman, did you "really believe a man can fly"? Because I'm sorry to disillusion you, but that was fiction, too, along with Star Wars, Mary Poppins and the idea that it was the Americans who won the Second World War... :o
EG, you are some man to cry about people "playing the ball not the man"
Thats a very childish post and very very patronising, and make you look like a p***k.
Read my post without the quote from the movie, its a very straightforward and logical point.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:35:05 PM
Why do you think it won't happen? It happened in Istanbul, it happened at the Madjedski in Reading, it happened to Giants Stadium in New Jersey, why do you think the Maze will be different to every other stadium in the world?
Do you mean every other stadium in the world or just the 3 you mentioned? :-\
Are you honestly saying you are sure that nobody will build hotels, pubs, housing etc around this stadium?
If so provide me written examples from every single possible investor saying they wouldnt.
Otherwise feck off asking for proof / examples for every single post you disagree with ::) ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 03:43:49 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:35:05 PM
Why do you think it won't happen? It happened in Istanbul, it happened at the Madjedski in Reading, it happened to Giants Stadium in New Jersey, why do you think the Maze will be different to every other stadium in the world?
Do you mean every other stadium in the world or just the 3 you mentioned? :-\
Are you honestly saying you are sure that nobody will build hotels, pubs, housing etc around this stadium?
If so provide me written examples from every single possible investor saying they wouldnt.
Otherwise feck off asking for proof / examples for every single post you disagree with ::) ::)
Sorry HB I wasn't trying to be awkward, it was a genuine question. You said you'd been to 'out of the way' stadia and they all had hotels, bars etc. and I just wanted to know where they were as I've never heard of them. The 3 I quoted were examples that I've either been to or (in the case of Istanbul) had mates go to and none of them have any facilities whatsoever. I'm not aware of any other Western stadia that are out of the way.
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 03:40:41 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 20, 2007, 03:30:37 PM
Somehow, I hardly think a work of fiction about Baseball, featuring the ghosts of the long dead members of the Chicago White Sox, is really a justification for spending over £100 million of taxpayers money on a site which has a development value of half a billion pounds for housing.
P.S. When they brought out Superman, did you "really believe a man can fly"? Because I'm sorry to disillusion you, but that was fiction, too, along with Star Wars, Mary Poppins and the idea that it was the Americans who won the Second World War... :o
EG, you are some man to cry about people "playing the ball not the man"
Thats a very childish post and very very patronising, and make you look like a p***k.
Read my post without the quote from the movie, its a very straightforward and logical point.
I was challenging you assumption (albeit in a sarcastic manner) that just because someone builds a stadium in a remote location, other people will come along and build ancilliary facilities.
This simply is not so, as Sammy carefully pointed out with examples, in his reply to your post.
Therefore, if you are going to make a bland assertion of this type, why don't you supply some examples, comparable to the Maze proposal, of where this
has happened.
And while you're pondering, consider the fact that Durnien is proposing to raise the capital for a city-centre stadium, to be re-paid out of operating revenue,
precisely because the other amenities are already there.
In the end, developers deal in reality, movie makers deal in fiction.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 20, 2007, 03:15:15 PM
And as for your prospective Papal Visit, Ireland can expect one of these an average of every 1600 years (if past history is anything to go by). Personally, I would have no objection whatever to His Holiness revisiting; however, I cannot believe that 42,000 would be nearly enough to accommodate all those wishing to see him.
The Pope's next visit is on the horizon, it will not be an average of every 1600 years i can assure you. also, at the likes of concerts, public addresses etc., there is a stage erected on the pitch, with standing allowed on the pitch. this will significantly increase the attendance to over 50,000. Im sure this is an ideal place to attract the biggest and most popular bands in the world.
The maze stadium location is not too far away from Moira and Lisburn train stations. This is ideal in that fans coming from Belfast direction can access the stadium via Lisburn, and fans coming from Lurgan, Portadown and Newry can access from the Moira drop off point.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 04:05:02 PM
The maze stadium location is not too far away from Moira and Lisburn train stations. This is ideal in that fans coming from Belfast direction can access the stadium via Lisburn, and fans coming from Lurgan, Portadown and Newry can access from the Moira drop off point.
Firstly what do you consider 'not too far away' (I make it about 4.5 miles from Lisburn station and nearly 6 miles form Moira) and secondly what is the capacity and throughput of the two stations you mentioned?
FFS The Maze is the obvious location. An M1 turnoff can be easily constructed and the Moira to Lisburn railway line can be comparatively easily re arranged to accommodate a stop as well. Compare this to the mayhem in Belfast,getting to the stadium, getting way from it, residents groups (as is the case with Croker) moaning about everything, and a smaller stadium that will miss out on big Rugby and GAA crowds and will have to make do with 5 or 6000 soccer fans when the North of Ireland team fails to score a goal for three years.
There is no argument,logical sensible economical to site this in Belfast. But then you could say the same for the continued partition of this island I suppose.
At the end of the day, the three main Sporting bodies have agreed on the Maze. This unanimous agreement will not be replicated on any site in Belfast so as I said before get the bulldozers down the M1 pronto and fcuk the whingers
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 04:08:00 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 04:05:02 PM
The maze stadium location is not too far away from Moira and Lisburn train stations. This is ideal in that fans coming from Belfast direction can access the stadium via Lisburn, and fans coming from Lurgan, Portadown and Newry can access from the Moira drop off point.
Firstly what do you consider 'not too far away' and secondly what is the capacity and throughput of the two stations you mentioned?
Well, Moira to Lisburn is 10miles to your talking an average 5miles. Wouldnt be too hard to put on a shuttle service for that distance. Wouldnt be too sure on capacity and throughput, im no trainspotter, but theres plenty of room for expansion at the Moira location for a start.
Also the maze location is easy reach from the International Airport, where most International fans would be arriving into Ireland.
Is there anything there that you disagree with Sammy?
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:47:18 PM
You said you'd been to 'out of the way' stadia and they all had hotels, bars etc.
Sammy, with respect, read the post again ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:47:18 PM
You said you'd been to 'out of the way' stadia and they all had hotels, bars etc.
Sammy, with respect, read the post again ::)
I've read it and I'm none the wiser.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 20, 2007, 04:18:47 PM
FFS The Maze is the obvious location.
Some bedtime reading for Tony and stiffler regarding transport capacity and costs.
QuoteTransport
"Roads Service is already spending £30-50million upgrading roads in the area whether the stadium goes ahead or not. It isn't an extra cost"
Tony Whitehead, SIB
The Belfast Metropolitan Transport Plan (BMTP) and The Regional Strategic Transport Network Transport Plan (RSTNTP) set out what will be needed and what is desired for transport in the Greater Belfast area. Both focus on the need for more integrated transport and for the need for people to have more travel options, e.g. walking and cycle routes.
What's transport like to Belfast?
The M1, M2, M3, M5 and major 'A roads' all meet in central Belfast. All rail lines lead to Belfast. More bus routes facilitate Belfast than anywhere else in Northern Ireland. Two airports and the sea port also serve the city. Belfast truly is the transport hub for Northern Ireland.
And to the Maze?
The Maze was a good location for a prison. In a rural location, 3km from the nearest city, it lies beside the M1 but has no junction onto it. With no rail link (and none planned) it will rely on visitors coming by car or coach and the need for a junction to be added.
How much will transport upgrades cost?
Any junction will cost around £20million and is not included in the current Roads Service construction plans.Tony Whitehead also said that a link road was to be constructed, which would enable greater access to the site from the North West. Again, this road is only dependent on private development in the area and "(private) developers will be responsible for funding the scheme either in full or in a very substantial part". This is estimated at £11.8million and the cost will have to be met by the developer.
For a stadium at the Maze then, additional road infrastructure will cost at least another £30million – is this to be added to the £85million that it is costing so far taking the cost beyond £115million? Roads Service is not spending this money already as Mr. Whitehead claimed. Also, these roads costs are only estimates at a 2003 level – the actual cost may be much higher by the time development starts in 2007.
In contrast, proposed locations in Belfast are already well served by road, rail and bus. The City Airport is 1km from the Titanic Quarter; 2km from Maysfield and Ormeau Park; and approximately 4km from the North Foreshore.
The Port of Belfast is even closer as are rail and bus interchanges. Any transport upgrades for Belfast already have budgets allocated, including the widening of the Sydenham Bypass to three lanes in either direction, making that site even more plausible.
How will we get to the Maze?
The Regional Development Strategy states that in 1999, 30% of the population did not have a car – with public transport non-existent to the Maze, how are any of these people supposed to get there?
It is unlikely that public transport will bring people to the Maze without going via Belfast or other neighbouring transport hubs. Will buses depart from the Maze stadium after a midweek match to the furthest corners of the province? If people have to connect via Belfast etc, it may be too late to get home if they live far away.
The Government has highlighted the need for greater access to major facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. These would exist in Belfast but it is very hard to see how pedestrians will access the Maze site without a long journey beforehand.
Even if public transport is arranged to the Maze, it cannot get 40,000 people to a single site outside Belfast. With trains running 2-3km away, scores of buses would be needed to take fans to the stadium site. Add these to the thousands trying to get into the site in cars and mass congestion is sure to follow. Leaving afterwards will be a similar nightmare and visions of mile long queues of cars can evoke the 'tail-gate' culture at out-of-town US stadiums.
Government transport policy actively encourages alternatives to private car use. The new stadium proposal runs contrary to this.
'But it's only the same distance as Trafalgar Square is to Wembley!'
The major difference is that Wembley is not in a rural location with one main road in and one out. It is well served by multiple road, rail and bus routes. London is a large metropolis with a long history of staging major events and handling huge volumes of traffic and people. Few cities in the world can cope with events such as the Olympics, but London's recent successful tender highlights it's preeminence amongst cities globally. To compare a regional city is facetious.
As for Wembley, if the example is being given by Government, why aren't we getting the same level of public transport investment?
To facilitate the journeys of spectators, £70m is being invested to ensure visitors to Wembley can move smoothly and safely to and from the stations. There will be 100 trains moving 37,500 people per hour on event days.
The Government is not planning for this here. The RSNTP allocates £10.1million for inter city bus routes until 2015. This is for all of Northern Ireland yet it is only a fraction of the money being spent to bring 21st Century public transport to the new stadium at Wembley.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:47:18 PM
You said you'd been to 'out of the way' stadia and they all had hotels, bars etc.
Sammy, with respect, read the post again ::)
I've read it and I'm none the wiser.
I'll really cant help you there so ;)
Quote from: T Fearon on June 20, 2007, 04:18:47 PM
There is no argument,logical sensible economical to site this in Belfast.
So the economics professors making arguments against it are not up to your standards Tony?
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 04:48:32 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:47:18 PM
You said you'd been to 'out of the way' stadia and they all had hotels, bars etc.
Sammy, with respect, read the post again ::)
I've read it and I'm none the wiser.
I'll really cant help you there so ;)
So does that mean you don't have a list of 'out of the way' stadia (or even 1 or 2 examples), with good facilities?
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 05:02:29 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 04:48:32 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 04:36:00 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 03:47:18 PM
You said you'd been to 'out of the way' stadia and they all had hotels, bars etc.
Sammy, with respect, read the post again ::)
I've read it and I'm none the wiser.
I'll really cant help you there so ;)
So does that mean you don't have a list of 'out of the way' stadia (or even 1 or 2 examples), with good facilities?
Sydney Olympic Stadium, Homebush. Leathal facilities and access.
sammy "So does that mean you don't have a list of 'out of the way' stadia (or even 1 or 2 examples), with good facilities?"
No it means if you are too lazy to read back through my short post to see where you deliberately misquoted me, I couldnt be arsed indulging you. ::)
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:05:04 PM
Sydney Olympic Stadium, Homebush. Leathal facilities and access.
Are you taking the piss? The Olympic stadium is in Sydney with access from road, rail, bus, ferry, how is that comparable to a field in the middle of nowhere?
''Telstra Stadium is ideally located in the demographic and geographic heart of Sydney, just 17km west of Sydney's CBD, and 8km from Parramatta. Half of Sydney's population of 4 million live within half an hour's drive of Sydney Olympic Park.''
17kms from the centre of Sydney, thats a greater distance from the maze to Belfast. Do you want a spade......
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 20, 2007, 05:07:05 PM
sammy "So does that mean you don't have a list of 'out of the way' stadia (or even 1 or 2 examples), with good facilities?"
No it means if you are too lazy to read back through my short post to see where you deliberately misquoted me, I couldnt be arsed indulging you. ::)
I've read and re-read your post a few times and I don't see where I mis-quoted you, either deliberately or otherwise.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:20:55 PM
''Telstra Stadium is ideally located in the demographic and geographic heart of Sydney, just 17km west of Sydney's CBD, and 8km from Parramatta. Half of Sydney's population of 4 million live within half an hour's drive of Sydney Olympic Park.''
17kms from the centre of Sydney, thats a greater distance from the maze to Belfast. Do you want a spade......
The stadium is in Sydney it is 17K from the business district (a bit like Wembley is to the centre of London). It also has links by road, bus, train and ferry. I'll ask again how does that compare to the Maze?
The stadium in Sydney is an outer city location with excellent conferencing and hotel facilities. This is possible with the Maze. The maze has access via roads (the M1), bus, trains (Moira, Lisburn stations), by air (International Airport). You cant see the wood from the trees Samuel. Your just like the British, stiff upper lip.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:33:54 PM
The stadium in Sydney is an outer city location with excellent conferencing and hotel facilities. This is possible with the Maze. The maze has access via roads (the M1), bus, trains (Moira, Lisburn stations), by air (International Airport). You cant see the wood from the trees Samuel. Your just like the British, stiff upper lip.
As you obviously didn't read the transport info, that I posted earlier, I'll pick out a few points for you.
There are no plans and no money for a new road spur to the Maze
There are no plans and no money to provide a rail link to the Maze
Even if there were plans for a rail link there aren't enouh trains in the whole of NI to cope with the capacity required
There are no plans and no spare capacity for new bus services to the Maze.
Even if all of these could be resolved you still haven't answered the question of how you'd get people from the airport/bus station/train station to the ground? Are you expecting 40000 people to walk 5-6 miles?
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 05:39:54 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:33:54 PM
The stadium in Sydney is an outer city location with excellent conferencing and hotel facilities. This is possible with the Maze. The maze has access via roads (the M1), bus, trains (Moira, Lisburn stations), by air (International Airport). You cant see the wood from the trees Samuel. Your just like the British, stiff upper lip.
As you obviously didn't read the transport info, that I posted earlier, I'll pick out a few points for you.
There are no plans and no money for a new road spur to the Maze
There are no plans and no money to provide a rail link to the Maze
Even if there were plans for a rail link there aren't enouh trains in the whole of NI to cope with the capacity required
There are no plans and no spare capacity for new bus services to the Maze.
Even if all of these could be resolved you still haven't answered the question of how you'd get people from the airport/bus station/train station to the ground? Are you expecting 40000 people to walk 5-6 miles?
So you reckon they are gonna build a new stadium at the maze and dont have a road leading onto the main road. hmmmmm sounds a bit strange there sammy. and you reckon it is 5/6 miles from the maze to the nearest bus stop? hmmmmm.
If what you see is true, someone with a bit of cop on could make a killing when this new stadium opens by providing transport by shuttle bus, taxi etc. However something tells me that you simply do'nt want this stadium in the maze.
The telstra stadium.
Not in the middle of nowhere
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=-33.84734,151.063643&spn=0.008592,0.005932&t=k (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=-33.84734,151.063643&spn=0.008592,0.005932&t=k)
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:45:16 PMSo you reckon they are gonna build a new stadium at the maze and dont have a road leading onto the main road. hmmmmm sounds a bit strange there sammy.
It is worse than strange it is unworkable. That is the whole crux of the problem.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:45:16 PM
and you reckon it is 5/6 miles from the maze to the nearest bus stop? hmmmmm.
No I aid it was 5-6 miles from the nearest bus
station. My question was how do you get from the station to the Maze?
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:45:16 PM
If what you see is true, someone with a bit of cop on could make a killing when this new stadium opens by providing transport by shuttle bus, taxi etc. However something tells me that you simply do'nt want this stadium in the maze.
Nobody is going to spend the £30-40 million (at 2003 prices) that are required to build the imfrastructure (they wouldn't have a hope in hell of ever recouping it), that's why Poot's can't produce a single commercial backer.
Quote from: nifan on June 20, 2007, 05:47:23 PM
The telstra stadium.
Not in the middle of nowhere
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=-33.84734,151.063643&spn=0.008592,0.005932&t=k (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?ll=-33.84734,151.063643&spn=0.008592,0.005932&t=k)
Yep, I've been there (by train), definitely not in the middle of nowhere, and wasn't in the middle of nowhere when it was built, either.
I'd admire the likes of NIFan, Sammy G and Evil Genius for having the patience to refute the lies, make-believe and pig-ignorance of the usual suspects here, though it's like talking to the wall. Like I said earlier, we need a Mary Harney style figure to throw her weight around and toss this Maze nonsense into the bin, live in the real world and spend public money in improving infrastructure generally, like the rail service to the NW, school buildinhg, hospitals, water and drains. The market will take care of a stadium in Belfast, because, if there's to be one, that's where it will work and stand on its own feet, not bleed the exchequer and deprive essential services of funds now and for years to come.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 05:55:22 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:45:16 PMSo you reckon they are gonna build a new stadium at the maze and dont have a road leading onto the main road. hmmmmm sounds a bit strange there sammy.
It is worse than strange it is unworkable. That is the whole crux of the problem.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:45:16 PM
and you reckon it is 5/6 miles from the maze to the nearest bus stop? hmmmmm.
No I aid it was 5-6 miles from the nearest bus station. My question was how do you get from the station to the Maze?
How do you get from a bus station to the maze? is this a serious question? I dont know where you come from Sammy, but where i live you normally find buses at bus stations.
I know the Olympic stadium is not in the middle of no where now but it was built 10 years ago. Its amazing how something like this regenerate an area. Within ten years of the Long Kesh stadium opening, the Maze will be a Suburb of Lisburn with land space at a premium.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 05:39:54 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 05:33:54 PM
The stadium in Sydney is an outer city location with excellent conferencing and hotel facilities. This is possible with the Maze. The maze has access via roads (the M1), bus, trains (Moira, Lisburn stations), by air (International Airport). You cant see the wood from the trees Samuel. Your just like the British, stiff upper lip.
As you obviously didn't read the transport info, that I posted earlier, I'll pick out a few points for you.
There are no plans and no money for a new road spur to the Maze
There are no plans and no money to provide a rail link to the Maze
Even if there were plans for a rail link there aren't enouh trains in the whole of NI to cope with the capacity required
There are no plans and no spare capacity for new bus services to the Maze.
Even if all of these could be resolved you still haven't answered the question of how you'd get people from the airport/bus station/train station to the ground? Are you expecting 40000 people to walk 5-6 miles?
Sammy,
The only 40k crowd going anywhere a genuine shared space multisport stadium will be a GAA one.
As already stated in this thread, they will come predominantly by car from the south and west of Ulster.
There is no public transport infrastructure from these areas - as at present, all journeys to GAA matches will be by road.
Indeed, given the pitiful state of NI public transport in NI (including Belfast), nearly all journeys to a new stadium would be by road regardless of where there stadium is.
The public transport issue is of minimal importance in this debate - the issue is deliberately being given undue prominence by the Belfast brigade.
I repeat: the vast vast majority of fans going to the new stadium each year will do so by road.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 06:17:21 PMI repeat: the vast vast majority of fans going to the new stadium each year will do so by road.
100% correct and I'm not sure where I've ever said anything different.
The issue is that there is no infrastructue to get people to the Maze, however they decide to travel, and no plans or budget to build anyl.
Quote from: GweylTah on June 20, 2007, 06:01:21 PM
, we need a Mary Harney style figure to throw her weight around
There's no need for that Mr Gwayt'hell > Mary cant help being as she is.
I'd better put in one or two :D ;D of these so ye Nordies will see I'm trying to crack a joke. :P
I had put it that way before I realised - I'm not built unlike Ms Harney myself, so I don't feel I'm being too nasty!!!
But her common sense and prudence in issues like this would be good before hundreds of millions of pounds is wasted and one political career ruined (actually, on second thoughts, bring on the Maze and get Poots the cumuppance he deserves for being so totally out of his depth).
This arguement is getting tiresome, when do the powers that be make a decision on this issue?
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on June 20, 2007, 09:20:14 PM
when do the powers that be make a decision on this issue?
Poots only has the cheek to demand that Belfast City Council produce a full plan, with costings etc, by the end of this month. Which is all very well, except
he has yet to come up with his plan for the Maze, never mind equivalent costings, despite the Government spending on "consultation", "management fees" etc over the last three years running well into seven figures (as well as having Civil Service departments at Stormont etc available to work on it).
Anyhow, as I work my way through the Report, this excerpt from the Summary caught my attention:
Professor of Marketing at UU, David Carson said: "Seldom have we experienced such overwhelming evidence for one dimension, namely the in-town location."
The team who carried out the research include UU experts in the fields of the built environment, economics and marketing, and supported by a network of expert advisers from across the university.
They examined modern UK stadiums, including those at Cardiff Millennium, Hull KC, and Huddersfield Galpharm - for best practice in revenue generation.
I must say that Poots really does sound like hes spoofing. Even other DUP men are having a pop. Sammy Wilson had a go at him yesterday. Personally as I have said on here before and been attacked I think the stadium should be in Ormeau Park and designed for Rugby and Football with a 25000 capacity. Some of the many millions saved could then be given to the GAA to develop Casement and a handful of new club pitches around Belfast which are badly needed. Casement can hold 30,000 which is sufficient for a GAA stadium in Belfast, club pitches are in very short supply. look at the chaos when the council decided to close Cherryvale in early August last year.
Well as a resident of the Ormeau who finds it difficult to get a parking space outside the house, and witnesses the 2hour gridlock on the road every morning and evening I would be firmly against and most of the neighbours would be of the same mind. Ormeau Park is a non-starter.
Quote from: Donagh on June 20, 2007, 10:02:20 PM
Well as a resident of the Ormeau who finds it difficult to get a parking space outside the house, and witnesses the 2hour gridlock on the road every morning and evening I would be firmly against and most of the neighbours would be of the same mind. Ormeau Park is a non-starter.
What will you do if it goes ahead?
Quote from: GweylTah on June 20, 2007, 10:21:25 PM
Quote from: Donagh on June 20, 2007, 10:02:20 PM
Well as a resident of the Ormeau who finds it difficult to get a parking space outside the house, and witnesses the 2hour gridlock on the road every morning and evening I would be firmly against and most of the neighbours would be of the same mind. Ormeau Park is a non-starter.
What will you do if it goes ahead?
It won't
Quote from: slow corner back on June 20, 2007, 09:49:20 PM
I must say that Poots really does sound like hes spoofing. Even other DUP men are having a pop. Sammy Wilson had a go at him yesterday. Personally as I have said on here before and been attacked I think the stadium should be in Ormeau Park and designed for Rugby and Football with a 25000 capacity. Some of the many millions saved could then be given to the GAA to develop Casement and a handful of new club pitches around Belfast which are badly needed. Casement can hold 30,000 which is sufficient for a GAA stadium in Belfast, club pitches are in very short supply. look at the chaos when the council decided to close Cherryvale in early August last year.
You What?
So when 20k soccers fans are all sitting on cosy seats with a roof over their heads, enjoying an uninterrupted view courtesy of the taxpayer, us bog dwellers are expected to huddle together in the rain on cold concrete terraces - Despite our annual attendance figures for big matches being 10 times those of soccer.
Get a grip. No more croppies lying down on this one mate.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 20, 2007, 09:34:05 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on June 20, 2007, 09:20:14 PM
when do the powers that be make a decision on this issue?
Poots only has the cheek to demand that Belfast City Council produce a full plan, with costings etc, by the end of this month. Which is all very well, except he has yet to come up with his plan for the Maze, never mind equivalent costings, despite the Government spending on "consultation", "management fees" etc over the last three years running well into seven figures (as well as having Civil Service departments at Stormont etc available to work on it).
Anyhow, as I work my way through the Report, this excerpt from the Summary caught my attention:
Professor of Marketing at UU, David Carson said: "Seldom have we experienced such overwhelming evidence for one dimension, namely the in-town location."
The team who carried out the research include UU experts in the fields of the built environment, economics and marketing, and supported by a network of expert advisers from across the university.
They examined modern UK stadiums, including those at Cardiff Millennium, Hull KC, and Huddersfield Galpharm - for best practice in revenue generation.
Evil,
the report is appallingly unbalanced and from the outset attempts to totally undermine the agreed Shared Spaces approach of all three sports coming together in a spirit of equality and co-operation.
It starts off by totally redefining a shared stadium to suit its own purposes - a Shared Stadium in its eyes has morphed from the above to " a stadium used by more than one sport". There you go, right at the start of the report, the goalposts have been shifted.
The rest of the report is just tailored to meet this noew non-inclusive definition.
Lazy, sloppy waste of time that totally ignores the real issues.
It admits that no suitable neutral sites for a Shared Space stadium can be identified in Belfast.
It then goes on to raises the valid question " which is more important - a. international best practice or b. adherence to Shared Spaces?
Amazingly after raising the question, it chooses not to answer, or even comment on the question it raised.
Instead it just says to go for international best practices.
As stated in my earlier post, they have
1. conveniently managed to ignore real GAA attendences, and have instead settled on a perceived soccer friendly figure.
2. misrepresented the publicly stated and independently verified GAA need for a single modern high capacity stadium. (see GAA Strategic Review).
3. made no attempt to map the origin of fans who would go the new stadium.
4. they have oversold public transport benefits of Belfast when the dog in the street knows that most journeys will be by car and most will be made by GAA fans.
5. they have ignored the fact that none of the proposed Belfast sites have made any attempt to cater for the GAA.
In short, there solution differs little from that typically expressed in OWC - build soccer fans a free small capacity all seater soccer sized stadium in Belfast and to hell with the bogmen.
From the outset I've alwas maintained that any directly or indirectly publicy financed stadium must be made avaialble for ALL three sports, and not ignore the most popular of the three.
No way are GAA fans going to accept second classs treatment on this.
The political mood has changed - the govt have agreed on a shared facility for some time now - at least 5 years if my recollections of Hansard are correct.
Nothing in this report will change any of that.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 10:41:03 PM
Quote from: slow corner back on June 20, 2007, 09:49:20 PM
I must say that Poots really does sound like hes spoofing. Even other DUP men are having a pop. Sammy Wilson had a go at him yesterday. Personally as I have said on here before and been attacked I think the stadium should be in Ormeau Park and designed for Rugby and Football with a 25000 capacity. Some of the many millions saved could then be given to the GAA to develop Casement and a handful of new club pitches around Belfast which are badly needed. Casement can hold 30,000 which is sufficient for a GAA stadium in Belfast, club pitches are in very short supply. look at the chaos when the council decided to close Cherryvale in early August last year.
You What?
So when 20k soccers fans are all sitting on cosy seats with a roof over their heads, enjoying an uninterrupted view courtesy of the taxpayer, us bog dwellers are expected to huddle together in the rain on cold concrete terraces - Despite our annual attendance figures for big matches being 10 times those of soccer.
Get a grip. No more croppies lying down on this one mate.
Brilliant, totally ignore all the issues and go for the oul victim card. Pathetic.
And for the millionth time the Belfast stadium will not be funded with taxpayers money, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rant
snatter
When you've finished riciting from the Sinn Fein handbook of quotes (have you got your own or did you borrow Donagh's? ;)) is there any chance you could address any of the actual issues?
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:06:58 PM
snatter
When you've finished riciting from the Sinn Fein handbook of quotes (have you got your own or did you borrow Donagh's? ;)) is there any chance you could address any of the actual issues?
Deeply unpleasant comment even by your standards.
On what basis do you assume that I have any truck with Sinn Fein?
Is the mask slipping Sammy - I remember that was a common tactic back in the bad old days - if anybody upset unreconstructed old style unionists, they were always branded as Shinners, IRA sympathisers, etc.
I have posted reams of real points on here, ignoring a flurry of sniping and abusive remarks from yourelf et al.
I disagree with most of what Evil says, but credit where credit's due - Evil chooses to engage on some of the points raised.
That's what debate should be about - not petty abuse.
You on the other hand seem happier to obfuscate by ignoring points and being abusive.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:05:09 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 10:41:03 PM
Quote from: slow corner back on June 20, 2007, 09:49:20 PM
I must say that Poots really does sound like hes spoofing. Even other DUP men are having a pop. Sammy Wilson had a go at him yesterday. Personally as I have said on here before and been attacked I think the stadium should be in Ormeau Park and designed for Rugby and Football with a 25000 capacity. Some of the many millions saved could then be given to the GAA to develop Casement and a handful of new club pitches around Belfast which are badly needed. Casement can hold 30,000 which is sufficient for a GAA stadium in Belfast, club pitches are in very short supply. look at the chaos when the council decided to close Cherryvale in early August last year.
You What?
So when 20k soccers fans are all sitting on cosy seats with a roof over their heads, enjoying an uninterrupted view courtesy of the taxpayer, us bog dwellers are expected to huddle together in the rain on cold concrete terraces - Despite our annual attendance figures for big matches being 10 times those of soccer.
Get a grip. No more croppies lying down on this one mate.
Brilliant, totally ignore all the issues and go for the oul victim card. Pathetic.
And for the millionth time the Belfast stadium will not be funded with taxpayers money, but don't let the facts get in the way of your rant
The lack of equality and divergence from the mutually beneficial Shared Spaces strategy is the point, you prat.
And yet again, the gifting of public land to an exclusionist stadium IS INDIRECT PUBLIC FUNDING.
Lads theres no point arguing with Samuel et al. Its quite obvious they want a new soccer stadium for norn iron, that does not involve sharing with the GAA full stop.
They said that the stadium will be too big if they share with the GAA, then when the plans came out resolving this isssue they moved the goalposts and said that the 'atmosphere' at games would be greatly affected with the increased pitch size. Didnt seem to affect the Irish Rugby matches in Croke Park,mind you.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:18:07 PM
The lack of equality and divergence from the mutually beneficial Shared Spaces strategy is the point, you prat.
What lack of equality and what mutually beneficial 'Shared Spaces' strategy? I think you need to try actually reading some of the details, there are NO PLANS for any shared use of the stadium, never have been and never will be. It was a Poots soundbite when he was trying to justify the Sands Museum and has since been dropped.
How can three sports that play at different times of year on a completely different pitch with different size grounds (at least according to you) possibly be a shared space?
How can giving into blackmail from the only sport that isn't cross-community be seen as promoting equality?
And getting back to the actual issues, how are you going to get round all the infrastructure issues?
I have to laugh at this Shared Futures and Shared Spaces waffle.
A big flop in the countyside where different codes might play the odd game but never at the same time or day and with different paraphernalia when they do.
It won't actually be shared at all.
How about teaching the kids at shared schools and preparing them for integrated living in mixed housing areas rather than expensive experiments that are actually meaningless.
I can't help thinking that, had NI soccer supporters enthusiasticlally embraced this idea, those here who purport to be big supporters of the Maze thing would have hated the idea, but because so many NI supporters appear to hate the idea, the zero-sum game of Shinner sheep is to cheer-lead for the Maze.
Still wouldn't wannna be a Lisburn 'City' rate-payer if it goes ahead, they'll be paying for it for a lifetime.
I'd also be interested to hear how honest those GAA fans who espouse 'sharing' and quote the Croke Park one-off as evidence of the GAA doing so, actually agreed with that GAA decision (bearing in mind no Northern county did) and whether they would support it being extended to all GAA grounds in Ireland, given that every ground other than Croke Park is still out of bounds to rugby and soccer.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
Lads theres no point arguing with Samuel et al. Its quite obvious they want a new soccer stadium for norn iron, that does not involve sharing with the GAA full stop.
More lies. I have always said and continue to say that the stadium should be used by as many sports as possible.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
They said that the stadium will be too big if they share with the GAA, then when the plans came out resolving this isssue they moved the goalposts and said that the 'atmosphere' at games would be greatly affected with the increased pitch size. Didnt seem to affect the Irish Rugby matches in Croke Park,mind you.
Absolute bollix. Have you actually read any of the discussions or do you just make it up as you go along? The issue with the Maze is lack of infrastructure, it doesn't matter if the capacity is 10K or 100K if you can't actually get to the bloody stadium.
p.s. when did plans come out to change the capacity?
Quote from: GweylTah on June 20, 2007, 11:25:25 PM
I have to laugh at this Shared Futures and Shared Spaces waffle.
A big flop in the countyside where fifferent codes might play the odd game but never at the same time or day and with different paraphernalia when they do.
It won't actually be shared at all.
How about teaching the kids at shared schools and preparing them for integrated living in mixed housing areas rather than expensive experiments that are actually meaningless.
I can't help thinking that, had NI soccer supporters enthusiasticlally embraced this idea, those here who purport to be big supporters of the Maze thing would have hated the idea, but because so many NI supporters appear to hate the idea, the zero-sum game of Shinner sheep is to cheer-lead for the Maze.
Still wouldn't wannna be a Lisburn 'City' rate-payer if it goes ahead, they'll be paying for it for a lifetime.
For the record, the Shared Spaces strategy does indeed extend into schools.
Plans are well afoot to pool resources and enforce co-operation between all education sectors for the mutual benefit of all concerned.
Again, deeply unpleasant to tar all those who wish to engage on much need debate as Shinners.
Crass.
Lazy.
Sectarian.
Is this becoming the new modus operandi of the OWC brigade?
Ignore all points, don't bother reading up on stuff and just label everybody else as Shinners?
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:30:26 PMIgnore all points, don't bother reading up on stuff and just label everybody else as Shinners?
This from the man who has refused to address a single issue, you couldn't make it up.
Gwaytah,
QuoteI can't help thinking that, had NI soccer supporters enthusiasticlally embraced this idea, those here who purport to be big supporters of the Maze thing would have hated the idea, but because so many NI supporters appear to hate the idea, the zero-sum game of Shinner sheep is to cheer-lead for the Maze.
Not so - you won't find many GAA fans passionately in favour of the Maze.
Rather most simply see it as preferable to any Belfast site mooted so far.
Commonly cited grounds are that
1. its perceived as neutral
2. its easier to drive to as it avoids having to drive into Belfast.
We're not emotionally attached to it or anything - I'm sure if somebody had identified an alternative equally neutral location in an accessible location, it would have been considered.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
Lads theres no point arguing with Samuel et al. Its quite obvious they want a new soccer stadium for norn iron, that does not involve sharing with the GAA full stop.
More lies. I have always said and continue to say that the stadium should be used by as many sports as possible.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
They said that the stadium will be too big if they share with the GAA, then when the plans came out resolving this isssue they moved the goalposts and said that the 'atmosphere' at games would be greatly affected with the increased pitch size. Didnt seem to affect the Irish Rugby matches in Croke Park,mind you.
Absolute bollix. Have you actually read any of the discussions or do you just make it up as you go along? The issue with the Maze is lack of infrastructure, it doesn't matter if the capacity is 10K or 100K if you can't actually get to the bloody stadium.
p.s. when did plans come out to change the capacity?
The initial plans where for a 35000 seater then due to the GAA requiring a Stadium over 40,000 to make the project viable there was a change to the design to accomodate standing which can be replaced by seating for the soccer games.
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:32:05 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:30:26 PMIgnore all points, don't bother reading up on stuff and just label everybody else as Shinners?
This from the man who has refused to address a single issue, you couldn't make it up.
OK then, go off and list all issues that I have allegedly not addressed.
I'd bet my arse that I've replied to each and every one already.
You on the other hand have replied to relatively few and have consistently turned to slur the questioner rather than answer the question.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:37:18 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
Lads theres no point arguing with Samuel et al. Its quite obvious they want a new soccer stadium for norn iron, that does not involve sharing with the GAA full stop.
More lies. I have always said and continue to say that the stadium should be used by as many sports as possible.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
They said that the stadium will be too big if they share with the GAA, then when the plans came out resolving this isssue they moved the goalposts and said that the 'atmosphere' at games would be greatly affected with the increased pitch size. Didnt seem to affect the Irish Rugby matches in Croke Park,mind you.
Absolute bollix. Have you actually read any of the discussions or do you just make it up as you go along? The issue with the Maze is lack of infrastructure, it doesn't matter if the capacity is 10K or 100K if you can't actually get to the bloody stadium.
p.s. when did plans come out to change the capacity?
The initial plans where for a 35000 seater then due to the GAA requiring a Stadium over 40,000 to make the project viable there was a change to the design to accomodate standing which can be replaced by seating for the soccer games.
You're getting confused between press releases and plans. There was a Poots press release were he talked about variable capacity but there have been absolutely no details of how this can work or how much it will cost.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:37:18 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
Lads theres no point arguing with Samuel et al. Its quite obvious they want a new soccer stadium for norn iron, that does not involve sharing with the GAA full stop.
More lies. I have always said and continue to say that the stadium should be used by as many sports as possible.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
They said that the stadium will be too big if they share with the GAA, then when the plans came out resolving this isssue they moved the goalposts and said that the 'atmosphere' at games would be greatly affected with the increased pitch size. Didnt seem to affect the Irish Rugby matches in Croke Park,mind you.
Absolute bollix. Have you actually read any of the discussions or do you just make it up as you go along? The issue with the Maze is lack of infrastructure, it doesn't matter if the capacity is 10K or 100K if you can't actually get to the bloody stadium.
p.s. when did plans come out to change the capacity?
The initial plans where for a 35000 seater then due to the GAA requiring a Stadium over 40,000 to make the project viable there was a change to the design to accomodate standing which can be replaced by seating for the soccer games.
stiffler,
don't waste your energy. We've been her before over several months.
Forget everything you've ever read about a variable 35k / 42k capacity.
In Sammy's world its all a plot by journalists, shinners, commies, etc.
Don't show him any new reports, articles, academic reports that say otherwise.
You're wasting your time.
Sammy's stock response is that he personally hasn't seen the document, which in Sammy's world means it doesn't exist.
Couldn't possibly, because that might mean that Sammy is wrong.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:37:27 PMOK then, go off and list all issues that I have allegedly not addressed.
Right off the top of my head
How will the changaable capacity work?
How many people per hour can get down the single track road to the Maze and how much will it cost to upgrade it? Is this figure included in the £115 million or is it extra money?
Where will the extra trains come from and who's going to pay for them?
Where will the extra buses come from and who's going to pay for them?
Where will the fans eat, drink and stay?
How many private developers have come forward to support the Maze development?
Why is the Maze seen as neutral, even though it is in a staunchly Loyalist area but the three Belfast sites are seen as not neutral even though they are all in either mixed or Nationalist areas?
There's a few hundred more but it's late and I can't be arsed so that'll do for now.
SammyG,
QuoteWhat lack of equality and what mutually beneficial 'Shared Spaces' strategy?
Says it all really.
You spout on here, fabricating to your heart's content, and quite plainly don't even know the basics of the Govt strategy on which the Maze proposal is based.
Breathtaking ignorace and arrogance in one.
Why don't you navigate away from here for a day or two and go do some much needed reading.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:41:22 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:37:18 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
Lads theres no point arguing with Samuel et al. Its quite obvious they want a new soccer stadium for norn iron, that does not involve sharing with the GAA full stop.
More lies. I have always said and continue to say that the stadium should be used by as many sports as possible.
Quote from: stiffler on June 20, 2007, 11:22:53 PM
They said that the stadium will be too big if they share with the GAA, then when the plans came out resolving this isssue they moved the goalposts and said that the 'atmosphere' at games would be greatly affected with the increased pitch size. Didnt seem to affect the Irish Rugby matches in Croke Park,mind you.
Absolute bollix. Have you actually read any of the discussions or do you just make it up as you go along? The issue with the Maze is lack of infrastructure, it doesn't matter if the capacity is 10K or 100K if you can't actually get to the bloody stadium.
p.s. when did plans come out to change the capacity?
The initial plans where for a 35000 seater then due to the GAA requiring a Stadium over 40,000 to make the project viable there was a change to the design to accomodate standing which can be replaced by seating for the soccer games.
stiffler,
don't waste your energy. We've been her before over several months.
Forget everything you've ever read about a variable 35k / 42k capacity.
In Sammy's world its all a plot by journalists, shinners, commies, etc.
Don't show him any new reports, articles, academic reports that say otherwise.
You're wasting your time.
Sammy's stock response is that he personally hasn't seen the document, which in Sammy's world means it doesn't exist.
Couldn't possibly, because that might mean that Sammy is wrong.
I know what you mean Snatter, as i said before, its the British stiff upper lip mentality. No admitted your wrong at any cost.
Ah well, what can you expect from a pig but a grunt.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:41:22 PMstiffler,
don't waste your energy. We've been her before over several months.
Forget everything you've ever read about a variable 35k / 42k capacity.
In Sammy's world its all a plot by journalists, shinners, commies, etc.
Don't show him any new reports, articles, academic reports that say otherwise.
You're wasting your time.
Sammy's stock response is that he personally hasn't seen the document, which in Sammy's world means it doesn't exist.
Couldn't possibly, because that might mean that Sammy is wrong.
More lies, you do realise that if you keep repeating a lie it doesn't become true. The only proposal for a changeable capacity was a press statement from Poots. He and his department have been asked, several times, to provide details of how this can work and he has refused.
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:46:36 PM
SammyG,
QuoteWhat lack of equality and what mutually beneficial 'Shared Spaces' strategy?
Says it all really.
You spout on here, fabricating to your heart's content, and quite plainly don't even know the basics of the Govt strategy on which the Maze proposal is based.
Breathtaking ignorace and arrogance in one.
Why don't you navigate away from here for a day or two and go do some much needed reading.
So other than being abusive are you actually going to answer the question?
SammyG,
QuoteQuote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:37:27 PM
OK then, go off and list all issues that I have allegedly not addressed.
in order:
QuoteHow will the changaable capacity work?
I replied to you multiple times in this thread alone. I'll remind you: Stakeholders -> Design Spec -> Architects HOK -> Design Proposal -> Costings -> Funding Agreements -> Sign Contracts -> Build -> Use Stadium
Quote
How many people per hour can get down the single track road to the Maze and how much will it cost to upgrade it?
I replied to you in this thread. Surely you can't forget how I had to explain to you that a motorway has two lanes, is consequently safer and can carry more vehicles per hour. I remember - it made you look even more like an ill-thought out knee jerk argumentative prat.
QuoteIs this figure included in the £115 million or is it extra money?
No idea, you never asked me that question. Again refer to easy to follow process flow above.
Quote
Where will the extra trains come from and who's going to pay for them?
Where will the extra buses come from and who's going to pay for them?
No idea, you never asked me those questions. I'm sure somebody might be bored enough to find out.
As already stated by me in this thread on multiple occasions, however, public transport is of no relevance here becasue almost everybody in NI will travel to any stadium by car regardless of where it is.
I recollect somebody by the name of SammyG actually agreeing with me.
Quote
Where will the fans eat, drink and stay?
You never asked me that question, but I'll give my opinion on it anyway.
Most will eat, drink and stay in south and west Ulster, because ss already stated in this thread, the vast majority of fans will be GAA ones.. Re away soccer fans - First thoughts would be Lisburn / Belfast or somewhere.
Can't see much of a hotel capacity problem given the relatively small number of sccer fans, especially international ones.
To be honest, I don't know too much about how away fans are managed.
when you watch NI abroad, do you travel to and from the match by coach, is it organised, do you always stay in hotels, or are you bussed in and out?
Quote
How many private developers have come forward to support the Maze development?
You never asked me that question, but again my guess is none,a s it appears so far anyway to be a publicly led development.
I imagine that private developers would be appointed once contracts are agreed.
Again see simple sammy friendly process flow above.
Quote
Why is the Maze seen as neutral, even though it is in a staunchly Loyalist area but the three Belfast sites are seen as not neutral even though they are all in either mixed or Nationalist areas?
You never asked me that question in this thread, but I do have recollections of replying to you on the same question months ago.
I probably told you that most GAA fans hope to be able to drive up/down the M1, off some sort of sliproad in a neutral area, not being within easy reach of bigots.
Admittedly really determined bigots could always drive out to abuse some GAA family, but realistically there would be more chance of casual abuse / menace close to loyalist areas, eg lower ravenhill road
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:46:36 PM
SammyG,
QuoteWhat lack of equality and what mutually beneficial 'Shared Spaces' strategy?
Says it all really.
You spout on here, fabricating to your heart's content, and quite plainly don't even know the basics of the Govt strategy on which the Maze proposal is based.
Breathtaking ignorace and arrogance in one.
Why don't you navigate away from here for a day or two and go do some much needed reading.
So other than being abusive are you actually going to answer the question?
Not being abusive - merely advising you to read up on the govt Shared Spaces strategy.
I could tell you what Shared Spaces is about, but that would be like telling the thick kid the answers to his homework.
It would be to his longer term benefit if he learnt it himself.
Btw, I'll give you a clue of where to start your reading.
Earlier in the thread, you were telling somebody to go away and actually read the UUJ
Belfast Propaganda Report.
I suggest you act on your own advise and read page 16 of the same report.
Paragraph 2, section 1.1 gives an overview of what Shared Spaces is all about.
Lads, is it not possible that some of the disagreements here could be that the soccer boys come from a sporting culture that is very different from ours? As Snatter says there'd be very few Gaels that have an attachment to Maze, but we have a slightly different mindset due to our experience of going to Championship games.
Sammy asks about single track roads and paying for buses to Maze, which are valid questions, and the answer is, the supporters will pay for buses and parking, but the nightmare scenario he/they are attempting to portray could be just exaggeration through concern of the unknown. We are used to sending 30k people down glorified tractor paths into Clones to sit in summer downpours, they are not.
For those that want to do it, hiring a bus for the day usually cost about a tenner per person - money that would be balanced out between the difference of pinting it in the pub and having a few tins on the bus. Presumably hiring the bus for half a day to Maze will not cost as much as Clones.
Apart from that, I feel they are missing out on the potential for the bigger draw their code will have at Maze, on top of the usual typical 16- 28 yo male on the piss. In the GAA we take families to matches who'll predominantly travel by car and enjoy the experience together. With a bit of common sense I can get in and out of Clones in half an hour and I don't see how this can't be managed at Maze which has a motorway as well as all the back roads that lead in and out of Clones. The bigger capacity and improved facilities at the Maze will give the soccer team the ability to facilitate family groups, pensioners, impaired, schools, youth clubs, dance groups, etc, etc, - all of which are the lifeblood of our games – and to be honest, even though we have our share of clowns, that broad mix makes for a more relaxing and even reassuring environment.
As for Sammy's line about neutrality of certain areas, we all know that is a red herring. It's not were the venue is situated but in the north, where you have to travel through to get there that is the main thing.
Nice load of patronising drivel Donagh, but again you refuse to actually address the issues. To answer a few of your points
There are loads of families (including mine) that go to football.
There are more than one access road to Clones, to try and compare it to the Maze is ridiculous.
Football fans also hire buses to get to and from matches (some of us have TVs and mobile phones and alsorts, you'd be amazed ;)) but there aren't enough buses in the whole of NI to get 30-40 K to and from the Maze and even if there was the road couldn't cope.
As far as the new stadium being a potential bigger draw, this is 100% true if people can get to it (ie it is in a town/city). There is no way on earth that a casual fan is going to sit in traffic for hours on end, get to the match late and then sit for hours on end to get home again. You have to remember that only a tiny percentage of NI fans want to stay at WP, the vast majority want a new stadium, for exactly the reasons you outline.
Re neutrality, you (or any other Maze supporters) have refused to answer the simple question. How can a city centre area that is already populated and used by all relegions (including yourself) be seen as not netutral, while the Maze in a staunchly Loyalist area is neutral? It is a very simple question.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 07:11:27 AM
Nice load of patronising drivel Donagh, but again you refuse to actually address the issues. To answer a few of your points
There are loads of families (including mine) that go to football.
There are more than one access road to Clones, to try and compare it to the Maze is ridiculous.
Football fans also hire buses to get to and from matches (some of us have TVs and mobile phones and alsorts, you'd be amazed ;)) but there aren't enough buses in the whole of NI to get 30-40 K to and from the Maze and even if there was the road couldn't cope.
As far as the new stadium being a potential bigger draw, this is 100% true if people can get to it (ie it is in a town/city). There is no way on earth that a casual fan is going to sit in traffic for hours on end, get to the match late and then sit for hours on end to get home again. You have to remember that only a tiny percentage of NI fans want to stay at WP, the vast majority want a new stadium, for exactly the reasons you outline.
Re neutrality, you (or any other Maze supporters) have refused to answer the simple question. How can a city centre area that is already populated and used by all relegions (including yourself) be seen as not netutral, while the Maze in a staunchly Loyalist area is neutral? It is a very simple question.
Morning Sammy,
The typical GAA crowd undoubtedly has a far higher percentage of families than NI soccer matches.
Its not about the number of roads, its the ability of those roads to support high volumes of traffic.
YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON THIS THREAD that the issue of public transport to the maze is of no importance. The vast vast majority of fans travelling to any new stadium anywhere in NI will do so by car.
Donagh's right the GAA culture is to support your team wherever they play. Our epic journeys to and especially from Clones make the journey to the maze look like a sunday stroll in comparison.
Sorry, Sammy. The quesition of neutrality was answered by myself only a few posts ago. I explained to you why most GAA fans would perceived the Maze as a safe neutral space. My answer was an exact repetition of my replies to you on the same question over the last few years, so not only has the question been answered in this thread, it was answered a long time ago. Perhaps you can explain why you continually ignore the existence of answers given.
Quote from: Donagh on June 21, 2007, 12:38:22 AM
Lads, is it not possible that some of the disagreements here could be that the soccer boys come from a sporting culture that is very different from ours? As Snatter says there'd be very few Gaels that have an attachment to Maze, but we have a slightly different mindset due to our experience of going to Championship games.
Sammy asks about single track roads and paying for buses to Maze, which are valid questions, and the answer is, the supporters will pay for buses and parking, but the nightmare scenario he/they are attempting to portray could be just exaggeration through concern of the unknown. We are used to sending 30k people down glorified tractor paths into Clones to sit in summer downpours, they are not.
For those that want to do it, hiring a bus for the day usually cost about a tenner per person - money that would be balanced out between the difference of pinting it in the pub and having a few tins on the bus. Presumably hiring the bus for half a day to Maze will not cost as much as Clones.
Apart from that, I feel they are missing out on the potential for the bigger draw their code will have at Maze, on top of the usual typical 16- 28 yo male on the piss. In the GAA we take families to matches who'll predominantly travel by car and enjoy the experience together. With a bit of common sense I can get in and out of Clones in half an hour and I don't see how this can't be managed at Maze which has a motorway as well as all the back roads that lead in and out of Clones. The bigger capacity and improved facilities at the Maze will give the soccer team the ability to facilitate family groups, pensioners, impaired, schools, youth clubs, dance groups, etc, etc, - all of which are the lifeblood of our games – and to be honest, even though we have our share of clowns, that broad mix makes for a more relaxing and even reassuring environment.
As for Sammy's line about neutrality of certain areas, we all know that is a red herring. It's not were the venue is situated but in the north, where you have to travel through to get there that is the main thing.
Donagh,
all sensible, all correct.
The problem is that these points were made to the OWC brigade at the start of the debate, a couple of years ago.
They've had more than enough time to consider them, but none of it has appeared to sink in.
The reality is that in all this time they've failed to come up with any better alternative than the Maze which provides an equally neutral location acceptable to the governing bodies of all three sports.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Morning Sammy,
Morning
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
The typical GAA crowd undoubtedly has a far higher percentage of families than NI soccer matches.
I haven't seen any figures but I'd be amazed if that was true.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Its not about the number of roads, its the ability of those roads to support high volumes of traffic.
At last you finally got it (it's only taken a year ;) the issue is the lack of road capacity to the Maze and no plans or budget to expand it.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON THIS THREAD that the issue of public transport to the maze is of no importance. The vast vast majority of fans travelling to any new stadium anywhere in NI will do so by car.
Sorry I've agreed nothing of the sort. I said that the majority of people using the Maze will HAVE TO use cars. That doesn't mean that public transport isn't an issue.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Donagh's right the GAA culture is to support your team wherever they play. Our epic journeys to and especially from Clones make the journey to the maze look like a sunday stroll in comparison.
Aye the lads that travel to Azerbijan, or the Carribean or the US or Estonia (to name a few recent trips) are all worried about travelling a few miles to watch their team. ::) You know full well that the distance to/from the Maze is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Sorry, Sammy. The quesition of neutrality was answered by myself only a few posts ago. I explained to you why most GAA fans would perceived the Maze as a safe neutral space. My answer was an exact repetition of my replies to you on the same question over the last few years, so not only has the question been answered in this thread, it was answered a long time ago. Perhaps you can explain why you continually ignore the existence of answers given.
You keep repeating the same answer about your PERCEPTION but you refuse to answer the question about the REALITY. A bit like your answer about the amazing moveable stands. ;)
Anyway I'm away to work. I'll check back later when I get a minute.
Sammy
The issue of access to the maze site will not be an issue. Although there are no plans (at the min) for an access road from the motorway, one will need to be developed. If the Maze is never used for a multi sports stadium and is used for development for 1000 odd houses, do you think that an access road isn't going to be developed for these people to access the main route in/out Belfast (granted the developers will have to pay a substantial part of the costs but it will still be developed) Similarily if the poposed stadium is built an access road will be built due to necessity even if there are none proposed by the road service at the min.
Guys, its a bit off topic, but how in the hell do some of you have time to go into such detail so regularly?
I can only imagine that EG and Sammy for example, are members of other boards also, they are hardly going to have this as their no1 site given their feelings for the GAA.
This isnt an insult or anything, I'm genuinely interested as to how you make the time.
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on June 21, 2007, 09:50:01 AM
Sammy
The issue of access to the maze site will not be an issue. Although there are no plans (at the min) for an access road from the motorway, one will need to be developed. If the Maze is never used for a multi sports stadium and is used for development for 1000 odd houses, do you think that an access road isn't going to be developed for these people to access the main route in/out Belfast (granted the developers will have to pay a substantial part of the costs but it will still be developed) Similarily if the poposed stadium is built an access road will be built due to necessity even if there are none proposed by the road service at the min.
Simply saying it will be built doesn't actually fix the issues.
How will it be built (the road service have said they won't be doing it and don't have the extra capacity required to fit it in) and who will pay for it (it is not budgetted in either the general roads budget or the Maze stadium budget)? These questions have been asked in great detail, to the Roads Service, the SIB, the Maze Advisory Panel, the UK Parliament and the Assembly and none of them have been able to answer either of these questions. Also the current published Maze plan doesn't mention any new motorway junction/expanded road capacity.
I do think it's funny that people who wouldn't normally trust a DUPer to wsh their car, are willing to take on trust that the issues at the Maze will be resolved, just because Poots says so.
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 21, 2007, 10:23:11 AM
Guys, its a bit off topic, but how in the hell do some of you have time to go into such detail so regularly?
Have a look at the posting times. Most of the detailed answers are at 10 or 11 at night. As sad as it is the Maze is one of my highest priority 'leisure time' issues. I spend far too much time, either on message boards or contacting MLAs/MPs/Councillors or making freedom of information requests or reading studies from other stadia or contacting designers/planners etc etc etc. If this goes ahead it will be the end of football in NI, within 5 years, so any time spent stopping it will be well spent, in my opinion.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 10:51:27 AM
If this goes ahead it will be the end of football in NI, within 5 years
Its win win then!
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 10:51:27 AM
Have a look at the posting times. Most of the detailed answers are at 10 or 11 at night. As sad as it is the Maze is one of my highest priority 'leisure time' issues. I spend far too much time, either on message boards or contacting MLAs/MPs/Councillors or making freedom of information requests or reading studies from other stadia or contacting designers/planners etc etc etc. If this goes ahead it will be the end of football in NI, within 5 years, so any time spent stopping it will be well spent, in my opinion.
Cheers, one of the main reasons I dont get back with the required "examples" etc when asked for them is purely down to trying to squeeze quick posts in between work!
I suppose if its a priority its a priority, no matter what your argument.
p.s. Football will last for many many years in NI regardless, not sure about soccer though ;)
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Morning Sammy,
Morning
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
The typical GAA crowd undoubtedly has a far higher percentage of families than NI soccer matches.
I haven't seen any figures but I'd be amazed if that was true.
Sammy,
not only is it a general observation, but empirical evidence backs my statement.
In the early 90's, when Ulster GAA belatedly started to get the TV media its attendences deserved, the Ulster Council commssioned a survey on the make-up of typical GAA crowds.
The purpose was to make it easier for agencies to sell advertising/sponsorship to potential clients.
The survey found that GAA crowds broadly reflected the socio-economic profile of society as a whole. The survey found that rlster rugby tended to attract more ABC's, whilst local soccer was skewed towardds higher numebrs of DEF's.
One clear exception stood out - the proportion of women and kids at GAA matches far exceeded that of local rugby or soccer.
More recently, the ESRI report on recreational acticivity in ireland reported that the GAA had a startlingly higher female participation and attendance rate than other international sports. This is merely a reflection of the GAA's strong family base. The ESRI report is still online - if you want I'll dig out a link later if you are uncharacteristically inclined to read it.
In this thread, Evil Genuis had no problem accepting that GAA crowds are more family orientated, and indeed wished that the IFA tried to emulate its success in attracting more families, and by extension higher crowds.
Quote
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Its not about the number of roads, its the ability of those roads to support high volumes of traffic.
At last you finally got it (it's only taken a year ;) the issue is the lack of road capacity to the Maze and no plans or budget to expand it.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON THIS THREAD that the issue of public transport to the maze is of no importance. The vast vast majority of fans travelling to any new stadium anywhere in NI will do so by car.
Sorry I've agreed nothing of the sort. I said that the majority of people using the Maze will HAVE TO use cars. That doesn't mean that public transport isn't an issue.
Sammy,
OK, you pedant, I'll append your statement to mine:
YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON THIS THREAD that the issue of public transport to the maze is of no importance. The vast vast majority of fans travelling to any new stadium anywhere in NI will do so by car becasue ( in the absence of any decent public transport that delivers them from their point of origin to a new stadium anywhere in NI) they will HAVE TO use cars.
End result? Fcuk all differenece in the point I made, namely that public transport is a total red herring for any ni stadium, regardless of location because the vast vast majority of fans
will have to use cars to get there.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:34:39 PM
Sammy,
not only is it a general observation, but empirical evidence backs my statement.
In the early 90's, when Ulster GAA belatedly started to get the TV media its attendences deserved, the Ulster Council commssioned a survey on the make-up of typical GAA crowds.
The purpose was to make it easier for agencies to sell advertising/sponsorship to potential clients.
The survey found that GAA crowds broadly reflected the socio-economic profile of society as a whole. The survey found that rlster rugby tended to attract more ABC's, whilst local soccer was skewed towardds higher numebrs of DEF's.
One clear exception stood out - the proportion of women and kids at GAA matches far exceeded that of local rugby or soccer.
More recently, the ESRI report on recreational acticivity in ireland reported that the GAA had a startlingly higher female participation and attendance rate than other international sports. This is merely a reflection of the GAA's strong family base. The ESRI report is still online - if you want I'll dig out a link later if you are uncharacteristically inclined to read it.
A report from the early 90's would definitely show football as being a 16-24 working class male sport, luckily things have moved on and the crowd now contains a very high proportion of women and kids, as well as disabled groups, community groups, schools etc.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:34:39 PM
In this thread, Evil Genuis had no problem accepting that GAA crowds are more family orientated, and indeed wished that the IFA tried to emulate its success in attracting more families, and by extension higher crowds.
Slightly different issue, most other sports fans (including me) are jealous of the GAA and would like to attract the sort of crowds that the GAA do, that doesn't mean that we don't have families at football or rugby matches.
Quote
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Donagh's right the GAA culture is to support your team wherever they play. Our epic journeys to and especially from Clones make the journey to the maze look like a sunday stroll in comparison.
Quote
Aye the lads that travel to Azerbijan, or the Carribean or the US or Estonia (to name a few recent trips) are all worried about travelling a few miles to watch their team. ::) You know full well that the distance to/from the Maze is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Agreed, distance isn't the issue - its journey time. If you're prepared to travel to Azerbaijan, then you'll find the trip to the Maze much quicker (and much quicker than the one to Clones that up to 36k GAA fans make routinely).
I genuinely don't see your problem here.
To be honest its pointless debating this one with you any further. All Clones attending GAA fans laugh at you guys whinging about going from Belfast to teh MAze, but you guys think it will be some sort of epic journey, taking half a day to get there.
I guess only a qualified traffic engineer would be able to accurately study journey times of those who would use any new stadium.
Again, that another reason why yesterdays UUJ report was rubbish - it chose not to establish the numbers, frequency and trasnport mode of those most likely to use the stadium. My guess - it would have cruelly exposed that the vast majorityu of users would be GAA fans from south and west Ulster.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:36:28 PM
Quote
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Its not about the number of roads, its the ability of those roads to support high volumes of traffic.
At last you finally got it (it's only taken a year ;) the issue is the lack of road capacity to the Maze and no plans or budget to expand it.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON THIS THREAD that the issue of public transport to the maze is of no importance. The vast vast majority of fans travelling to any new stadium anywhere in NI will do so by car.
Sorry I've agreed nothing of the sort. I said that the majority of people using the Maze will HAVE TO use cars. That doesn't mean that public transport isn't an issue.
Sammy,
OK, you pedant, I'll append your statement to mine:
YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON THIS THREAD that the issue of public transport to the maze is of no importance. The vast vast majority of fans travelling to any new stadium anywhere in NI will do so by car becasue ( in the absence of any decent public transport that delivers them from their point of origin to a new stadium anywhere in NI) they will HAVE TO use cars.
End result? Fcuk all differenece in the point I made, namely that public transport is a total red herring for any ni stadium, regardless of location because the vast vast majority of fans will have to use cars to get there.
Do you need a hand moving those goalposts or are you alright?
Quote
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Sorry, Sammy. The quesition of neutrality was answered by myself only a few posts ago. I explained to you why most GAA fans would perceived the Maze as a safe neutral space. My answer was an exact repetition of my replies to you on the same question over the last few years, so not only has the question been answered in this thread, it was answered a long time ago. Perhaps you can explain why you continually ignore the existence of answers given.
You keep repeating the same answer about your PERCEPTION but you refuse to answer the question about the REALITY. A bit like your answer about the amazing moveable stands. ;)
Anyway I'm away to work. I'll check back later when I get a minute.
SammyG,
the REALITY is that a neutral site can not be clearly defined.
A neutral location is not a concrete object that can be accurately measured.
In a divided society like NI, neutrality is itself a PERCEPTION.
One person's view of a neutral location might differ from anothers, and people may disagree on what exactly construes a neutral site.
Another shortcoming of yesterday's UUJ report is that it was not empowered to actually explore what GAA fans / Nationalists / et al defined as a neutral site, or the degree of concensus within each group.
Imho, the UUJ academics should have commissioned QUB's highly esteemed school of Ethnic Geography who specialise in studying how human perceptions of safety / threat in divided socities affect land use patterns. Do a google on work by Prof Boal if you want to read more.
To illiustrate, Donagh reckoned that an unsafe area was one that entailed him having to drive through a loyalist area to get to it.
My own definition would focus in on the immediate area that borders the walk from where I'd park my car to the stadium, and how accessible that area was to neighbouring hard core areas, eg lower ravenhill road.
Other GAA fans (possibly remembering unionist rioting and disorder in July 1996) might say that anywhere close to Belfast is too risky, given that loyalists / OO whoever could block roads to prevent anyone getting to a GAA match.
MY guit feeling is that most GAA fans would be happier with the Maze than any site in Belfast because they perceive it as a little too risky when travlelling into Belfast as part of a 40k strong GAA support. The sheer numbers of GAA fans would be too tempting for the hard core sectarian minority within loyalist areas who would be tempted to abuse them.
The failure of the anti-Maze brigade to come up with an alternative neutral site acceptable to the GAA and other bodies after two years suggets that that there mightn't actually be one in Belfast.
Snatter - it isnt just Belfast NI fans that are against the Maze.
Those from other parts of NI have also come out against it.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 01:40:29 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:34:39 PM
Sammy,
not only is it a general observation, but empirical evidence backs my statement.
In the early 90's, when Ulster GAA belatedly started to get the TV media its attendences deserved, the Ulster Council commssioned a survey on the make-up of typical GAA crowds.
The purpose was to make it easier for agencies to sell advertising/sponsorship to potential clients.
The survey found that GAA crowds broadly reflected the socio-economic profile of society as a whole. The survey found that rlster rugby tended to attract more ABC's, whilst local soccer was skewed towardds higher numebrs of DEF's.
One clear exception stood out - the proportion of women and kids at GAA matches far exceeded that of local rugby or soccer.
More recently, the ESRI report on recreational acticivity in ireland reported that the GAA had a startlingly higher female participation and attendance rate than other international sports. This is merely a reflection of the GAA's strong family base. The ESRI report is still online - if you want I'll dig out a link later if you are uncharacteristically inclined to read it.
A report from the early 90's would definitely show football as being a 16-24 working class male sport, luckily things have moved on and the crowd now contains a very high proportion of women and kids, as well as disabled groups, community groups, schools etc.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:34:39 PM
In this thread, Evil Genuis had no problem accepting that GAA crowds are more family orientated, and indeed wished that the IFA tried to emulate its success in attracting more families, and by extension higher crowds.
Slightly different issue, most other sports fans (including me) are jealous of the GAA and would like to attract the sort of crowds that the GAA do, that doesn't mean that we don't have families at football or rugby matches.
Sorry Sammy,
that's not the point you were making.
You said you would be amazed if GAA attendences had a much higher proportion of families attending than NI soccer.
The recent ESRI re-confirms my statement as correct.
Yes, soccer may have increased its level of families attending since the 1990's, but the GAA levels are still way in excess of the IFA's.
Goalposts moved back into place!
Quote from: nifan on June 21, 2007, 01:44:27 PM
Snatter - it isnt just Belfast NI fans that are against the Maze.
Those from other parts of NI have also come out against it.
Yep,
I'd accept that, but that's not the core issue.
The core issue is that the anti-Maze brigade have failed to come up with any alternative neutral site acceptable to the governing bodies of all three sports.
In the absence of any alternative, then any publicly backed project within the Govt's Shared Spaces strategy has to proceed on the only agreed site available.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:54:36 PMThe core issue is that the anti-Maze brigade have failed to come up with any alternative neutral site acceptable to the governing bodies of all three sports.
In the absence of any alternative, then any publicly backed project within the Govt's Shared Spaces strategy has to proceed on the only agreed site available.
Even if your statement was ture (which it clearly isn't) it would still make no sense. You're saying that we should continue with an economically unviable site, with no infrastruture, no access, no hotels ,no bars etc etc etc just because you don't want to look at the alternatives. Even if there was NO alternatives on the table the Maze would still be wrong for all the reasons that have already been laid out. You can't waste £100's of millions of tax-payers money just because there are no alternatives.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 10:51:27 AM
Quote from: his holiness nb on June 21, 2007, 10:23:11 AM
Guys, its a bit off topic, but how in the hell do some of you have time to go into such detail so regularly?
Have a look at the posting times. Most of the detailed answers are at 10 or 11 at night. As sad as it is the Maze is one of my highest priority 'leisure time' issues. I spend far too much time, either on message boards or contacting MLAs/MPs/Councillors or making freedom of information requests or reading studies from other stadia or contacting designers/planners etc etc etc. If this goes ahead it will be the end of football in NI, within 5 years, so any time spent stopping it will be well spent, in my opinion.
To be honest, I've long since given up trying to influence the OWC brigade.
For the past few years they seem to be on some sort of delusional crusade to get a wee stadium for themselves out of the public purse, that suits them perfectly but not a sport that attracts ten times more specators.
The only reason I bother with this is
1.
to keep the issue high in the consciousness of GAA fans, to make sure that these guys don't get away with it, and to ensure that we get fairly catered for.
I keep exposing their argument as flawed just in case any weaker GAA souls (like slow corner back) fall for their lies and accept some carve-up of the money as being acceptable.
Any carve up of the govt money would undoubtedly leave us worse off, as it would fail to reflect our higher attendences and more expensive build costs for large sized gaa stadia.
2.
I genuinely believe that the long term futuer of GAA in N Ireland relies on getting unionists to accept it as no more threatening than irish dancing.
A high class shared stadium , accesible to many unionists in greater belfast area gives us a far better stage to sell our games to them than some desolate uncovered concrete bowl in Clones.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:54:36 PMThe core issue is that the anti-Maze brigade have failed to come up with any alternative neutral site acceptable to the governing bodies of all three sports.
In the absence of any alternative, then any publicly backed project within the Govt's Shared Spaces strategy has to proceed on the only agreed site available.
Even if your statement was ture (which it clearly isn't)
Oh I must have missed that announcement.
Where exactly is this new alternative neutral site, acceptable to all three governing bodies?
Have you got a google map link to it or something?
Or is it buried somewhere deep in your head, alongside your reality filter?
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:03:55 PM
I genuinely believe that the long term futuer of GAA in N Ireland relies on getting unionists to accept it as no more threatening than irish dancing.
A high class shared stadium , accesible to many unionists in greater belfast area gives us a far better stage to sell our games to them than some desolate uncovered concrete bowl in Clones.
100% agree, so why have you been arguing for the Maze for the last year or more? ::)
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 02:26:04 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:03:55 PM
I genuinely believe that the long term futuer of GAA in N Ireland relies on getting unionists to accept it as no more threatening than irish dancing.
A high class shared stadium , accesible to many unionists in greater belfast area gives us a far better stage to sell our games to them than some desolate uncovered concrete bowl in Clones.
100% agree, so why have you been arguing for the Maze for the last year or more? ::)
as already stated in this thread, whilst not exactly passionate about the Maze, it does appear to be the only neutral location accepatable to all three sports' governing bodies.
I would definately categorise the Maze as being within the greater belfast area, its less than 10 miles away ffs.
Just fyi, in geographic parlance, the "greater" area arround a city describes an immediate catchment area, whose inhabitants are higly relient on the services of the main city.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:34:23 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 02:26:04 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:03:55 PM
I genuinely believe that the long term futuer of GAA in N Ireland relies on getting unionists to accept it as no more threatening than irish dancing.
A high class shared stadium , accesible to many unionists in greater belfast area gives us a far better stage to sell our games to them than some desolate uncovered concrete bowl in Clones.
100% agree, so why have you been arguing for the Maze for the last year or more? ::)
as already stated in this thread, whilst not exactly passionate about the Maze, it does appear to be the only neutral location accepatable to all three sports' governing bodies.
I would definately categorise the Maze as being within the greater belfast area, its less than 10 miles away ffs.
Just fyi, in geographic parlance, the "greater" area arround a city describes an immediate catchment area, whose inhabitants are higly relient on the services of the main city.
I think that's called strecthing a definition to breaking point. The Maze isn't even in Greater Lisburn, nevermind Greater Belfast, it's a field in the middle of nowehere. It doesn't have any inhabitants or any catchment areas, it's a field.
OK, so you say the Maze is not within greater belfast, and I say it is..lets let the geographers out there decide.
Moving on...I'm still waiting with baited breath for details of this new last-minute neutral location, agreed by all 3 sports' governing bodies:
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:54:36 PMThe core issue is that the anti-Maze brigade have failed to come up with any alternative neutral site acceptable to the governing bodies of all three sports.
In the absence of any alternative, then any publicly backed project within the Govt's Shared Spaces strategy has to proceed on the only agreed site available.
Even if your statement was ture (which it clearly isn't)
Oh I must have missed that announcement.
Where exactly is this new alternative neutral site, acceptable to all three governing bodies?
Have you got a google map link to it or something?
Or is it buried somewhere deep in your head, alongside your reality filter?
Where is it? tell me please please please
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:40:54 PM
OK, so you say the Maze is not within greater belfast, and I say it is..lets let the geographers out there decide.
Moving on...I'm still waiting with baited breath for details of this new last-minute neutral location, agreed by all 3 sports' governing bodies:
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:54:36 PMThe core issue is that the anti-Maze brigade have failed to come up with any alternative neutral site acceptable to the governing bodies of all three sports.
In the absence of any alternative, then any publicly backed project within the Govt's Shared Spaces strategy has to proceed on the only agreed site available.
Even if your statement was ture (which it clearly isn't)
Oh I must have missed that announcement.
Where exactly is this new alternative neutral site, acceptable to all three governing bodies?
Have you got a google map link to it or something?
Or is it buried somewhere deep in your head, alongside your reality filter?
Where is it? tell me please please please
Ormeau Park is 100% neutral (with slightly Nationalist leanings but nothing to bother anybody), it is available to all sports, in fact the developers have said they'll welcome just about anything, monster trucks, concerts, fecking tiddlywinks if it makes them a few quid. But as previously stated the fact that you don't like the alternatives doesn't make the Maze acceptable.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 02:44:06 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:40:54 PM
OK, so you say the Maze is not within greater belfast, and I say it is..lets let the geographers out there decide.
Moving on...I'm still waiting with baited breath for details of this new last-minute neutral location, agreed by all 3 sports' governing bodies:
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:07:20 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 02:01:33 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:54:36 PMThe core issue is that the anti-Maze brigade have failed to come up with any alternative neutral site acceptable to the governing bodies of all three sports.
In the absence of any alternative, then any publicly backed project within the Govt's Shared Spaces strategy has to proceed on the only agreed site available.
Even if your statement was ture (which it clearly isn't)
Oh I must have missed that announcement.
Where exactly is this new alternative neutral site, acceptable to all three governing bodies?
Have you got a google map link to it or something?
Or is it buried somewhere deep in your head, alongside your reality filter?
Where is it? tell me please please please
Ormeau Park is 100% neutral (with slightly Nationalist leanings but nothing to bother anybody), it is available to all sports, in fact the developers have said they'll welcome just about anything, monster trucks, concerts, fecking tiddlywinks if it makes them a few quid. But as previously stated the fact that you don't like the alternatives doesn't make the Maze acceptable.
Sammy,
out of interest, did you read my very recent post of what constitutes a neutral area?
If so, did you understand what it meant?
Did you comprehend that your definition of a neutral area mightn't be shared by GAA fans?
Oh I forgot, in your head, it really doesn't matter what others think - you alone are the sole arbitrar of whats right and wrong.
And just to make sure that teh goalposts stay firmly planted - I categorically stated that
NO OTHER NEUTRAL SITE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY ALL THREE SPORTS' GOVERNING BODIES.You said that was not trueYou're lying.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:53:42 PMSammy,
out of interest, did you read my very recent post of what constitutes a neutral area?
If so, did you understand what it meant?
Did you comprehend that your definition of a neutral area mightn't be shared by GAA fans?
Oh I forgot, in your head, it really doesn't matter what others think - you alone are the sole arbitrar of whats right and wrong.
No I didn't see your post about neutral areas, I'll read back and have a look. I'm not the arbitrar of anything (right, wrong or otherwise) I'm just pointing out that a stadium based in a park that is currently used by all 'sides' and which will have access from the city centre (neutral), lower Ormeau (Nationalist) and the Revanhill area (Mixed but mainly Unionist) is surely more neutral than one in the middle of a staunchly Loyalist area. You don't seem to have a problem with the Maze area being 100% Loyalist/Unionist but you do have a problem with a mixed area in Belfast.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:42:06 PMTo be honest its pointless debating this one with you any further. All Clones attending GAA fans laugh at you guys whinging about going from Belfast to teh MAze, but you guys think it will be some sort of epic journey, taking half a day to get there.
I guess only a qualified traffic engineer would be able to accurately study journey times of those who would use any new stadium.
Sorry I missed this earlier, a qualified traffic engineer (in fact several) have looked at the proposals and have all deemed them to be unworkable, that is the whole point of this discussion. I'm not opposed to the Maze on some point of principle (in fact when it was first mentioned I supported it), I'm opposed because it won't work.
RIght Snatter I've read your post about neutral sites and your answer seems to be that it doesn't matter what is in the area, what the makeup is etc all that matters is your perception. Christ you had the cheek to accuse me of arrogance.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 03:01:52 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:42:06 PMTo be honest its pointless debating this one with you any further. All Clones attending GAA fans laugh at you guys whinging about going from Belfast to teh MAze, but you guys think it will be some sort of epic journey, taking half a day to get there.
I guess only a qualified traffic engineer would be able to accurately study journey times of those who would use any new stadium.
Sorry I missed this earlier, a qualified traffic engineer (in fact several) have looked at the proposals and have all deemed them to be unworkable, that is the whole point of this discussion. I'm not opposed to the Maze on some point of principle (in fact when it was first mentioned I supported it), I'm opposed because it won't work.
News to me.
Can you give me a link to their findings?
What were their assumptions on attendance numbers, the origin of most fans, and their mode of travel?
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 03:04:45 PM
RIght Snatter I've read your post about neutral sites and your answer seems to be that it doesn't matter what is in the area, what the makeup is etc all that matters is your perception. Christ you had the cheek to accuse me of arrogance.
At least I've exposed the fact that you don't read others' posts before adding to the thread. Breathtaking.
Anyway, you're obviously suffering from some learning disability here.
I never said that I personally decided what officially constitued a neutral area.
Instead, I made clear that
QuoteOne person's view of a neutral location might differ from anothers, and people may disagree on what exactly construes a neutral site.
To illiustrate, Donagh reckoned that an unsafe area was one that entailed him having to drive through a loyalist area to get to it.
My own definition would focus in on the immediate area that borders the walk from where I'd park my car to the stadium, and how accessible that area was to neighbouring hard core areas, eg lower ravenhill road.
Other GAA fans (possibly remembering unionist rioting and disorder in July 1996) might say that anywhere close to Belfast is too risky, given that loyalists / OO whoever could block roads to prevent anyone getting to a GAA match.
btw, I'd split upper ravenhill and lower ravenhill ito two very different areas.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:42:06 PM
Quote
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 07:28:52 AM
Donagh's right the GAA culture is to support your team wherever they play. Our epic journeys to and especially from Clones make the journey to the maze look like a sunday stroll in comparison.
Quote
Aye the lads that travel to Azerbijan, or the Carribean or the US or Estonia (to name a few recent trips) are all worried about travelling a few miles to watch their team. ::) You know full well that the distance to/from the Maze is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.
Agreed, distance isn't the issue - its journey time. If you're prepared to travel to Azerbaijan, then you'll find the trip to the Maze much quicker (and much quicker than the one to Clones that up to 36k GAA fans make routinely).
I genuinely don't see your problem here.
To be honest its pointless debating this one with you any further. All Clones attending GAA fans laugh at you guys whinging about going from Belfast to teh MAze, but you guys think it will be some sort of epic journey, taking half a day to get there.
I guess only a qualified traffic engineer would be able to accurately study journey times of those who would use any new stadium.
Journey times/accessibility is only one aspect which causes NI fans overwhelmingly to oppose the Maze. But on this particular point, you overlook one critical factor. Big GAA games in e.g. Clones are played on a Sunday afternoon in Summer. Therefore, crowds can stagger ther arrival and departure times, both to the town and to the stadium, and can hope for reasonable weather for travelling (as well as daylight, obviously).
However, the majority of NI games are evening kick-offs, often in the winter months. Not only that, but the bulk of the supporters come from Belfast or the East of the Province. Many more work in and around Belfast itself.
Therefore, loads of fans finish work/school/college etc in the afternoon and making their way by a number of routes and "establishments"(!) to Windsor Park for a 7.45 kick-off. And after the game, those that wish can stay locally until the crowd disperses, or head off sharpish if they want to beat the rush or have a distance to go. And by 10 or 11 o'clock on a midweek evening, getting through/round Belfast, by a number of alternative routes, is not
that difficult.
Whereas, if we have to go to the Maze, since there are absolutely no plans or budget for any significant public transport, the majority of fans will all be going at the same time, along the same single road (M1) to hit the same spur road to the Stadium as several thousand other drivers. Such a journey is bad enough at the best of times. But in bad weather after dark, it is inevitably slower.
And I haven't even got round to mentioning the Belfast Rush Hour - half of which will be heading out along Boucher Road, Stockman's Lane, Westlink etc to get onto the M1 on their journey home at exactly the same time.
And exiting the Maze post-match will be no better, since although the Rush Hour will be over, there will be sod-all in the vicinity of the stadium car park to cause people to linger, so everyone of several thousand cars will be starting thier engines at 9.45 pm and heading for the same single Junction of the M1 (if it's ever built, that is). Believe me, if the frustration doesn't kill, the exhaust fumes will...
This one aspect alone makes the Maze a recipe for disaster.
And btw, on a more general note, almost all of the member clubs of the Supporters' Amalgamation have voted their opposition to the Maze, from Enniskillen to Castlederg to Londonderry etc, including even Hillsborough - the NISC which is closest to the bloody Maze. Ninety per cent of regular fans consider that the stadium should be built somewhere in Belfast.
Personally, I have no desire to get into a "them and us" argument with GAA fans. Those that have expressed a preference seem to prefer the Maze (or not Belfast, at any rate), which is fair enough. But how would you feel if the Government told you that it was insisting on spending £100 million plus of all our taxes on a stadium in a location which 90% of you didn't want, on the basis that soccer preferred that, and you were powerless to object?
You'd be spitting mad, and quite right, too. And what makes it even more galling is that this whole scheme is politically, rather than sports-motivated, on the spurious notion that a combined stadium will somehow bring supporters of the three codes magically together.
I have asked this question several times, without ever receiving a persuasive answer:
How/Why would Ulster rugby fans going out to the Maze on a Friday evening in winter have cause to mix with soccer fans attending the following Wednesday evening, or either have opportunity to integrate with GAA fans attending a match on a Sunday afternoon in Summer, just because they happen to use the same stadium?
The new Wembley Stadium has already been used for a number of different purposes, but I doubt very much whether the George Michael fanclub has been inundated with applications to join from Ingurland soccer supporters! ::)
I genuinely would like to see greater mixing and understanding between supporters of the three codes, but I'm buggered if I can see how the Maze is going to do this.
On the basis that "A Camel is a Horse designed by a Committee", it is folly (in my opinion) to try to find a "one size fits all" solution to all our needs, since our requirements and circumstances are so much different (and I don't mean on the political or religious front, btw).
Much better to divide, say, half of the £100m+ of Maze money fairly between the three codes, to spend as they they think best (after all, they should know best), on condition that all three must demonstrate that in spending the money, whether on facilities, youth development, community work etc, that they can demonstrate how it is helping each sport reach out beyind their traditional support-base.And the great majority of the population, who have no great interest in sport, if truth be told, would no doubt be happy to see the remaining half (their/our taxes, after all), spent on schools and hospitals etc.
Finally, the Government could also raise hundreds of millions of pounds by selling the Maze for development, and the rest of us would see another 1000+ badly needed houses released onto the market.
Or am I one of these lunatics who thinks everyone else imust be insane, because they don't see things this way? ???
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:53:42 PM
And just to make sure that teh goalposts stay firmly planted - I categorically stated that
NO OTHER NEUTRAL SITE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY ALL THREE SPORTS' GOVERNING BODIES.
I'm afraid this idea that all three sports "approve" of the location is one of the most spurious points made by proponents of the Maze.
I won't dare to speak for GAA fans, but I'm hardly surprised if they are reasonably enthusiastic about a scheme whereby they were able to demand that the original capacity (28,000 btw) be extended to 42,000 to suit their needs and that no location within Belfast be considered, thereby leaving only the Maze. I don't blame them one jot for negotiating from a position of strength, especially since they know they have alternatives at Casemnet, Clones or Croke, should the Maze not turn out to their satisfaction. Nonetheless, I note that this policy decision to support the Maze has not actually been put to the membership in Ulster. Are fans in Monaghan or Antrim/Belfast entirely happy to see games taken away from St. Tiernach's or Casement?
As for rugby fans, the URFU has agreed to go along with this scheme. However, it is obvious to anyone who knows anything about the game that thjey will not ever hold more than one or two games a season maximum. In the meantime, they will make all the right noises in public, since they are awaitng the final installment of an £8 million Government Grant to do up Ravenhill (to a 14,000 capacity, btw).
And as for soccer - we are so seriously strapped for cash, but in dire need of a new stadium, that the IFA will accept any bloody proposal that has even an outside chance of being built. Consequently, whatever the private reservations that many hold, they simply cannot be seen to be anything other than positive.
So there you have it: One sport which is supportive on the basis that it's just a free addition to their existing portfolio of venues, another that doesn't give a fig, since it won't have to use it, and a third sport acquiescing since the Government has a gun to their head.
And through it all, no-one is bothering to ask the taxpayers of NI whether they want £100m+ of their money spent on a stadium dreamed up by some English/Welsh ministers, parachuted in by Downing Street, with a brief to establish some sort of "legacy".
f**k this is depressing... >:(
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 21, 2007, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:53:42 PM
And just to make sure that teh goalposts stay firmly planted - I categorically stated that
NO OTHER NEUTRAL SITE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY ALL THREE SPORTS' GOVERNING BODIES.
I won't dare to speak for GAA fans, but I'm hardly surprised if they are reasonably enthusiastic about a scheme whereby they were able to demand that the original capacity (28,000 btw) be extended to 42,000 to suit their needs and that no location within Belfast be considered, thereby leaving only the Maze. I don't blame them one jot for negotiating from a position of strength, especially since they know they have alternatives at Casemnet, Clones or Croke, should the Maze not turn out to their satisfaction. Nonetheless, I note that this policy decision to support the Maze has not actually been put to the membership in Ulster. Are fans in Monaghan or Antrim/Belfast entirely happy to see games taken away from St. Tiernach's or Casement?
f**k this is depressing... >:( nah, it is brilliant. :)
As for taking games away from Clones, that will be one of the major attractions for me, I hate that dump and am delighted I wont have to go back.
As for Casement, GAA fans will go anywhere to watch their team play so the shafties will have to travel a few mile down the road to watch a game at the maze and shure cant they marvel at the memorial when they are there, unless of course owc's finest big rab hasnt taken a massey ferguson to it.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 03:10:48 PMAt least I've exposed the fact that you don't read others' posts before adding to the thread. Breathtaking.
Sorry your post was a couple of pages back and I missed it, hardly the crime of the century.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 03:10:48 PM
Anyway, you're obviously suffering from some learning disability here.
I never said that I personally decided what officially constitued a neutral area.
Instead, I made clear that
QuoteOne person's view of a neutral location might differ from anothers, and people may disagree on what exactly construes a neutral site.
To illiustrate, Donagh reckoned that an unsafe area was one that entailed him having to drive through a loyalist area to get to it.
My own definition would focus in on the immediate area that borders the walk from where I'd park my car to the stadium, and how accessible that area was to neighbouring hard core areas, eg lower ravenhill road.
Other GAA fans (possibly remembering unionist rioting and disorder in July 1996) might say that anywhere close to Belfast is too risky, given that loyalists / OO whoever could block roads to prevent anyone getting to a GAA match.
btw, I'd split upper ravenhill and lower ravenhill ito two very different areas.
Ignoring the fact that you've resorted to personal abuse (again),If you can't use actually demographic evidence and have to base it on perceptions who do you think should make the decison on whether an area is 'neutral'?
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 05:12:15 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 03:10:48 PMAt least I've exposed the fact that you don't read others' posts before adding to the thread. Breathtaking.
Sorry your post was a couple of pages back and I missed it, hardly the crime of the century.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 03:10:48 PM
Anyway, you're obviously suffering from some learning disability here.
I never said that I personally decided what officially constitued a neutral area.
Instead, I made clear that
QuoteOne person's view of a neutral location might differ from anothers, and people may disagree on what exactly construes a neutral site.
To illiustrate, Donagh reckoned that an unsafe area was one that entailed him having to drive through a loyalist area to get to it.
My own definition would focus in on the immediate area that borders the walk from where I'd park my car to the stadium, and how accessible that area was to neighbouring hard core areas, eg lower ravenhill road.
Other GAA fans (possibly remembering unionist rioting and disorder in July 1996) might say that anywhere close to Belfast is too risky, given that loyalists / OO whoever could block roads to prevent anyone getting to a GAA match.
btw, I'd split upper ravenhill and lower ravenhill ito two very different areas.
Ignoring the fact that you've resorted to personal abuse (again),If you can't use actually demographic evidence and have to base it on perceptions who do you think should make the decison on whether an area is 'neutral'?
Sorry sammy,
imho, you're either
a. thick and can't understand my post about how neutrality can't be quantitatively defined.
b. reasonably intelligent, can understand my post and are ignoring the fact that its the perceptions of the GAA negotiating team that will determine whether they regard the Ormeau as neutral.
They will probably take soundings from some of its membershipa s to whether they would feel safe bring their kids there.
I guess that Ormeau's close proximity to lower ravenhill and donegall pass will make them perceive the area as less neutral and safe than others.
Its not purely about catholic / protestant demographics - its the nature of the area, past history, tribal / paramilitary markings, flags , territoriality, etc.
My own perception would be shaped by risk of attack/abuse while walking from the car to the stadium.
That being said, I wouldn't like to be stuck in a traffic jam on Tates Avenue, with my kids wearing Down tops trying to get back onto the M1.
My guess is that most GAA fans would feel safer in some nice middle class 100% unionist area, say Hillsborough, rather than the Ormeau, with lower ravenhill and donegal pass loyalist stronholds close by.
I really do hope you understand.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 06:40:26 PMimho, you're either
a. thick and can't understand my post about how neutrality can't be quantitatively defined.
b. reasonably intelligent, can understand my post and are ignoring the fact that its the perceptions of the GAA negotiating team that will determine whether they regard the Ormeau as neutral.
So you're back to basing your judgement on perception rather than reality? The thousands of Nationalists who live around and use the park (even Donagh FFS ;)) are obviously just deluded loyalist stooges and should get out immediately for fear of their lives.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 06:40:26 PM
I really do hope you understand.
I genuinely don't. You are arguing two opposite points of view at the same time. You're saying that a venue that can be shown to be neutral isn't but a venue that can be shown to be overwhelmingly loyalist, is actually neutral. You've completely failed to answer any of the real issues with the Maze (infrasturcture, roads, public transport, facilities, bars, hotels etc) so you've reverted to 'perceptions'.
I don't think the OGC or the Audit Office are going to sign of between £85 and £125 million based on perceptions, luckily they'll be dealing in hard facts.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 06:40:26 PM
They will probably take soundings from some of its membershipa s to whether they would feel safe bring their kids there.
I guess that Ormeau's close proximity to lower ravenhill and donegall pass will make them perceive the area as less neutral and safe than others.
Its not purely about catholic / protestant demographics - its the nature of the area, past history, tribal / paramilitary markings, flags , territoriality, etc.
My own perception would be shaped by risk of attack/abuse while walking from the car to the stadium.
That being said, I wouldn't like to be stuck in a traffic jam on Tates Avenue, with my kids wearing Down tops trying to get back onto the M1.
My guess is that most GAA fans would feel safer in some nice middle class 100% unionist area, say Hillsborough, rather than the Ormeau, with lower ravenhill and donegal pass loyalist stronholds close by.
I really do hope you understand.
Just for your own information and a bit of research next time you are in the area of the maze take a wee spin past. Especially in the summer months and see how 'neutral' this area is. I would hazard a guess it isn't quite as middle class as Hillsborough either.
QuotePersonally, I have no desire to get into a "them and us" argument with GAA fans. Those that have expressed a preference seem to prefer the Maze (or not Belfast, at any rate), which is fair enough. But how would you feel if the Government told you that it was insisting on spending £100 million plus of all our taxes on a stadium in a location which 90% of you didn't want, on the basis that soccer preferred that, and you were powerless to object?
You'd be spitting mad, and quite right, too. And what makes it even more galling is that this whole scheme is politically, rather than sports-motivated, on the spurious notion that a combined stadium will somehow bring supporters of the three codes magically together.
I have asked this question several times, without ever receiving a persuasive answer:
How/Why would Ulster rugby fans going out to the Maze on a Friday evening in winter have cause to mix with soccer fans attending the following Wednesday evening, or either have opportunity to integrate with GAA fans attending a match on a Sunday afternoon in Summer, just because they happen to use the same stadium?
The new Wembley Stadium has already been used for a number of different purposes, but I doubt very much whether the George Michael fanclub has been inundated with applications to join from Ingurland soccer supporters! Roll Eyes
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 21, 2007, 03:40:14 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:53:42 PM
And just to make sure that teh goalposts stay firmly planted - I categorically stated that
NO OTHER NEUTRAL SITE HAD BEEN APPROVED BY ALL THREE SPORTS' GOVERNING BODIES.
I'm afraid this idea that all three sports "approve" of the location is one of the most spurious points made by proponents of the Maze.
Evil,
it may be spurious, but it forms the core of current govt policy.
They're the ones who are giving this once-off funding to us to create a modern stadium.
They claim thats its ringfenced, and we have to either use it or lose it.
(Note that the Maze site is an entirely different gift from thre UK treasury to assist NI plc post-agreement.)
Rightly or wrongly, the masters in whitehall have decried that they're fed up having to pay for the inefficiencies of a divided society.
They want the natives to start realising that they are actually inderdependent on one another, and move away from two self contained communities living alongside each other.
From now on, all major capital expenditure is expected to directly benefit both tribes.
This applies from stadia to schools and everything in between.
They want to increase cross community acceptance, tolerance, mutual understanding, interaction, have us all kissing (apart from em and Sammy), etc
The "Shared Spaces" bit is about creating places not marked out as belonging to one side or the other.
Whilst agreeing with you that there won't initially be much mixing of the tribes at the different sports' events, it is feasible that, in time, both tribes may start to attend what was previously regarded as predominantly the other sides sports.
The chances of this happening increase if the stadium is in a neutral location, equally accessible to both sides.
Looking at the thread on the State of Mind programme last night, Gwaytah's comments would add strength to this argument, when he voices his distaste with Casement:
Quote from: GweylTah on June 21, 2007, 12:07:50 PM
Quote from: Gnevin on June 21, 2007, 11:23:38 AM
How did the 2 lads get on at the parade?
......... Probably better and gentler for the Linfield pair that they went to Clones, than to Casement Park given its location and unpleasant baggage.
The problem for you guys, is that if you don't sign up to a Shared Space solution, then if the govt stick to their guns, you won't get any money from them.
The govt is making it clear that for this to proceed, all bodies have to agree.
If not, no funding.
In all seriousness, and hopefully not being abusive, I repeat the two choices that you guys have:
QuoteProblem solved in two easy steps
1. start fundraising to build a new stadium of your own
2. play your games in scotland until the new stadium is built.
or if you like
Problem solved in two easy steps
1. don't fundraise to build a new stadium of your own
2. play your games in scotland until the new Maze stadium is built.
Anyway, here's the document that explains current Shared Spaces thinking:
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/community/sharedfuture/cru210305shared.pdf
Quote from: Chrisowc on June 21, 2007, 07:41:02 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 06:40:26 PM
They will probably take soundings from some of its membershipa s to whether they would feel safe bring their kids there.
I guess that Ormeau's close proximity to lower ravenhill and donegall pass will make them perceive the area as less neutral and safe than others.
Its not purely about catholic / protestant demographics - its the nature of the area, past history, tribal / paramilitary markings, flags , territoriality, etc.
My own perception would be shaped by risk of attack/abuse while walking from the car to the stadium.
That being said, I wouldn't like to be stuck in a traffic jam on Tates Avenue, with my kids wearing Down tops trying to get back onto the M1.
My guess is that most GAA fans would feel safer in some nice middle class 100% unionist area, say Hillsborough, rather than the Ormeau, with lower ravenhill and donegal pass loyalist stronholds close by.
I really do hope you understand.
Just for your own information and a bit of research next time you are in the area of the maze take a wee spin past. Especially in the summer months and see how 'neutral' this area is. I would hazard a guess it isn't quite as middle class as Hillsborough either.
Exactly. That's the whole point - the GAA seem to think we'll be able to drive in the Maze on a motorway and bypasss sectarian cesspits completely.
That's why they regard it as more neutral, ie an easy accessible space not claimed or marked out by one side or the other.
No need to drive up the Donegall Road through the Village, past Sandy Row, and down Donegall Pass to get to the stadium from the M1.
snatter
Yet again you're mixing up press releases and policy. No one has any problem with the idea of a shared space, the issue is that the shared space at the Maze is economically unfeasible. Also it's interesting that you've talked several times about our unwillingness to sign up to a shared space, while totally ignoring the fact that it was the GAA that vetoed the genuine shared space oppurtunity, in favour of a white elephant, which they neither need nor want.
Stadium at the Maze
Chance of a casual non-GAAer going to watch a GAA match - nil
Chance of a GAA head attending a football match - maybe 5% but that would be optimistic
Chance of either a football or GAA fan going to a rugby match - nil because there won't be any rugby matches
Stadium in Belfast
All of the above become not just possible but probable. Husband drops the wife off for a bit of shopping and takes the kids to a match. Great day out for all concerned and a new convert to the 'other side'
If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios then I don't know how else to explain it.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:12:26 PMExactly. That's the whole point - the GAA seem to think we'll be able to drive in the Maze on a motorway and bypasss sectarian cesspits completely.
That's why they regard it as more neutral, ie an easy accessible space not claimed or marked out by one side or the other.
No need to drive up the Donegall Road through the Village, past Sandy Row, and down Donegall Pass to get to the stadium from the M1.
How can you say exactly when you are disagreeing with the previous post?
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
Yet again you're mixing up press releases and policy. No one has any problem with the idea of a shared space, the issue is that the shared space at the Maze is economically unfeasible. Also it's interesting that you've talked several times about our unwillingness to sign up to a shared space, while totally ignoring the fact that it was the GAA that vetoed the genuine shared space oppurtunity, in favour of a white elephant, which they neither need nor want.
Stadium at the Maze
Chance of a casual non-GAAer going to watch a GAA match - nil
Chance of a GAA head attending a football match - maybe 5% but that would be optimistic
Chance of either a football or GAA fan going to a rugby match - nil because there won't be any rugby matches
Stadium in Belfast
All of the above become not just possible but probable. Husband drops the wife off for a bit of shopping and takes the kids to a match. Great day out for all concerned and a new convert to the 'other side'
If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios then I don't know how else to explain it.
So the GAA rejected
Quotethe genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
And who exactly decided that the Ormeau park was the
Quotethe genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
You, your OWC cronies, the IFA, the Newsletter, the Belfast Telegraph?
Do the GAA (to remind yoiu the sport with 10 times your attendance figures) and non OWC heads not have the right to make up their minds as what is and what isn't
Quotea genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
Surely it is for the GAA to take soundings and itself decide on what is and isn't accepable or neutral.
snatter
The GAA vetoed any city site (at that stage Ormeau wasn't even on the agenda), they chose to reject the shared space opportunites and instead do what was right for the GAA. I've no problem with that (I wish the IFA was as well lead as the GAA) but I do have a problem with your hypocritical claims that it's the NI football supporters who are anti shared space.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
.
.
Stadium at the Maze
Chance of a casual non-GAAer going to watch a GAA match - nil
.
.
I'd love to know how you arrived at that decision.
Probably the same thought process that had you branding me as a shinner last night.
What was the basis for that? That I was a GAA fan on a GAA board. GAA = IRA @play, so QED I'm a shinner???
Mask slipping Sammy?
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:45:58 PM
snatter
The GAA vetoed any city site (at that stage Ormeau wasn't even on the agenda), they chose to reject the shared space opportunites and instead do what was right for the GAA. I've no problem with that (I wish the IFA was as well lead as the GAA) but I do have a problem with your hypocritical claims that it's the NI football supporters who are anti shared space.
You still haven't ecplained to me who decides what is and what isn't a genuine shared space?
How can you say the GAA rejects a genuine shared space when in all probablilty the GAA doesn't regard it as such?
I REPEAT MY PREVIOUS QUESTIONquote author=snatter link=topic=2483.msg106490#msg106490 date=1182454060]
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
Yet again you're mixing up press releases and policy. No one has any problem with the idea of a shared space, the issue is that the shared space at the Maze is economically unfeasible. Also it's interesting that you've talked several times about our unwillingness to sign up to a shared space, while totally ignoring the fact that it was the GAA that vetoed the genuine shared space oppurtunity, in favour of a white elephant, which they neither need nor want.
Stadium at the Maze
Chance of a casual non-GAAer going to watch a GAA match - nil
Chance of a GAA head attending a football match - maybe 5% but that would be optimistic
Chance of either a football or GAA fan going to a rugby match - nil because there won't be any rugby matches
Stadium in Belfast
All of the above become not just possible but probable. Husband drops the wife off for a bit of shopping and takes the kids to a match. Great day out for all concerned and a new convert to the 'other side'
If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios then I don't know how else to explain it.
So the GAA rejected
Quotethe genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
And who exactly decided that the Ormeau park was the
Quotethe genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
You, your OWC cronies, the IFA, the Newsletter, the Belfast Telegraph?
Do the GAA (to remind yoiu the sport with 10 times your attendance figures) and non OWC heads not have the right to make up their minds as what is and what isn't
Quotea genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
Surely it is for the GAA to take soundings and itself decide on what is and isn't accepable or neutral.
[/quote]
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:46:18 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
.
.
Stadium at the Maze
Chance of a casual non-GAAer going to watch a GAA match - nil
.
.
I'd love to know how you arrived at that decision.
Simple logic and talking to mates. None of them would spend 3 to 4 hours in a traffic jam to go to a match that they might not even be interested in. If the stadium was accessible they'd take a chance and go along ad if they didn't like it then they'd have lost nothing.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:46:18 PM
Probably the same thought process that had you branding me as a shinner last night.
What was the basis for that? That I was a GAA fan on a GAA board. GAA = IRA @play, so QED I'm a shinner???
Try reading back through my post and you'll see that I never mentioned you being a Shinner. I said you were quoting from the shinner handbook.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:46:18 PM
Mask slipping Sammy?
No mask to slip, I am opposed to the Maze for practical and economic reasons not political ones.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
.
.
No one has any problem with the idea of a shared space
.
.
Sammy,
you're having a laugh.
Last night you didn't even know wtf it was!!!
Do you seriously expect us to believe that you went off and read the policy, when by your admission you can't be arsed reading replies on this thread.
Last night's thread:
QuoteQuote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 12:15:20 AM
Quote from: SammyG on June 20, 2007, 11:48:30 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 11:46:36 PM
SammyG,
QuoteWhat lack of equality and what mutually beneficial 'Shared Spaces' strategy?
Says it all really.
You spout on here, fabricating to your heart's content, and quite plainly don't even know the basics of the Govt strategy on which the Maze proposal is based.
Breathtaking ignorace and arrogance in one.
Why don't you navigate away from here for a day or two and go do some much needed reading.
So other than being abusive are you actually going to answer the question?
Not being abusive - merely advising you to read up on the govt Shared Spaces strategy.
I could tell you what Shared Spaces is about, but that would be like telling the thick kid the answers to his homework.
It would be to his longer term benefit if he learnt it himself.
Btw, I'll give you a clue of where to start your reading.
Earlier in the thread, you were telling somebody to go away and actually read the UUJ Belfast Propaganda Report.
I suggest you act on your own advise and read page 16 of the same report.
Paragraph 2, section 1.1 gives an overview of what Shared Spaces is all about.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:58:34 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
.
.
No one has any problem with the idea of a shared space
.
.
Sammy,
you're having a laugh.
Last night you didn't even know wtf it was!!!
Do you seriously expect us to believe that you went off and read the policy, when by your admission you can't be arsed reading replies on this thread.
Are you taking the piss? Of course I know what it is, I've read the various documents inside out. What I said was the Maze is not part of that strategy, because the 3 sports will never use the stadium at the same time so there's no chance of any crossover.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:54:18 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:46:18 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
.
.
Stadium at the Maze
Chance of a casual non-GAAer going to watch a GAA match - nil
.
.
I'd love to know how you arrived at that decision.
Simple logic and talking to mates. None of them would spend 3 to 4 hours in a traffic jam to go to a match that they might not even be interested in. If the stadium was accessible they'd take a chance and go along ad if they didn't like it then they'd have lost nothing.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:46:18 PM
Probably the same thought process that had you branding me as a shinner last night.
What was the basis for that? That I was a GAA fan on a GAA board. GAA = IRA @play, so QED I'm a shinner???
Try reading back through my post and you'll see that I never mentioned you being a Shinner. I said you were quoting from the shinner handbook.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:46:18 PM
Mask slipping Sammy?
No mask to slip, I am opposed to the Maze for practical and economic reasons not political ones.
Sammy,
FCUK, this is getting better.
Not only do
QuoteYou / your OWC cronies / the IFA / the Newsletter / the Belfast Telegraph *
decide what is and isn't a genuine shared space on behalf of the GAA, now your mates are the appointed judges of what numbers of novice GAA fans go to their matches.
*
Delete as appropriate when you have manged to fabricate an answerAt this rate you and your mates will be at the Ard Chomhairle running the GAA, and making all their decisions for them.
Where have I said that I should decide on the neutrality or otherwise of any stadium? And where have I said that I should have any influence on GAA decisions? I think your imagination might be running away with you.
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 09:02:02 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:58:34 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
.
.
No one has any problem with the idea of a shared space
.
.
Sammy,
you're having a laugh.
Last night you didn't even know wtf it was!!!
Do you seriously expect us to believe that you went off and read the policy, when by your admission you can't be arsed reading replies on this thread.
Are you taking the piss? Of course I know what it is, I've read the various documents inside out. What I said was the Maze is not part of that strategy, because the 3 sports will never use the stadium at the same time so there's no chance of any crossover.
Sammy,
you are a lying fraud.
Last night at midnight you genuinely didn't have a clue what Shared Space meant, and now you've read all various documents inside out?
Despite spending half your day posting here and presumably on OWC. Fcuk you're some boy.
Quotethe Maze is not part of that strategy,
And now, fresh from running the GAA, you're now running the Govt?
All along they've said that the multi sport stadium must be developed in line with Shared Spaces.
This was repeated as recently as yesterday in the UUJ report * when its authors questioned whether a stadium should developed in line with the policy.
Now the junta previously known as Sammy has decried that all this is false as well.
Probably an illusion spun by those GAA Shinners. They're everywhere.
*
another document you've probably never read
Sorry to interupt but
Paisley says no to Ormeau stadium
Proposals at the Maze include a stadium for soccer, GAA and rugby
First Minister Ian Paisley has ruled out plans for a stadium at Belfast's Ormeau Park, saying it would affect five churches, including his own.
Mr Paisley said it would not be "convenient" to have Sunday School children arriving in buses with a greyhound track outside the door.
He added: "It will not be and I'm told it cannot be under the planning act."
Belfast City Council is considering a possible stadium, incorporating a greyhound park, at the park.
On Wednesday, research commissioned by the council suggested a new national sports stadium for Northern Ireland should have an urban setting.
"Seldom have we experienced such overwhelming evidence for the in-town location," the report stated.
The findings went against proposals for a 35,000-seater stadium for soccer, GAA and rugby at the Maze/Long Kesh site.
On Tuesday, the culture minister said he was not satisfied that plans for a Belfast site for the stadium were viable.
Edwin Poots added that the process could not go on indefinitely.
He said the Maze/Long Kesh Site was the only site able to accommodate "a potentially viable shared stadium for all the sports involved".
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 09:11:01 PM
Where have I said that I should decide on the neutrality or otherwise of any stadium? And where have I said that I should have any influence on GAA decisions? I think your imagination might be running away with you.
Sammy,
Not so.
You're obviously so busy speed reading that you're forgetting what you write.
Here, I'll make it easier for you by highlighting in red, as I repeatedly pose my repeatedly posed, but still unanswered earlier post.
PS Hope you didn't read that too fast! It might confuse you and make you think strange things like "as yet the anti maze brigade haven't managed to come up with a neutral alternative acceptable to all three sports' governing bodies.
QuoteQuote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 08:49:50 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:45:58 PM
snatter
The GAA vetoed any city site (at that stage Ormeau wasn't even on the agenda), they chose to reject the shared space opportunites and instead do what was right for the GAA. I've no problem with that (I wish the IFA was as well lead as the GAA) but I do have a problem with your hypocritical claims that it's the NI football supporters who are anti shared space.
You still haven't ecplained to me who decides what is and what isn't a genuine shared space?
How can you say the GAA rejects a genuine shared space when in all probablilty the GAA doesn't regard it as such?
I REPEAT MY PREVIOUS QUESTION
quote author=snatter link=topic=2483.msg106490#msg106490 date=1182454060]
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 08:16:29 PM
snatter
Yet again you're mixing up press releases and policy. No one has any problem with the idea of a shared space, the issue is that the shared space at the Maze is economically unfeasible. Also it's interesting that you've talked several times about our unwillingness to sign up to a shared space, while totally ignoring the fact that it was the GAA that vetoed the genuine shared space oppurtunity, in favour of a white elephant, which they neither need nor want.
Stadium at the Maze
Chance of a casual non-GAAer going to watch a GAA match - nil
Chance of a GAA head attending a football match - maybe 5% but that would be optimistic
Chance of either a football or GAA fan going to a rugby match - nil because there won't be any rugby matches
Stadium in Belfast
All of the above become not just possible but probable. Husband drops the wife off for a bit of shopping and takes the kids to a match. Great day out for all concerned and a new convert to the 'other side'
If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios then I don't know how else to explain it.
So the GAA rejected Quotethe genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
And who exactly decided that the Ormeau park was the Quotethe genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
You, your OWC cronies, the IFA, the Newsletter, the Belfast Telegraph?
Do the GAA (to remind yoiu the sport with 10 times your attendance figures) and non OWC heads not have the right to make up their minds as what is and what isn't Quotea genuine shared space oppurtunity
?
Surely it is for the GAA to take soundings and itself decide on what is and isn't accepable or neutral.
[/quote]
Quote from: Square Ball on June 21, 2007, 09:23:47 PM
Sorry to interupt but
Paisley says no to Ormeau stadium
Proposals at the Maze include a stadium for soccer, GAA and rugby
First Minister Ian Paisley has ruled out plans for a stadium at Belfast's Ormeau Park, saying it would affect five churches, including his own.
Mr Paisley said it would not be "convenient" to have Sunday School children arriving in buses with a greyhound track outside the door.
He added: "It will not be and I'm told it cannot be under the planning act."
Belfast City Council is considering a possible stadium, incorporating a greyhound park, at the park.
On Wednesday, research commissioned by the council suggested a new national sports stadium for Northern Ireland should have an urban setting.
"Seldom have we experienced such overwhelming evidence for the in-town location," the report stated.
The findings went against proposals for a 35,000-seater stadium for soccer, GAA and rugby at the Maze/Long Kesh site.
On Tuesday, the culture minister said he was not satisfied that plans for a Belfast site for the stadium were viable.
Edwin Poots added that the process could not go on indefinitely.
He said the Maze/Long Kesh Site was the only site able to accommodate "a potentially viable shared stadium for all the sports involved".
Square Ball,
don't worry, the famed revolutionary Sammy has just taken over all thought processes for the Free P church as well as the GAA and the British Govt.
There'll be no dissent in the church of Sammy, as he decrees that everybody else (apart from "his mates") is wrong, and blessed by the god given power of infallibility, he shall proceed to build his new 20k soccer temple on Ormeau Park.
Sammy,
can you hear me? are you allright? speak to us sammy!
God I hope he's alright.
Can you imagine the shock poor sammy got?
Imagine Big Ian siding with those Shinners on the gaaboard.
It's too quiet in here. Its lonely without a wee imaginary story from sammy every 30 seconds.
Question resolved no Ormeau Park cause the mad doc death says No again!
Sammy youse may start looking at the north foreshore now - otherwise, accept the inevitable Long Kesh it is..... ;)
Lads
Do you ever actually read things or do you just take every press release at face value?
1) Paisley mentions that Churches have a problem with the greyhound track - totally irrelevant Churches have no more or less say in planning applications than any one else
2) He states that it is not possible to build in the park due to planning regs - this is a complete lie and was put to bed, when Poots first mentioned it a few days ago.
3) And most importantly Paisley and Poots don't get to make the decison, it has to go through all the standard processes.
p.s. Thanks for your concern but I had to go and pick my wee lad up from Scouts.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on June 21, 2007, 09:48:11 PM
Question resolved no Ormeau Park cause the mad doc death says No again!
Sammy youse may start looking at the north foreshore now - otherwise, accept the inevitable Long Kesh it is..... ;)
Did anybody ever consider Musgrave Park?
Close to rail stations (railway line goes alongside I think), beside motorway, quite close to Casement, nowhere near any hardcore sectarian areas?
As a committed GAA man, I can't think of any reason not to go there, apart from being further away for the vast vast majority of fans who would ever go there (mainly gaelic football fans coming from west and south Ulster).
Maybe parking would be a problem.
Worth a look anyway?
would Musgrave be big enought? St Brides have a pitch being built at the minute in these so there goes some space.
Quote from: snatter link=topic=2483.msg106551#msg106551
Worth a look anyway?
/quote]
Every viable site should be given a reasonable look.
Quote from: nifan on June 22, 2007, 02:19:31 AM
Quote from: snatter link=topic=2483.msg106551#msg106551
Worth a look anyway?
/quote]
Every viable site should be given a reasonable look.
Yes look at every VIABLE site, I would be happy enough if the government gave the Ulster council the equivalent share in money and land that would be allocated through this stadium.
The Ulster council could then invest in our already established grounds, and even build a new 40,000 super stadium in Armagh for the big matches, its about as central as you'll get.
P.S. Armagh need a decent stadium of their own anyway! ;)
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on June 22, 2007, 08:56:26 AM
Quote from: nifan on June 22, 2007, 02:19:31 AM
Quote from: snatter link=topic=2483.msg106551#msg106551
Worth a look anyway?
/quote]
Every viable site should be given a reasonable look.
Yes look at every VIABLE site, I would be happy enough if the government gave the Ulster council the equivalent share in money and land that would be allocated through this stadium.
The Ulster council could then invest in our already established grounds, and even build a new 40,000 super stadium in Armagh for the big matches, its about as central as you'll get.
P.S. Armagh need a decent stadium of their own anyway! ;)
GDA,
Quote
Yes look at every VIABLE site, I would be happy enough if the government gave the Ulster council the equivalent share in money and land that would be allocated through this stadium.
The Ulster council could then invest in our already established grounds, and even build a new 40,000 super stadium in Armagh for the big matches, its about as central as you'll get.
P.S. Armagh need a decent stadium of their own anyway!
A few points on this:
1. How do you possibly divide the money up fairly? On need? on build cost? just split it three ways?
I put this to Evil Genius, and he said some sort of "independent" committee could decide.
How would the independence" of this "independent" committee be determined, and what criteria would it use.
No matter how it operated, there would be calls of bias.
One problem is that the costs of developing soccer and gaa stadia differ significantly.
So many soccer stadia have been designed and built by the big firms, that they've become almost off the peg.
The engineering needed has been well calculated and costed already.
A GAA stadium built to the exact same levels of comfort and safety on the other hand will have to be completely bespoke designed.
Design, engineering and construction costs will be higher.
Additionally, it is well established that stadium build costs increase exponentially, not directly proportional to capacity.
To illustrate
Arsenal FC
Name: Emirates Stadium
Opened: July 2006
Costs: £390 million
Capacity: 60,000
Southampton
St. Marys
Opened: July 2001
Cost: £32m
Capacity 32689
If GAA fans want equal treatment in terms of having a capacity that suits its actual attendence figures (they dwarf NI soccer), and guarantees them the same level of comfort (seats, roof) as NI fans, then our share of the funding wopuld be far greater.
MY guess is that the OWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists would be the loudest to complain at us getting significantly more money.
It would be a sectarian bunfight of the highest order.
A three way split on the other hand gives them enough to build an all seated and covered stadium for their smaller crowds.
Our share would be too little to give the same level of comfort to our much higher fanbase. MY guess is that the majority would still be standing on a cold wet uncovered concrete terrace.
2. Creating separate facilities whose usage does not reflect the whole committee is so agaisnt the grain of the Govt.'s new Shared Spaces policy.
People need to realise that the Govt is trying to teach all us natives a lesson here - either start sharing and co-operating, or you get nothing.
Its possible theat the Govt might publicly do a U-turn, but imho, its more likely tht they'd teach us all a lesson adn tell us to fcuk off.
Remember that Brown is no friend of NI in the way that Blair was. He looks at teh per capita funding we get in NI compared to his own Scotland and thinks we're ungrateful spongers who get too much already.
3. Point B below
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 02:03:55 PM
The only reason I bother with this is
A.
to keep the issue high in the consciousness of GAA fans, to make sure that these guys don't get away with it, and to ensure that we get fairly catered for.
I keep exposing their argument as flawed just in case any weaker GAA souls (like slow corner back) fall for their lies and accept some carve-up of the money as being acceptable.
Any carve up of the govt money would undoubtedly leave us worse off, as it would fail to reflect our higher attendences and more expensive build costs for large sized gaa stadia.
B.
I genuinely believe that the long term futuer of GAA in N Ireland relies on getting unionists to accept it as no more threatening than irish dancing.
A high class shared stadium , accesible to many unionists in greater belfast area gives us a far better stage to sell our games to them than some desolate uncovered concrete bowl in Clones.
4. If we ever did have to go it alone (I still hope we won't have to), Dungannon is much more central for the whole of Ulster.
Its at the end of a motorway, and is easily less than 2 hours drive from every corner of Ulster.
Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
stay the f**k away from Dungannon, we have enough problems of our own.
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 09:38:54 AMMY guess is that the OWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists would be the loudest to complain at us getting significantly more money.
It would be a sectarian bunfight of the highest order.
Truely pathetic comment. How can the IFA which is completely non-sectarian and has players, supporters and officials from all creeds, be accused of being in a sectarian bunfight? What was it you were saying about masks slipping?
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:05:31 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 09:38:54 AMMY guess is that the OWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists would be the loudest to complain at us getting significantly more money.
It would be a sectarian bunfight of the highest order.
Truely pathetic comment. How can the IFA which is completely non-sectarian and has players, supporters and officials from all creeds, be accused of being in a sectarian bunfight? What was it you were saying about masks slipping?
Sammy,
sorry, but on my computer it reads
QuoteOWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists
.
I've searched and can't find the letters IFA anywhere in my post.
Your speed reading is letting you down again! :D :D
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:05:31 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 09:38:54 AMMY guess is that the OWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists would be the loudest to complain at us getting significantly more money.
It would be a sectarian bunfight of the highest order.
Truely pathetic comment. How can the IFA which is completely non-sectarian and has players, supporters and officials from all creeds, be accused of being in a sectarian bunfight? What was it you were saying about masks slipping?
Sammy,
sorry, but on my computer it reads QuoteOWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists
.
I've searched and can't find the letters IFA anywhere in my post.
Your speed reading is letting you down again! :D :D
So what did you mean by OWC 'brigade' then? I took it to be short hand for NI football, maybe I'm wrong.
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 09:38:54 AM2. Creating separate facilities whose usage does reflect the whole committee is so agaisnt the grain of the Govt.'s new Shared Spaces policy.
People need to realise that the Govt is trying to teach all us natives a lesson here - either start sharing and co-operating, or you get nothing.
Its possible theat the Govt might publicly do a U-turn, but imho, its more likely tht they'd teach us all a lesson adn tell us to fcuk off.
Remember that Brown is no friend of NI in the way that Blair was. He looks at teh per capita funding we get in NI compared to his own Scotland and thinks we're ungrateful spongers who get too much already.
Again with the shared space nonsense. The only people who are stopping a shared space being created are the GAA.
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:24:51 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 10:10:47 AM
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:05:31 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 09:38:54 AMMY guess is that the OWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists would be the loudest to complain at us getting significantly more money.
It would be a sectarian bunfight of the highest order.
Truely pathetic comment. How can the IFA which is completely non-sectarian and has players, supporters and officials from all creeds, be accused of being in a sectarian bunfight? What was it you were saying about masks slipping?
Sammy,
sorry, but on my computer it reads QuoteOWC brigade and unreconstructed unionists
.
I've searched and can't find the letters IFA anywhere in my post.
Your speed reading is letting you down again! :D :D
So what did you mean by OWC 'brigade' then? I took it to be short hand for NI football, maybe I'm wrong.
OWC brigade?
Frequent posters on a certain website called www.ourweecountry.co.uk (OWC for short) several of whom, in their deluded crusade for a wee place of their own, consistently ignore the needs of larger, much better attended NI spectator sports, like gaelic football.
Dr No has spoken Sammy. No Stadium near sunday schools.
You will have to get used to getting of your arse and driving a wee bit, because all signs point to the Maze.
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 10:29:56 AM
OWC brigade?
Frequent posters on a certain website called www.ourweecountry.co.uk (OWC for short) several of whom, in their deluded crusade for a wee place of their own, consistently ignore the needs of larger, much better attended NI spectator sports, like gaelic football.
Yet more lies. I have not seen one post on OWC that suggests that the GAA or anybody else should be ignored. The vast majority are happy to share a stadium and the small number who think that sharing is impractical are still happy for the GAA to recieve funding, if the IFA go it alone.
Quote from: Bensars on June 22, 2007, 10:30:06 AM
Dr No has spoken Sammy. No Stadium near sunday schools.
Luckily Dr No has fcuk all do to with the decision.
Quote from: Bensars on June 22, 2007, 10:30:06 AM
You will have to get used to getting of your arse and driving a wee bit, because all signs point to the Maze.
Aye right because that's the problem. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 10:29:56 AM
OWC brigade?
Frequent posters on a certain website called www.ourweecountry.co.uk (OWC for short) several of whom, in their deluded crusade for a wee place of their own, consistently ignore the needs of larger, much better attended NI spectator sports, like gaelic football.
Yet more lies. I have not seen one post on OWC that suggests that the GAA or anybody else should be ignored. The vast majority are happy to share a stadium and the small number who think that sharing is impractical are still happy for the GAA to recieve funding, if the IFA go it alone.
Sammy was on OWC last night and read a number of posts from various regulars on that board who suggested that "someone" (willie frazer got a mention) should buldoze the hospital block at Long Kesh to stop the Peace and Conflict Reconciliation Centre being built, care to comment??
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on June 22, 2007, 10:44:23 AM
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:36:21 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 10:29:56 AM
OWC brigade?
Frequent posters on a certain website called www.ourweecountry.co.uk (OWC for short) several of whom, in their deluded crusade for a wee place of their own, consistently ignore the needs of larger, much better attended NI spectator sports, like gaelic football.
Yet more lies. I have not seen one post on OWC that suggests that the GAA or anybody else should be ignored. The vast majority are happy to share a stadium and the small number who think that sharing is impractical are still happy for the GAA to recieve funding, if the IFA go it alone.
Sammy was on OWC last night and read a number of posts from various regulars on that board who suggested that "someone" (willie frazer got a mention) should buldoze the hospital block at Long Kesh to stop the Peace and Conflict Reconciliation Centre being built, care to comment??
Seems like a reasonable idea
(note to the easily offended, as with the original OWC posts this is a JOKE)
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:40:30 AM
Quote from: Bensars on June 22, 2007, 10:30:06 AM
Dr No has spoken Sammy. No Stadium near sunday schools.
Luckily Dr No has fcuk all do to with the decision.
Quote from: Bensars on June 22, 2007, 10:30:06 AM
You will have to get used to getting of your arse and driving a wee bit, because all signs point to the Maze.
Aye right because that's the problem. ::)
Cant see Edwin going against the wishes of papa doc and thr christain ethos of the DUP.
Reading between the lines of his statement earlier in the week, and the timescale for any Belfast proposal to be on the table, in my opinion it was, get your plans in, but we're going to the maze anyway
Quote from: Bensars on June 22, 2007, 10:57:29 AM
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:40:30 AM
Quote from: Bensars on June 22, 2007, 10:30:06 AM
Dr No has spoken Sammy. No Stadium near sunday schools.
Luckily Dr No has fcuk all do to with the decision.
Quote from: Bensars on June 22, 2007, 10:30:06 AM
You will have to get used to getting of your arse and driving a wee bit, because all signs point to the Maze.
Aye right because that's the problem. ::)
Cant see Edwin going against the wishes of papa doc and thr christain ethos of the DUP.
Reading between the lines of his statement earlier in the week, and the timescale for any Belfast proposal to be on the table, in my opinion it was, get your plans in, but we're going to the maze anyway
You didn't need to read between the lines, that's exactly what Poots said. Unfortunately for Poots, he's now an elected Minister and has to follow the rules and processes, he can't just make arbitrary decisions or impose deadlines.
Paisley Mor has come out agin the Ormeau Park venue – doesn't want his congregation at the Martyrs Memorial having to face the "greyhound run" on their way to Sunday School. Didn't get that one, sure the IFA don't play soccer on a Sunday, who does he mean?
Robinson (who signs the cheque) has just told the BBC, that he hasn't seen a business case and won't allow ANY project to proceed until he does. Given that Poots has refused to publish a business case (for nearly 3 years) things could be about to get interesting.
Quote from: Donagh on June 22, 2007, 12:37:59 PM
Paisley Mor has come out agin the Ormeau Park venue – doesn't want his congregation at the Martyrs Memorial having to face the "greyhound run" on their way to Sunday School. Didn't get that one, sure the IFA don't play soccer on a Sunday, who does he mean?
Donagh
As already covered a few posts ago, Paisleys rants are totally irrelevant to the Ormeau site as he has no input to the decision making process.
Quote from: Donagh on June 22, 2007, 12:37:59 PM
Paisley Mor has come out agin the Ormeau Park venue – doesn't want his congregation at the Martyrs Memorial having to face the "greyhound run" on their way to Sunday School. Didn't get that one, sure the IFA don't play soccer on a Sunday, who does he mean?
I'm sure he wouldn't be too happy about 42k GAA fans marching past the Martys Memorial on the sabbath either.
Quote from: SammyG on June 22, 2007, 10:40:30 AM
Luckily Dr No has fcuk all do to with the decision.
Any decision on a stadium that requires public funds will require the support of DFP and then have to be endorsed by the full Executive. Dr No and Marty have a veto on the agenda for Executive meetings.
If Dr No doesn't like any proposal he vetoes it and it doesn't even get discussed.
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 03:01:52 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:42:06 PMTo be honest its pointless debating this one with you any further. All Clones attending GAA fans laugh at you guys whinging about going from Belfast to teh MAze, but you guys think it will be some sort of epic journey, taking half a day to get there.
I guess only a qualified traffic engineer would be able to accurately study journey times of those who would use any new stadium.
Sorry I missed this earlier, a qualified traffic engineer (in fact several) have looked at the proposals and have all deemed them to be unworkable, that is the whole point of this discussion. I'm not opposed to the Maze on some point of principle (in fact when it was first mentioned I supported it), I'm opposed because it won't work.
News to me.
Can you give me a link to their findings?
What were their assumptions on attendance numbers, the origin of most fans, and their mode of travel?
Still waiting............
No business case for the Maze then, after ALL this time.
Ain't gonna happen, of course that wouldn't stop Belfast City Council developing a stadium, with private backing, in a suitable location, or the existing venues and grass-roots sport can be invested in instead.
Good news.
Quote from: GweylTah on June 22, 2007, 01:41:48 PM
No business case for the Maze then, after ALL this time.
Ain't gonna happen, of course that wouldn't stop Belfast City Council developing a stadium, with private backing, in a suitable location, or the existing venues and grass-roots sport can be invested in instead.
Good news.
Gwaytah,
its been said a million times befoer.
All three sports have an equal veto on any Govt backed shared space stadium proposal.
Any one of them can walk away at any time should it wish.
The Govt ahve made it clear that if they choose to do so, they will not get Govt assistance in developing an alternative stadium.
If Belfast City Council wish to subsidis any privately developed stadium, it had better make provision for GAA, or they're be one hell of a row.
Excluding the GAA from a publicy subsideised stadium won't be supported by nationalist councillors in Belfast, or their parties HQ's either.
Quote from: GweylTah on June 22, 2007, 01:41:48 PM
No business case for the Maze then, after ALL this time.
Ain't gonna happen, of course that wouldn't stop Belfast City Council developing a stadium, with private backing, in a suitable location, or the existing venues and grass-roots sport can be invested in instead.
Good news.
The planners might though!
Paisley is likely more concerned about having a GAA match on a Sunday in his vicinity, though ive no doubt him and marty will end up taking one in together soon.
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 01:38:46 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 21, 2007, 03:01:52 PM
Quote from: snatter on June 21, 2007, 01:42:06 PMTo be honest its pointless debating this one with you any further. All Clones attending GAA fans laugh at you guys whinging about going from Belfast to teh MAze, but you guys think it will be some sort of epic journey, taking half a day to get there.
I guess only a qualified traffic engineer would be able to accurately study journey times of those who would use any new stadium.
Sorry I missed this earlier, a qualified traffic engineer (in fact several) have looked at the proposals and have all deemed them to be unworkable, that is the whole point of this discussion. I'm not opposed to the Maze on some point of principle (in fact when it was first mentioned I supported it), I'm opposed because it won't work.
News to me.
Can you give me a link to their findings?
What were their assumptions on attendance numbers, the origin of most fans, and their mode of travel?
Still waiting............
See my post a couple of pages ago. I presume you've read it after your rant at me for missing a post yesterday. ;)
from bbc.co.uk/ni:
DUP mixed messages over stadium
One of the notorious H-blocks would be retained if the plan goes ahead
DUP minister Nigel Dodds says a stadium at the former Maze Prison site would not be acceptable if the complex also contained "a shrine to IRA terrorism".
He said unionists would not support the project if the green light was also given for a conflict transformation centre retaining one of the H-Blocks.
Has this got anything to do with the unionist support for a stadium for belfast?
Quote from: stiffler on June 22, 2007, 03:58:32 PM
from bbc.co.uk/ni:
DUP mixed messages over stadium
One of the notorious H-blocks would be retained if the plan goes ahead
DUP minister Nigel Dodds says a stadium at the former Maze Prison site would not be acceptable if the complex also contained "a shrine to IRA terrorism".
He said unionists would not support the project if the green light was also given for a conflict transformation centre retaining one of the H-Blocks.
Has this got anything to do with the unionist support for a stadium for belfast?
The stadium for Belfast has support from right across the community and support from both in and outside Belfast. It has absolutely nothing to do with political or relegious persuasion.
Quote from: snatter on June 22, 2007, 01:57:34 PM
its been said a million times befoer.
All three sports have an equal veto on any Govt backed shared space stadium proposal.
Any one of them can walk away at any time should it wish.
The Govt ahve made it clear that if they choose to do so, they will not get Govt assistance in developing an alternative stadium.
If Belfast City Council wish to subsidis any privately developed stadium, it had better make provision for GAA, or they're be one hell of a row.
Excluding the GAA from a publicy subsideised stadium won't be supported by nationalist councillors in Belfast, or their parties HQ's either.
Snatter,
This post arrives at the very heart of your case, so rather than become sidetracked by all the specific issues around the Maze etc, I will use just this post to argue why I disagree profoundly with your stance on this whole topic.
As I see it, you are arriving at the wrong conclusion, since you are starting from the wrong point. That is, you are conflating two proposals (the Maze and Ormeau) which, although related, are both
separate.For me, the key to solving this conundrum is to address each stadium on its own merits. After all, when the Government first raised the subject of a multi-sports stadium for NI, paid for from public funds, there was no mention of the Durnien (Ormeau Park) project. Instead, we are led to believe from what they have disclosed publicly of the project, that they started with a blank piece of paper as regards location, and eventually settled on 4 possible sites - three in Belfast, plus the Maze.
When these were presented to the three main sports, the GAA indicated (as is their right) that they weren't willing to countenance any stadium in Belfast. Therefore, since the Government had committed itself to an "all or none" approach, the Maze was it. Now as it happens, I think this unfair, since in practical terms, the IFA is unable to exercise any like veto (they're skint), and the URFU frankly doesn't care either way, since they will not be staging any more than one or two games per season at the Maze, if that. (In the meantime, since they are awaiting the last of a Government grant to refurbish Ravenhill, they will go along with whatever the Government says)
And when you examine further the reason why the Government has adopted this "All or None" approach, it simply doesn't stand up, either. To borrow a phrase, their (stated) motive is "Shared Space". Now in itself, this is an entirely laudable and desirable outcome. However, no-one has been able to come with a satisfactory explanation as to
why combining all three sports in one stadium will lead to such an outcome. After all, the three different "constituencies" for GAA, Rugby and Soccer will never be attending the stadium at the same time, for the same events; in that respect, they are "ships that pass in the night".
Indeed, you as good as accepted that point when you posted:
"Whilst agreeing with you that there won't initially be much mixing of the tribes at the different sports' events, it is feasible that, in time, both tribes may start to attend what was previously regarded as predominantly the other sides sports"As I see it, by taking a fraction of the money being spent on the Maze, the Government could achieve much greater cross-community sports participation etc by allocating it to the three sports
only on condition that it be spent on projects which demonstrate this ideal. For example, money could be made available for coaching in schools, parks, leisure centres, public playing fields etc so long as they invited members of clubs from all three sports to attend. Or clubs could be given grants to send kids on combined sports tours together. Tickets for events in one sport could be made available at subsidised rates to clubs from the other two sports. Multi-sports festivals involving all three codes could be organised during school holidays, or at Bank Holidays etc. With a bit of creativity, there are any number of schemes which could be devised which would physically bering people together in a sporting environment. But instead, we are expected to spend money on a stadium and "cross our fingers".
Anyhow, whether you agree on the effectiveness of the Maze as achieving "Shared Space" or not, it is only fair that the stadium should
also be acceptable to all three sports as regards their own sporting needs. Now as I said, GAA seems happy enough and Rugby isn't much bothered either way, since it hardly affects them.
However, having addressed the proposal and heard what the Government has to say, the overwhelming opinion within soccer is that not only does it not meet our needs, but it is actively "wrong" for us in very many aspects. I don't want to rehash what these aspects are (Design, Capacity, Infrastructure, Access and above all Location), but the more we look at it, the more we are convinced it is a bad deal for soccer. And our fears are further exacerbated by every objective study into the issue to date - the most recent of these being the University of Ulster Report.
Consequently, there is a real prospect that if, under Government pressure, we sign up to a long Lease to play our games at the Maze, and the crowds are insufficient to pay our rent, then this could bankrupt the sport. And for all that we have a duty towards the concept of Shared Space etc, it is entirely unreasonable for any Government to hold a gun to our head and demand that we commit suicide, merely in order to suit another of their "Vanity Projects".
And that, without resort to anti-GAA sniping, or references to politics, or neutral areas, or any other of the more controversial aspects, is why the overwhelming majority of soccer fans are opposed to the Maze.This then brings us separately to the Durnien (Ormeau) Proposal. Soccer desperately needs a new international standard stadium. We do not have the money for one, nor is there any realistic prospect of raising the money ourselves. In such circumstances, you might have thought that the Government coming along and promising to build a new Stadium for "free" at the Maze, which we could use, would be the "Answer to a Maiden's Prayer".
However, for the reasons alluded to above, it is anything but.
Therefore, when a number of private developers spotted what they saw as a "gap in the market" (i.e. for a multi-sports arena in Belfast) and approached BCC, we have a right to be interested.
For its part, BCC considered three separate proposals, and concluded that Durnien's Ormeau Park could be feasible. Durnien's basic premise was that if BCC allowed him access to a part of Ormeau Park beside the Leisure Centre, he would build a multi-use arena, at no cost to either the ratepayer of taxpayer, and recoup his investment by operating the arena.
Such a proposal is not actually costing BCC any money, since (unlike the Maze) the land has no intrinsic value whatever, since they would never get permission to develop it for commercial, or even social, purposes. Instead, all they would be doing would be allowing the land to be used for one leisure purpose (arena) instead of another (parkland).
Now you are concerned that there may be no place for GAA in Durnien's scheme. However, there is no room for angling, athletics, motor-sports, swimming, hockey, tennis, pigeon-racing, or a million and one other sports and pasttimes carried out in NI.
Nor does there have to be, since Durnien is not asking for any public money to be spent on his scheme. (Besides which, the GAA have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in a new stadium in Belfast. That is their right, but they cannot complain about the consequences of a decision which they've taken of their own free will.)
Of course, the GAA may complain that if the IFA doesn't
commit commercial suicide agree to sign up to the Maze, then the GAA will lose out on the benefit they might have received by seeing the Maze built.
But aside from the fact that the IFA can hardly be expected to compromise its own interests merely for the sake of another sport, what this overlooks is that it is the Government which bound itself when it adopted the "All or None" approach, so it can just as easily
unbind itself.
That is, instead of spending £100m+ on a speculative project which is looking increasingly unviable commercially (Millennium Dome, anyone?), there is no good reason why it cannot do what I and many others have suggested as an alternative.
Namely, allow the money to be spent by the sports organisations themselves, on condition that they dedicate it to schemes and activities which have a clear cross-community benefit.
In fact, I would go further and say that even half the Maze money would produce a huge boost to the wellbeing of all three codes, thereby leaving a very significant amount to be spent on pressing social needs, such as schools and hospitals. That way, the entire population of NI would benefit, not just the sports fans, which is fitting, since it is
our money they're spending, after all.
One further benefit would accrue, which alone would produce the greatest benefit of all. Namely, by abandoning the stadium at the Maze, not only could this allow a thousand much-needed houses to be built on the site itself, but this would produce potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of extra revenue for the Government (i.e. from the Developers), which could be used to build
further housing.
By insisting that
all such housing will only be allowed if it is made available equally to both communities in NI, the Government will be achieving more in practical terms for the concept of "Shared Space" than a thousand sports stadia could ever produce.
And if that's not a good note on which to sign off from this thread, I don't know what is!
Onwards and Upwards!
(And Bollocks to the Maze :D)
are any of the tabloids serialising EGs book?
Quote from: An Fear Rua on June 22, 2007, 04:08:04 PM
are any of the tabloids serialising EGs book?
I've no idea. I don't read the Tabloids, since they don't deal with serious discussion, whole sentences or even big words.
Rather than just join in the endless, repetitive and essentially pointless level of slagging to which this thread has degenerated, I thought I'd take the time to write a considered post, since the topic is important to me and I think it merits serious attention. I had also hoped to elicit a serious response from other shades of opinion.
Do you have a serious opinion on what I posted? I'd be interested to hear from you if you do, since that was what I thought Discussion Boards were for.
Otherwise, you risk looking a bit of a tit if the above comment is the best you can come up with...
-Block stadium swipe 'pointless'
One of the notorious H-blocks would be retained if the plan goes ahead
Culture minister Edwin Poots has dismissed criticism by DUP colleague Nigel Dodds of the planned stadium at the former Maze prison site.
Mr Dodds said unionists would not support it if the green light was also given for a conflict transformation centre retaining one of the H-Blocks.
The North Belfast MP warned of an "IRA shrine", but Mr Poots said the H-Blocks are listed buildings and here to stay.
The Lagan Valley MLA said a stadium would take the focus from the H-Blocks.
"If people don't want any development at the Maze, those maintained structures will still be there, irrespective of whether there's a stadium developed there," he told Radio Ulster's Inside Politics.
The plans for the Maze stadium
"There's far greater potential for a shrine to be developed if that's the only thing left of the site."
A 35,000-seater stadium for soccer, GAA and rugby is planned for the Maze/Long Kesh site, but opponents argue the stadium should be built in Belfast instead.
Well said, Evil Genius, a well thought out contribution and hard to argue with though, as I've said before, you're a better person than me, I couldn't be bothered wasting the energy to put forward such detailed arguments when you just get spewed with insults and ignorance from serial closed minds and prepared scripts.
At some point in the coming weeks, the architects (HOK) will unveil the finalised stadium plans.
The following statement is notable in that it's the first to shed light on the actual design.
No mention of SammyG's favourite moving stands, instead it looks like multiple tiers will be used to make the stadium look less empty instead.
http://www.emeraldrugby.com/news_detail.asp?id=3117
Ulster rugby statement on Maze Stadium
27/06/2007 - 02/07/2007
By Anne Perry
Ulster Rugby CEO Michael Reid today made the following statement regarding recent press coverage regarding the MAZE stadium proposals.
"In light of certain media articles in the last 24 hours I would like to reiterate the position of Ulster Rugby as stated at the NI Assembly DCAL meeting held on Thursday afternoon at Stormont.
I would like to clarify the following points:
1. Ulster Rugby remain committed in principal to a stadium at the Maze / Long Kesh site.
2. Ulster Rugby has been actively involved in talks with the GAA and IFA through two Working Parties; the talks have focused on the Business Plan, Governance and Site Design of the Maze stadium.
3. To alleviate concerns about the crowd being "lost" in the Maze stadium the design team have proposed that the bottom tier of the stadium will hold 19/20 thousand supporters. This is an acceptable solution to Ulster Rugby as we feel a capacity of 19-20 thousand will provide a great atmosphere
4. There are some outstanding issues relating to Governance and the Business Plan for the Maze Stadium but all parties (Ulster Rugby, GAA, IFA) continue to meet with SIB, DCAL and PWC regularly to work towards a mutually satisfactory solution.
5. As stated by the Minister, Edwin Poots, the Maze Stadium is the only option on the table and therefore we are focusing all our efforts into the Maze Stadium. At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster Rugby.
WTF is the debate on this issue continuing?
Consider the following
1.The Maze/Long Kesh has won an unprecedented unanimous agreement from IFA, GAA, and URFU
2.The couple of dozen OWC Whingers allied to a bunch of meglomaniacal micro economists from Jordanstown have failed, I repreat failed, to identify one viable alternative Belfast location.
3.The plans have been drawn up, contractors identified etc,so ffs get the ball rolling at the Maze now
they should have built it on the outskirtd of dublin 8)
Quote from: scottish-dub on June 27, 2007, 03:31:45 PM
they should have built it on the outskirtd of dublin 8)
Jezuz, Sammy's face would be a picture at that suggestion... :D
Quote from: snatter on June 27, 2007, 02:49:07 PM
At some point in the coming weeks, the architects (HOK) will unveil the finalised stadium plans.
The following statement is notable in that it's the first to shed light on the actual design.
Snatter,
A few days back I took the trouble to compose a post in response to yours, where I outlined the position being taken by the majority of NI soccer supporters over the Maze stadium, more specifically, why we would much prefer a stadium in Belfast.
Do you have any thoughts on it? I appreciate it was very lengthy, so perhaps if you addressed the question of Location - out of town vs. city centre - that would be a start.
And to set the ball rolling, here is an extract from an interview in 2006 by World-renowned sports stadium achitect Rod Sheard, where he makes some interesting points
[highlighted]:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5052920.stm
Last Updated: Wednesday, 7 June 2006, 02:37 GMT 03:37 UK
Inside the stadium of the future
The 2006 World Cup sees Germany showcasing some of the best football grounds in the world and their design gives a clue to what the stadiums of the future will look like.
Globally, a new generation of sports stadiums are fast becoming an important symbol of the cultural and economic future of a city and country.
Germany is proud of its stadiums, with the jewel in the crown being the new Allianz Arena in Munich. Not only can it change colour, but architects say its shape and multi-panel roof are the key to the look of the grounds of the future.
Future grounds will be designed as bowls, with an abandonment of the idea of four stands surrounding a pitch, and with roofs. Crucially, they will also return to the heart of the cities, after many years of being sited outside the city.
"They will change, there's no doubt about it," said Rod Sheard, an internationally-renowned architect and leading expert on stadium design who worked with Sir Norman Foster on the new Wembley stadium.
"The big change that's happened in recent years, and will be a real change in the next 20, is that city planners have started to realise how important these buildings are in city centres," he told BBC World Service's Culture Shock programme.
Shape is key
The key experience for many architects planning the stadiums of the future is that of the Stadio Delle Alpi, built for the 1990 World Cup in Italy and now home to Turin clubs Juventus and Torino.
Despite Juventus being one of Italy's most famous and best-supported clubs, the Delle Alpi is very rarely above half full. Some of Juventus' less important fixtures have seen extraordinarily low attendances - in 2001, only 237 turned up for a cup game against Genoa.
Poor visibility, and the stadium's being sited some distance from Turin, are usually blamed.
"Back in the 60s and 70s, they were felt to be 'bad neighbour' buildings and were pushed out of town, and disconnected from the transport infrastructure, meaning they had to be surrounded by a swathe of car parks," Mr Sheard said.
"People now realise that was a totally wrong model, and that these are great buildings to have in a city centre. That is pretty well recognised as the model for the future." P.S. Before you reply, you might like to take a moment to reflect on the fact that Mr. Sheard is a Senior Partner in HOK, the Architectural firm appointed by the Government to design the proposed out-of-town Stadium at the Maze..... :o
EG,Gwelytah, Sammy G. The stadium is gonna be at the Maze/Long Kesh. Save your energy, no one that matters is listening ;D
Mr. Sheard is one of the architects, not one of the people responsible for drawing up the business plan and NOT involved in any of the organisations who are responsible for deciding on the location of the stadium. It is their role to design a stadium that will accomodate everyones needs regarding capacity, which according to the statement from Ulster Rygby will have approx 20,000 on the lower teir which will not affect atmosphere.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2007, 03:08:18 PM
2.The couple of dozen OWC Whingers allied to a bunch of meglomaniacal micro economists from Jordanstown have failed, I repreat failed, to identify one viable alternative Belfast location.
Viable in what way - those proposing the maze as viable fall back on the "if they build it theyll sort all the transport out" argument.
Ive yet to be persuaded of the viability of the maze - you yourself have pushed the train link for example, despite arguments about how viable it in actual fact is.
Quote from: snatter on June 27, 2007, 02:49:07 PM
At some point in the coming weeks, the architects (HOK) will unveil the finalised stadium plans.
The following statement is notable in that it's the first to shed light on the actual design.
No mention of SammyG's favourite moving stands, instead it looks like multiple tiers will be used to make the stadium look less empty instead.
Excellent, good to see that you have now conceeded the argument. There will be no option to change the capacity, which is what I (and anybody else who had studied the plans) has been saying all along.
Quote from: snatter on June 27, 2007, 02:49:07 PM
4. There are some outstanding issues relating to Governance and the Business Plan for the Maze Stadium but all parties (Ulster Rugby, GAA, IFA) continue to meet with SIB, DCAL and PWC regularly to work towards a mutually satisfactory solution.
5. As stated by the Minister, Edwin Poots, the Maze Stadium is the only option on the table and therefore we are focusing all our efforts into the Maze Stadium. At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster Rugby.
I think this point from the URFU statement suggests that issues such as transport, amenities etc etc are being discussed and although no business plan has been unveiled i am confident one will be produced after the 30th June deadline has passed. We can also see that a Business plan for Belfast has never been put together so why demand one for the maze when the other "options" have not produced one or even contacted the parties involved.
When the maze is built will you attend matches at it Sammy?
Quote from: SammyG on June 27, 2007, 04:19:14 PM
Excellent, good to see that you have now conceeded the argument. There will be no option to change the capacity, which is what I (and anybody else who had studied the plans) has been saying all along.
No but they have made it possible to vary the attendances by closing/opening various sections of the stadium when required without affecting atmosphere or visability. It will still provide the 20,000 for NI scooer and Ulster Rugby while also catering for the 40,000 GAA fans and other events that may require this attendance.
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on June 27, 2007, 04:27:29 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 27, 2007, 04:19:14 PM
Excellent, good to see that you have now conceeded the argument. There will be no option to change the capacity, which is what I (and anybody else who had studied the plans) has been saying all along.
No but they have made it possible to vary the attendances by closing/opening various sections of teh stadium when required without affecting atmosphere or visability. It will still provide the 20,000 for NI scooer and Ulster Rugby while also catering for the 40,000 GAA fans and other events that may require this attendance.
Sorry but that is complete bollix. A 40K stadium with a stand closed is still a 40K stadium. Snatter (and a few others) have been arguing that the Maze would have variable capacity. Anybody who had looked at the plans new this was a lie and now this point has been conceded and will hopefully be another nail in the coffin of this white elephant.
Quote from: stiffler on June 27, 2007, 04:24:41 PM
When the maze is built will you attend matches at it Sammy?
Won't have to worry about it as there's very little chance of it being built. In the last few weeks it's gone from 50/50 (or even 60/40) to being about 10/90 against and moving all the time. We always knew that the Maze wasn't viable and had no business case, now that Poots has been forced to admit this and try and get past the OGC, Audit Office and Robinson, the whole deal is crumbling like a house of cards. ;D
Evil,
I haven't time to give you the full answer your last two major posts deserve.
To be honest, I'm tired repeating myself to Sammy or challenging his guff.
My detailed replies to you would probably be a rehash of previous posts, albeit with few quotes to back them up.
Main points would still be along the lines of
1. International studies bear little relevance to optimal location in a divided society like NI.
Remember how we got here - NI Sports Council lobbied for a new "national" stadium after Scotland and Wales got theirs.
Belated acceptance by Westminster that NI should get a stadium, subject to all sports agreeing (Look at the 1999 Q&A session in Hansard that I quoted to Sammy a few days ago).
Recognition that excluding GAA from a "national" stadium sends out wrong signal to GAA's nationalist constituency.
Political backing (and consequent funding ) from UK Govt dependent on above cross community agreement.
Success dependent on neutral location.
GAA picks Maze as only suitable neutral location from SIB shortlist, failing to support any Belfast option put to it.
As said before, there is a whole school of ethnic geography that studies just how atypical land use is in NI, compared to non-divided societies.
Rightly or wrongly, the nature of our divided society will determine stadium location.
In one of my first posts on this over two years ago, I pointed out to some OWC'er that, yes, a city centre location ordinarily leads to a better atmosphere, etc.
HOWEVER, NI is still far from being an ordinary society.
Picture yourself and your family as part of 40k GAA fans travelling into Belfast.
You wouldn't be relaxed - rather you would have one eye on any bigots hanging round corners, etc.
You'd cover up your kids jersies and falgs and get them from the car to any stadium as quickly as possible.
So, for the vast majority of people who would use the stadium, ie gaelic football fans, there'd be no "big match atmosphere", etc.
2. it is GAA fans who would be travelling in largest numbers to any new stadium.
Genuinely independent studies of transport patterns of ALL fans to any new stadium, based on likely attendances (say on 2005 figures) should have been done a long time ago.
I reckon that any study would show
a. that nearly all fans would travel by car.
Forget all the guff about multi-modal transport nodes that Belfast offers.
It doesn't matter how many rail stations Belfast has, if there's not a train station in sight across south and west Ulster.
b. given the above, overall congestion would be reduced by an out of town site.
Trying to bring 40k supports by road into an already congested city causes gridlock within the city and on the motorway that they're trying to exit.
Surely properly constructed carparks designed solely to take flow off the motorway to be parked will be more efficient than pre-existing city roads already congested trying to get traffic from a to b.
c. Your point about mid-week soccer matches is entirely valid.
But
i. I'd think that if the Maze / M1 can take 40k coming from S/W Ulster, it could easily take 25k coming from Belfast.
ii. The needs of 25k mid-week soccer fans has to be weighed against 40k gaa ones struggling to travel through Belfast (see above).
iii. I do appreciate that, for Belfast based soccer fans, there will be more work involved in getting to midweek matches, and that their enjoyment will be curbed.
As always in this debate, what's your alternative? YOu either take the govt funding via the Maze, or have to go for a "yourselves alone" approach and raise funds yourselves (much like the GAA did for 100 years).
3. you alluded to your rejection of any multi sports stadium on design grounds alone.
I think that these issues have become less prominent now that rugby and soccer have successfully been hosted in Croker,a stadium twice the size of the propsoed NI stadium.
As I said to Sammy, its probably best to leave these aside until HOK publish their proposed design.
And as stated before, reliance on international practice in determining optimal capacity is shown to be flawed.
It ignores the extremely high per capita GAA attendances (see 2005 attendance figures) and high female/family support (see ESRI report).
How in hell did the UUJ come up with a 30k capacity when GAA crowds regularly exceed that figure by some margin (again see 2005 figures).
4. No matter how many more deserving cases exist for public funding, this money (for policical reasons in point 1) is ringfenced for a stadium only. NI plc either uses it, or loses it to the UK exchequer.
The same argument never stopped Wembley, or any other legacy / landmark projects.
Even disregarding the above (and you can't really), there's no fair, non-acrimonious way to divide up the money - as explained in previous post.
5. As stated before, I reckon I'm pretty typical of most GAA fans in that we're not cheerleaders of the Maze.
We just
a. see nothing better on the table
b. are determined that our more popular sports getted treated fairly in this whole debate.
To misquote some UUJ stooge on the telly last week - "if you were came down from mars and landed in NI, given the noise and dysfunctional media coverage of this debate, you'd swear it was the GAA who were the minor sport here".
Hey that's more than I thought I'd be able to write in a minute or two.
BTw, I don't think we'll agree on many points, given that my starting point is that a shared stadium is generally a good idea, while yours is looking at what's best for each sport and building separate facilities for each.
Imho, the political symbolism of a shared facility will win out, and if it doesn't Prudence Brownwill take the money back and give it to the Scots.
Quote from: snatter on June 27, 2007, 05:14:10 PMBTw, I don't think we'll agree on many points, given that my starting point is that a shared stadium is generally a good idea, while yours is looking at what's best for each sport and building separate facilities for each.
Imho, the political symbolism of a shared facility will win out, and if it doesn't Prudence Brownwill take the money back and give it to the Scots.
What political symbolism? You've been asked loads of times but you haven't told us how the Maze represents any sort of shared space. By supporting the Maze you are categorically opposing any chance of a shared space.
Snatter, i dont necessarily agree with everything you say, but a well thought out and put across post of your position
Quote from: snatter on June 27, 2007, 05:14:10 PM
Hey that's more than I thought I'd be able to write in a minute or two.
BTw, I don't think we'll agree on many points, given that my starting point is that a shared stadium is generally a good idea, while yours is looking at what's best for each sport and building separate facilities for each.
Imho, the political symbolism of a shared facility will win out, and if it doesn't Prudence Brownwill take the money back and give it to the Scots.
Fair enough, you've made your point from a GAA perspective (naturally enough), just as I've made mine from a soccer perspective - we'll have to agree to disagree and see what happens*.
However, I would qualify your final conclusion in one very important respect. In an ideal world, I genuinely would like to see a shared stadium, both for the principle of what such a scheme might do to bring people together, but also from the practical standpoint of saving money by avoiding duplication (triplication?) of facilities.
But try as I might, I really cannot see any neutral, feasible location which will satify all three sports, or an acceptable "one size fits all" stadium design, so that we will end up with something which in truth satisfies no-one very much, but costs a fortune.
If I did think this possible, I would even consider it worth it that we are spending £100m+ of taxpayers money, plus diverting a site worth £500m+ for housing etc, when £50m or £60m divvied out between the three sports would allow each to significantly improve their existing facilities to a higher level.
Instead, if built, I can see us ending up with a messy compromise which will see GAA fans saying "OK, but no big deal"; rugby fans saying "Where?" (once or twice a year); and a dwindling band of soccer fans trudging out there, showing little more enthusiasm for the place than the previous residents displayed >:(
As someone once said, "A Camel is a Racehorse designed by a Committee". Had some local politicians shoved their nose in, that Committee would no doubt have come up with an Elephant. I'll leave it to you to guess what colour... :(
* - On a happier note, as time goes by, I genuinely do feel that this scheme is becoming less likely, rather than more. Onwards and Upwards! ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2007, 05:47:01 PM
But try as I might, I really cannot see any neutral, feasible location which will satify all three sports, or an acceptable "one size fits all" stadium design, so that we will end up with something which in truth satisfies no-one very much, but costs a fortune.
The GAA, IFA and Ulster Rugby have already agreed on a neutral location that satisfys the three sports.
Its clear to say that one is not too happy at sharing resources with the GAA.
Quote from: stiffler on June 27, 2007, 05:53:59 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2007, 05:47:01 PM
But try as I might, I really cannot see any neutral, feasible location which will satify all three sports, or an acceptable "one size fits all" stadium design, so that we will end up with something which in truth satisfies no-one very much, but costs a fortune.
The GAA, IFA and Ulster Rugby have already agreed on a neutral location that satisfys the three sports.
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. The GAA decided it would be the Maze and the government told rugby (who aren't going any way) and football to like it or lump it. There was no discussion about whether the site was neutral (it isn't by any measure it is in the middle of a loyalist heartland) and certainly no consideration of the requirements of the various sports.
Quote from: stiffler on June 27, 2007, 05:53:59 PM
Its clear to say that one is not too happy at sharing resources with the GAA.
Whats that supposed to mean?
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on June 27, 2007, 04:06:17 PM
Mr. Sheard is one of the architects, not one of the people responsible for drawing up the business plan and NOT involved in any of the organisations who are responsible for deciding on the location of the stadium. It is their role to design a stadium that will accomodate everyones needs regarding capacity, which according to the statement from Ulster Rygby will have approx 20,000 on the lower teir which will not affect atmosphere.
I'm well aware of Sheard's role i.e. if the politicians come up with the money, he'll build them whatever they want. He's a Businessman, after all, and that's what businessmen do.
You seem to have missed my point, so I'll spell it out to you. Proponents of the Maze invariably point to nice, shiny Computer Generated Images to dazzle us all with the cleverness of their scheme. And if these images are expensively produced, by celebrated designers/Architects, so much the better.
However, I am merely pointing out the deception being inflicted on us of politicians pointing to the "endorsement" of their scheme by Architects who, when speaking candidly in another forum, reveal that they actually think such ideas as are being proposed here are a load of nonsense... ...unless the money's* too good to turn down! >:(
* - OUR money, btw. ::)
Quote from: stiffler on June 27, 2007, 05:53:59 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2007, 05:47:01 PM
But try as I might, I really cannot see any neutral, feasible location which will satify all three sports, or an acceptable "one size fits all" stadium design, so that we will end up with something which in truth satisfies no-one very much, but costs a fortune.
The GAA, IFA and Ulster Rugby have already agreed on a neutral location that satisfys the three sports.
Its clear to say that one is not too happy at sharing resources with the GAA.
"Agreement" is it?
The GAA*, from a position of strength, "agreed" that it would not share any stadium with the other two sports if it were in Belfast; rather, it would only "agree" to share if it were located in
their preferred location, and to
their design requirement.
Rugby "agreed" on the basis that it will never have to share the stadium with anyone more than once or twice a year, which is no hardship if it keeps the Government sweet enough to go on coughing up the rest of the £8million Grant towards renovating Ravenhill.
And soccer is "agreeing" on the basis that if they're going to be shafted, they might as well bend over and make it as painless as possible.
I suppose if you really insist on believing that soccer's objection is to the principle of "sharing", rather than the wish to avoid being coerced into a scheme which will likely prove seriously harmful to their interests, then there is no way I'm going to change your mind. At least not after countless posts, running for pages and pages. ::)
* - I suppose I must repeat for the hundredth time that I don't blame the GAA for playing their hand cleverly.
Sammy, EG, nifan,
We all know that you (NI soccer fans in general) are not in favour of the maze plans. The government has also made it clear that the proposed money will only be made available for a shared multi purpose stadium that all 3 sporting bodies agree upon in an agreed upon location. The GAA have vetoed any inner city Belfast location leaving the maze the only proposed alternative location.
I am not being hypocritical or anything as i am generally interested in your views. If the IFA were to veto the Maze proposal (as NI fans would wish then to do from my understanding), and no money given to any sporting association for refurbishments, where would NI play intternational matches? Scotland? England? Ravenhill? - unlikely as the rugby pitch is already heavily used and the ground do not meet UEFA requirements.
My general thinking would be that its better to have a stadium in your own country, be that it is less accessable than an inner city location (less accessable because the majority of NI supporters are from the east of the provience or Belfast), than have to travel abroad for 3-4 hours by plane/boat to watch your team play (I said your because i have no interest in soccer be that NI, ROI etc)
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on June 28, 2007, 06:52:06 AM
The GAA have vetoed any inner city Belfast location leaving the maze the only proposed alternative location.
Have they? When was this? I thought it was more a case that they weren't included in the Ormeau proposal. No other proposal that I know of has been put forward as a serious proposition.
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on June 28, 2007, 06:52:06 AM
The GAA have vetoed any inner city Belfast location leaving the maze the only proposed alternative location.
Have they? When was this?
At the original Maze planning meetings, there were several options, Titanic Quarter, North Foreshore, Ormeau, Maysfield and Maze. The GAA refused to even discuss any Belfast site and used their veto.
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 08:53:12 AM
I thought it was more a case that they weren't included in the Ormeau proposal. No other proposal that I know of has been put forward as a serious proposition.
You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Durnien has said several times that he will listen to any sport that wants to be included. He is a business man and the more times the ground is used the more money he makes.
Quote from: SammyG on June 27, 2007, 05:57:46 PM
Quote from: stiffler on June 27, 2007, 05:53:59 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 27, 2007, 05:47:01 PM
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense. The GAA decided it would be the Maze and the government told rugby (who aren't going any way) and football to like it or lump it.
So Ulster Rugby aren't going to the Maze?
Ulster Rugby Statement : Maze Stadium
22 June 2007, 5:03 pm
By Anne Perry
Ulster Rugby CEO Michael Reid today made the following statement regarding recent press coverage regarding the MAZE stadium proposals.
"In light of certain media articles in the last 24 hours I would like to reiterate the position of Ulster Rugby as stated at the NI Assembly DCAL meeting held on Thursday afternoon at Stormont.
I would like to clarify the following points:
1. Ulster Rugby remain committed in principal to a stadium at the Maze / Long Kesh site.
2. Ulster Rugby has been actively involved in talks with the GAA and IFA through two Working Parties; the talks have focused on the Business Plan, Governance and Site Design of the Maze stadium.
3. To alleviate concerns about the crowd being "lost" in the Maze stadium the design team have proposed that the bottom tier of the stadium will hold 19/20 thousand supporters. This is an acceptable solution to Ulster Rugby as we feel a capacity of 19-20 thousand will provide a great atmosphere
4. There are some outstanding issues relating to Governance and the Business Plan for the Maze Stadium but all parties (Ulster Rugby, GAA, IFA) continue to meet with SIB, DCAL and PWC regularly to work towards a mutually satisfactory solution.
5. As stated by the Minister, Edwin Poots, the Maze Stadium is the only option on the table and therefore we are focusing all our efforts into the Maze Stadium. At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster Rugby.
Quote from: SammyG
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 08:53:12 AM
I thought it was more a case that they weren't included in the Ormeau proposal. No other proposal that I know of has been put forward as a serious proposition.
You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Durnien has said several times that he will listen to any sport that wants to be included. He is a business man and the more times the ground is used the more money he makes.
Donagh,
just for the record, Sammy's talking c**k and he knows it.
The GAA have always been excluded from the Ormeau development.
All design proposals have always been for a soccer sized pitch.
Here's a repost of a reply I made to Evil on 19th June:
Quote from: snatter on June 20, 2007, 12:26:10 AM
QuoteQuote from: snatter on June 19, 2007, 10:15:58 PM
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
This is a disgraceful lie. Either produce your evidence that the people behind the Durnien proposal and its supporters - including Nationalist councillors and the local SDLP MP - are anti-GAA, or withdraw it.
My evidence?
The plot is allegedly too small to accomodate gaelic games.
My source? None other than yourself earlier in this thread. As you said yourself
Quote"And in any case, the proposed site is probably not big enough to stage Gaelic games,"
How therefore can my statement possibly be a lie?
If you deliberately develop a stadium on a plot that is too small to accomodate gaelic football, then it is clear that the development does not cater for gaelic. Pretty obvious I'd say.
Nowhere did I say that anybody was anti-GAA.
What I did say and I repeat:
afaik, at no stage were the GAA invited or approached in any way about the Durnian proposal.
To ignore the largest spectator sport in NI, and all the revenue they bring, shows that they never had any intention of GAA involvment.
From the outset the Durnian proposal had a 22k capacity - much too low to be of any use to the GAA (again see 2005 figures), but just big enough to recreate another mini Windsor).
Oh, and as if you were in any doubt, and as Evil Genus has already pointed out in this thread - the Ormeau developemnt isn't (and never was) big enough to accommodate gaelic games.
Yep, despite being surrounded by open parkland, they managed to select a plot that was just too small.
No coincidence there - they never wanted a gaelic player about the place.
I make no apology for describing the durnien proposal an "orange dome".
If you deliberately exclude the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, then, rightly or wrongly, that is what it will be perceived as.
It is the exclusion of a whole section of the northern irish community that is the real disgrace.
Especially if the council ever gifted them 10's of millions.
Imho, this developer has made a strategic mistake in not attempting to court the GAA and persudade them that Ormeau (or another site) are suitable. They have missed out on an opportunity to avail of millions of once-off funding.
I can't explain why the development company has apparently chosen not to involve the GAA, only it can.
Quote from: SammyG on June 28, 2007, 09:27:25 AM
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on June 28, 2007, 06:52:06 AM
The GAA have vetoed any inner city Belfast location leaving the maze the only proposed alternative location.
Have they? When was this?
At the original Maze planning meetings, there were several options, Titanic Quarter, North Foreshore, Ormeau, Maysfield and Maze. The GAA refused to even discuss any Belfast site and used their veto.
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 08:53:12 AM
I thought it was more a case that they weren't included in the Ormeau proposal. No other proposal that I know of has been put forward as a serious proposition.
You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Durnien has said several times that he will listen to any sport that wants to be included. He is a business man and the more times the ground is used the more money he makes.
Have you the minutes of these meetings?
Fao Donagh, Snatter, Deal Me In etc.
How many times does it have to be said, but the Maze and Ormeau are not "either/or" projects, so need to be considered separately, rather than conflated.
I couldn't be arsed searching the exacts dates/timetable, but the sequence of events was as follows.
The Government decided (without consultation, btw) that it was going to fund a multi-sports stadium on a single site, but only on condition that all three sports came on board together.
They studied a number of different sites, eventually coming down to four - three in Belfast, plus the Maze. The GAA used their veto to exclude any site in Belfast, so this left the Maze. Now as it happens, had soccer been in a strong enough position to exercise a veto, I'm sure it would have vetoed the Maze (i.e. insisted on Belfast), but they are in no position to say this. Rugby couldn't give a stuff, since they won't be playing more than 1 or 2 games a season at the Maze (max), but went along since they don't want to piss off the Government over an £8 million grant to refurbish Ravenhill (where they'll continue to play 95% of their matches).
Entirely separately and at a later date, a number of private developers (possibly prompted by the Maze issue), came to the conclusion that there was a gap in the market for a multi-use arena in Belfast, whether in addition to the Maze, or instead (should the Maze not get built).
Belfast City Council considered these and selected Durnien's proposal for Ormeau. The attraction of this was that (unlike the Maze), neither the Ratepayer nor the Taxpayer was going to have to pay any money towards it (i.e. Durnien would borrow the money to build and pay it back from the procceds of operating it - hopefully leaving a profit)
BCC would be required to make a site available, but Ormeau is acceptable, since it has no value due to the impossibility of getting permission even to sell it (never mind develop it) and the particular location sought by Durnien is little used, but next to an existing Leisure Centre.
As regards the use to which Ormeau would be made, Durnien is a Developer, so he doesn't give a damn what activities are staged, he will accept those which are likely to be most profitable. As such, he has never ruled out GAA, but realistically, he knows this will not happen since the GAA has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention whatever of playing in any Belfast stadium (other than Casement) so there is no point "knocking on a locked door". ).
(There is one further complication, which is that even if the GAA were amenable, they would require a bigger playing area and seating capacity, which would push up building costs etc, which would affect the profitability of the whole scheme).
Consequently, Durnien has come up with a proposed design which depends primarily for its hoped-for profitability on Greyhound Racing, which can be staged 3 or 4 times a week. However, on its own, this (presumably) would be insufficient to repay the construction costs and turn a profit, so he's looking for additional activities. And of these, by far the most likely is soccer, but only since GAA won't consider Belfast and Rugby is happy where it is.
Therefore, neither Durnien, BCC or the IFA is setting out to "do down" the GAA over Ormeau; it and the Maze are two entirely different proposals and should be considered as such.
Of course, if Durnien were somehow to entice the IFA into Ormeau, that would finish the Maze. However, he and BCC cannot be blamed should that happen, since neither of them has any responsibility towards the Maze, nor were they the ones who insisted on a shared stadium. Neither do they intend spending millions of taxpayers/public money on a scheme for which there is absolutely no evidence of taxpayers' demand - not that they were ever asked.
And if anyone from the GAA feels aggrieved by the IFA suiting themselves and moving to Ormeau, thereby blocking their use of the Maze, they should remember that there is absolutely nothing to stop the Government from changing its own rules and dividing the Maze money between the three sports as "compensation".
That way, all three sports would get a massive boost, each would be able to make the arrangements that best suit themselves, the taxpayer would be saved millions on a potential White Elephant, and the Maze could be turned over for much needed affordable, cross-community housing, whilst also engendering hundreds of millions of pounds capable of being spent on schools and hospitals etc.
Can somebody please tell me what is wrong with any of that?
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 10:07:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on June 28, 2007, 09:27:25 AM
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 08:53:12 AM
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on June 28, 2007, 06:52:06 AM
The GAA have vetoed any inner city Belfast location leaving the maze the only proposed alternative location.
Have they? When was this?
At the original Maze planning meetings, there were several options, Titanic Quarter, North Foreshore, Ormeau, Maysfield and Maze. The GAA refused to even discuss any Belfast site and used their veto.
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 08:53:12 AM
I thought it was more a case that they weren't included in the Ormeau proposal. No other proposal that I know of has been put forward as a serious proposition.
You can keep repeating this but it won't make it true. Durnien has said several times that he will listen to any sport that wants to be included. He is a business man and the more times the ground is used the more money he makes.
Have you the minutes of these meetings?
No we've been refused access to them (despite several FoI requests), however the details were revealed by Tony Whithead of the SIB, in answer to questions at several fans forums.
Quote from: SammyG on June 28, 2007, 01:17:15 PM
No we've been refused access to them (despite several FoI requests), however the details were revealed by Tony Whithead of the SIB, in answer to questions at several fans forums.
So it's very possible you're talking rubbish then?
"but Ormeau is acceptable, since it has no value due to the impossibility of getting permission"
I'd like to see you get permission for a stadium there! The locals have deep pockets and will fight it tooth and nail for years.
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 28, 2007, 01:17:15 PM
No we've been refused access to them (despite several FoI requests), however the details were revealed by Tony Whithead of the SIB, in answer to questions at several fans forums.
So it's very possible you're talking rubbish then?
Well Whitehead repeated it on several occaisions and it has never been challenged by either Poots and Co or the GAA, so I'd be very surprised if it was rubbish. Whitehead is a cheerleader for the Maze so he's hardly likely to make statements that will damage the Maze, if they're untrue.
In fairness donagh, we are told to believe that the transport infrastructure etc will be in place and weve seen nothing concrete on any of this.
In fact, most arguments for any location can come back to "have you seen the minutes" or similar.
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 01:18:30 PM
Quote from: SammyG on June 28, 2007, 01:17:15 PM
No we've been refused access to them (despite several FoI requests), however the details were revealed by Tony Whithead of the SIB, in answer to questions at several fans forums.
So it's very possible you're talking rubbish then?
It's also possible that he's telling the truth - or is your Default Position for anyone who states something which is inconvenient for you to challenge their integrity and shout "Liar, Liar"?
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 28, 2007, 02:19:38 PM
It's also possible that he's telling the truth - or is your Default Position for anyone who states something which is inconvenient for you to challenge their integrity and shout "Liar, Liar"?
Wise up you dick, where have I called him a liar? It is possible he's telling the truth, but neither you, or I, or Sammy or nifan or anyone outside the meetings know for definate.
Quote from: SouthArmaghBandit on June 28, 2007, 01:22:08 PM
"but Ormeau is acceptable, since it has no value due to the impossibility of getting permission"
I'd like to see you get permission for a stadium there! The locals have deep pockets and will fight it tooth and nail for years.
Ormeau Park has no development value, since it would be impossible to get permission to sell it for commercial/residential/industrial use.
However, there is no obvious reason why a part of it cannot be switched from one Leisure use (parkland) to another (stadium). After all, permission was granted for the construction of the Ozone Centre next to the proposed stadium site:
http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/leisurecentres/images/Tennis%20CentreOzone.jpg
Of course, local residents may object on planning grounds (traffic etc), however, Councillor Bob Stoker, Chairman of BCC's Community & Recreation Committee, stated on TV last week that they have already taken advice from the Planning Department and don't consider that this will be a problem.
Quote from: Donagh on June 28, 2007, 02:24:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 28, 2007, 02:19:38 PM
It's also possible that he's telling the truth - or is your Default Position for anyone who states something which is inconvenient for you to challenge their integrity and shout "Liar, Liar"?
Wise up you dick, where have I called him a liar? It is possible he's telling the truth, but neither you, or I, or Sammy or nifan or anyone outside the meetings know for definate.
The conversations he is relating either happened, in which case he's telling the truth, or they didn't, in which case he's telling lies. By your use of the term "nonsense", your clearly implying that he's making it up i.e. lying.
Which is fair enough, I suppose, except that there can be no debate on a forum like this if individuals refuse to accept the integrity of other individuals (or resort to abusive personal terms, like "dick", for that matter), or demand written evidence* etc of every assertion by another which is inconvenient to their case.
Anyhow, having addressed a lengthy post to you and others earlier this afternoon (1 pm), do you have any reply? Or do you just prefer to snipe from the sidelines at every minor point, loophole or quibble you can find in other people's posts?
* - It is curious that these tactics, to which you seem frequently to resort, are also the tactics of the DUP when, for example, they demanded photographic evidence from the Independent Commission that the IRA was disarming. Then again, perhaps it is this similarity of approach which explains why SF and the DUP seem to be getting on so well at Stormont?
I guess you could argue that donagh is in fact calling whitehead a liar - and in fairness hes proven himself to be this already.
Quote from: nifan on June 28, 2007, 02:53:03 PM
I guess you could argue that donagh is in fact calling whitehead a liar - and in fairness hes proven himself to be this already.
Fair point; if it was
Whitehead Donagh was challenging, then I'll withdraw. (To eat my hat ;))
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 28, 2007, 02:44:44 PM
* - It is curious that these tactics, to which you seem frequently to resort, are also the tactics of the DUP when, for example, they demanded photographic evidence from the Independent Commission that the IRA was disarming. Then again, perhaps it is this similarity of approach which explains why SF and the DUP seem to be getting on so well at Stormont?
Not DUP tactics - SammyG tactics, though maybe he's borrowed them.
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 28, 2007, 01:00:02 PM
Fao Donagh, Snatter, Deal Me In etc.
How many times does it have to be said, but the Maze and Ormeau are not "either/or" projects, so need to be considered separately, rather than conflated.
I couldn't be arsed searching the exacts dates/timetable, but the sequence of events was as follows.
The Government decided (without consultation, btw) that it was going to fund a multi-sports stadium on a single site, but only on condition that all three sports came on board together.
They studied a number of different sites, eventually coming down to four - three in Belfast, plus the Maze. The GAA used their veto to exclude any site in Belfast, so this left the Maze. Now as it happens, had soccer been in a strong enough position to exercise a veto, I'm sure it would have vetoed the Maze (i.e. insisted on Belfast), but they are in no position to say this. Rugby couldn't give a stuff, since they won't be playing more than 1 or 2 games a season at the Maze (max), but went along since they don't want to piss off the Government over an £8 million grant to refurbish Ravenhill (where they'll continue to play 95% of their matches).
Entirely separately and at a later date, a number of private developers (possibly prompted by the Maze issue), came to the conclusion that there was a gap in the market for a multi-use arena in Belfast, whether in addition to the Maze, or instead (should the Maze not get built).
Belfast City Council considered these and selected Durnien's proposal for Ormeau. The attraction of this was that (unlike the Maze), neither the Ratepayer nor the Taxpayer was going to have to pay any money towards it (i.e. Durnien would borrow the money to build and pay it back from the procceds of operating it - hopefully leaving a profit)
BCC would be required to make a site available, but Ormeau is acceptable, since it has no value due to the impossibility of getting permission even to sell it (never mind develop it) and the particular location sought by Durnien is little used, but next to an existing Leisure Centre.
As regards the use to which Ormeau would be made, Durnien is a Developer, so he doesn't give a damn what activities are staged, he will accept those which are likely to be most profitable. As such, he has never ruled out GAA, but realistically, he knows this will not happen since the GAA has made it abundantly clear that it has no intention whatever of playing in any Belfast stadium (other than Casement) so there is no point "knocking on a locked door". ).
(There is one further complication, which is that even if the GAA were amenable, they would require a bigger playing area and seating capacity, which would push up building costs etc, which would affect the profitability of the whole scheme).
Consequently, Durnien has come up with a proposed design which depends primarily for its hoped-for profitability on Greyhound Racing, which can be staged 3 or 4 times a week. However, on its own, this (presumably) would be insufficient to repay the construction costs and turn a profit, so he's looking for additional activities. And of these, by far the most likely is soccer, but only since GAA won't consider Belfast and Rugby is happy where it is.
Therefore, neither Durnien, BCC or the IFA is setting out to "do down" the GAA over Ormeau; it and the Maze are two entirely different proposals and should be considered as such.
Of course, if Durnien were somehow to entice the IFA into Ormeau, that would finish the Maze. However, he and BCC cannot be blamed should that happen, since neither of them has any responsibility towards the Maze, nor were they the ones who insisted on a shared stadium. Neither do they intend spending millions of taxpayers/public money on a scheme for which there is absolutely no evidence of taxpayers' demand - not that they were ever asked.
And if anyone from the GAA feels aggrieved by the IFA suiting themselves and moving to Ormeau, thereby blocking their use of the Maze, they should remember that there is absolutely nothing to stop the Government from changing its own rules and dividing the Maze money between the three sports as "compensation".
That way, all three sports would get a massive boost, each would be able to make the arrangements that best suit themselves, the taxpayer would be saved millions on a potential White Elephant, and the Maze could be turned over for much needed affordable, cross-community housing, whilst also engendering hundreds of millions of pounds capable of being spent on schools and hospitals etc.
Can somebody please tell me what is wrong with any of that?
Evil,
a few replies on this - all siad before, but I'll repost nonetheless:
1. No GAA veto, either we're all in on this, or it doesn't happen.I must object to this "GAA exercising a veto" crap. You can't paint them as the bad guys if they found none of the three Belfast options neutral. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
ALL THREE SPORTS BODIES HAVE AN EQUAL VETO ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED STADIUM. IF ANY WISHES TO WALK AWAY, FOR WHATEVERE REASON, THEY ARE FREE TO DO SO.
The only caveat is that the Govt. have made it clear that if one sport goes it alone, they won'tt get public assistance in developing any non-inclusive stadium.
2. No way is Ormeau site free - any gifting of public asset to stadium that excludes GAA is not on.The Ormeau site is not free.
Even the UUJ
impartial report put a £3 Million tag on it, still zoned for recreational use. The site is a real public subsidy.
If Belfast City Council wish to subsidise any privately developed stadium, it had better make provision for GAA, or they're be one hell of a row.
Excluding the GAA from a publicly subsidised stadium won't be supported by nationalist councillors in Belfast, or their parties HQ's either. In all probability, it wouldn't go ahead without such nationalist support.
If it did, there'd be undoubtedly be another Tallaght-esque court saga.
3. Splitting the money can't work fairlya. How do you possibly divide the money up fairly?
On need, eg based on actual past attendance figures?
On build cost?
Just split it three ways?
I put this to you before and you said some sort of "independent" committee could decide.
How would the independence" of this "independent" committee be determined, and what criteria would it use?
No matter how it operated, there would be calls of bias.
One problem is that the costs of developing soccer and GAA stadia differ significantly.
So many soccer stadia have been designed and built by the big firms, that they've become almost off the peg.
The engineering needed has been well calculated and costed already.
A GAA stadium built to the exact same levels of comfort and safety on the other hand will have to be completely bespoke designed.
Design, engineering and construction costs will be higher.
Additionally, it is well established that stadium build costs increase exponentially, not directly proportional to capacity.
To illustrate
Arsenal FC
Name: Emirates Stadium
Opened: July 2006
Costs: £390 million
Capacity: 60,000
Southampton
St. Mary's
Opened: July 2001
Cost: £32m
Capacity 32689
If GAA fans want equal treatment in terms of having a capacity that suits its actual attendance figures (they dwarf NI soccer), and guarantees them the same level of comfort (seats, roof) as NI fans, then our share of the funding would be far greater.
MY guess is that the OWC brigade and unreconstructed old school unionists would be the loudest to complain at us getting significantly more money.
It would be a sectarian bun fight of the highest order.
A three way split on the other hand gives them enough to build an all seated and covered stadium for their smaller crowds.
Our share would be too little to give the same level of comfort to our much higher fan base.
My guess is that the majority of our crowds would still be standing on a cold wet uncovered concrete terrace, while you guys are warm and dry.
b. Creating separate facilities whose usage does not reflect the whole committee is so against the grain of the Govt.'s new Shared Spaces policy.
People need to realise that the Govt. is trying to teach all us natives a lesson here - either start sharing and co-operating, or you get nothing.
Its possible that the Govt. might publicly do a U-turn, but IMHO, its more likely that they'd teach us all a lesson (a la rates and water bills) and tell us to fcuk off.
Remember that Brown is no friend of NI in the way that Blair was. He looks at the per capita funding we get in NI compared to his own Scotland and thinks we're ungrateful spongers who get too much already.
Snatter
Is there any chance you could answer the question of how the Maze fulfills a shared space agenda?
Quote from: snatter on June 28, 2007, 08:07:16 PM
1. No GAA veto, either we're all in on this, or it doesn't happen.
I must object to this "GAA exercising a veto" crap. You can't paint them as the bad guys if they found none of the three Belfast options neutral. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
ALL THREE SPORTS BODIES HAVE AN EQUAL VETO ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SHARED STADIUM. IF ANY WISHES TO WALK AWAY, FOR WHATEVERE REASON, THEY ARE FREE TO DO SO.
The only caveat is that the Govt. have made it clear that if one sport goes it alone, they won'tt get public assistance in developing any non-inclusive stadium.
2. No way is Ormeau site free - any gifting of public asset to stadium that excludes GAA is not on.
The Ormeau site is not free.
Even the UUJ impartial report put a £3 Million tag on it, still zoned for recreational use. The site is a real public subsidy.
If Belfast City Council wish to subsidise any privately developed stadium, it had better make provision for GAA, or they're be one hell of a row.
Excluding the GAA from a publicly subsidised stadium won't be supported by nationalist councillors in Belfast, or their parties HQ's either. In all probability, it wouldn't go ahead without such nationalist support.
If it did, there'd be undoubtedly be another Tallaght-esque court saga.
3. Splitting the money can't work fairly
a. How do you possibly divide the money up fairly?
On need, eg based on actual past attendance figures?
On build cost?
Just split it three ways?
I put this to you before and you said some sort of "independent" committee could decide.
How would the independence" of this "independent" committee be determined, and what criteria would it use?
No matter how it operated, there would be calls of bias.
One problem is that the costs of developing soccer and GAA stadia differ significantly.
So many soccer stadia have been designed and built by the big firms, that they've become almost off the peg.
The engineering needed has been well calculated and costed already.
A GAA stadium built to the exact same levels of comfort and safety on the other hand will have to be completely bespoke designed.
Design, engineering and construction costs will be higher.
Additionally, it is well established that stadium build costs increase exponentially, not directly proportional to capacity.
To illustrate
Arsenal FC
Name: Emirates Stadium
Opened: July 2006
Costs: £390 million
Capacity: 60,000
Southampton
St. Mary's
Opened: July 2001
Cost: £32m
Capacity 32689
If GAA fans want equal treatment in terms of having a capacity that suits its actual attendance figures (they dwarf NI soccer), and guarantees them the same level of comfort (seats, roof) as NI fans, then our share of the funding would be far greater.
MY guess is that the OWC brigade and unreconstructed old school unionists would be the loudest to complain at us getting significantly more money.
It would be a sectarian bun fight of the highest order.
A three way split on the other hand gives them enough to build an all seated and covered stadium for their smaller crowds.
Our share would be too little to give the same level of comfort to our much higher fan base.
My guess is that the majority of our crowds would still be standing on a cold wet uncovered concrete terrace, while you guys are warm and dry.
b. Creating separate facilities whose usage does not reflect the whole committee is so against the grain of the Govt.'s new Shared Spaces policy.
People need to realise that the Govt. is trying to teach all us natives a lesson here - either start sharing and co-operating, or you get nothing.
Its possible that the Govt. might publicly do a U-turn, but IMHO, its more likely that they'd teach us all a lesson (a la rates and water bills) and tell us to fcuk off.
Remember that Brown is no friend of NI in the way that Blair was. He looks at the per capita funding we get in NI compared to his own Scotland and thinks we're ungrateful spongers who get too much already.
How many times do I have to say it, but nobody here is painting the GAA as "the bad guys" in this. If anything, I have expressed my admiration for the way they have looked after their own interests over this affair.
As I see it, the Bad Guy in this is the Government, since it is telling all three sports they have an equal say (veto), when they know that only one can/will exercise it, one doesn't care either way and the third is in no position to object to anything put in front of them.
And notwithstanding that the IFA is largely to blame for the mismanagement of their own affairs, it is still fundamentally dishonest of the Government to pretend that they are being even-handed.
And it should be added that the GAA has not only exercised a veto over Location - the most critical aspect as far as soccer is concerned - but the original announcement from the Government was for a 28,000 seater stadium. The GAA pointed out that this was inadequate for their needs and Hey Presto - the new design was for 42,000, with a concomitant increase in cost.
And as for there being no public assistance if any sport "goes it alone", if Ormeau does get off the ground and soccer moves in, neither party (Durnien/IFA) is going to require public assistance. Of course, by the Rules imposed upon us by the Government, this would mean the Maze would not be built, but why should the IFA sign up for something which is seriously contrary to their own interests, merely to suit another sport? The GAA did not agree e.g. to a Belfast Location or a 28,000 capacity, even though those would suit both soccer and rugby.
As for the "subsidy" of £3m to be provided by BCC, you greatly misrepresent the situation. BCC will continue to own the site. But by allowing a change of use from one leisure purpose to another, they will be receiving an amenity, worth many millions, which may be used by the whole of the people of Belfast, should they choose.
In fact, the proposed stadium is no different from the Leisure Centre which BCC built on a part of the park, to cater primarily for tennis. Did the GAA (or IFA or URFU, for that matter) complain when a part of the Park was given over to Tennis?
Of course, the new stadium is unlikely to stage GAA sports - primarily because the GAA doesn't want anything to do with a stadium in Belfast - but neither will it accommodate a million other sports and leisure pursuits. I'm not interested in e.g. the Arts, but I don't complain when BCC spends money subsidising festivals etc. In the end, the Council is accountable to the voters for how they spend ratepayers money. And as it happens, the Ormeau proposal has received support from across the community, including the SDLP MP for the area. Contrast this to the Maze, which was dreamed up by unaccountable Ministers parachuted in from Westminster.
As for your implication that Nationalists will be discriminated against if GAA is not included in Ormeau. Quite apart from the fact that it is the GAA which is excluding itself, as is their right, by refusing to consider a Belfast location, there will be no "exclusion" of anyone from the stadium. Greyhound racing is open to all, soccer is open to all, rugby is open to all and concerts are open to all. All, that is, except those people who aren't interested in dogs, soccer, rugby, concerts etc i.e. the great majority of people in Belfast, Nationalist and Unionist.
As for a legal challenge, anyone is free to object. However, these are likely to be on the grounds of traffic, planning, Sunday school children(!) etc. If the GAA objects because this scheme does not include them, they will be laughed out of Court (imo), since "themmuns is gettin' everything" is no grounds for objection. Otherwise, no-one would ever build e.g. a swimming pool, tennis court, athletics track etc, because these don't accommodate Gaelic sports. Or soccer. Or rugby.
As for the difficulty of sharing the money dedicated to the Maze... Jesus, if politicians can find a way of sharing power to govern NI, in a way thar sees Paisley and McGuinness cosying up to each other, I daresay some means of splitting £50 million could be found. ::)
And yes, there would be calls of bias - but this is NI, after all. If we heeded every call of bias that was ever made, nothing would ever get done. The DUP made an entire political manifesto of shouting "No" for the last 30 years, but when they were ignored, they eventually they had to say "Yes".
As for the differing costs associated with building stadia, I'm afraid you're talking nonsense. FIFA/UEFA impose far higher requirements for staging international soccer than exists for GAA. For example, standing is allowed in GAA - even in the finest stadium, Croke Park - whereas it is prohibited in soccer. Plus there are all sorts of additional requirements for segregation, ticketing and access, covered warm-up areas, medical and drug-testing facilities etc which add immensely to the cost of a modern soccer stadium, and none of which apply to GAA.
Indeed, were they of a mind to, the GAA could stage a Gaelic match at Windsor Park right now, with a capacity of around 25,000, half of them standing. And 25,000 would be quite adequate for the IFA, except that FIFA won't allow it.
(As for your Googled Emirates example, the reason for the high cost is that Arsenal chose a site located three miles from the centre of just about the most expensive city in the world for real estate. Had they built it in a field 15 miles outside of London, it would only have cost a fraction of the price. But it's an interesting comparison in one respect. As a site, Ormeau is worth £3 million, whereas the Maze is worth £500 million... :o)
As for your "Shared Space" idea, you have signally failed to demonstrate how merely having rugby games on a Friday evening, soccer games on a Wednesday evening and GAA on a Sunday afternoon will lead to greater integration? Unless or until the nature of the fanbase for the three sports changes, a shared stadium will not make the slightest bit difference.
Having said that, I have to say it grates somewhat as a soccer and (casual) rugby fan to be lectured about integration by a fan of the one major sport which has signally failed to attract support and participation from across the divide in NI...
In fact, I resent that almost as much as I do the idea that:
"People need to realise that the Govt. is trying to teach all us natives a lesson here - either start sharing and co-operating, or you get nothing."How ironic that an Irish Nationalist should berate a Unionist for objecting to a British Government telling us "natives" how we should spend our own money... :D
Another excellent opinion piece in today's Irish News.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1341/706889708_1ad0de0a26_o.jpg)
Thank goodness for the Irish News! Whilst the Newsletter has been sending out mixed messages and the Belfast Telegraph has been craven in its sycophance to the Government over the Maze, the IN has consistently attempted to address the issues.
Of course, it will be no surprise that I agree entirely with Brendan Mulgrew's piece but one particular sentence caught my eye:
"While senior figure among the GAA are going along with the Maze among the grassroots members there is open and vocal disdain"
Is this correct?
I've said before that they should just allocate out the money to the three associations (how it's split I have no idea), but I have no desire to see Gaelic sports played at Long Kesh.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 03, 2007, 08:04:05 PM
Thank goodness for the Irish News! Whilst the Newsletter has been sending out mixed messages and the Belfast Telegraph has been craven in its sycophance to the Government over the Maze, the IN has consistently attempted to address the issues.
Of course, it will be no surprise that I agree entirely with Brendan Mulgrew's piece but one particular sentence caught my eye:
"While senior figure among the GAA are going along with the Maze among the grassroots members there is open and vocal disdain"
Is this correct?
No.
Quote from: stiffler on July 03, 2007, 09:50:44 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 03, 2007, 08:04:05 PM
Thank goodness for the Irish News! Whilst the Newsletter has been sending out mixed messages and the Belfast Telegraph has been craven in its sycophance to the Government over the Maze, the IN has consistently attempted to address the issues.
Of course, it will be no surprise that I agree entirely with Brendan Mulgrew's piece but one particular sentence caught my eye:
"While senior figure among the GAA are going along with the Maze among the grassroots members there is open and vocal disdain"
Is this correct?
No.
Ive certainly heard disdain from GAA fans I know.
i get the impression the Grassroots GAA in the main in Ulster dont give a f**k about the Maze project or any National Stadium project.
Certainly we dont in Cavan ;) we are of course part of the Ulster GAA and have a say in this matter ;D
My opinion is that if there is a stadium being built for free that everyone can use then the GAA (being in the stronget position) can negotiate its location, we don't need one in Belfast as we already have Casement, somewhere near Dungannon or Armagh would be ideal but we will settle for the Maze. Also from the Belfast locations mentioned i would not feel happy going to any location for family (children esp) and property safety reasons, and for the fact that most matches would be in the height of the summer when the flags and bunting are intimidating enough in an area you are already unsure about.
Most GAA members are apathetic no matter what spindoctors like Mulgrew say, who would hardly have his finger on the pulse and has a vested interest in developing Casement. However the constant whinging and crying by the soccer people is gradually turning a lot of people to support the Long Kesh venue.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 08:45:32 AM
Most GAA members are apathetic no matter what spindoctors like Mulgrew say, who would hardly have his finger on the pulse and has a vested interest in developing Casement.
My reading would be that the no's and the apathetics would far outweigh the yes's
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 08:45:32 AM
However the constant whinging and crying by the soccer people is gradually turning a lot of people to support the Long Kesh venue.
When have 'soccer people' been whinging or crying? How is arguing the case, based on facts, whinging or crying?
Besides the fact that it would be ridiculous to include the 'apathetics' in any camp as they are essentially undecided, you are hardly the best person to judge i.e. you are not involved in the GAA and you are in the 'no' camp. If you want to gauge the feelings of grassroots GAA members you don't have to look much further than this board. We here are all members and I would say represent a good cross section of the GAA throughout the country. This issue will be decided by GAA Central Council, which is representative of all parts of the organization, who are committed to provide a world class stadium in Ulster. If this proposal works out then they can strike that of the 'to do list'. Somewhat conveniently it also allows them to continue their current cosy relationship with the other main Irish sporting body – which by the way if you are looking for conspiracy theories and unsaid, unwritten agreements the most obvious one is staring you in the face right there.
Re the whinging, the more it goes on and the more of you let slip with the anti-GAA comments, then it occurs to GAA members that you want out of shared stadium because you don't want to share with the GAA. That naturally leads the 'apathetics' to support the opposite of what you want. From my reading of the situation, that is what's happening in all Ulster counties outside Antrim, Monaghan and Cavan.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 09:31:09 AM
Besides the fact that it would be ridiculous to include the 'apathetics' in any camp as they are essentially undecided, you are hardly the best person to judge i.e. you are not involved in the GAA and you are in the 'no' camp. If you want to gauge the feelings of grassroots GAA members you don't have to look much further than this board. We here are all members and I would say represent a good cross section of the GAA throughout the country. This issue will be decided by GAA Central Council, which is representative of all parts of the organization, who are committed to provide a world class stadium in Ulster. If this proposal works out then they can strike that of the 'to do list'. Somewhat conveniently it also allows them to continue their current cosy relationship with the other main Irish sporting body – which by the way if you are looking for conspiracy theories and unsaid, unwritten agreements the most obvious one is staring you in the face right there.
That would make a brilliant conspiracy theory if it wasn't for one important point. Ulster Rugby aren't moving to the Maze.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 09:31:09 AM
Re the whinging, the more it goes on and the more of you let slip with the anti-GAA comments, then it occurs to GAA members that you want out of shared stadium because you don't want to share with the GAA. That naturally leads the 'apathetics' to support the opposite of what you want. From my reading of the situation, that is what's happening in all Ulster counties outside Antrim, Monaghan and Cavan.
What anti-GAA comments? Everybody that I speak to (and all the posts on here and OWC) think the GAA have played a blinder. How is that anti-GAA?
As far as a shared stadium, I am on record and am happy to repeat again that I have no problem with sharing a stadium with anybody. Apart from anything else the more uses the stadium has the more chance it has of paying for itself. The issues with the Maze (infrastructure, public transport, roads, amenities, hotel space etc etc etc ) are nothing to do with it being a shared stadium.
Quote from: SammyG on July 04, 2007, 09:37:59 AM
That would make a brilliant conspiracy theory if it wasn't for one important point. Ulster Rugby aren't moving to the Maze.
Well it has more credibility that the Burns story you posted and besides the plans wouldn't have gotten this far if the IRFU and GAA were not on board. They are people who will ultimately decide – not the Ulster Council or Ulster Rugby.
Quote
What anti-GAA comments? Everybody that I speak to (and all the posts on here and OWC) think the GAA have played a blinder. How is that anti-GAA?
Ah come on, one glance at OWC or Egs comments here, that other clown or the soccer people that phone into Radio Ulster, tell the grassroots GAA man all then need to know about their attitude to our Association.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 08:45:32 AM
However the constant whinging and crying by the soccer people is gradually turning a lot of people to support the Long Kesh venue.
So you think our concern over our sport is whinging and crying - what would you do if you didnt agree with a major decision to be taken by the GAA which you feel could damage it permenantly?
Quote from: nifan on July 04, 2007, 10:21:22 AM
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 08:45:32 AM
However the constant whinging and crying by the soccer people is gradually turning a lot of people to support the Long Kesh venue.
So you think our concern over our sport is whinging and crying - what would you do if you didnt agree with a major decision to be taken by the GAA which you feel could damage it permenantly?
That's how it's coming across nifan. I'd probably do the same, but there are a lot of people in your camp who are not helping your cause.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 10:31:27 AM
Quote from: nifan on July 04, 2007, 10:21:22 AM
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 08:45:32 AM
However the constant whinging and crying by the soccer people is gradually turning a lot of people to support the Long Kesh venue.
So you think our concern over our sport is whinging and crying - what would you do if you didnt agree with a major decision to be taken by the GAA which you feel could damage it permenantly?
That's how it's coming across nifan. I'd probably do the same, but there are a lot of people in your camp who are not helping your cause.
Like who?
Could someone do a poll on weither or not GAA supporters are in favour of Long Kesh, against or just don't give a fcuk! Post it on here or on the GAA side - please - it might end this circular arguement once and for all.........!!
Quote from: SammyG on July 04, 2007, 10:34:08 AM
Like who?
Like the people I mentioned in my previous reply to you.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 09:51:51 AM
Quote from: SammyG on July 04, 2007, 09:37:59 AM
What anti-GAA comments? Everybody that I speak to (and all the posts on here and OWC) think the GAA have played a blinder. How is that anti-GAA?
Ah come on, one glance at OWC or Egs comments here, that other clown or the soccer people that phone into Radio Ulster, tell the grassroots GAA man all then need to know about their attitude to our Association.
Where I have I displayed a negative or condemnatory attitude to the GAA over their response to the Maze?
When I posted:
"I suppose I must repeat for the hundredth time that I don't blame the GAA for playing their hand cleverly"Or perhaps:
"...the GAA indicated (as is their right)..." Maybe:
"Personally, I have no desire to get into a "them and us" argument with GAA fans. Those that have expressed a preference seem to prefer the Maze (or not Belfast, at any rate), which is fair enough"Could it be:
"The GAA has said it doesn't wish to play in the city - that is their choice"Even:
"And when GAA and rugby receive their share [of the money dedicated to the Maze], I will be entirely pleased for both those sports"And:
"If the GAA considers that the Maze is appropriate for their crowds at the matches they allocate to it, then good for them"Of course, it could be this:
"I have not been "sniping" at the GAA (on this topic, at least!), I admire the way they promote themselves to family audiences, I have no difficulty in accepting that it is more popular in NI than soccer (at least in terms of attendances)"Or:
"I have nowhere criticised them [GAA]
for using their position of strength to negotiate the deal which best suited them"And:
"...it is only natural that we should resent the Government (not the GAA) for forcing us into a stadium which we don't want and can't afford"Ahem:
"I don't blame the GAA for negotiating their case from a position of strength"The fact is, you have a serious problem with anyone who dares to disagree with you; however, you rarely contest what they've actually posted, instead preferring to slate them personally. Or, as was posted as far back as page three of this thread:
Quote from: Evil Genius on June 19, 2007, 03:23:31 PM
"And God forbid that either of you could "play the ball", rather than "the man"..."
Reply from Donagh
"If you want to play by those rules, take your ball and fcuk off over to Slugger"
Charming as ever... :o
Read back on the thread instead of quoting out of context. On this Board and OWC you have been quite clear on your views of the GAA.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 11:10:44 AM
Read back on the thread instead of quoting out of context. On this Board and OWC you have been quite clear on your views of the GAA.
Each one of the quotations
was taken from this thread... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 04, 2007, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 11:10:44 AM
Read back on the thread instead of quoting out of context. On this Board and OWC you have been quite clear on your views of the GAA.
Each one of the quotations was taken from this thread... ::)
Well then you must have missed the bit where Sammy and I were discussing anti-GAA comments in general not anti-GAA comments
in relation to the stadium.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 11:40:02 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 04, 2007, 11:35:57 AM
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 11:10:44 AM
Read back on the thread instead of quoting out of context. On this Board and OWC you have been quite clear on your views of the GAA.
Each one of the quotations was taken from this thread... ::)
Well then you must have missed the bit where Sammy and I were discussing anti-GAA comments in general not anti-GAA comments in relation to the stadium.
I'm not Sammy. You specifically accused me of being anti-GAA. But if you read my posts, whilst there are many aspects of the GAA of which I am highly critical, there are many other where I am very complimentary - especially on this thread.
However, because I dare to express the former, you disregard entirely the latter and resort instead to "playing the man, not the ball".
Pathetic.
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 04, 2007, 11:53:14 AM
I'm not Sammy.
Then if you are not prepared to read through and take the time to understand what we are discussing before interrupting, stay the fcuk out of other peoples discussions and spare us more of your half-wit ramblings.
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 12:01:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on July 04, 2007, 11:53:14 AM
I'm not Sammy.
Then if you are not prepared to read through and take the time to understand what we are discussing before interrupting, stay the fcuk out of other peoples discussions and spare us more of your half-wit ramblings.
Earlier today you posted the following:
"Ah come on, one glance at OWC or
Egs comments here, that other clown or the soccer people that phone into Radio Ulster, tell the grassroots GAA man all then need to know about their attitude to our Association"
Does this mean that not only do you reserve to yourself the right to "play the man", but also deny him the right to defend himself?
Anyhow, since when was this Board a private message service for you and other selected posters? That arrogance is similar to that which you displayed on another thread, when you objected to the right of people like me even to post on this section of the Board... :o
Who's the MOPE now?
Quote from: Donagh on July 04, 2007, 12:13:47 PM
Who's the MOPE now?
You slagged me off in a post. When I defended myself, you denied you had. When I quoted your own words back to you, you accuse me of being a MOPE.
Mopery is playing the victim or taking offence where none exists.
Boo!
The whole project's dying a slow and increasingly farcical death now, so this argument is becoming academic.
As for the retained buildings, there's word now that some of them could find a new home in the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum, with the Maze land free to be developed for other purposes.
Joy.
:D
Just when you thought it had gone away ye know:
Plans are being drawn up for a rail link to Belfast International Airport.
An English company, the Kilbride Group, is behind the scheme to reinstate the Knockmore railway line.
Running between Lisburn and Antrim it was closed in 2003. Now there are plans to reinstate the line, and to extend it to Aldergrove.
The airport is about to experience a major surge in passenger numbers with the arrival of Aer Lingus.
Kilbride has been involved in the reinstatement of disused rail lines in England and Scotland, and its directors have carried out an in-depth investigation of the potential for developing the Knockmore line.
They have already held preliminary discussions with an all-party group of assembly members and MPs, and are due to present a more detailed plan at Stormont next month.
It is understood that the project could also provide a train service to the proposed Maze stadium.
Looks like it is definitely going to happen. Seen on BBC yesterday that the following crowds per annum are being promised by the 3 main sports organisations
GAA - 150,000
Soccer - 80,000
Rugby - 40,000
What's that? The BBC confirming that GAA attracts twice as many as soccer and four times as many as Rugby. Surely not ;)
Isn´t that 150,000 from 4 games only?
Quote from: hardstation on November 30, 2007, 02:37:14 PM
Soccer - 80,000 over 13 games.
6 games not that it matters as the figures are just plucked out of the air.
Do you think it will be possible to buy a season ticket that will allow access to all games in all three sports?
I would like one of them. (tickets that is, not sports)
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 02:42:16 PM
Do you think it will be possible to buy a season ticket that will allow access to all games in all three sports?
I would like one of them. (tickets that is, not sports)
[/quote]
I'd imagine they'll do some sort of 'guaranteed seat' ticket, which will cover all events including concerts etc. As long as you don't mind travelling to Belfast ;)
Quote from: SammyG on November 30, 2007, 02:51:39 PM
I'd imagine they'll do some sort of 'guaranteed seat' ticket, which will cover all events including concerts etc. As long as you don't mind travelling to Belfast ;)
Is the Maze classed as Belfast? I thought it would be too far out to be classed as there
Quote from: full back on November 30, 2007, 03:00:28 PMIs the Maze classed as Belfast? I thought it would be too far out to be classed as there
The Maze is definitely not classed as Belfast but if a stadium is ever buillt it will be in Belfast
Quote from: SammyG on November 30, 2007, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 02:42:16 PM
Do you think it will be possible to buy a season ticket that will allow access to all games in all three sports?
I would like one of them. (tickets that is, not sports)
I'd imagine they'll do some sort of 'guaranteed seat' ticket, which will cover all events including concerts etc. As long as you don't mind travelling to Belfast ;)
[/quote]
Travelling to Belfast will be quite easy for me, given that I am there already. :)
I have always been against the proposal at the Maze, but I am actually warming to it a bit now. Certainly beats the hell out of travelling to Clones and watching soccer and rugby in a modern stadium is quite appealing.
Ryanair logic could be applied re the location name
Maze stadium 'best option': study
How the Maze site could look
Northern Ireland's national stadium should be built on the site of the former Maze Prison, according to a leaked consultants report.
The Press Association says it has seen a copy of the report by consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
It is currently being reviewed by Finance Minister Peter Robinson, before being passed to Executive colleagues.
PA says it recommends the government go ahead with plans for the all-seater venue at the Maze site.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have all confirmed they would play games at the venue.
The site is just outside Lisburn in County Antrim.
The consultants said the venue had the potential to generate significant revenue and claimed that the overall cost to the taxpayer after the first four years of operation would be £37m.
This was based on the 38,500-seat stadium hosting 23 major sporting and music events in a year and attracting just under 500,000 paying spectators.
Other options examined included a hypothetical stadium in north Belfast and the refurbishment of the three sporting bodies' existing venues. The report said there would be many benefits to a venue at Belfast's north foreshore, but ruled it out on cost grounds.
"Hypothetically such an option would generate high visitor spending benefits because it is located closer to the city centre, but these are outweighed by the capital and infrastructure costs and the higher value of this site," the report is quoted as saying.
The Maze site is opposed by some unionists due to plans to build a conflict transformation centre alongside the stadium and by many NI football fans who want any new stadium to be in Belfast.
37 million is nothing to the UK exchequer.
Remember this is coming out of ringfenced UK plc funds, not NI plc funds allocated to/controlled by the assembly.
Moving on....
This stadium is a no-brainer for the GAA and should be supported by all those with the GAA's interests at heart.
I wonder if the Shinners have the wit to decouple the stadium issue from the conflict centre.
If the conflict centre issue can be parked, then its more likely that the stadium will get built.
Once its built, the NI fans will come.
At that point, or a year or so after, the Shinners can push for something to be done with the H blocks.
I'd say its unlikely that NI fans would then boycott the Maze after happily using it.
Remember that the H blocks are listed, so nothing can happen to them in the meantime.
I imagine there'd be goodwill from Ulster GAA fans if the Shinners worked with the GAA's interests for a change and not against it (eg Casement rally).
Quote from: SammyG on November 30, 2007, 03:01:57 PM
The Maze is definitely not classed as Belfast
I dunno Sammy, if theres concerts there that may change.
I cant remember who it was at a Slane concert in the past few years saying "hello Dublin" !!!
The Royals were not best pleased ;)
Dubs are entitled to their dreams too.
Quote from: Hardy on February 20, 2008, 10:46:12 AM
Dubs are entitled to their dreams too.
Check out the club section Hardy, draw done for the championships. Looking for predictions from the "locals" ;)
Unfortunately, Holiness I see very little Meath club football these days, being on active duty behind enemy lines. So I wouldn't be the best judge.
Time the IFA was told to feck off. The Brits should throw them the two or three million they'd be entitled to commensurate with their attendance figures and let them slip off and renovate their cess pit of a bigot bowl and let the rest of us move on. FFS all they would need to do would be host four concerts a year instead of three to make up the shortfall.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:02:13 AM
37 million is nothing to the UK exchequer.
Remember this is coming out of ringfenced UK plc funds, not NI plc funds allocated to/controlled by the assembly.
£37m might be "nothing" to the UK Exchequer, but even if this figure is correct, it doesn't tell half the story. From UTV's leaked copy of the Report, the following figures also emerge:
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n
"It is estimated that the stadium would cost £126 million to build and would need an additional £114 million investment to improve the transport infrastructure around the isolated site."As I understand it, private developers will provide the construction cost (£126m), in return for developpment rights on the site (industrial, retail, housing etc) which they must judge to be worth more than £126m (otherwise no profit in it for them). This raises a number of questions straightaway.
1. How on earth can it cost so much to build a medium sized stadium, when the site is (effectively) for free? The Liberty Stadium in Swansea, built on land donated by the Council, is half the size of the Maze proposal, but a fifth the cost! ( http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/swansea.htm )
2. If the cost should overrun (invariably the case), who will bear the overrun? I can guarantee it won't be the developers, in that they will extract some sort of concession to guard against the possibility! Interestingly, Lisburn District Council, so sure that this Stadium will be a winner, nonetheless have passed a motion which refuses to see them accept any financial responsibility for, or contribution to, the Stadium!
3. The Government will be subsidising the transport infrastructure to the tune of £114m - for a stadium which they (optimistically) claim will be used no more than 23 days a year. It's not as if the roads and transport budget for NI is overflowing, these days, so I refuse to accept that that money could not better be spent elsewhere. Why not just let the developers pay for the transport links, in return for the development rights for industry, retail, housing etc. That would leave £37m to be distributed fairly between the three codes in NI, to spend as they see best, with the proviso that such expenditure be made in such a way as best provides for genuine cross-community access and participation etc. This would be much more effective than merely building a stadium on the basis of some pie-in-the-sky "Shared Space" concept; it would be democratic; it would put a firm limit on expenditure.
"It was working on the basis that the Maze venue would host 23 major sporting and music events in a year and attract just under 500,000 paying spectators. The stadium would accommodate six or seven Northern Ireland football matches, five or six gaelic matches and three Ulster rugby games each year."Once again, the figures simply do not add up. Taking the upper figures - 7 IFA, 6 GAA and 3 UR - this still only adds up to 16 events p.a. Where are the other 7 sporting and music events going to come from? I know of no other stadium sports which would attract significant crowds and as for "music", this is baloney. The Stadium is far too big for the majority of events, for which the Odyssey, the Point etc are ideally suited. Yet it is too small for the really big stadium attractions (U2, Springsteen, Eagles, Stones etc), which will either go to Lansdowne or Croke, or for outdoor venues/festivals like Slane. And there aren't that many such acts, anyhow, and when/if they include Ireland on their Itinerary, it is only ever likely to be one location (i.e. for a market of 6 million people). And they don't all tour every year. And with no roof, the stadium is at risk from the weather half the year, anyhow! Above all, whilst the Government has been happy to trumpet the "commitment" of the three codes, one must assume that not one single major Promoter has expressed an interest in the Maze, otherwise we'd have heard all about them by now.
And, of course, the upper figures are highly suspect. The only soccer events which could be expected to draw a decent crowd are internationals and maybe the Irish Cup Final. NI
never has six home internationals in a year, so how do they arrive at a figure of 6 or 7? (Bear in mind, also, that the IFA has plans to develop the Blanchflower Stadium project in Belfast to around 10k capacity, which means it would be the obvious home for U-21 internationals and other Cup Finals etc.)
As for Ulster rugby, the only matches which would even half-fill a 35k seater/42k all capacity stadium are Ireland internationals and Heineken Cup games. For internationals, once Lansdowne is built, the IRFU will have a heavy incentive to play all internationals there, but even if they decide to move a couple of minor games to the Provinces, the Maze will be competing with the new Munster stadium which is being built, so perhaps one international every other year, at most. And as for Ulster's Heineken games, when Ulster can't presently fill the 13k capacity Ravenhill for all of these games, what hope is there for a huge stadium away from their heartland and spiritual home? And that's assuming they continue to qualify for the Heineken - presently in doubt, I'm sorry to say.
Which leaves the GAA. Can someone tell me whether Ulster GAA has 5 or 6 games in its calendar each year which are too big for the likes of Casement, and which will not also be required to be staged in Clones?
In the end, regardless of how it is accounted for on whose balance sheet, we are going to be lumbered with a stadium which will cost the country £240 million. As far as I am concerned, that is bonkers economics by any standards. And that would be the case even if it were filled for all of those 23 events which they claim it will host every year. :o
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:15:17 PM
Time the IFA was told to feck off. The Brits should throw them the two or three million they'd be entitled to commensurate with their attendance figures and let them slip off and renovate their cess pit of a bigot bowl and let the rest of us move on. FFS all they would need to do would be host four concerts a year instead of three to make up the shortfall.
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:15:17 PM
Time the IFA was told to feck off. The Brits should throw them the two or three million they'd be entitled to commensurate with their attendance figures and let them slip off and renovate their cess pit of a bigot bowl and let the rest of us move on. FFS all they would need to do would be host four concerts a year instead of three to make up the shortfall.
Windbagging alert!! ::)
harder to catch Mackerel
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:15:17 PM
Time the IFA was told to feck off. The Brits should throw them the two or three million they'd be entitled to commensurate with their attendance figures and let them slip off and renovate their cess pit of a bigot bowl and let the rest of us move on. FFS all they would need to do would be host four concerts a year instead of three to make up the shortfall.
Very constructive. Did you get bitten by a dog on your Paper Round this morning, or something? ;)
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: SammyG on November 30, 2007, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 02:42:16 PM
Do you think it will be possible to buy a season ticket that will allow access to all games in all three sports?
I would like one of them. (tickets that is, not sports)
I'd imagine they'll do some sort of 'guaranteed seat' ticket, which will cover all events including concerts etc. As long as you don't mind travelling to Belfast ;)
Travelling to Belfast will be quite easy for me, given that I am there already. :)
I have always been against the proposal at the Maze, but I am actually warming to it a bit now. Certainly beats the hell out of travelling to Clones and watching soccer and rugby in a modern stadium is quite appealing.
[/quote]
I know of a few boyos who would prefer Maze to Clones on the basis that it was always easier to get out of the Maze.
It is amazing that the monocultural IFA supporters are allowed airtime to vent their spleen on the new provinical stadium. The IFA themselves are not averse to the prospect and their supporters number between 5 to 15 k depending on how well their team is doing. In any event soccer will be lagging behind both the GAA and Rugby in terms of spectator appeal so I agree that the OWC mouthpieces should not be given any opportunity for megliomaniacal indulgences. There are the third of three players in this venture
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me, but as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way, although as one of their councilors was on the working group I assume they're supporting whatever he feels is the best way forward for nationalists in the Lisburn area.
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 20, 2008, 12:18:51 PM
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:15:17 PM
Time the IFA was told to feck off. The Brits should throw them the two or three million they'd be entitled to commensurate with their attendance figures and let them slip off and renovate their cess pit of a bigot bowl and let the rest of us move on. FFS all they would need to do would be host four concerts a year instead of three to make up the shortfall.
Windbagging alert!! ::)
Now Chris behave. I wouldn't want to have to tell the Mods on you. :D
Whats "windbagging" ?
Sounds like a gay manouvre.
I think that they should re-invest in Windsor park....this will allow Linfield to continue to dominate the football League due to the money they get paid for the international matches.......isn't this the hidden agenda
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on February 20, 2008, 01:12:19 PM
I think that they should re-invest in Windsor park....this will allow Linfield to continue to dominate the football League due to the money they get paid for the international matches.......isn't this the hidden agenda
Of course this is the hidden agenda....The place is a dump anyway, dont really know why else anyone would want to stay there when they have a chance to move into a new stadium...It really could only happen in this country...
Maybe it's because the OWC'ers from Belfast don't want to travel to the Maze?
Windsor park should be levelled to the ground and built up with social housing. Apparently there is a real need for social housing in that area.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: SammyG on November 30, 2007, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 02:42:16 PM
Do you think it will be possible to buy a season ticket that will allow access to all games in all three sports?
I would like one of them. (tickets that is, not sports)
I'd imagine they'll do some sort of 'guaranteed seat' ticket, which will cover all events including concerts etc. As long as you don't mind travelling to Belfast ;)
Travelling to Belfast will be quite easy for me, given that I am there already. :)
I have always been against the proposal at the Maze, but I am actually warming to it a bit now. Certainly beats the hell out of travelling to Clones and watching soccer and rugby in a modern stadium is quite appealing.
[/quote]
I'm in Belfast too and I'd prefer to travel to Clones than going to the Maze - nothing political or anything but just like getting down to Clones once or twice a year for a bit of a session and a laugh. Don't think the Maze would hold the same appeal in that respect and there wouldn't be the same buzz about the place like there is when the town is totally taken over by the 2 sets of supporters.
Quote from: take_yer_points on February 20, 2008, 01:31:39 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 03:18:29 PM
Quote from: SammyG on November 30, 2007, 02:51:39 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on November 30, 2007, 02:42:16 PM
Do you think it will be possible to buy a season ticket that will allow access to all games in all three sports?
I would like one of them. (tickets that is, not sports)
I'd imagine they'll do some sort of 'guaranteed seat' ticket, which will cover all events including concerts etc. As long as you don't mind travelling to Belfast ;)
Quote from: take_yer_points on February 20, 2008, 01:31:39 PM
Travelling to Belfast will be quite easy for me, given that I am there already. :)
I have always been against the proposal at the Maze, but I am actually warming to it a bit now. Certainly beats the hell out of travelling to Clones and watching soccer and rugby in a modern stadium is quite appealing.
I'm in Belfast too and I'd prefer to travel to Clones than going to the Maze - nothing political or anything but just like getting down to Clones once or twice a year for a bit of a session and a laugh. Don't think the Maze would hold the same appeal in that respect and there wouldn't be the same buzz about the place like there is when the town is totally taken over by the 2 sets of supporters.
even so, should the GAA pump 10's of millions of our money into Clones just because of a better atmosphere?
I did a back of a fag packet calculation to somebody a few months ago - the Maze just makes so much financial sense for us.
In relative terms, we either
1. pay next to nothing rent and get a state of the art stadium purpose built to our size and capacity.
or
2. pump 10's of millions of our own money into just bringing Clones up to an accepatable standard, ie 2/3rds covered seating.
No brainer. Maze wins hands down.
Far cheaper for GAA
Far handier for most fans as well.
Far better stadium than anything else that wuld get built.
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on February 20, 2008, 01:12:19 PM
I think that they should re-invest in Windsor park....this will allow Linfield to continue to dominate the football League due to the money they get paid for the international matches.......isn't this the hidden agenda
Of course this is the hidden agenda....
Whose hidden Agenda? All the other clubs are long since fed up with Linfield getting so much money from the IFA, under a ludicrously unfair contract. And the IFA has signed up to the Maze, at least in principle, so how does that fit in with an Agenda to keep NI at Windsor?
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
The place is a dump anyway, dont really know why else anyone would want to stay there when they have a chance to move into a new stadium...It really could only happen in this country...
The majority of soccer's "stakeholders" (clubs, officials, supporters)
do want to move into a new Stadium - it's just that they don't want to be forced to move to this particular new Stadium at the Maze, since it's the wrong size and design, in the wrong location, plus a hideously expensive waste of public money, when other possible alternatives in Belfast would be much more suitable and less expensive.
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Maybe it's because the OWC'ers from Belfast don't want to travel to the Maze?
Utter bullshit. The best indicator of opinion was a survey of actual NI fans taken at the Wales game, when the overwhelming majority (90%) preferred Belfast over the Maze as a location. All of the Amalgamation Supporters Clubs, bar a couple, have expressed a preference for Belfast. Curiously, the pro-Belfast clubs cover the whole of NI, whereas the pro-Maze clubs are in, ahem, the Lisburn area. Further, there is a UTV poll running on this very subject which after nearly 3,000 votes, is presently showing 82% in favour of Belfast, versus 18% for the Maze. Oh, and the IFA commissioned a Poll of people in NI on this subject a while back, but have so far refused all calls to release the full findings. Meanwhile, they also refuse to honour a pledge to Poll just soccer supporters in NI. I wonder why?
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Windsor park should be levelled to the ground and built up with social housing. Apparently there is a real need for social housing in that area.
Er, Windsor is owned by Linfield. They currently have neither the will nor the need to see it knocked down. Would you like to see public money being spent on buying it from them to build houses on a site which would be expensive, since it also has commercial value? Especially when the Government already owns a perfectly serviceable site at the Maze, on which they could build 10 times the number of social houses, a hell of a sight cheaper, if they really liked.
But hey, I'm sure soccer fans might go along with your plan to build at the Maze and demolish Windsor, so long as the same was done for Casement and Ravenhill. You know, Parity of Esteem and Shared Space etc... ;)
You know, it might be easier for you to go on believing what suits your particular worldview, but it's not very bright, is it? ::)
EG,
allegedly the PriceWaterhouse report also costed the option of upgrading the three grounds.
That option, along with the NOrth Foreshore one was rejected on cost grounds in favour of the Maze.
Assuming that this report stands up to scrutiny, surely by now (several years later), the anti-Maze brigade now accept that the Maze is indeed the best option available.
They have failed miserably to come up with any alternatives.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 02:01:05 PM
EG,
allegedly the PriceWaterhouse report also costed the option of upgrading the three grounds.
That option, along with the NOrth Foreshore one was rejected on cost grounds in favour of the Maze.
Assuming that this report stands up to scrutiny, surely by now (several years later), the anti-Maze brigade now accept that the Maze is indeed the best option available.
They have failed miserably to come up with any alternatives.
This Report is being paid for by the Government. The Government is on the record as favouring the Maze. On the basis that "He who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune", 'Consultants' like Deloittes will say whatever they think will keep the Fees rolling in.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 20, 2008, 02:04:57 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 02:01:05 PM
EG,
allegedly the PriceWaterhouse report also costed the option of upgrading the three grounds.
That option, along with the NOrth Foreshore one was rejected on cost grounds in favour of the Maze.
Assuming that this report stands up to scrutiny, surely by now (several years later), the anti-Maze brigade now accept that the Maze is indeed the best option available.
They have failed miserably to come up with any alternatives.
This Report is being paid for by the Government. The Government is on the record as favouring the Maze. On the basis that "He who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune", 'Consultants' like Deloittes will say whatever they think will keep the Fees rolling in.
I'll hold fire on judgement until I read it.
I suppose you do have a point - look at the hopelessely lopsided UUJ pro-Belfast report paid for by BCC.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 02:01:05 PM
EG,
allegedly the PriceWaterhouse report also costed the option of upgrading the three grounds.
That option, along with the NOrth Foreshore one was rejected on cost grounds in favour of the Maze.
Assuming that this report stands up to scrutiny, surely by now (several years later), the anti-Maze brigade now accept that the Maze is indeed the best option available.
They have failed miserably to come up with any alternatives.
Is this the same PriceWaterHouse report that only adds up if they allow zero running costs and over £100 a ticket?
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me, but as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way, although as one of their councilors was on the working group I assume they're supporting whatever he feels is the best way forward for nationalists in the Lisburn area.
Donagh, do you genuinely believe everything you write here?
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 20, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me, but as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way, although as one of their councilors was on the working group I assume they're supporting whatever he feels is the best way forward for nationalists in the Lisburn area.
Donagh, do you genuinely believe everything you write here?
SS,
I recall some shinner (Paul somebody from LBC) making clear that as far as SF was concerned - no conflict centre, no stadium.
At the time I thought he had a cheek to try and dictate things, especially when all three sports bodies were in favour.
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:08:39 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 02:01:05 PM
EG,
allegedly the PriceWaterhouse report also costed the option of upgrading the three grounds.
That option, along with the NOrth Foreshore one was rejected on cost grounds in favour of the Maze.
Assuming that this report stands up to scrutiny, surely by now (several years later), the anti-Maze brigade now accept that the Maze is indeed the best option available.
They have failed miserably to come up with any alternatives.
Is this the same PriceWaterHouse report that only adds up if they allow zero running costs and over £100 a ticket?
The report isn't even published yet, so htf could you know what's in it?
I think we should all wait and at least pretend that we've read it before throwng wild accusations about.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 02:15:48 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:08:39 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 02:01:05 PM
EG,
allegedly the PriceWaterhouse report also costed the option of upgrading the three grounds.
That option, along with the NOrth Foreshore one was rejected on cost grounds in favour of the Maze.
Assuming that this report stands up to scrutiny, surely by now (several years later), the anti-Maze brigade now accept that the Maze is indeed the best option available.
They have failed miserably to come up with any alternatives.
Is this the same PriceWaterHouse report that only adds up if they allow zero running costs and over £100 a ticket?
The report isn't even published yet, so htf could you know what's in it?
I think we should all wait and at least pretend that we've read it before throwng wild accusations about.
The report was 'leaked', to UTV, earlier in the week. You can read the details at http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n (http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n)
Obviously this could be completely made up but given that it came from the a Government source and UTV are 100% pro-Maze, I'd have thought it was unlikely.
While I do think the hunger strikers should be commemorated, is the idea of the centre here, or even the history of what happened there, a possible reason for the less enlightened members of the NI fans to not wish the stadium to be located here?
I know they may give other reasons, and am not suggesting this is the reason that EG and Sammy are objecting, but it could be in the minds of the more neanderthal members of their support, being that its a place where history took place and heroes (in some peoples eyes) on the republican side were born.
Now before you jump down my throat, I know the arguments for not having the stadium there, and will not dispute any of them, I was just wondering would this also be on some peoples minds when making their arguments.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 02:23:45 PM
While I do think the hunger strikers should be commemorated, is the idea of the centre here, or even the history of what happened there, a possible reason for the less enlightened members of the NI fans to not wish the stadium to be located here?
I know they may give other reasons, and am not suggesting this is the reason that EG and Sammy are objecting, but it could be in the minds of the more neanderthal members of their support, being that its a place where history took place and heroes (in some peoples eyes) on the republican side were born.
Now before you jump down my throat, I know the arguments for not having the stadium there, and will not dispute any of them, I was just wondering would this also be on some peoples minds when making their arguments.
Of course the issue of glorifying murdering scumbags (on both sides) is an issue but it is such a tiny, tiny issue that it is irrelevant in comparison to the real issues of infrastructure, capacity, roads, cost etc.
The H-Block is listed, so there'll be a terror shrine whether the stadium is built or not.
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:27:44 PM
Of course the issue of glorifying murdering scumbags (on both sides) is an issue but it is such a tiny, tiny issue that it is irrelevant in comparison to the real issues of infrastructure, capacity, roads, cost etc.
The H-Block is listed, so there'll be a terror shrine whether the stadium is built or not.
Nice little rant there Sammy, you really showed us ::)
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 20, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me, but as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way, although as one of their councilors was on the working group I assume they're supporting whatever he feels is the best way forward for nationalists in the Lisburn area.
Donagh, do you genuinely believe everything you write here?
Did you miss the bit where I stated "as far as I know"?
The conflict resolution centre and stadium was first mentioned by these people way back in 2003. So I'm not sure what you are getting at SS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4296287.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4296287.stm)
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:27:44 PM
The H-Block is listed, so there'll be a terror shrine whether the stadium is built or not.
Have you ever been to Dachau? Do you consider it a terror shrine?
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 02:30:25 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:27:44 PM
Of course the issue of glorifying murdering scumbags (on both sides) is an issue but it is such a tiny, tiny issue that it is irrelevant in comparison to the real issues of infrastructure, capacity, roads, cost etc.
The H-Block is listed, so there'll be a terror shrine whether the stadium is built or not.
Nice little rant there Sammy, you really showed us ::)
WTF, you asked a question and I answered it? How is that a rant?
Quote from: dec on February 20, 2008, 02:34:12 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:27:44 PM
The H-Block is listed, so there'll be a terror shrine whether the stadium is built or not.
Have you ever been to Dachau? Do you consider it a terror shrine?
No to both questions. Not sure what that has to do with the discussion.
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:35:28 PM
WTF, you asked a question and I answered it? How is that a rant?
Murdering scumbags, terror shrine?
I deliberately put "in some peoples eyes" after heroes on my post so we wouldnt get into this shite of one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter argument.
You threw these comments in to try to get a reaction. No other reason.
Grow up ::)
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 02:32:15 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 20, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me, but as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way, although as one of their councilors was on the working group I assume they're supporting whatever he feels is the best way forward for nationalists in the Lisburn area.
Donagh, do you genuinely believe everything you write here?
Did you miss the bit where I stated "as far as I know"?
The conflict resolution centre and stadium was first mentioned by these people way back in 2003. So I'm not sure what you are getting at SS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4296287.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4296287.stm)
You're very careful with the way you put things.
as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way,My reading would be that the only way the Shinners would agree to the stadium was if it went hand in hand with the CRC. You seem to be suggesting that the stadium and CRC is the idea of the working group. I don't know if it arrogant or naive to believe that the idea of a CRC came from that working party initially.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 20, 2008, 02:44:48 PM
You're very careful with the way you put things.
as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way,
My reading would be that the only way the Shinners would agree to the stadium was if it went hand in hand with the CRC. You seem to be suggesting that the stadium and CRC is the idea of the working group. I don't know if it arrogant or naive to believe that the idea of a CRC came from that working party initially.
SS I'm suggesting that I don't really know much about it except that I first heard the idea mooted by a group from Lisburn Council. Whoever suggested what or who supports what I haven't the foggiest but I would probably guess that Paul Butler felt it was time to assert himself after he and those who elected him were shafted in the wake of Lisburn being made a 'city'. He would probably see this as the opportune issue to hit back at Lisburn Council for excluding nationalist representatives and I assume SF rolled in behind him on it. As to whether SF have a policy on it, I don't know. Most SFers I know, apart of a few in S Armagh and a certain ex Antrim manager have little interest in sport and couldn't really care less where the stadium is built.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 02:39:12 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 02:35:28 PM
WTF, you asked a question and I answered it? How is that a rant?
Murdering scumbags, terror shrine?
I deliberately put "in some peoples eyes" after heroes on my post so we wouldnt get into this shite of one mans terrorist is anothers freedom fighter argument.
You threw these comments in to try to get a reaction. No other reason.
Grow up ::)
Sorry I didn't realise you were able to read minds!!!
Ok Sammy, name the hunger strikers who were convicted of murder?
Dont go shiting on about what the IRA at the time did, tell me which of the hunger strikers were convicted of murder.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 02:59:50 PM
Ok Sammy, name the hunger strikers who were convicted of murder?
Dont go shiting on about what the IRA at the time did, tell me which of the hunger strikers were convicted of murder.
I never mentioned hunger strikers.
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 20, 2008, 02:44:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 02:32:15 PM
Quote from: saffron sam2 on February 20, 2008, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me, but as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way, although as one of their councilors was on the working group I assume they're supporting whatever he feels is the best way forward for nationalists in the Lisburn area.
Donagh, do you genuinely believe everything you write here?
Did you miss the bit where I stated "as far as I know"?
The conflict resolution centre and stadium was first mentioned by these people way back in 2003. So I'm not sure what you are getting at SS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4296287.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4296287.stm)
You're very careful with the way you put things.
as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way,
My reading would be that the only way the Shinners would agree to the stadium was if it went hand in hand with the CRC. You seem to be suggesting that the stadium and CRC is the idea of the working group. I don't know if it arrogant or naive to believe that the idea of a CRC came from that working party initially.
SS,
my reading would be the same as yours. See below.
I can't believe the nerve of these guys complaining about the lack of consideration given to the GAA in the whole debate (true), and then going on to say "no conflict centre, no stadium".
Now the GAA have made it perfectly clear that the stadium is very good for the GAA.
Will the shinners then ignore the GAA's wishes when it suits them and refuse to give the stadium the goahead if they can't get their conflict centre?
http://www.sinnfein.ie/news/detail/18780
---------------------------------------------
Sinn Féin voice concern over stadium plans
---------------------------------------------
Published: 23 April, 2007
Sinn Féin Lagan Valley MLA, Cllr Paul Butler and Foyle MLA Raymond McCartney have said talk of plans to build a stadium at the former Long Kesh prison site cannot proceed unless there is agreement on opening up the preserved part of the jail to the public.
Mr Butler said:
Sinn Fein will not agree to plans to build any stadium until we get agreement to open up the jail as a visitor attraction with an iconic building built to the highest international standards."Mr Butler and Mr McCartney also rejected proposals to build any stadium at Belfast. Mr Butler added:
"In all of the debate about stadiums in Belfast the GAA has been ignored and treated as if they do not exist. Sinn Fein will not back any plans for a stadium in Belfast."
Paul Butler and Raymond McCartney who sit on the Maze Long Kesh Monitoring Group, which oversees the development of the former prison, have said they have been concerned that the focus is only on building a stadium.
Mr Butler, who is vice chair of the group, said:
"No stadium can be built without agreement on developing the prison buildings as a visitor attraction similar to Kilmainham Jail in Dublin and Robben Island in South Africa. Both the stadium and the preserved prison buildings projects must proceed simultaneously."
Mr McCartney added:
"Sinn Fein and the DUP need to agree both proposals or else plans for a stadium will not proceed. There has been much debate recently over the proposals to have a stadium located at Long Kesh. However, what has to be pointed out in all of this is that this site is of huge historical importance in the conflict here over the last 30 years.
"The reality is that Long Kesh is unique in terms of international prison history and it has the strongest community links of any prison in the world. It is essential therefore that part of the jail be preserved. Those in support of the stadium at Long Kesh should also support the setting up a conflict resolution campus and visitor's centre. We want to see these proposals being given as equal an importance as any plans to have a stadium built there." ENDS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 03:02:05 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 02:59:50 PM
Ok Sammy, name the hunger strikers who were convicted of murder?
Dont go shiting on about what the IRA at the time did, tell me which of the hunger strikers were convicted of murder.
I never mentioned hunger strikers.
The centre is meant to commemorate the hunger strikers, you know this. You know this is who I was referring to also.
Unless you are willing to prove me wrong and state clearly that the hunger strikers were not murdering scumbags?
Either that of tell me which ones were convicted of murder.
Which is it?
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 03:13:54 PMhe centre is meant to commemorate the hunger strikers, you know this. You know this is who I was referring to also.
Is it???? I think you need to have a wee read of the proposals.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 03:13:54 PM
Unless you are willing to prove me wrong and state clearly that the hunger strikers were not murdering scumbags?
Again I never mentioned the hunger strikers
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 03:13:54 PM
Either that of tell me which ones were convicted of murder.
For the 3rd time, I did not mention the hunger strikers. I have no idea what they were convicted of and care even less.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 03:13:54 PM
Which is it?
'It' is that you can't read and seem to think that you should use telepathy and work out what I'm thinking, rather than read what I posted.
Sammy you didnt mention the hunger strikers, you responded to a post in which I was clearly referring to them
"being that its a place where history took place and heroes (in some peoples eyes) on the republican side were born"
What else would I have been referring to here???
But again, I will ask you, despite your not mentioning them. Do you beleive the hunger strikers were murdering scumbags?
Yes or No.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 03:23:59 PMBut again, I will ask you, despite your not mentioning them. Do you beleive the hunger strikers were murdering scumbags?
Yes or No.
Not that it has anything to do with the conversation but I'd say most (if not all) of them were, yes. As they were all active members (and in some cases commanding officers) in organisations that were murdering people on a daily basis, it would be amazing if they weren't involved, in those murders.
Now is there any chance we can get back to the discussion on the stadium, rather than your random rants?
Snatter, I don't see where you are going with this. The all party working group agreed on the idea of a stadium and combined conflict transformation centre, so I assume they had the backing of their parties in principle to do so. Each of those parties then has members coming out in favour of a stadium in Belfast which then leads one to assume that (i) none of the parties have an official policy and (ii) the principle of the conflict transformation centre was conceded, so it's not an obstacle to the building of the stadium. The opposition to the stadium is coming from the pro-Belfast lobby and OWC soccer supporters. Butler's press release is crude and self-serving but he's a politician and that's what they do best. But at the end of the day he was on the working group and he was also the one who was shafted by the unionists after Lisburn got city status so he's bound coming out batting for his own side (i.e. for what he negotiated on the working group and what he sees as in the best interests of the nationalists in the 'Lisburn' area that elected him.)
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 03:28:18 PM
Not that it has anything to do with the conversation but I'd say most (if not all) of them were, yes. As they were all active members (and in some cases commanding officers) in organisations that were murdering people on a daily basis, it would be amazing if they weren't involved, in those murders.
So you think they are murderers, yet have no evidence to back this up. Thanks for clarifying.
Then again you have rowed back later in the same post to say they were probably "involved" in the murders, instead of being the "murderers". Legally there is a big difference.
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 03:28:18 PM
Now is there any chance we can get back to the discussion on the stadium, rather than your random rants?
Random rants? My original question referred directly to a possible reason for NI fans to oppose the stadium at the maze, which is what we are discussing. You came out with this statement in response, which you must agree, deserved clarification.
No rant about it.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 03:42:14 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 03:28:18 PM
Not that it has anything to do with the conversation but I'd say most (if not all) of them were, yes. As they were all active members (and in some cases commanding officers) in organisations that were murdering people on a daily basis, it would be amazing if they weren't involved, in those murders.
So you think they are murderers, yet have no evidence to back this up. Thanks for clarifying.
Then again you have rowed back later in the same post to say they were probably "involved" in the murders, instead of being the "murderers". Legally there is a big difference.
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 03:28:18 PM
Now is there any chance we can get back to the discussion on the stadium, rather than your random rants?
Random rants? My original question referred directly to a possible reason for NI fans to oppose the stadium at the maze, which is what we are discussing. You came out with this statement in response, which you must agree, deserved clarification.
No rant about it.
OK You're right, I'm wrong. You win. I give up and bow to your ultimate majesty and won't ever reply to any of your questions again, as you will already know what I'm thinking.
Most people have a fair idea how you think when it comes to these matters Sammy!
But its big of you to finally admit when you are wrong.
Fair play.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch ("The Lazy K" ;)), on the subject of soccer fans' attitude to the H Blocks etc, it is true that a section of the NI support do not want to see their sport associated with them. Their reasons for saying this vary right across a spectrum from a simple desire to keep sport and politics separate, through a feeling of dread, sorrow and anger when reminded of some of the inmates and their activities, through to an absolute loathing of everything to do with it and a desire to see the whole place razed to the ground, as was done e.g. with Hitler's bunker.
I realise such views will cause offence to one degree or another to many posters on this site, but it does no harm (imo) for those posters also to appreciate the enormous offence felt by many of the rest of us at the possiblility of mere "remembrance" being hijacked by certain elements, bent on transforming it into "commemoration", or even "celebration."
For myself, I truly would like to see the place flattened, not from a desire to shame or humiliate those who think differently. Rather, it is on the basis that we have all the memorials we need in cemetaries the length and breadth of the country. That is, it happened, we can't deny it, but nor should we be bound by it, so the sooner it is consigned to history books, the better.
But given that that wish is likely not going to happen, then I am content to leave it to others to do whatever they like at the site. Just don't ask me to share what is for me, a truly awful place, which contained so many truly awful people (both "Loyalist" and Republican).
[And before anyone should climb in and attack me or my views, that is where I have arrived after long reflection and experience, I'm not likely to change it, I don't set out to offend, it's just what I believe - take it or leave it]
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 02:23:45 PM
While I do think the hunger strikers should be commemorated, is the idea of the centre here, or even the history of what happened there, a possible reason for the less enlightened members of the NI fans to not wish the stadium to be located here?
I know they may give other reasons, and am not suggesting this is the reason that EG and Sammy are objecting, but it could be in the minds of the more neanderthal members of their support, being that its a place where history took place and heroes (in some peoples eyes) on the republican side were born.
Now before you jump down my throat, I know the arguments for not having the stadium there, and will not dispute any of them, I was just wondering would this also be on some peoples minds when making their arguments.
I detest the idea of a shrine to these people. Not as a Northern Ireland fan, but as an ordinary member of the public. The fact that I do so, does not make me any less enlightened than anyone else. Nor does it make me a neanderthal.
I dont find that post offensive at all EG, its purely your opinion, and thats how you stated it rather than coming on saying "this is how it is, and this is what should be done".
Nothing to attack there, I wouldnt share the same opinion, but thats irrelevant.
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 20, 2008, 04:27:28 PM
I detest the idea of a shrine to these people.
Just to clarify Chris, as there seems to have been some confusion as to who I was referring to. Which people exactly do you mean?
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 20, 2008, 04:27:28 PM
Not as a Northern Ireland fan, but as an ordinary member of the public. The fact that I do so, does not make me any less enlightened than anyone else. Nor does it make me a neanderthal.
I was of the opinion that most people from a Unionist background would object to this shrine. I never said anyone who objected to the shrine / centre was less enlightened or neanderthal.
My point was asking would objections to the shrine, or if the centre didnt go ahead, the history of the place, be a reason to stop NI fans wanting to have the stadium there.
I wasnt asking about your opinion on whether the centre was right, I'd presume most NI fans would be against it.
I was asking if its at the back of some peoples minds when opposing the Maze stadium, as most of the arguments seem to be about logistical problems.
Not so many people have stated the fact that its the maze as being a problem in itself.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PMI was of the opinion that most people from a Unionist background would object to this shrine. I never said anyone who objected to the shrine / centre was less enlightened or neanderthal.
Err yes you did
"While I do think the hunger strikers should be commemorated, is the idea of the centre here, or even the history of what happened there, a possible reason for the less enlightened members of the NI fans to not wish the stadium to be located here?
I know they may give other reasons, and am not suggesting this is the reason that EG and Sammy are objecting, but it could be in the minds of the more neanderthal members of their support, being that its a place where history took place and heroes (in some peoples eyes) on the republican side were born.
"Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
My point was asking would objections to the shrine, or if the centre didnt go ahead, the history of the place, be a reason to stop NI fans wanting to have the stadium there.
I wasnt asking about your opinion on whether the centre was right, I'd presume most NI fans would be against it.
I was asking if its at the back of some peoples minds when opposing the Maze stadium, as most of the arguments seem to be about logistical problems.
Not so many people have stated the fact that its the maze as being a problem in itself.
That's because (for about the tenth time) it isn't a fact. The issues with the Maze site are about the logistics not about the terror shrine. Yet again you refuse to believe (or even read) what people say and just spout your opinions as 'fact'.
Sammy, Chris, Evil Genius etc. Question
How do you feel about the statue of the Dublin born UVF terrorist and illegal gun runner that stands outside the Parlianment Buildings at Stormont?
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 04:48:32 PM
Err yes you did
"While I do think the hunger strikers should be commemorated, is the idea of the centre here, or even the history of what happened there, a possible reason for the less enlightened members of the NI fans to not wish the stadium to be located here?
I know they may give other reasons, and am not suggesting this is the reason that EG and Sammy are objecting, but it could be in the minds of the more neanderthal members of their support, being that its a place where history took place and heroes (in some peoples eyes) on the republican side were born.
"
Read it again slowly, I said people who used objections to the centre/shrine as a reason for objecting the move to the maze were. I most definately did not say people who opposed the centre / shrine were less enlightened or neanderthal.
This is so clear I cringed reading your post Sammy ;)
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 04:48:32 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
My point was asking would objections to the shrine, or if the centre didnt go ahead, the history of the place, be a reason to stop NI fans wanting to have the stadium there.
I wasnt asking about your opinion on whether the centre was right, I'd presume most NI fans would be against it.
I was asking if its at the back of some peoples minds when opposing the Maze stadium, as most of the arguments seem to be about logistical problems.
Not so many people have stated the fact that its the maze as being a problem in itself.
That's because (for about the tenth time) it isn't a fact. The issues with the Maze site are about the logistics not about the terror shrine.
Did I say it was a fact? Despite your previous posts, I cant read minds. This is why I asked the question! ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 04:48:32 PM
Yet again you refuse to believe (or even read) what people say and just spout your opinions as 'fact'.
Spout my opinions as fact???
I asked a question :D
And when did I refuse to believe what people say about not wanting to move here? I think there are some very good reasons given for not going to the maze, none of which I have disputed. Feel free to point out where I have argued with ANY of the reasons given for not moving to the maze?
Seriously Sammy, you have come up with wild stuff here about me spouting opinions as fact and refusing to read what people say.
Show me where I argued with a reason given for not moving to the Maze?
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
My point was asking would objections to the shrine, or if the centre didnt go ahead, the history of the place, be a reason to stop NI fans wanting to have the stadium there.
I wasnt asking about your opinion on whether the centre was right, I'd presume most NI fans would be against it.
I was asking if its at the back of some peoples minds when opposing the Maze stadium, as most of the arguments seem to be about logistical problems.
Not so many people have stated the fact that its the maze as being a problem in itself.
Did I say it was a fact? Despite your previous posts, I cant read minds. This is why I asked the question! ;D ;D ;D
Sorry but you clearly can't even read your own posts, never mind reading mine. You said it was a fact in the highlighted bit, and that 'fact' was the reason people opposed the Maze.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 20, 2008, 01:59:34 PM
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on February 20, 2008, 01:12:19 PM
I think that they should re-invest in Windsor park....this will allow Linfield to continue to dominate the football League due to the money they get paid for the international matches.......isn't this the hidden agenda
Of course this is the hidden agenda....
Whose hidden Agenda? All the other clubs are long since fed up with Linfield getting so much money from the IFA, under a ludicrously unfair contract. And the IFA has signed up to the Maze, at least in principle, so how does that fit in with an Agenda to keep NI at Windsor?
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
The place is a dump anyway, dont really know why else anyone would want to stay there when they have a chance to move into a new stadium...It really could only happen in this country...
The majority of soccer's "stakeholders" (clubs, officials, supporters) do want to move into a new Stadium - it's just that they don't want to be forced to move to this particular new Stadium at the Maze, since it's the wrong size and design, in the wrong location, plus a hideously expensive waste of public money, when other possible alternatives in Belfast would be much more suitable and less expensive.
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Maybe it's because the OWC'ers from Belfast don't want to travel to the Maze?
Utter bullshit. The best indicator of opinion was a survey of actual NI fans taken at the Wales game, when the overwhelming majority (90%) preferred Belfast over the Maze as a location. All of the Amalgamation Supporters Clubs, bar a couple, have expressed a preference for Belfast. Curiously, the pro-Belfast clubs cover the whole of NI, whereas the pro-Maze clubs are in, ahem, the Lisburn area. Further, there is a UTV poll running on this very subject which after nearly 3,000 votes, is presently showing 82% in favour of Belfast, versus 18% for the Maze. Oh, and the IFA commissioned a Poll of people in NI on this subject a while back, but have so far refused all calls to release the full findings. Meanwhile, they also refuse to honour a pledge to Poll just soccer supporters in NI. I wonder why?
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Windsor park should be levelled to the ground and built up with social housing. Apparently there is a real need for social housing in that area.
Er, Windsor is owned by Linfield. They currently have neither the will nor the need to see it knocked down. Would you like to see public money being spent on buying it from them to build houses on a site which would be expensive, since it also has commercial value? Especially when the Government already owns a perfectly serviceable site at the Maze, on which they could build 10 times the number of social houses, a hell of a sight cheaper, if they really liked.
But hey, I'm sure soccer fans might go along with your plan to build at the Maze and demolish Windsor, so long as the same was done for Casement and Ravenhill. You know, Parity of Esteem and Shared Space etc... ;)
You know, it might be easier for you to go on believing what suits your particular worldview, but it's not very bright, is it? ::)
Why would Soccer fans want Casement park or Ravenhill demolished? Partiy of esteem? Shared spaces? Oh that ok when it suits the Loyalist agenda....
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 05:07:58 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
My point was asking would objections to the shrine, or if the centre didnt go ahead, the history of the place, be a reason to stop NI fans wanting to have the stadium there.
I wasnt asking about your opinion on whether the centre was right, I'd presume most NI fans would be against it.
I was asking if its at the back of some peoples minds when opposing the Maze stadium, as most of the arguments seem to be about logistical problems.
Not so many people have stated the fact that its the maze as being a problem in itself.
Did I say it was a fact? Despite your previous posts, I cant read minds. This is why I asked the question! ;D ;D ;D
Sorry but you clearly can't even read your own posts, never mind reading mine. You said it was a fact in the highlighted bit, and that 'fact' was the reason people opposed the Maze.
Jesus christ Sammy, you are getting desperately picky, I'll highlight one bit to help you out.
Not many people have said
the fact that its in the maze is a problem in itself.
Meaning a) it is fact that the proposed stadium is in the maze and b) not many people have stated this is a problem.
So I asked if this could possible be a reason for objections. At no stage did I suggest it was a reason, I was just wondering, hence the question.
Surely even that must be simple enough for you to understand?
If I left out a comma or something in there somewhere I profoundly apologise :o
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:22:29 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 05:07:58 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:03:40 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
My point was asking would objections to the shrine, or if the centre didnt go ahead, the history of the place, be a reason to stop NI fans wanting to have the stadium there.
I wasnt asking about your opinion on whether the centre was right, I'd presume most NI fans would be against it.
I was asking if its at the back of some peoples minds when opposing the Maze stadium, as most of the arguments seem to be about logistical problems.
Not so many people have stated the fact that its the maze as being a problem in itself.
Did I say it was a fact? Despite your previous posts, I cant read minds. This is why I asked the question! ;D ;D ;D
Sorry but you clearly can't even read your own posts, never mind reading mine. You said it was a fact in the highlighted bit, and that 'fact' was the reason people opposed the Maze.
Jesus christ Sammy, you are getting desperately picky, I'll highlight one bit to help you out.
Not many people have said the fact that its in the maze is a problem in itself.
Meaning a) it is fact that the proposed stadium is in the maze and b) not many people have stated this is a problem.
So I asked if this could possible be a reason for objections. At no stage did I suggest it was a reason, I was just wondering, hence the question.
Surely even that must be simple enough for you to understand?
Hence what question? You didn't ask a question you said that it was a 'fact' that the Maze was a problem in itself. This fact is nothing of the sort it is a figment of your imagination, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Quote from: T Fearon on February 20, 2008, 04:58:13 PM
Sammy, Chris, Evil Genius etc. Question
How do you feel about the statue of the Dublin born UVF terrorist and illegal gun runner that stands outside the Parlianment Buildings at Stormont?
Since it has no relevance whatever to soccer in NI, and no-one is proposing building a Stadium at Stormont, I fail entirely to see the relevance of your question to just about any aspect of this thread.
Start another thread about Carson's statue, if you like (though I daresay it will be another in the seemingly endless list of "clever" threads you start, which receive numerous viewings, and precisely no replies ::))
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 05:28:43 PM
Hence what question? You didn't ask a question you said that it was a 'fact' that the Maze was a problem in itself. This fact is nothing of the sort it is a figment of your imagination, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Read this a little slower this time Sammy..
Not many people have said
the fact that its in the maze is a problem in itself.
Meaning a) it is fact that the proposed stadium is in the maze and b) not many people have stated this is a problem.
So I asked if this could possible be a reason for objections. At no stage did I suggest it was a reason, I was just wondering, hence the question
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 05:14:10 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 20, 2008, 01:59:34 PM
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: Maximus Marillius on February 20, 2008, 01:12:19 PM
I think that they should re-invest in Windsor park....this will allow Linfield to continue to dominate the football League due to the money they get paid for the international matches.......isn't this the hidden agenda
Of course this is the hidden agenda....
Whose hidden Agenda? All the other clubs are long since fed up with Linfield getting so much money from the IFA, under a ludicrously unfair contract. And the IFA has signed up to the Maze, at least in principle, so how does that fit in with an Agenda to keep NI at Windsor?
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
The place is a dump anyway, dont really know why else anyone would want to stay there when they have a chance to move into a new stadium...It really could only happen in this country...
The majority of soccer's "stakeholders" (clubs, officials, supporters) do want to move into a new Stadium - it's just that they don't want to be forced to move to this particular new Stadium at the Maze, since it's the wrong size and design, in the wrong location, plus a hideously expensive waste of public money, when other possible alternatives in Belfast would be much more suitable and less expensive.
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Maybe it's because the OWC'ers from Belfast don't want to travel to the Maze?
Utter bullshit. The best indicator of opinion was a survey of actual NI fans taken at the Wales game, when the overwhelming majority (90%) preferred Belfast over the Maze as a location. All of the Amalgamation Supporters Clubs, bar a couple, have expressed a preference for Belfast. Curiously, the pro-Belfast clubs cover the whole of NI, whereas the pro-Maze clubs are in, ahem, the Lisburn area. Further, there is a UTV poll running on this very subject which after nearly 3,000 votes, is presently showing 82% in favour of Belfast, versus 18% for the Maze. Oh, and the IFA commissioned a Poll of people in NI on this subject a while back, but have so far refused all calls to release the full findings. Meanwhile, they also refuse to honour a pledge to Poll just soccer supporters in NI. I wonder why?
Quote from: The Watcher Pat on February 20, 2008, 01:22:31 PM
Windsor park should be levelled to the ground and built up with social housing. Apparently there is a real need for social housing in that area.
Er, Windsor is owned by Linfield. They currently have neither the will nor the need to see it knocked down. Would you like to see public money being spent on buying it from them to build houses on a site which would be expensive, since it also has commercial value? Especially when the Government already owns a perfectly serviceable site at the Maze, on which they could build 10 times the number of social houses, a hell of a sight cheaper, if they really liked.
But hey, I'm sure soccer fans might go along with your plan to build at the Maze and demolish Windsor, so long as the same was done for Casement and Ravenhill. You know, Parity of Esteem and Shared Space etc... ;)
You know, it might be easier for you to go on believing what suits your particular worldview, but it's not very bright, is it? ::)
Why would Soccer fans want Casement park or Ravenhill demolished? Partiy of esteem? Shared spaces? Oh that ok when it suits the Loyalist agenda....
I don't want to see Casement or Ravenhill demolished. But you were suggesting that someone - presumably the Government, since LFC have no desire to do so - should demolish Windsor and replace it with social housing. Again, I must presume this would be as some sort of wierd quid pro quo for the Government building a soccer stadium at the Maze. Therefore, on the basis of "Sauce for the Goose etc", why not do the same to Casement or Ravenhill - though I think all three are utterly bizarre suggestions.
Perhaps it might be better if you just posted "I hate Unionists/soccer/Linfield/Windsor/the IFA etc, they're all a shower, so there".
It wouldn't necessarily add to the debate; then again, neither do your regular posts, but at least we'd all have the benefit of knowing exactly where you stand. ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:33:50 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 05:28:43 PM
Hence what question? You didn't ask a question you said that it was a 'fact' that the Maze was a problem in itself. This fact is nothing of the sort it is a figment of your imagination, with absolutely nothing to back it up.
Read this a little slower this time Sammy..
Not many people have said the fact that its in the maze is a problem in itself.
Meaning a) it is fact that the proposed stadium is in the maze and b) not many people have stated this is a problem.
So I asked if this could possible be a reason for objections. At no stage did I suggest it was a reason, I was just wondering, hence the question
Read you post again, you didn't ask anything, you made a statement, which you claimed was a 'fact'. There are no questions anywhere in your post.
This is getting tiresome Sammy, the question was in my original post.
Stop asking me to re-read my own posts, I know what I meant myself! Jesus and you were giving out about me earlier claiming to know what you think!
My previous post clearly shows exactly what I meant by that statement, and that I was not stating it as fact that the stadium being in the maze was a problem.
To summarise, I do not argue with any of the points being made against the stadium being in the Maze, nor have I ever done so.
I was wondering if the stadium being in the maze was also a problem to some NI fans, hence I asked if it was. If I was sure enough to say its a fact that this was a problem, I wouldnt have asked the question!
Then you made a pathetic attempt to twist my words to suggest I was saying for a fact that it was a problem, despite me starting this whole thing by asking IF it was.
Despite my clearly proving this to be untrue, you still persist with the argument, whilst ignoring the evidence right in front of your eyes.
You know this is untrue and are deliberatly trying to be a pain in the hole rather than admit you took me up wrong.
Sammy you have done this several times before, either took someone up wrong or lied, and when proven wrong refused to backtrack.
It shows poor character in my opinion and the sort of sneaky weasly character thats not worthy of debating with.
Even EG, who is ten times the debater you are, is willing to accept if he makes the occasional error, which he rarely does.
Grow up for f**k sake.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Even EG, who is ten times the debater you are, is willing to accept if he makes the occasional error, which he rarely does.
Oi! I never make mistakes, because I'm a Genius.
And even if I did, I'd never admit it, because I'm Evil.
So there. ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 20, 2008, 06:26:29 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Even EG, who is ten times the debater you are, is willing to accept if he makes the occasional error, which he rarely does.
Oi! I never make mistakes, because I'm a Genius.
And even if I did, I'd never admit it, because I'm Evil.
So there. ;)
:D :D :D
Maybe you could use the "genius" side to explain to Sammy what I have tried to make clear and is obvious to all bar him.
Jaysus its the one topic I'm not argueing with you lot on and a simple question gets me all sorts of accusations!
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
This is getting tiresome Sammy, the question was in my original post.
And that question was answered saying that it wasn't an issue and you replied that it was an issue and this was a 'fact'.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Stop asking me to re-read my own posts, I know what I meant myself! Jesus and you were giving out about me earlier claiming to know what you think!
I'll stop asking when you stop contradicting yourself.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
My previous post clearly shows exactly what I meant by that statement, and that I was not stating it as fact that the stadium being in the maze was a problem.
No it doesn't it says the exact opposite.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
To summarise, I do not argue with any of the points being made against the stadium being in the Maze, nor have I ever done so.
I was wondering if the stadium being in the maze was also a problem to some NI fans, hence I asked if it was. If I was sure enough to say its a fact that this was a problem, I wouldnt have asked the question!
Excellent
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Then you made a pathetic attempt to twist my words to suggest I was saying for a fact that it was a problem, despite me starting this whole thing by asking IF it was.
I haven't twisted anything. I quoted your whole post, word for word.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Despite my clearly proving this to be untrue,
You've proven nothing of the sort. You've tried to explain what you meant by re-stating the same thing.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
you still persist with the argument, whilst ignoring the evidence right in front of your eyes.
Pot and kettle
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
You know this is untrue and are deliberatly trying to be a pain in the hole rather than admit you took me up wrong.
HOw can I take yuou up wrong? You said it in black and white.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Sammy you have done this several times before, either took someone up wrong or lied, and when proven wrong refused to backtrack.
It shows poor character in my opinion and the sort of sneaky weasly character thats not worthy of debating with.
So you spout shite and when I pull you about it, it's me that has the problem!!! Brilliant you can't beat logic like that.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Even EG, who is ten times the debater you are, is willing to accept if he makes the occasional error, which he rarely does.
I'm happy to admit if I make a mistake but in this case you said something was a 'fact' when it was bullshit.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Grow up for f**k sake.
Pot and kettle again.
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 03:34:21 PM
Snatter, I don't see where you are going with this. The all party working group agreed on the idea of a stadium and combined conflict transformation centre, so I assume they had the backing of their parties in principle to do so. Each of those parties then has members coming out in favour of a stadium in Belfast which then leads one to assume that (i) none of the parties have an official policy and (ii) the principle of the conflict transformation centre was conceded, so it's not an obstacle to the building of the stadium. The opposition to the stadium is coming from the pro-Belfast lobby and OWC soccer supporters. Butler's press release is crude and self-serving but he's a politician and that's what they do best. But at the end of the day he was on the working group and he was also the one who was shafted by the unionists after Lisburn got city status so he's bound coming out batting for his own side (i.e. for what he negotiated on the working group and what he sees as in the best interests of the nationalists in the 'Lisburn' area that elected him.)
Pretty obvious where I'm going, and my guess is that you'd worked it out by now.
Assuming that this PWC report stands up to scrutiny, then the only straw the rejectionists can now clutch at is the issue of the Conflict Centre.
The problem here is that the shinners have categorically linked the provision of a stadium to the building of the conflict centre. They claim one can not proceed without the other, given that they and the DUP have to agree (point clearly backed up by previous statement on sinn fein's website).
The shinners have done this despite the GAA making it clear that they strongly want this stadium.
As indeed have the IRFU and to a lesser extent the IFA.
If the shinners persist with this line, there is every chance that the DUP will not agree, and that no stadium will be built. Especially now that Edwin's buddies in the Paisley wing are losing influence to the Belfast based Robinson crew.
Surely it would be better for all three sports if the issue of the conflict centre was decoupled from the stadium, at least until after it was built.
If the resolution of the conflict centre was shelved for a year or two after the stadium is built, there would be no more grounds for rejectionists to veto the Maze.
Once the stadium's built, the NI fans would use it anyway.
If the shinners lifted their veto, the GAA stands more chance of getting the stadium we need.
If the shinners don't lift their veto, then its clear that the GAA's interests are once again being ignored by Sinn Fein.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:42:46 PM
Pretty obvious where I'm going, and my guess is that you'd worked it out by now.
Assuming that this PWC report stands up to scrutiny, then the only straw the rejectionists can now clutch at is the issue of the Conflict Centre.
The problem here is that the shinners have categorically linked the provision of a stadium to the building of the conflict centre. They claim one can not proceed without the other, given that they and the DUP have to agree (point clearly backed up by previous statement on sinn fein's website).
The shinners have done this despite the GAA making it clear that they strongly want this stadium.
As indeed have the IRFU and to a lesser extent the IFA.
If the shinners persist with this line, there is every chance that the DUP will not agree, and that no stadium will be built. Especially now that Edwin's buddies in the Paisley wing are losing influence to the Belfast based Robinson crew.
Surely it would be better for all three sports if the issue of the conflict centre was decoupled from the stadium, at least until after it was built.
If the resolution of the conflict centre was shelved for a year or two after the stadium is built, there would be no more grounds for rejectionists to veto the Maze.
Once the stadium's built, the NI fans would use it anyway.
If the shinners lifted their veto, the GAA stands more chance of getting the stadium we need.
If the shinners don't lift their veto, then its clear that the GAA's interests are once again being ignored by Sinn Fein.
Snatter, my point is that the DUP have already agreed to the conflict centre - Poots was also on the all party working group. As for the GAA's interests being ignored, well this lifelong GAA member doesn't think we another stadium is needed, but if it puts a few unionist and OWC noses out of joint I'll go along for the ride.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:42:46 PMAssuming that this PWC report stands up to scrutiny,
It doesn't.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:42:46 PM
then the only straw the rejectionists can now clutch at is the issue of the Conflict Centre.
Truely pathetic.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:42:46 PM
The shinners have done this despite the GAA making it clear that they strongly want this stadium.
As indeed have the IRFU and to a lesser extent the IFA.
Yet again you make this assertion. And yet again I ask can you please show us anything that backs this up, press release, statement on website, interview by Nicky Brennan, anything?
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:42:46 PM
Surely it would be better for all three sports if the issue of the conflict centre was decoupled from the stadium, at least until after it was built.
If the resolution of the conflict centre was shelved for a year or two after the stadium is built, there would be no more grounds for rejectionists to veto the Maze.
There are hiundreds of issues with the Maze (transport, infrastucture, facilities, pubs, hotels, capacity etc). For the millionth time, the terror shrine is not a significant issue (especially as it will be built any way).
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:42:46 PM
Once the stadium's built, the NI fans would use it anyway.
How the fcuk can anybody use something that they can't get to?
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:42:46 PM
If the shinners lifted their veto, the GAA stands more chance of getting the stadium we need.
If the shinners don't lift their veto, then its clear that the GAA's interests are once again being ignored by Sinn Fein.
Interesting that you think there is a link between SF policymakers and the GAA!!! If I'd made a comment like that I'd have got jumped on from a great height.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Even EG, who is ten times the debater you are,
Jeepers, that is probably the worst insult I have ever seen on this board. What could SammyG have done to deserve such abuse?
Quote from: SammyG on February 20, 2008, 09:20:23 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
This is getting tiresome Sammy, the question was in my original post.
And that question was answered saying that it wasn't an issue and you replied that it was an issue and this was a 'fact'.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Stop asking me to re-read my own posts, I know what I meant myself! Jesus and you were giving out about me earlier claiming to know what you think!
I'll stop asking when you stop contradicting yourself.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
My previous post clearly shows exactly what I meant by that statement, and that I was not stating it as fact that the stadium being in the maze was a problem.
No it doesn't it says the exact opposite.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
To summarise, I do not argue with any of the points being made against the stadium being in the Maze, nor have I ever done so.
I was wondering if the stadium being in the maze was also a problem to some NI fans, hence I asked if it was. If I was sure enough to say its a fact that this was a problem, I wouldnt have asked the question!
Excellent
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Then you made a pathetic attempt to twist my words to suggest I was saying for a fact that it was a problem, despite me starting this whole thing by asking IF it was.
I haven't twisted anything. I quoted your whole post, word for word.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Despite my clearly proving this to be untrue,
You've proven nothing of the sort. You've tried to explain what you meant by re-stating the same thing.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
you still persist with the argument, whilst ignoring the evidence right in front of your eyes.
Pot and kettle
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
You know this is untrue and are deliberatly trying to be a pain in the hole rather than admit you took me up wrong.
HOw can I take yuou up wrong? You said it in black and white.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Sammy you have done this several times before, either took someone up wrong or lied, and when proven wrong refused to backtrack.
It shows poor character in my opinion and the sort of sneaky weasly character thats not worthy of debating with.
So you spout shite and when I pull you about it, it's me that has the problem!!! Brilliant you can't beat logic like that.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Even EG, who is ten times the debater you are, is willing to accept if he makes the occasional error, which he rarely does.
I'm happy to admit if I make a mistake but in this case you said something was a 'fact' when it was bullshit.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 05:58:14 PM
Grow up for f**k sake.
Pot and kettle again.
Ah I get it now, all this is deliberate, to wind me up. Its becoming clear now.
Either that or you are incredibly stupid.
But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 20, 2008, 04:27:28 PM
I detest the idea of a shrine to these people.
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 20, 2008, 04:44:19 PM
Just to clarify Chris, as there seems to have been some confusion as to who I was referring to. Which people exactly do you mean?
I mean the people you were talking about. The Hunger Strikers.
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 20, 2008, 04:27:28 PM
Not as a Northern Ireland fan, but as an ordinary member of the public. The fact that I do so, does not make me any less enlightened than anyone else. Nor does it make me a neanderthal.
I was of the opinion that most people from a Unionist background would object to this shrine. I never said anyone who objected to the shrine / centre was less enlightened or neanderthal.
My point was asking would objections to the shrine, or if the centre didnt go ahead, the history of the place, be a reason to stop NI fans wanting to have the stadium there.
I wasnt asking about your opinion on whether the centre was right, I'd presume most NI fans would be against it.
You asked the question would it be the 'less enlightened' people who would object to conflict centre/shrine/whatever.... You then implied that this could be an issue with the 'more neanderthal' members of Northern Ireland's support.
While I do think the hunger strikers should be commemorated, is the idea of the centre here, or even the history of what happened there, a possible reason for the less enlightened members of the NI fans to not wish the stadium to be located here?I know they may give other reasons, and am not suggesting this is the reason that EG and Sammy are objecting, but it could be in the minds of the more neanderthal members of their support, being that its a place where history took place and heroes (in some peoples eyes) on the republican side were born.
Chris, as I clarified. I did not say that objecting to the centre /shrine would make you neanderthal or less enlightened.
I would fully expect the majority of NI fans to object to this centre.
I said using the objections to the centre as a reason for also objecting to the stadium locating there would be.
Hope that clarifies, but if it helps I will withdraw my comment about people being neanderthal and less enlightened. Perhaps that was a bit harsh.
Fair enough ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 21, 2008, 12:02:08 PM
Chris, as I clarified. I did not say that objecting to the centre /shrine would make you neanderthal or less enlightened.
I would fully expect the majority of NI fans to object to this centre.
I said using the objections to the centre as a reason for also objecting to the stadium locating there would be.
I do think that SF and all shades of Unionism should drop their linkage between Stadium and Conflict Centre.
Lets judge the case for the stadium on its own merits.
If the PWC report stands up to scrutiny (ffs Sammy how about waiting until its published officially, in full before dissing it), then we should proceed with full haste.
Its clear, after years of searching, that Belfast hasn't identified a more suitable location, so lets get on with it.
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 12:18:55 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on February 21, 2008, 12:02:08 PM
Chris, as I clarified. I did not say that objecting to the centre /shrine would make you neanderthal or less enlightened.
I would fully expect the majority of NI fans to object to this centre.
I said using the objections to the centre as a reason for also objecting to the stadium locating there would be.
I do think that SF and all shades of Unionism should drop their linkage between Stadium and Conflict Centre.
Lets judge the case for the stadium on its own merits.
Due to SF's stance, the stadium and shrine are inextricably linked. Although going by Donagh's latest contribution (and he has his finger on the pulse ;D) this appears to more of a wind up than an actual desire to commemerate their comrades.
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 21, 2008, 12:42:02 PM
Due to SF's stance, the stadium and shrine are inextricably linked. Although going by Donagh's latest contribution (and he has his finger on the pulse ;D) this appears to more of a wind up than an actual desire to commemerate their comrades.
No one does zero sum games better than that section of our community which has bigotry ingrained within their culture, and the rest of us the world over like to revel in a little schedenfraude every time unionism is made to squirm when they are dragged a little bit further out of their sectarian trenches or in the case of OWC, their sectarian cesspit. BTW, the DUP is every bit as much to blame for linking the stadium and conflict centre - it seems that just like every other brand of unionism they are more dedicated to feathering their own nests that reflecting the concerns of the dumb asses that vote of them. :D
Thats why I don't vote. ;)
At least you can be proud that your vote helped your own particular brand of muppets stick to their principles and in no way feather their nests for personal gain.
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 21, 2008, 01:00:17 PM
Thats why I don't vote. ;)
At least you can be proud that your vote helped your own particular brand of muppets stick to their principles and in no way feather their nests for personal gain.
You shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know Chris, will bite you in the arse eventually.
Quote from: Donagh on February 21, 2008, 01:15:58 PM
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 21, 2008, 01:00:17 PM
Thats why I don't vote. ;)
At least you can be proud that your vote helped your own particular brand of muppets stick to their principles and in no way feather their nests for personal gain.
You shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know Chris, will bite you in the arse eventually.
The people I don't know who I make assumptions about will bite me on the arse :o
Do you vote?
Quote from: Donagh on February 21, 2008, 12:56:45 PM
Quote from: Chrisowc on February 21, 2008, 12:42:02 PM
Due to SF's stance, the stadium and shrine are inextricably linked. Although going by Donagh's latest contribution (and he has his finger on the pulse ;D) this appears to more of a wind up than an actual desire to commemerate their comrades.
No one does zero sum games better than that section of our community which has bigotry ingrained within their culture, and the rest of us the world over like to revel in a little schedenfraude every time unionism is made to squirm when they are dragged a little bit further out of their sectarian trenches or in the case of OWC, their sectarian cesspit. BTW, the DUP is every bit as much to blame for linking the stadium and conflict centre - it seems that just like every other brand of unionism they are more dedicated to feathering their own nests that reflecting the concerns of the dumb asses that vote of them. :D
Recognise the hypocrisy in this post Donagh?
You are criticising others for being bigoted when you are, well, being bigoted.
So Donagh,
Quote from: Donagh on February 20, 2008, 12:51:55 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 12:18:26 PM
Donagh,
No thoughts on my previous post re the shinners linking their support of the stadium to the conflict centre?
It would be nice for them to act in the GAA's best interests on this one.
Surely if the stadium is in the GAA's best interests, then the shinners should do the intelligent thing and let it proceed, whilst parking the conflict centre for a year or two.
Seems like a very good suggestion to me, but as far as I know, the idea of the stadium and conflict resolution centre was driven by an all party working group of Lisburn Council. I don't think SF as a party have a policy on it either way, although as one of their councilors was on the working group I assume they're supporting whatever he feels is the best way forward for nationalists in the Lisburn area.
So, to get this straight, your stance has changed from something like,
"Yep, good idea to separate the Conflict Centre & Stadium. I'm sure there's no shinner policy to say otherwise"
to
"It's all themmums fault"
If any shinners out there have any input into this, then surely its time for a rethink.
For the sake of the three sports bodes, park the Conflict Centre issue for a year or two and get on with the stadium while the Govt are still prepared to hand over the cash.
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 02:26:45 PM
For the sake of the three sports bodes, park the Conflict Centre issue for a year or two and get on with the stadium while the Govt are still prepared to hand over the cash.
Are you saying that due to the difficulty in getting agreement between the three codes which the Conflict Centre will cause, we should forget about it and just go ahead and build the Stadium? And then a year or two later, just go ahead and build the CC anyhow?
Now I know there are some rather unintelligent people involved in this whole issue (from all sides, as it happens), but I daresay even the most stupid of "Paisleyite Baldrics" could see through that particular cunning plan... :D
Getting back to the topic, I see Poots has been backtracking, rapidly, at todays committee meeting.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7256248.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7256248.stm)
QuotePoots keeps stadium options open
Sports Minister Edwin Poots insisted there would be no terrorism shrine
Sports Minister Edwin Poots has refused to confirm whether a new multi-sports stadium will be located at the Maze.
A Stormont committee has been asking him about a leaked feasibility study which recommended the Maze as the best location for the all-seater stadium.
Consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said the venue had the potential to generate significant revenue.
However, Mr Poots, whose Lagan Valley constituency includes the Maze site, said he was considering all options.
In an angry exchange with Ulster Unionist MLA David McNarry, Mr Poots insisted there will not be a "shrine" to former terrorists beside any stadium at the Maze.
The DUP assembly member insisted that plans for a conflict transformation centre at the Maze were nothing to do with his department or the committee but that he would not be associated with a so-called "shrine".
The Maze site is opposed by some unionists because of the planned museum.
Opposition has also come from many Northern Ireland soccer fans who want any new stadium to be in Belfast.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have all confirmed they would play games at any Maze stadium.
The site is just outside Lisburn in County Antrim.
Overall cost
According to the Press Association which obtained the report, the consultants claimed that the overall cost to the taxpayer after the first four years of operation would be £37m.
This was based on the 38,500-seat stadium hosting 23 major sporting and music events in a year and attracting just under 500,000 paying spectators.
Other options examined included a hypothetical stadium in north Belfast and the refurbishment of the three sporting bodies' existing venues.
The report said there would be many benefits to a venue at Belfast's north foreshore, but ruled it out on cost grounds.
"Hypothetically such an option would generate high visitor spending benefits because it is located closer to the city centre, but these are outweighed by the capital and infrastructure costs and the higher value of this site," the report is quoted as saying.
Also interesting that the BBC are now quoting the £37 million figure rather than the £240 million in the report. What's that saying about lies, damned lies and statistics?
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 02:26:45 PM
For the sake of the three sports bodes, park the Conflict Centre issue for a year or two and get on with the stadium while the Govt are still prepared to hand over the cash.
Are you saying that due to the difficulty in getting agreement between the three codes which the Conflict Centre will cause, we should forget about it and just go ahead and build the Stadium? And then a year or two later, just go ahead and build the CC anyhow?
Now I know there are some rather unintelligent people involved in this whole issue (from all sides, as it happens), but I daresay even the most stupid of "Paisleyite Baldrics" could see through that particular cunning plan... :D
I wouldn't bet against it EG, they've swallowed funnier stories than that before - they are a bunch of Creationists, aren't they?
In answer to you question -
I'm not advocating what should or shouldn't happen to the h-blocks.
I personally don't give a stuff one way or the other.
I accept that there are plenty that do.
I say - let these people argue about it for the next few years.
If they weren't arguing over this, they'd be arguing whether their wheelie bins are Catholic or Protestant.
Meanwhile the three sports bodies wishes are listened to, and we get the stadium built before our UK lords and masters get even more fed up with us and pull the funding.
Quote from: snatter on February 20, 2008, 10:02:13 AM
37 million is nothing to the UK exchequer.
Remember this is coming out of ringfenced UK plc funds, not NI plc funds allocated to/controlled by the assembly.
Moving on....
This stadium is a no-brainer for the GAA and should be supported by all those with the GAA's interests at heart.
I wonder if the Shinners have the wit to decouple the stadium issue from the conflict centre.
If the conflict centre issue can be parked, then its more likely that the stadium will get built.
Once its built, the NI fans will come.
At that point, or a year or so after, the Shinners can push for something to be done with the H blocks.
I'd say its unlikely that NI fans would then boycott the Maze after happily using it.
Remember that the H blocks are listed, so nothing can happen to them in the meantime.
I imagine there'd be goodwill from Ulster GAA fans if the Shinners worked with the GAA's interests for a change and not against it (eg Casement rally).
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 02:55:34 PM
Getting back to the topic, I see Poots has been backtracking, rapidly, at todays committee meeting.
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7256248.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7256248.stm)
QuotePoots keeps stadium options open
Sports Minister Edwin Poots insisted there would be no terrorism shrine
Sports Minister Edwin Poots has refused to confirm whether a new multi-sports stadium will be located at the Maze.
A Stormont committee has been asking him about a leaked feasibility study which recommended the Maze as the best location for the all-seater stadium.
Consultancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers said the venue had the potential to generate significant revenue.
However, Mr Poots, whose Lagan Valley constituency includes the Maze site, said he was considering all options.
In an angry exchange with Ulster Unionist MLA David McNarry, Mr Poots insisted there will not be a "shrine" to former terrorists beside any stadium at the Maze.
The DUP assembly member insisted that plans for a conflict transformation centre at the Maze were nothing to do with his department or the committee but that he would not be associated with a so-called "shrine".
The Maze site is opposed by some unionists because of the planned museum.
Opposition has also come from many Northern Ireland soccer fans who want any new stadium to be in Belfast.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have all confirmed they would play games at any Maze stadium.
The site is just outside Lisburn in County Antrim.
Overall cost
According to the Press Association which obtained the report, the consultants claimed that the overall cost to the taxpayer after the first four years of operation would be £37m.
This was based on the 38,500-seat stadium hosting 23 major sporting and music events in a year and attracting just under 500,000 paying spectators.
Other options examined included a hypothetical stadium in north Belfast and the refurbishment of the three sporting bodies' existing venues.
The report said there would be many benefits to a venue at Belfast's north foreshore, but ruled it out on cost grounds.
"Hypothetically such an option would generate high visitor spending benefits because it is located closer to the city centre, but these are outweighed by the capital and infrastructure costs and the higher value of this site," the report is quoted as saying.
Also interesting that the BBC are now quoting the £37 million figure rather than the £240 million in the report. What's that saying about lies, damned lies and statistics?
I presume, having done some work in this area, that the £37mill is the
Net Present Cost i.e. the total capital cost of building the stadium and associated infrastructure plus running costs less income over a certain time period (probably 25 years) all discounted to represent the total costs over the 25 years at today's money...or something like that
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 03:01:44 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 02:47:18 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 02:26:45 PM
For the sake of the three sports bodes, park the Conflict Centre issue for a year or two and get on with the stadium while the Govt are still prepared to hand over the cash.
Are you saying that due to the difficulty in getting agreement between the three codes which the Conflict Centre will cause, we should forget about it and just go ahead and build the Stadium? And then a year or two later, just go ahead and build the CC anyhow?
Now I know there are some rather unintelligent people involved in this whole issue (from all sides, as it happens), but I daresay even the most stupid of "Paisleyite Baldrics" could see through that particular cunning plan... :D
I wouldn't bet against it EG, they've swallowed funnier stories than that before - they are a bunch of Creationists, aren't they?
In answer to you question -
I'm not advocating what should or shouldn't happen to the h-blocks.
I personally don't give a stuff one way or the other.
I accept that there are plenty that do.
I say - let these people argue about it for the next few years.
If they weren't arguing over this, they'd be arguing whether their wheelie bins are Catholic or Protestant.
Meanwhile the three sports bodies wishes are listened to, and we get the stadium built before our UK lords and masters get even more fed up with us and pull the funding.
Fair enough. I hadn't understood that you mean that the stadium and the CC should be treated separately, as opposed to the CC being "parked" i.e.
temporarily held back until the Stadium is built.
Which, if I were in favour of the stadium generally, would be sound enough advice. However, iirc, did Martin McGuinness not say that "No Conflict Centre = No Stadium"? Moreover, a GAA commentator (Bradley?) also was of the opinion that a behind-the-scenes understanding between the GAA and SF may have been reached, whereby the GAA would go along with the Stadium/CC plan, in return for SF making no trouble for the GAA over opening Croke to the IRFU and FAI? (My recollection may not be correct)
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on February 21, 2008, 03:26:26 PM
I presume, having done some work in this area, that the £37mill is the Net Present Cost i.e. the total capital cost of building the stadium and associated infrastructure plus running costs less income over a certain time period (probably 25 years) all discounted to represent the total costs over the 25 years at today's money...or something like that
Close, it's the figure that PWC have come up with as the net cost after
four years and assuming
zero running costs (but it only works if they have 23 events per year charging over £100 per ticket.)
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 03:35:35 PM
Fair enough. I hadn't understood that you mean that the stadium and the CC should be treated separately, as opposed to the CC being "parked" i.e. temporarily held back until the Stadium is built.
Which, if I were in favour of the stadium generally, would be sound enough advice. However, iirc, did Martin McGuinness not say that "No Conflict Centre = No Stadium"? Moreover, a GAA commentator (Bradley?) also was of the opinion that a behind-the-scenes understanding between the GAA and SF may have been reached, whereby the GAA would go along with the Stadium/CC plan, in return for SF making no trouble for the GAA over opening Croke to the IRFU and FAI? (My recollection may not be correct)
EG,
Just to put that one to bed. Jarlath Burns (former player) spoke in his own capacity and said he felt there was an unwritten agreement/understanding that if Sinn Féin didn't interfere with the decision making on Rule 21 and Rule 42 that the GAA would back their proposal for the stadium at the Maze. This is just a theory (although creditable to those who see Ulster GAA and Sinn Féin in cahoots) and theory which falls down on one salient point: it is Central Council in Dublin and not specifically the Ulster Council pushing for this stadium.
Nickey Brennan has spoken publicly twice on this and made it quite clear that the drive for this stadium is coming centrally from the GAA. I suspect there is political influence at play here in as much as the governments have suggested to the GAA that funding requests will be treated favourably if you are supporting a cross-community stadium.
Within Ulster GAA-circles there seems a preference for the Maze (which may be influenced by Sinn Féin) but I have not seen any GAA statement linking the Conflict Centre thingy as a prerequisite.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 21, 2008, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 03:35:35 PM
Fair enough. I hadn't understood that you mean that the stadium and the CC should be treated separately, as opposed to the CC being "parked" i.e. temporarily held back until the Stadium is built.
Which, if I were in favour of the stadium generally, would be sound enough advice. However, iirc, did Martin McGuinness not say that "No Conflict Centre = No Stadium"? Moreover, a GAA commentator (Bradley?) also was of the opinion that a behind-the-scenes understanding between the GAA and SF may have been reached, whereby the GAA would go along with the Stadium/CC plan, in return for SF making no trouble for the GAA over opening Croke to the IRFU and FAI? (My recollection may not be correct)
EG,
Just to put that one to bed. Jarlath Burns (former player) spoke in his own capacity and said he felt there was an unwritten agreement/understanding that if Sinn Féin didn't interfere with the decision making on Rule 21 and Rule 42 that the GAA would back their proposal for the stadium at the Maze. This is just a theory (although creditable to those who see Ulster GAA and Sinn Féin in cahoots) and theory which falls down on one salient point: it is Central Council in Dublin and not specifically the Ulster Council pushing for this stadium.
Nickey Brennan has spoken publicly twice on this and made it quite clear that the drive for this stadium is coming centrally from the GAA. I suspect there is political influence at play here in as much as the governments have suggested to the GAA that funding requests will be treated favourably if you are supporting a cross-community stadium.
Within Ulster GAA-circles there seems a preference for the Maze (which may be influenced by Sinn Féin) but I have not seen any GAA statement linking the Conflict Centre thingy as a prerequisite.
/Jim.
I don't see how/why the fact that the
Central Co is driving this should make much difference than if it were the Ulster Council. After all,
if SF threatened to use its influence, whether in Ulster or elsewhere, to stymie the GAA's plans to open Croke, and the GAA Central Co wants the Maze stadium (for whatever motive), then it would be in each party's interests to help each other out.
After all, we do know the following things:
1. SF wants the Conflict Centre;
2. SF could probably bring significant influence to bear with the GAA Central Co had they opposed opening Croke;
3. The GAA wants the Maze;
4. SF has no particular desire to see any "NI National Stadium" at the Maze, but could stop it in its tracks, should they choose.
I've no way of knowing whether it happened, but both the GAA and SF are clever and effective operators, so it's easy to see how their interests could have coincided over this, as Burns suggested.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 05:09:22 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 21, 2008, 04:01:38 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 03:35:35 PM
Fair enough. I hadn't understood that you mean that the stadium and the CC should be treated separately, as opposed to the CC being "parked" i.e. temporarily held back until the Stadium is built.
Which, if I were in favour of the stadium generally, would be sound enough advice. However, iirc, did Martin McGuinness not say that "No Conflict Centre = No Stadium"? Moreover, a GAA commentator (Bradley?) also was of the opinion that a behind-the-scenes understanding between the GAA and SF may have been reached, whereby the GAA would go along with the Stadium/CC plan, in return for SF making no trouble for the GAA over opening Croke to the IRFU and FAI? (My recollection may not be correct)
EG,
Just to put that one to bed. Jarlath Burns (former player) spoke in his own capacity and said he felt there was an unwritten agreement/understanding that if Sinn Féin didn't interfere with the decision making on Rule 21 and Rule 42 that the GAA would back their proposal for the stadium at the Maze. This is just a theory (although creditable to those who see Ulster GAA and Sinn Féin in cahoots) and theory which falls down on one salient point: it is Central Council in Dublin and not specifically the Ulster Council pushing for this stadium.
Nickey Brennan has spoken publicly twice on this and made it quite clear that the drive for this stadium is coming centrally from the GAA. I suspect there is political influence at play here in as much as the governments have suggested to the GAA that funding requests will be treated favourably if you are supporting a cross-community stadium.
Within Ulster GAA-circles there seems a preference for the Maze (which may be influenced by Sinn Féin) but I have not seen any GAA statement linking the Conflict Centre thingy as a prerequisite.
/Jim.
I don't see how/why the fact that the Central Co is driving this should make much difference than if it were the Ulster Council. After all, if SF threatened to use its influence, whether in Ulster or elsewhere, to stymie the GAA's plans to open Croke, and the GAA Central Co wants the Maze stadium (for whatever motive), then it would be in each party's interests to help each other out.
After all, we do know the following things:
1. SF wants the Conflict Centre;
2. SF could probably bring significant influence to bear with the GAA Central Co had they opposed opening Croke;
3. The GAA wants the Maze;
4. SF has no particular desire to see any "NI National Stadium" at the Maze, but could stop it in its tracks, should they choose.
I've no way of knowing whether it happened, but both the GAA and SF are clever and effective operators, so it's easy to see how their interests could have coincided over this, as Burns suggested.
Don't agree on point 2 but it's no loss to be honest. At the end of the day I don't think that the traditional republican counties (Ulster, Cork etc..where they'd have most bearing) voted to amend Rule 42 so the Sinn Féin influence would have been minimal.
Also what struck me was that Rule 21 would have been much more of an issue for Sinn Féin and it definitely pre-dated any discussion about the Maze. I don't really know how mature the stadium discussions were when Rule 42 was voted on. To be honest it maybe a good conspiracy theory but that's all it is. The idea of keeping cosy with your major funders (ie the governments) makes a lot more sense and logic for an amateur organisation. Getting a free stadium also makes sense.
/Jim.
I would imagine if there was no conflict centre the maze project would be well under way by now.
I would say 50% of the norn iron fans who are against the stadium would be for this reason.
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
I would imagine if there was no conflict centre the maze project would be well under way by now.
I would say 50% of the norn iron fans who are against the stadium would be for this reason.
Given that I don't know one fan, who is against the Maze, for that reason, could you tell us what your 50% is based on?
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
I would imagine if there was no conflict centre the maze project would be well under way by now.
I would say 50% of the norn iron fans who are against the stadium would be for this reason.
Given that I don't know one fan, who is against the Maze, for that reason, could you tell us what your 50% is based on?
Well from reading the comments from the utv poll for one.
Are you trying to tell me that the CRC has no bearing on the favourable location of the new stadium of norn iron fans?
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 03:37:29 PM
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on February 21, 2008, 03:26:26 PM
I presume, having done some work in this area, that the £37mill is the Net Present Cost i.e. the total capital cost of building the stadium and associated infrastructure plus running costs less income over a certain time period (probably 25 years) all discounted to represent the total costs over the 25 years at today's money...or something like that
Close, it's the figure that PWC have come up with as the net cost after four years and assuming zero running costs (but it only works if they have 23 events per year charging over £100 per ticket.)
f**k me it's worse than I thought!!!
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 21, 2008, 01:52:19 PM
You are criticising others for being bigoted when you are, well, being bigoted.
Abu, a bigot is normally defined as one who sticks to their views after they have been proven to be false. Would you care to have a go in backing up your allegation?
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on February 21, 2008, 06:30:19 PM
f**k me it's worse than I thought!!!
Then again if they head hunt some bar managers from Croker they'll have it all paid back in no time at all.
Opps forgot (http://ourweecountry.ipbhost.com/style_emoticons/default/doh.gif), the OWC soccer supporters aren't mature enough to be trusted with a drink, just in case...
Quote from: Donagh on February 21, 2008, 06:36:37 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 21, 2008, 01:52:19 PM
You are criticising others for being bigoted when you are, well, being bigoted.
Abu, a bigot is normally defined as one who sticks to their views after they have been proven to be false. Would you care to have a go in backing up your allegation?
From Merriam Webster dictionary
bigot
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I would like to know where your definition of the word comes from.
From the definition I posted, you are showing bigoted attitudes while criticising others for precisely the same thing in the post I originally quoted of yours.
Alas I didn't look it up Abu, but I don't think even your definition would have me in the bigot category i.e. unless you would place unionism in a racial or ethnic group?
Quote from: Donagh on February 21, 2008, 06:57:38 PM
Alas I didn't look it up Abu, but I don't think even your definition would have me in the bigot category i.e. unless you would place unionism in a racial or ethnic group?
You know what?
I can't be arsed debating with an SF lackey.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 21, 2008, 07:05:48 PM
Quote from: Donagh on February 21, 2008, 06:57:38 PM
Alas I didn't look it up Abu, but I don't think even your definition would have me in the bigot category i.e. unless you would place unionism in a racial or ethnic group?
You know what?
I can't be arsed debating with an SF lackey.
Ohhh... either that are you just don't have the balls to back up what you are posting. Good job I'm no tout either - whats the mod dishing out for personal abuse these days?
You are a bigot because of what you posted. What is so hard to understand about that?
::)
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on February 21, 2008, 07:14:05 PM
You are a bigot because of what you posted. What is so hard to understand about that?
::)
I didn't say there was anything hard to understand about it, I simply asked you to put forward a reasoned argument in support of your allegation. Now if you are not prepared to be challenged maybe you should stay away from discussion forums in future.
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 06:20:15 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
I would imagine if there was no conflict centre the maze project would be well under way by now.
I would say 50% of the norn iron fans who are against the stadium would be for this reason.
Given that I don't know one fan, who is against the Maze, for that reason, could you tell us what your 50% is based on?
Well from reading the comments from the utv poll for one.
Firstly I've only seen 3 or 4 comments about the shrine (out of nearly 200 when I last llooked) so that's no where near 50% and secondly how do you know those comments came from NI football supporters.
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 06:20:15 PM
Are you trying to tell me that the CRC has no bearing on the favourable location of the new stadium of norn iron fans?
None that I know of. When the Maze was first suggested I backed it enthusiastically (even with the terror shrine). It was only when the logistics were looked into and it was shown to be an unworkable white elephant, that I changed my mind.
The Maze would quickly become known as the site of the terrorist museum not as a centre for sporting excellence......
The Maze is the obvious venue, both for cheapness and easy access from BOTH Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland . BUT! NO terrorist museums for Republicans OR Loyalists! No thanks! - If there is any talk about terrorist museums under any guise at all, then the venue either doesn`t go ahead or goes elsewhere.
Why spend 240 million pounds on the Maze Terror Dome and making it a shrine to IRA when you could spend 40 Million Pounds redeveloping Windsor Park and spend the other 200 Million Pounds on the Health service.
I believe that the stadium should NOT be at the Maze. As soon as the idea for "Conflict Transfomation Centre" was mentioned to be built there aswell any chance of it being an acceptable site for all evaporated.I for one will never acept the Maze as the plate for it and I hope that ALL the Unionist parties will oppose it being there.
I have always been against the stadium being built at the Maze and I always will be. If it was built there Republicans WOULD use it to push for this great "Conflict Centre" and it would be mixing politics with sport.
I live quite close to the Maze site and still believe the stadium should be located in Belfast. The Maze site is purely about the memory of IRA hungerstrikers and the memorial Republicans want. It is not about sport, if it was the so called conflict resolution centre would be scrapped.
Right sammy above is 6 comments from the utv poll on the maze regarding the CRC as the main cause of concern. I have taken this from the first 8 pages that i looked through of the 20 odd pages. Im not gonna look through them all but i would say their would be at least doubled.
You said earlier than not one norn iron fan rejects the maze proposals because of the CRC, i doubt this very much so.
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 07:49:09 PMRight sammy above is 6 comments from the utv poll on the maze regarding the CRC as the main cause of concern. I have taken this from the first 8 pages that i looked through of the 20 odd pages. Im not gonna look through them all but i would say their would be at least doubled.
Right so that's 6 comments (only one of which even mentions NI football) and none of which mention being NI supporters. Lets assume this is doubled and that all of those comments are from NI supporters (as you suggest) that gives us 12 comments out of 217 or just over 5%. You were quoting a 50% + figure earlier.
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 07:49:09 PM
You said earlier than not one norn iron fan rejects the maze proposals because of the CRC, i doubt this very much so.
Could you show me the post where I said that?
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 07:49:09 PM
You said earlier than not one norn iron fan rejects the maze proposals because of the CRC, i doubt this very much so.
Could you show me the post where I said that?[/quote]
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 07:32:02 PM
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 06:20:15 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
I would imagine if there was no conflict centre the maze project would be well under way by now.
I would say 50% of the norn iron fans who are against the stadium would be for this reason.
Given that I don't know one fan, who is against the Maze, for that reason, could you tell us what your 50% is based on?
Are you trying to tell me that the CRC has no bearing on the favourable location of the new stadium of norn iron fans?
None that I know of. When the Maze was first suggested I backed it enthusiastically (even with the terror shrine). It was only when the logistics were looked into and it was shown to be an unworkable white elephant, that I changed my mind.
Sammy sammy sammy, you are great at twisting statistics. Not every comment on the discussion is against the maze, you know that fine well.
The point im making is that the CRC has a bearing on peoples viewpoint of the viability of the maze, which is backed up by my evidence.
I think i have made my point, I dont see any point discussing this further with you.
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 09:48:16 PM
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 07:49:09 PM
You said earlier than not one norn iron fan rejects the maze proposals because of the CRC, i doubt this very much so.
Could you show me the post where I said that?
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 07:32:02 PM
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 06:20:15 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 06:10:40 PM
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
I would imagine if there was no conflict centre the maze project would be well under way by now.
I would say 50% of the norn iron fans who are against the stadium would be for this reason.
Given that I don't know one fan, who is against the Maze, for that reason, could you tell us what your 50% is based on?
Are you trying to tell me that the CRC has no bearing on the favourable location of the new stadium of norn iron fans?
None that I know of. When the Maze was first suggested I backed it enthusiastically (even with the terror shrine). It was only when the logistics were looked into and it was shown to be an unworkable white elephant, that I changed my mind.
Sammy sammy sammy, you are great at twisting statistics. Not every comment on the discussion is against the maze, you know that fine well.
The point im making is that the CRC has a bearing on peoples viewpoint of the viability of the maze, which is backed up by my evidence.
I think i have made my point, I dont see any point discussing this further with you.
[/quote]
You said over 50% and that this was backed up by 'evidence' on the poll. You then produced 5% (none of which were even about NI supporters). You've made a point alright, the point being that you lied and don't like being pulled up about it.
p.s. Try reading my highlighted post again and tell me where I said no NI supporters were against the terror shrine.
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 03:35:35 PM
However, iirc, did Martin McGuinness not say that "No Conflict Centre = No Stadium"? Moreover, a GAA commentator (Bradley?) also was of the opinion that a behind-the-scenes understanding between the GAA and SF may have been reached, whereby the GAA would go along with the Stadium/CC plan, in return for SF making no trouble for the GAA over opening Croke to the IRFU and FAI? (My recollection may not be correct)
EG,
Sounds like you're harking back to the days of the paranoid DUP'ers and their once upon a time "Pan-Nationalist Front".
Remember the likes of Sammy Wilson when he claimed that the GAA were the IRA at play.
Now you're running out of arguments, lets throw muck that the GAA are in cahoots with / run for the benefit of the Provos.
Nice....utterly sectarian...devoid of proof...devoid of logic....utterly brainless.
Just what influence do you think the shinners have in a 32 county GAA?
I thought we'd moved on from that, but obviously if there's nothing left to throw in your attempts to scuttle the Maze, then why not?
After all, it looks like the rejectionists have failed to come up with alternative Belfast sites, and if PWC leaks are correct, lost the argument that its cheaper to develop existing stadia. Soccer and rugby have happily existed at Croker fro several years, so that argument's out the window as well.
Face it - you're stuffed, and your GAA/SF is innuendo. Nothing more than the bitter rantings of a lost cause.
Surely by now, there must be some recognition that the GAA support this because its good for the GAA.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It delivers the 40k plus high quality Ulster stadium envisaged in our last strategic review report.
And all for a massively lower cost (and risk) than developing it ourselves.
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 10:07:15 PMand if PWC leaks are correct, lost the argument that its cheaper to develop existing stadia.
More lies, do you never stop?
(http://rofl.wheresthebeef.co.uk/Pot%20Kettle%20Black.jpg)
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 10:07:15 PMand if PWC leaks are correct, lost the argument that its cheaper to develop existing stadia.
More lies, do you never stop?
That's right Sammy, the whole world's telling lies and you're right...............or maybe not.........
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n
Consultants back stadium sited at Maze
A multi-million pound sports stadium for Northern Ireland should be built at the former Maze prison, a leaked consultants' report revealed today.
The fully costed feasibility study found that the site outside Lisburn represented the best value for money for a 38,500-seat venue for rugby, football and gaelic games.The business case, which was compiled by consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers, is currently being reviewed by Stormont Finance minister Peter Robinson before being passed to his Executive colleagues.
According to the Press Association, the PWC report examined a range of options including a hypothetical stadium in north Belfast and the refurbishment of the three sporting bodies` existing venues.It has recommended that the government press ahead with plans for the all-seater venue at the Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) site.
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 10:36:32 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 10:07:15 PMand if PWC leaks are correct, lost the argument that its cheaper to develop existing stadia.
More lies, do you never stop?
That's right Sammy, the whole world's telling lies and you're right...............or maybe not.........
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n
Consultants back stadium sited at Maze
A multi-million pound sports stadium for Northern Ireland should be built at the former Maze prison, a leaked consultants' report revealed today.
The fully costed feasibility study found that the site outside Lisburn represented the best value for money for a 38,500-seat venue for rugby, football and gaelic games.
The business case, which was compiled by consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers, is currently being reviewed by Stormont Finance minister Peter Robinson before being passed to his Executive colleagues.
According to the Press Association, the PWC report examined a range of options including a hypothetical stadium in north Belfast and the refurbishment of the three sporting bodies` existing venues.
It has recommended that the government press ahead with plans for the all-seater venue at the Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) site.
FFS you're hard work. I know what it said, it was me that quoted it, earlier in the thread. The issue is that their figures don't add up, unless the stadium has zero running costs and tickets cost £101.50 each.
p.s. You are aware that this report was commissioned by Poots and co at DCAL and isn't independent.
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 10:42:02 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 10:36:32 PM
Quote from: SammyG on February 21, 2008, 10:15:50 PM
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 10:07:15 PMand if PWC leaks are correct, lost the argument that its cheaper to develop existing stadia.
More lies, do you never stop?
That's right Sammy, the whole world's telling lies and you're right...............or maybe not.........
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n
Consultants back stadium sited at Maze
A multi-million pound sports stadium for Northern Ireland should be built at the former Maze prison, a leaked consultants' report revealed today.
The fully costed feasibility study found that the site outside Lisburn represented the best value for money for a 38,500-seat venue for rugby, football and gaelic games.
The business case, which was compiled by consultants from PricewaterhouseCoopers, is currently being reviewed by Stormont Finance minister Peter Robinson before being passed to his Executive colleagues.
According to the Press Association, the PWC report examined a range of options including a hypothetical stadium in north Belfast and the refurbishment of the three sporting bodies` existing venues.
It has recommended that the government press ahead with plans for the all-seater venue at the Maze/Long Kesh (MLK) site.
FFS you're hard work. I know what it said, it was me that quoted it, earlier in the thread. The issue is that their figures don't add up, unless the stadium has zero running costs and tickets cost £101.50 each.
p.s. You are aware that this report was commissioned by Poots and co at DCAL and isn't independent.
and several times in the thread I've advised you to at least wait until the report is published in full before you attempt to smear it.
I have made clear that
IF the report stands up to scrutiny (from sane people who actually read it, not delusional fanatics who don't even bother ), that
IF it is correct, then this must be the death knell for your anti Maze campaign on all grounds to do with the stadium itself.
As stated before, if the PWC report stands up to scrutiny, the only remaining obstacle to the Maze is the CRC issue.
Well that, and ingrained anti GAA hostility.
Sammy, just throw Armagh in there five or six times a year, do the same for Tyrone and we will carry the sawker and rugby boys to the finish line.
If Armagh and tyrone can attract 20.000 for a McKenna cup game imagine what they could do for a first round Championship match? ;)
forget armagh and tyrone, if the place is ever built and when kerry play there all ye boys will come along to learn a thing ot two from the masters.. ;D
Quote from: magickingdom on February 21, 2008, 11:17:09 PM
forget armagh and tyrone, if the place is ever built and when kerry play there all ye boys will come along to learn a thing ot two from the masters.. ;D
Donegal?
Quote from: magickingdom on February 21, 2008, 11:17:09 PM
forget armagh and tyrone, if the place is ever built and when kerry play there all ye boys will come along to learn a thing ot two from the masters.. ;D
aye we probably would but the twelve supporters you would bring with you wouldnt help pay for the feckin stadium now would they?
Quote from: Donagh on February 21, 2008, 06:36:37 PM
Abu, a bigot is normally defined as one who sticks to their views after they have been proven to be false. Would you care to have a go in backing up your allegation?
That's a definition of dogmatic.
Quote from: snatter on February 21, 2008, 10:07:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 21, 2008, 03:35:35 PM
However, iirc, did Martin McGuinness not say that "No Conflict Centre = No Stadium"? Moreover, a GAA commentator (Bradley?) also was of the opinion that a behind-the-scenes understanding between the GAA and SF may have been reached, whereby the GAA would go along with the Stadium/CC plan, in return for SF making no trouble for the GAA over opening Croke to the IRFU and FAI? (My recollection may not be correct)
EG,
Sounds like you're harking back to the days of the paranoid DUP'ers and their once upon a time "Pan-Nationalist Front".
Remember the likes of Sammy Wilson when he claimed that the GAA were the IRA at play.
Now you're running out of arguments, lets throw muck that the GAA are in cahoots with / run for the benefit of the Provos.
Nice....utterly sectarian...devoid of proof...devoid of logic....utterly brainless.
Just what influence do you think the shinners have in a 32 county GAA?
I thought we'd moved on from that, but obviously if there's nothing left to throw in your attempts to scuttle the Maze, then why not?
After all, it looks like the rejectionists have failed to come up with alternative Belfast sites, and if PWC leaks are correct, lost the argument that its cheaper to develop existing stadia. Soccer and rugby have happily existed at Croker fro several years, so that argument's out the window as well.
Face it - you're stuffed, and your GAA/SF is innuendo. Nothing more than the bitter rantings of a lost cause.
Surely by now, there must be some recognition that the GAA support this because its good for the GAA.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It delivers the 40k plus high quality Ulster stadium envisaged in our last strategic review report.
And all for a massively lower cost (and risk) than developing it ourselves.
Calm down. This suggestion of a possible deal between SF and the GAA came from Jarleth Burns, not me and I never claimed that it definitely happened this way. And even if it did, I can't really blame the GAA for engaging with local politicians in order to secure their own interests, even if I personally loathe those particular politicians and dislike the arrangements which may ensue. Indeed, I have actually applauded the GAA for the clever way in which they have played their hand over the Maze.
However, just as the GAA is entitled to make arrangements with certain political parties which suit their own sporting needs and the political needs of the latter, are not fans of the other sports which may be sharing this stadium entitled to criticise such manoeuvering, especially if their (i.e. the other fans) own political views are very different from the GAA's negotiating partners?
(As to the appropriateness or otherwise of the GAA possibly negotiating with SF as Burns suggests, I will leave it to GAA members to decide on that, since it is none of my business as a non-Member)
Quote from: Donagh on February 21, 2008, 07:08:54 PM
Good job I'm no tout either
You may be the last man in SF who can say that, the way things are going these days... :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on February 22, 2008, 04:34:31 PM
(As to the appropriateness or otherwise of the GAA possibly negotiating with SF as Burns suggests, I will leave it to GAA members to decide on that, since it is none of my business as a non-Member)
I think most GAA members, including me, would be strongly against it.
Then again the fact that it was only a theory from Burns, not even born of any evidence presented to him, I think we can safely disregard it, unless someone can come up with a bit more evidence than the hunch of an ex player who is working for the media.
Quote from: stiffler on February 21, 2008, 05:59:54 PM
I would imagine if there was no conflict centre the maze project would be well under way by now.
I would say 50% of the norn iron fans who are against the stadium would be for this reason.
In my experience, which I guess is more accurate and authoritative than yours, NI soccer fans are opposed to the Maze for a whole variety of reasons. But whereas some even many, may have grave concerns about the whole H Block/Conflict Centre aspect of the proposal, I am sure it is only a small, even tiny, minority of whom it could be said that the H Block/CC is the main sticking point. And I've not seen even one who is otherwise happy with moving to the Maze, but still opposes it solely because of this aspect.
Therefore I think your 50% estimate is nonsense.
P.S. Even if you are correct, are interested parties to this whole important subject not entitled to object to an avoidable mixing of politics with sport?
Both the Sunday Tribune and Irish Times are reporting that the business case doesn't add up and Peter the punt is about to announce that the Maze plans are to be scrapped. Can't find the Tribune story online but this is the one from the Times.
QuoteStadium on Maze site 'unlikely'
Plans for a £240 million multi-sports stadium project at the site of the former Maze prison is unlikely to get government go ahead, it emerged today.
The Stormont Executive is set to scrap the proposals for the 38,000 seater arena for rugby, football and gaelic games at the Long Kesh site on the outskirts of Lisburn.
Senior sources within Stormont's largest party, the Democratic Unionists, have indicated that concerns about the financial feasibility of the project are likely to see it rejected.
One source said: "As the business case is unlikely to stack up it is unlikely that the Maze stadium will go ahead."
While the DUP is citing economic factors, the controversial proposal for a Conflict Transformation Centre in restored prison buildings on the same site is also an issue of real concern for unionists, many of whom claim it could become a shrine to terrorism.
DUP Finance minister Peter Robinson is currently reviewing the business case for the stadium project and will give his official recommendation to the Executive in the coming weeks.
The predicted rejection of the Maze site has increased the likelihood of an alternative development in Belfast.
It is understood a site in the east of the city, at the present Danny Blanchflower sports complex, is now being seriously considered.
The source added: "The DUP is still keen on a sports facility for Northern Ireland and will consider the possibility of a venue at the Danny Blanchflower site.
"However the party has taken no firm decisions on any of these issues."
The Gaelic Athletic Association, which along with the Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby has signed up to the Maze development, is highly unlikely to use any facility at the Blanchflower site.
The GAA already owns Casemount Park in the west of the city and has expressed concerns that other suggested sites in Belfast would not be suitable.
It is understood a 25,000 seater stadium at Blanchflower Park would also become the new home of Irish League side Glentoran, which is actively seeking a move away from its nearby Oval ground.
Absolutely fantastic news, if it's true. Good to see an outbreak of common sense.
No decision has been taken on the Maze stadium project, Culture Minister Edwin Poots has told the BBC.
There was speculation in a Sunday newspaper that plans for a £240m multi-sports stadium would be scrapped.
Mr Poots, who is in the United States, said that the Department of Finance and Personnel, is currently examining the economic appraisal.
He said that this would take another month, and then a political decision will be made.
He added that the project has been discussed by senior members of the party but there has been no firm decision.
There are plans for Northern Ireland's national stadium to be built on the site of the former Maze Prison.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have all confirmed they would play games at the venue.
The site is just outside Lisburn in County Antrim.
The Maze site is opposed by some unionists due to plans to build a conflict transformation centre alongside the stadium and by some Northern Ireland football fans who want any new stadium to be in Belfast.
Sourced BBCi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7286098.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7286098.stm)
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2008, 03:46:15 PM
No decision has been taken on the Maze stadium project, Culture Minister Edwin Poots has told the BBC.
There was speculation in a Sunday newspaper that plans for a £240m multi-sports stadium would be scrapped.
Mr Poots, who is in the United States, said that the Department of Finance and Personnel, is currently examining the economic appraisal.
He said that this would take another month, and then a political decision will be made.
He added that the project has been discussed by senior members of the party but there has been no firm decision.
There are plans for Northern Ireland's national stadium to be built on the site of the former Maze Prison.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have all confirmed they would play games at the venue.
The site is just outside Lisburn in County Antrim.
The Maze site is opposed by some unionists due to plans to build a conflict transformation centre alongside the stadium and by some Northern Ireland football fans who want any new stadium to be in Belfast.
Sourced BBCi: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7286098.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7286098.stm)
Given the BBC's record of bullshit/lies on the Maze, I'd rather trust some real journos, in Dublin.
I've always said that it would come down to the business case not adding up and it's looking like being that way. The next couple of weeks will be interesting.
I wouldn't have much heat on the Dublin papers.
Either way, I don't care. The money should just be pumped into Clones, Ravenhill and Windsor Park.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2008, 04:02:53 PM
I wouldn't have much heat on the Dublin papers.
Either way, I don't care. The money should just be pumped into Clones, Ravenhill and Windsor Park.
Not at all ziggy, I would rather stand and watch as EG, sammyg and gweyltah traipse into the new stadium past the shrine, maybe they could bow their heads on the way in and think for a moment of some the innocent men incarcerated there and the fact that men were abused on the british governments watch.
Build it, I will be there watching with interest as big rab walks into the new stadium having not fulfilled his promise to destroy the monument. memo to big rab, talks cheap!
Quote from: stew on March 09, 2008, 04:07:20 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on March 09, 2008, 04:02:53 PM
I wouldn't have much heat on the Dublin papers.
Either way, I don't care. The money should just be pumped into Clones, Ravenhill and Windsor Park.
Not at all ziggy, I would rather stand and watch as EG, sammyg and gweyltah traipse into the new stadium past the shrine, maybe they could bow their heads on the way in and think for a moment of some the innocent men incarcerated there and the fact that men were abused on the british governments watch.
Build it, I will be there watching with interest as big rab walks into the new stadium having not fulfilled his promise to destroy the monument. memo to big rab, talks cheap!
That must be the most bizarre motivation for the siting of a National Stadium I have ever came accross in my life. :o
Do your self a favour Stew - keep the sport and the paramilitary "politics" seperate.
Despite the official line that it isn't a 'shrine', some people obviously believe different (and indeed want different). It is indeed sad that annoying other people should be the motivating factor for a new stadium in a particular location.
I think i've actually turned in my opinion on his one - i'm not so sure anymore that this is the best place for a stadium and i'm half inclined to favour a city centre venue..... only half though, still not sure.
Read the Sunday Tribune earlier and I'd be absolutely livid if what they predict turns out to be true. Basically they are saying that a stadium will be built in East Belfast instead which will house Glentoran, the north and Ulster. It doesn't make clear if this stadium is to publically funded but if such a stadium is buile, designed specifically to exclude the GAA, this needs to be challenged legally if necessary unless there is a similar investment in GAA stadia.
According to the ST, this is all part of a new hardline strategy by the DUP with the GAA as a major target. They also claim (emphasis on the claim) that part of the DUP's plan is to " encourage the exploitation of potential planning obstacles."
Can't take everything you read in the papers as fact of course, but if even a faction of this is true, it seems that we are in for tough times ahead. Hopefully we have enough leadership in the Ulster Council and Croke Park to ensure we can stand up to the uber-bigots.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 06:08:31 PM
Read the Sunday Tribune earlier and I'd be absolutely livid if what they predict turns out to be true. Basically they are saying that a stadium will be built in East Belfast instead which will house Glentoran, the north and Ulster. It doesn't make clear if this stadium is to publically funded but if such a stadium is buile, designed specifically to exclude the GAA, this needs to be challenged legally if necessary unless there is a similar investment in GAA stadia.
Very strange comment. The GAA have said they don't want to use a stadium in Belfast, so how are they being excluded???
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 06:08:31 PM
According to the ST, this is all part of a new hardline strategy by the DUP with the GAA as a major target. They also claim (emphasis on the claim) that part of the DUP's plan is to " encourage the exploitation of potential planning obstacles."
The article (see below) actually says that the decision is based on cost and then goes on to speculate about whether Peter the punt like the GAA. It doesn't say that the two things are linked.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 06:08:31 PM
Can't take everything you read in the papers as fact of course, but if even a faction of this is true, it seems that we are in for tough times ahead. Hopefully we have enough leadership in the Ulster Council and Croke Park to ensure we can stand up to the uber-bigots.
What uber-bigots would that be?
Tribune article for anybody that hasn't seen it
(http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e209/thedowie/img002.jpg)
QuoteThe GAA have said they don't want to use a stadium in Belfast, so how are they being excluded???
Well if its a pitch of a size they can't use and in a location they are opposed to then of course they've been excluded. Which is fine if this is a private development, if this venture is to be publically funded then its entirely abhorrent for such levels of funding to be made available to the IFA and Ulster Rugby without a similar gesture of financial support to the best attended sport in the 6 counties.
Quotehe article (see below) actually says that the decision is based on cost and then goes on to speculate about whether Peter the punt like the GAA. It doesn't say that the two things are linked.
The article (I have it beside me but thanks for the scanner work anyway) says that the line about cost is only the public line from the DUP and that the actual reason for not utilising the Maze is to appeal to disullisioned DUP supporters.
As for the 2 things being linked, it would hardly be a concidence if Robinson decided to axe the Maze and go for a project which excludes the GAA around the same time as he decides that his party should distance itself from the GAA!
QuoteWhat uber-bigots would that be?
The disullusioned DUP supporters whom the article claims this DUP move is designed to re-assure.
Sadly this confirms what even a blind man knows in his heart of hearts.Namely that the six county statelet will never work. At the end of the day tribe leaders take decisions not on the basis of common sense or in the interests of the whole community but in the interests of safeguarding their tribal votes.
It surely is time for Brown and Ahern to do the obvious. Scrap Stormont and implement joint authority (in which the Irish Government will have the lead role due to British disinterest).
By the way, are all three sports not required to endorse any new site? Time for the GAA to play hardball and leave the IFA without a stadium altogether, if the Maze is to be scrapped.
Surely driving the Planters into the sea would be the only solution Tony.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2008, 06:29:31 PM
Sadly this confirms what even a blind man knows in his heart of hearts.Namely that the six county statelet will never work. At the end of the day tribe leaders take decisions not on the basis of common sense or in the interests of the whole community but in the interests of safeguarding their tribal votes.
In what way is wasting £204 million of tax payers money, in the interest of the whole community????
Quote from: T Fearon on March 09, 2008, 06:29:31 PM
By the way, are all three sports not required to endorse any new site? Time for the GAA to play hardball and leave the IFA without a stadium altogether, if the Maze is to be scrapped.
If the report is true, why would the GAA have any say on a new football stadium?
(http://www.drivingschoolireland.com/image/UK_Roundabout_8_Cars.gif)
QuoteIf the report is true, why would the GAA have any say on a new football stadium?
The initial proposal was that the project would stand and fall depending on whether or not it had the support of all 3 major sporting organisations. These proposals would suggest that this situation has changed and that the approval of the GAA may no longer be required. If this is true it needs to be challenged.
To be honest, I can't see the proposal in its current form ever seeing the light of day. If the proposal is that it should be publically funded, then its a "cross-cutting" matter and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this would get cross-community support in the Executive, ignoring as it does, the sporting preferences of one section of the community.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 06:52:22 PM
QuoteIf the report is true, why would the GAA have any say on a new football stadium?
The initial proposal was that the project would stand and fall depending on whether or not it had the support of all 3 major sporting organisations. These proposals would suggest that this situation has changed and that the approval of the GAA may no longer be required. If this is true it needs to be challenged.
That was the scope for the original Maze advisory panel, if the Maze business case doesn't add up (which it clearly doesn't) then that plan is off the table and any new plans will be judged on their merits.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 06:52:22 PM
To be honest, I can't see the proposal in its current form ever seeing the light of day. If the proposal is that it should be publically funded, then its a "cross-cutting" matter and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this would get cross-community support in the Executive, ignoring as it does, the sporting preferences of one section of the community.
No idea what that means, which 'proposal in it's current form'?
QuoteNo idea what that means, which 'proposal in it's current form'?
What's on the front page of the Tribune.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 06:57:59 PM
QuoteNo idea what that means, which 'proposal in it's current form'?
What's on the front page of the Tribune.
There are no details other than the possibility of a new football stadium at the Blanchflower site. If that site adds up (and I've no idea whether it does or not) then why would it have any problem getting funding?
QuoteThere are no details other than the possibility of a new football stadium at the Blanchflower site. If that site adds up (and I've no idea whether it does or not) then why would it have any problem getting funding?
Well obviously we need to see the details but if this is a replacement for the Maze proposals which were to require Executive approval than surely the replacement would also require Executive approval. I assume approval would not be forthcoming from the SDLP and SF for a proposal which would not facilitate the GAA.
Obviously if the IFA and Ulster Rugby were to put forward their own hard cash for such a development, they should receive any part funding for which they apply and are eligible for from the government but any proposal which is to be wholly or almost wholly paid for by the tax payer should facilitate all 3 sports. Simple really.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 07:09:13 PM
QuoteThere are no details other than the possibility of a new football stadium at the Blanchflower site. If that site adds up (and I've no idea whether it does or not) then why would it have any problem getting funding?
Well obviously we need to see the details but if this is a replacement for the Maze proposals which were to require Executive approval than surely the replacement would also require Executive approval. I assume approval would not be forthcoming from the SDLP and SF for a proposal which would not facilitate the GAA.
Obviously if the IFA and Ulster Rugby were to put forward their own hard cash for such a development, they should receive any part funding for which they apply and are eligible for from the government but any proposal which is to be wholly or almost wholly paid for by the tax payer should facilitate all 3 sports. Simple really.
Very bizarre logic, given that millions of pounds of taxpayers money have already been spent on stadia that are only used by one sport, why would this stadium suddenly need to be usable by all three?? There is no mention of replacing the Maze, the Maze is dead because the sums don't add up.
You seem to be mixing up the remit of the Maze advisory panel (which specificially had to include all 3 sports) and the general rules for sports funding.
Quote
Very bizarre logic, given that millions of pounds of taxpayers money have already been spent on stadia that are only used by one sport, why would this stadium suddenly need to be usable by all three??
What stadia have been 100% funded by government on the same basis as the Maze was proposed to be?
IF (and we don't know yet) a proposal like this is to be wholly funded by government then it should incorporate all sports in a mutually acceptable location.
Alternatively al 3 sports should be given a similar sum to develop their own stadia.
To give a huge handout to one major stadia for 2 sports while ignoring the GAA should not be an acceptable position.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 07:22:33 PM
Quote
Very bizarre logic, given that millions of pounds of taxpayers money have already been spent on stadia that are only used by one sport, why would this stadium suddenly need to be usable by all three??
What stadia have been 100% funded by government on the same basis as the Maze was proposed to be?
IF (and we don't know yet) a proposal like this is to be wholly funded by government then it should incorporate all sports in a mutually acceptable location.
Why? and who decides what is 'mutually acceptable'?
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 07:22:33 PM
Alternatively al 3 sports should be given a similar sum to develop their own stadia.
I'd be amazed if that isn't the outcome, it's the only sensible answer and has been for a long time.
Quote from: TacadoirArdMhacha on March 09, 2008, 07:22:33 PM
To give a huge handout to one major stadia for 2 sports while ignoring the GAA should not be an acceptable position.
Agreed but nobody is suggesting that.
The Assembly commissioned a PWC report, they looked at 3 different situations and reported on a Belfast stadium location.
"Hypothetically such an option would generate high visitor spending benefits because it is located closer to the city centre, but these are outweighed by the capital and infrastructure costs and the higher value of this site,"
Has there been a re-evaluation of PWC´s report? I don´t think so.
Quote from: Main Street on March 09, 2008, 07:35:18 PM
The Assembly commissioned a PWC report, they looked at 3 different situations and reported on a Belfast stadium location.
"Hypothetically such an option would generate high visitor spending benefits because it is located closer to the city centre, but these are outweighed by the capital and infrastructure costs and the higher value of this site,"
Has there been a re-evaluation of PWC´s report? I don´t think so.
PWCs report has been rubbished by anybody that's taken the time to read it. The figures, that they use to justify the Maze, only add up if there are 23 events per year at over £100 per ticket. Even the Maze cheerleaders at UTV, showed that the PWC figures were nonsense.
I was referring to PWC cost estimations for a Belfast stadium but
as there are no plans to build a multi sport stadium in Belfast the hypothetical cost figures are a moot point.
Forget the Maze, hand each sporting body a cut of the funding that would have been set aside for the Maze and let each develop their own stadia.
Quote from: AFS on March 11, 2008, 12:59:22 AM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 10, 2008, 10:44:22 PM
Forget the Maze, hand each sporting body a cut of the funding that would have been set aside for the Maze and let each develop their own stadia.
Exactly, the GAA can use the money to bump Clones(i would prefer to say Casement but i don't think there's much scope for expansion there) up another 10000-15000 so we don't have to head to Dublin for Ulster finals anymore. And the IFA and the Ulster Branch can pool their share together and built a nice wee 20000-25000 stadium in whatever part of east Belfast they want. The GAA have nothing to gain out of this 'national' stadium project as the proposed capacity means that it is not going to better what we already have, we should just take the money and use it as we see fit.
One problem there.... DCAL are hardly going to hand over millions to develop a stadium in Monaghan! It could be used to improve a number of GAA stadia: Casement, Athletic Grounds, Healy Park, Pairc Elser, Brewster, Celtic Park - all of them could be improved, despite recent work in some.
Quote from: SammyG on March 09, 2008, 07:39:26 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 09, 2008, 07:35:18 PM
The Assembly commissioned a PWC report, they looked at 3 different situations and reported on a Belfast stadium location.
"Hypothetically such an option would generate high visitor spending benefits because it is located closer to the city centre, but these are outweighed by the capital and infrastructure costs and the higher value of this site,"
Has there been a re-evaluation of PWC´s report? I don´t think so.
PWCs report has been rubbished by anybody that's taken the time to read it. The figures, that they use to justify the Maze, only add up if there are 23 events per year at over £100 per ticket. Even the Maze cheerleaders at UTV, showed that the PWC figures were nonsense.
Croke Park made E30 million profit last year on a similar number of fixtures but I didn't notice the E130 tickets.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 09:49:52 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 09, 2008, 07:39:26 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 09, 2008, 07:35:18 PM
The Assembly commissioned a PWC report, they looked at 3 different situations and reported on a Belfast stadium location.
"Hypothetically such an option would generate high visitor spending benefits because it is located closer to the city centre, but these are outweighed by the capital and infrastructure costs and the higher value of this site,"
Has there been a re-evaluation of PWC´s report? I don´t think so.
PWCs report has been rubbished by anybody that's taken the time to read it. The figures, that they use to justify the Maze, only add up if there are 23 events per year at over £100 per ticket. Even the Maze cheerleaders at UTV, showed that the PWC figures were nonsense.
Croke Park made E30 million profit last year on a similar number of fixtures but I didn't notice the E130 tickets.
Excellent, well done. NOt sure what it has to do with this discussion but thanks for letting us know. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 09:57:07 AM
Excellent, well done. NOt sure what it has to do with this discussion but thanks for letting us know. ::)
It means you're talking shite again as ticket prices aren't the only possible source of income.
It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:06:00 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 09:57:07 AM
Excellent, well done. NOt sure what it has to do with this discussion but thanks for letting us know. ::)
It means you're talking shite again as ticket prices aren't the only possible source of income.
Sorry I was quoting the PWC figures, not giving my opinion, so you must mean that PWC are talking shite.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:06:00 AM
It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place.
Err you obviously need your glasses checked. I few people have said it might work and most have said they need more detail. No mention of 'Fenians' at all, especially as there will be plenty of 'Fenians' wherever NI play (as there always have been and always will be)
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 10:09:32 AM
Excellent, well done. NOt sure what it has to do with this discussion but thanks for letting us know. ::)
Err you obviously need your glasses checked. I few people have said it might work and most have said they need more detail. No mention of 'Fenians' at all, especially as there will be plenty of 'Fenians' wherever NI play (as there always have been and always will be)
Go on then show us all where the PWC report said there would be £100 tickets.
Aye dead on Sammy.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:13:21 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 10:09:32 AM
Excellent, well done. NOt sure what it has to do with this discussion but thanks for letting us know. ::)
Err you obviously need your glasses checked. I few people have said it might work and most have said they need more detail. No mention of 'Fenians' at all, especially as there will be plenty of 'Fenians' wherever NI play (as there always have been and always will be)
Go on then show us all where the PWC report said there would be £100 tickets.
Aye dead on Sammy.
In order to make the Maze 'cheaper' than the various Belfast sites, the PWC report said the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket.
Full report is at http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/proposed_multi_sports_stadium_for_northern_ireland_-_business_case_-_final_report_november_2007.pdf (http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/proposed_multi_sports_stadium_for_northern_ireland_-_business_case_-_final_report_november_2007.pdf) if you're interested.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 10:51:00 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:13:21 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 10:09:32 AM
Excellent, well done. NOt sure what it has to do with this discussion but thanks for letting us know. ::)
Err you obviously need your glasses checked. I few people have said it might work and most have said they need more detail. No mention of 'Fenians' at all, especially as there will be plenty of 'Fenians' wherever NI play (as there always have been and always will be)
Go on then show us all where the PWC report said there would be £100 tickets.
Aye dead on Sammy.
In order to make the Maze 'cheaper' than the various Belfast sites, the PWC report said the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket.
Full report is at http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/proposed_multi_sports_stadium_for_northern_ireland_-_business_case_-_final_report_november_2007.pdf (http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/proposed_multi_sports_stadium_for_northern_ireland_-_business_case_-_final_report_november_2007.pdf) if you're interested.
So then if you read my previous posts you will see that income is not dependent on ticket sales, hence, you are talking shite.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:55:18 AMSo then if you read my previous posts you will see that income is not dependent on ticket sales, hence, you are talking shite.
For the third time, those are PWCs figures not mine, so how can I be talking shite?
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 10:57:25 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:55:18 AMSo then if you read my previous posts you will see that income is not dependent on ticket sales, hence, you are talking shite.
For the third time, those are PWCs figures not mine, so how can I be talking shite?
You are the one saying there'll be £100 tickets
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 10:57:25 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:55:18 AMSo then if you read my previous posts you will see that income is not dependent on ticket sales, hence, you are talking shite.
For the third time, those are PWCs figures not mine, so how can I be talking shite?
You are the one saying there'll be £100 tickets
No PWC are saying that, I'm just pointing it out. Read the report.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 11:00:21 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 10:57:25 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:55:18 AMSo then if you read my previous posts you will see that income is not dependent on ticket sales, hence, you are talking shite.
For the third time, those are PWCs figures not mine, so how can I be talking shite?
You are the one saying there'll be £100 tickets
No PWC are saying that, I'm just pointing it out. Read the report.
Then for the second time show me where they say there will be £100 tickets.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 10:06:00 AM
It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place.
Simply untrue misrepresentation of the debate over the Maze/Danny Blanchflower Stadium - as I'm sure you know, really.
First and foremost, the fans are universally pleased that the Maze may be stopped, for a variety of reasons - wrong location, wrong design, waste of taxes and economic unfeasibility being the chief ones.
As regards the possible replacement at DB, this is generally seen as an improvement, both because it is in Belfast (location), it will be purpose-built (design), it will be much cheaper (taxes) and it makes better economic sense, since it will not just be a stadium for internationals, but it will have an anchor tenant (Glentoran), could/should house the IFA HQ and also host the NI football academy.
That said, there remain potential problems, some or all of which might even stymie the proposal. First of all, road access may be difficult (though not rail). Planning permission may present a problem. The proximity to Belfast George Best Airport might also cause difficulties. Also, there aren't too many "watering holes" in the immediate vicinity. All of these have been referred to by posters, but since the overall package is infinitely better, from soccer's point of view, the proposal has found favour overall.
Not one single poster has mentioned anything about "fenians", or anything like it and I, for one, resent deeply that bigoted and offensive slur from you.
Then again, I shouldn't be surprised by you anymore, since when you conclude something like:
"Just confirms what we all knew in the first place", it invarariably means "Just confirms me in my prejudices".... >:(
In the document Sammy offered as evidence of £100 ticket prices, PWC are calculating income from regular ticket sales, corporate boxes, premium seats, sponsorship, merchandise catering, naming rights, car parking.
Operating revenue calculated from regular ticket sales are based on current pricing models.
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 11:11:49 AM
In the document Sammy offered as evidence of £100 ticket prices, PWC are calculating income from regular ticket sales, corporate boxes, premium seats, sponsorship, merchandise catering, naming rights, car parking.
Operating revenue calculated from regular ticket sales are based on current pricing models.
I just seen that. From what I can see on p79, they only need to raise £1.3 million per year through standard ticket sales.
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 11:11:49 AM
In the document Sammy offered as evidence of £100 ticket prices, PWC are calculating income from regular ticket sales, corporate boxes, premium seats, sponsorship, merchandise catering, naming rights, car parking.
Operating revenue calculated from regular ticket sales are based on current pricing models.
I think it fair to say that Sammy's £100 per ticket price may be overstated since it doesn't take account of these factors. However, since the PWC Report makes so many other questionable assumptions and assertions which will affect the economic viability of the project, imo he's not going to be too far off the mark.
First and foremost amongst these is the idea there will be 23 major events per annum. These have recently been widely reported as follows:
"It was working on the basis that the Maze venue would host 23 major sporting and music events in a year and attract just under 500,000 paying spectators.
The stadium would accommodate six or seven Northern Ireland football matches, five or six GAA matches and three Ulster rugby games each year."http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2008/0219/ireland/mheysngbkfid/
Taking soccer first. We never stage more than 4 or 5 home international matches, including friendlies, in any one calendar year and due to club demands, there is no capacity to expand it. For non-international matches, only the Irish Cup Final draws anyway notable crowds.
As regards rugby, UR has said it is only interested in hosting Heineken Cup matches there. In recent years they have barely filled Ravenhill for their three HC matches (prior to elimination), indeed, there is a strong chance they might not even qualify in future years!
And you can all tell me whether the GAA has six Ulster matches which are too big for Casement, Healy Pk etc, too small for Croke and inappropriate for other reasons, for the similarly sized Clones. Personally, I doubt it.
But even if you accept the upper figures from PWC, this still adds up to a maximum of just 16 events p.a. This leaves 7 other sporting, or musical events to meet their projection. As regards other sports, I can't think of any which would be likely to draw decent crowds on a regular basis.
Which means up to seven concerts per year required. Strangely, not one single promoter has expressed the slightest interest in the Maze. Which is hardly surprising, since it falls between the two stools of being too big for most regular events, for which the large indoor arenas cater, yet too small for the super stadium events (Stones, U2 etc), for which Lansdowne, Croke, Slane etc cater. Also, it is an outdoor venue, which means it is unsuitable for at 4-5 months each year. That would mean one gig per month during the season. Concert goers have only so much money (and enthusiasm) available and besides, the bands who might suit only tour so often and then they don't always include Ireland in their Itinerary (or have only one venue/location in Ireland, usually Dublin).
As for the rest - "corporate boxes, premium seats, sponsorship, merchandise catering, naming rights, car parking" - the success or otherwise of sales and recipts from these all follow directly from the calibre and popularity of the events being staged. And as I've argued above, companies and sponsors etc are not likely to commit to a venue which is struggling to persuade ordinary punters to fill seats in sufficient numbers, on a sufficient number of occasions.
Therefore, my prediction is that if the stadium ever did get built, the price printed on the tickets might not be near £100, but that is what they will surely
cost - the two ought to be the same, but in the crazy world of Government/PWC economics, sadly they aren't.
Still, whatever else he is, and irrespective of his other concerns over the Maze, Peter Robinson is not stupid; I'm increasingly hopeful that he will see that the figures don't stack up and pull the plug before any more millions of taxpayers money are wasted on this White Elephant.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 11:51:01 AM
hopeful that he will see that the figures don't stack up and pull the plug before any more millions of taxpayers money are wasted on this White Elephant.
.......anyone remember Stadium Ireland/Bertie Bowl? how much did that stadium cost without a sod being turned?
I haven't read too much into this but can someone let me know who the GAA are interested in this stadium at all when we have so many others that we can use?
Also, as for the "no Fenians about" comment relating to Blanchflower stadium - that's my home soccer pitch and never had a problem there at all! (Hence I'm against this alternative to the Maze!!)
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 11, 2008, 12:25:21 PM
Also, as for the "no Fenians about" comment relating to Blanchflower stadium - that's my home soccer pitch and never had a problem there at all! (Hence I'm against this alternative to the Maze!!)
That was in reference to the GAA saying the site is unacceptable.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 11, 2008, 12:25:21 PM
Also, as for the "no Fenians about" comment relating to Blanchflower stadium - that's my home soccer pitch and never had a problem there at all! (Hence I'm against this alternative to the Maze!!)
That was in reference to the GAA saying the site is unacceptable.
Total horseshit! You directly accused OWC fans of being "happy" to overlook distance and scarcity of bars, restaurants etc around DB Park, since "there's no Fenians about" (a complete invention of yours, btw, since no-one on OWC ever posted anything of the sort)
Here is your exact quotation:
"It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place"Your bigoted and offensive post was nothing whatever to do with the GAA's attitude to any stadium anywhere in Belfast, never mind the DB and seeing as it was only just after 10 o'clock this morning, so you can hardly pretend you had forgotten what you posted.
Disgraceful.
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 11, 2008, 12:25:21 PM
I haven't read too much into this but can someone let me know who the GAA are interested in this stadium at all when we have so many others that we can use?
Also, as for the "no Fenians about" comment relating to Blanchflower stadium - that's my home soccer pitch and never had a problem there at all! (Hence I'm against this alternative to the Maze!!)
Because most of them are crap.
Clones - 38 k capacity, 6k covered and seated? and in the wrong location
Casement 35 k - 2k covered and seated? and no room to develop
The govt were proposing to build a 40k all seated, all covered, state of the art, gaelic games sized stadium.
And it would have cost us sweet fa in comparison to building anything even remotely close ourselves.
The GAA is still committed to building one higher quality stadium in Ulster - 40k plus, two thirds seated and covered (see strategic review report).
If this sinks, we'll have to dip into our pockets a hell of a lot more.
Meanwhile, the spongers supreme in the IFA will probably be gifted a site by BCC, and on a head by head attendance basis, will get proportionately more funding from the govt than we'll get.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 12:58:36 PM
Total horseshit! You directly accused OWC fans of being "happy" to overlook distance and scarcity of bars, restaurants etc around DB Park, since "there's no Fenians about" (a complete invention of yours, btw, since no-one on OWC ever posted anything of the sort)
Here is your exact quotation:
"It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place"
Your bigoted and offensive post was nothing whatever to do with the GAA's attitude to any stadium anywhere in Belfast, never mind the DB and seeing as it was only just after 10 o'clock this morning, so you can hardly pretend you had forgotten what you posted.
Disgraceful.
Dry your eyes EG ::)
Just because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
Considering the bigoted and offensive posts I received on OWC (much worse than Donaghs post), which you didnt condemn btw, your crying on here is a bit ironic.
The OWC is rampant with bigotry, more than I have experienced anywhere else.
Quote from: snatter on March 11, 2008, 01:35:50 PM
The GAA is still committed to building one higher quality stadium in Ulster - 40k plus, two thirds seated and covered (see strategic review report).
Where is this Strategic Review report? Can it be viewed online/downloaded? To the layman, it looks as if the Ulster Council/GAA have no strategic direction in terms of its stadia. All they seem to want to do is build vast concrete terraces (to be filled once a year if lucky) with primative toilet (and other) facilities.
QuoteJust because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
So its OK to say that people are posting stuff on OWC because some of them might be thinking it?
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 11:18:21 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 11:11:49 AM
In the document Sammy offered as evidence of £100 ticket prices, PWC are calculating income from regular ticket sales, corporate boxes, premium seats, sponsorship, merchandise catering, naming rights, car parking.
Operating revenue calculated from regular ticket sales are based on current pricing models.
I just seen that. From what I can see on p79, they only need to raise £1.3 million per year through standard ticket sales.
The table on Page 79 is projected operating revenues, for the Maze (which apply were ever the stadium is built) . I am talking abouut the rationale for picking the Maze over Belfast, which is in section 11 of the report 'Conclusions and Reccommendations', from page 121.
This says that the reason for picking the Mze is that it will have a net cost of only £37 million after four years and this is based on projected cost of £240 million with £203 million revenue from spectators. And just for good measure those figures assume 0 running costs, in the first 4 years.
You need to read the whole report and not try and chery pick individual tables.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 12:58:36 PM
Total horseshit! You directly accused OWC fans of being "happy" to overlook distance and scarcity of bars, restaurants etc around DB Park, since "there's no Fenians about" (a complete invention of yours, btw, since no-one on OWC ever posted anything of the sort)
Here is your exact quotation:
"It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place"
Your bigoted and offensive post was nothing whatever to do with the GAA's attitude to any stadium anywhere in Belfast, never mind the DB and seeing as it was only just after 10 o'clock this morning, so you can hardly pretend you had forgotten what you posted.
Disgraceful.
Dry your eyes EG ::)
Just because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
WTF are you on about? You now read peoples minds to decide what they mean even if they post something completely different.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
Considering the bigoted and offensive posts I received on OWC (much worse than Donaghs post), which you didnt condemn btw, your crying on here is a bit ironic.
More pathetic allegations, I presume you'll be able to back them up this time?
Quote from: nifan on March 11, 2008, 01:50:21 PM
QuoteJust because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
So its OK to say that people are posting stuff on OWC because some of them might be thinking it?
Indeed, two wrongs do not make a right. If some people display a lack of standards, there's no need to join them!
Quote from: nifan on March 11, 2008, 01:50:21 PM
QuoteJust because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
So its OK to say that people are posting stuff on OWC because some of them might be thinking it?
No its not, I never said it was.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:55:21 PM
Quote from: nifan on March 11, 2008, 01:50:21 PM
QuoteJust because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
So its OK to say that people are posting stuff on OWC because some of them might be thinking it?
No its not, I never said it was.
That's exactly what you said.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:52:52 PM
WTF are you on about? You now read peoples minds to decide what they mean even if they post something completely different.
I never claimed to know what they think, this is why I said they "might" think that way.
I'm not a mind reader you know.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:52:52 PM
More pathetic allegations, I presume you'll be able to back them up this time?
I certainly wont be logging on to that site again, as well you know, for those very reasons.
But anyone interested can log in and check the threads I was involved with.
I certainly dont need to back them up to you Sammy as you were part of those very threads!
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 11, 2008, 12:25:21 PM
I haven't read too much into this but can someone let me know who the GAA are interested in this stadium at all when we have so many others that we can use?
Also, as for the "no Fenians about" comment relating to Blanchflower stadium - that's my home soccer pitch and never had a problem there at all! (Hence I'm against this alternative to the Maze!!)
My understanding is that the GAA are in it for two reasons:
1) A free stadium is a free stadium. Central Council have undertook to help Ulster Council to fulfill any obligations vis a vis number of fixtures
2) GAA were advised by two major contributors (both governments) that they wanted them in and it would be in their interest to be involved.
If the new stadium goes to a site unsuitable for the GAA it wouldn't be in the end of the world by any means. However I would hope that they would get a capital grant equivalent to that which other sports received. It's worth pointing out that the Lansdowne Road "National" stadium started out accomodating GAA but was amened due to "planning issues". Again this wasn't the end of the world but the timing (3 weeks after Croke Park was made available) was very unfortunate. Also means that FAI/IRFU end up getting a lot more financial support than Croker did. (Although this can be used for future negotiations for capital grants).
/Jim.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:57:46 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:55:21 PM
Quote from: nifan on March 11, 2008, 01:50:21 PM
QuoteJust because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
So its OK to say that people are posting stuff on OWC because some of them might be thinking it?
No its not, I never said it was.
That's exactly what you said.
I never once said what Donagh posted was ok. I merely pointed out the irony of EG only condemning one "type" of bigotry.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 02:00:26 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:57:46 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:55:21 PM
Quote from: nifan on March 11, 2008, 01:50:21 PM
QuoteJust because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
So its OK to say that people are posting stuff on OWC because some of them might be thinking it?
No its not, I never said it was.
That's exactly what you said.
I never once said what Donagh posted was ok. I merely pointed out the irony of EG only condemning one "type" of bigotry.
No you didn't. You said "Just because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way." You8 never mentioned irony or bigottry or anything else. YOu said that OWC should be condemend because some people might think something.
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 11, 2008, 01:47:31 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 11, 2008, 01:35:50 PM
The GAA is still committed to building one higher quality stadium in Ulster - 40k plus, two thirds seated and covered (see strategic review report).
Where is this Strategic Review report? Can it be viewed online/downloaded? To the layman, it looks as if the Ulster Council/GAA have no strategic direction in terms of its stadia. All they seem to want to do is build vast concrete terraces (to be filled once a year if lucky) with primative toilet (and other) facilities.
GAA Strategic Review Report: Go to page 20 and read section 8.4.3
http://www.gaa.ie/files/archives/official_reports/strategic_review_2002_part2b.pdf
Quote8.4.3 No such policy or plan is currently in place; instead investment in infrastructure is being undertaken on a haphazard and uncoordinated basis.
Therefore, it is recommended that:
The strategic planning and implementation of the Association's entire programme of investment in physical facilities should be controlled by Central Council, or by a dedicated sub-committee of that Council.
One 'major' stadium should be developed in each Province with the exception of Leinster; (A 'major' stadium would involve a capacity of 40,000 to 60,000, of which at least two-thirds would be seated and a minimum of 35% of the seats would be covered.)
In Leinster, consideration should be given to the development of two stadia - one with a capacity of approximately 25,000 and one with capacity of 35,000 to 40,000, both strategically located within the Province;
no 'major' stadium is recommended for Leinster, since that Province's 'major' games can be played in Croke Park.
One other 'medium sized' stadium (with capacity of 25,000 to 30,000 and with a similar proportion of covered seating as in a 'major' stadium) should be considered for each province, where demand justifies it.
The Main County Ground in each county should have a minimum capacity of 15,000 and a maximum capacity of 25,000, of which at least 35% should be seated; grounds with a capacity greater than 25,000 (other than those designated by Central Council for further development, as described in the preceding points) should not be given any financial help.
The projects outlined above should be prioritised in the following
order:
(i) the major stadium in each Province should be developed in an agreed sequence, one each year, commencing in 2005,to be used for the Provincial finals.
(ii) the four, or five, smaller capacity Provincial grounds, as detailed above, should then be developed.
(iii) the Main County Grounds should be brought up to the minimum standards required and Senior Inter-county Championship games should not be fixed for such venues unless the required standards are met.
(iv) other projects, as listed elsewhere in this report, should be developed
(v) finally, all other physical development projects should be developed.
UCC Dept of Economics - independently validates GAA's costings of building new Ulster staium:http://www.ucc.ie/en/economics/research/workingpaperseries/downloads/DocumentFile,21945,en.pdf
According to the boffins at UCC, the proposed stadium makes sense.
Of course, getting the Govt to build it for you makes even more sense.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 12:58:36 PM
Total horseshit! You directly accused OWC fans of being "happy" to overlook distance and scarcity of bars, restaurants etc around DB Park, since "there's no Fenians about" (a complete invention of yours, btw, since no-one on OWC ever posted anything of the sort)
Here is your exact quotation:
"It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place"
Your bigoted and offensive post was nothing whatever to do with the GAA's attitude to any stadium anywhere in Belfast, never mind the DB and seeing as it was only just after 10 o'clock this morning, so you can hardly pretend you had forgotten what you posted.
Disgraceful.
Dry your eyes EG ::)
You're at it again! Donagh is quite capable of answering for himself - neither of us needs you to speak for him, so if you haven't something new and constructive to add to the debate, do us all a favour and butt out!
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
Just because nobody on OWC came out and said it, doesnt mean some might not be thinking that way.
Pathetic, even by your standards.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
Considering the bigoted and offensive posts I received on OWC (much worse than Donaghs post), which you didnt condemn btw, your crying on here is a bit ironic.
Donagh made up an offensive and insulting slur against the whole of OWC and then tried to pretend he was referring to something else entirely. As a member of OWC, who posted on the very thread in question, I stood up for myself. (Note I didn't ask you or anyone else to do so on my behalf, btw)
Whereas, when you posted on OWC, I debated the issues with you in what I hope was at all times a moderate and respectful manner. As such, I will happily answer for everything I posted. Now as it happens, I have no problem in condemning any posters who may have subjected you to "bigoted and offensive posts" - some examples, please? - but I'm not responsible for them, neither do I have any responsibility or duty to intervene on your behalf. As with this Board, each poster is perfectly entitled/enable to speak for him/herself. There is also a mechanism for any poster on OWC to complain if he/she feels they have been unfairly treated. You seem quick enough to complain to the Mods on this Board, so don't whinge when you didn't even try to avail of the complaints procedure on OWC.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 01:43:23 PM
The OWC is rampant with bigotry, more than I have experienced anywhere else.
And I have experienced my share of bigotry on this Board. However, unlike you, I don't flounce off in a hissy fit, nor do I hold it against the great majority of posters on this Board who I find, as with OWC, to be fair and reasonable.
Instead, I stay and fight my corner, dry-eyed throughout, and even when compelled to respond to the sort of sanctimonious drivel such as you have posted above... ::)
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 02:03:26 PM
YOu said that OWC should be condemend because some people might think something.
I said some people might think that, I never said the OWC should be condemned for it. that would be silly.
I did say they should be condemned for the things they have said.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 03:15:26 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 02:03:26 PM
YOu said that OWC should be condemend because some people might think something.
I said some people might think that, I never said the OWC should be condemned for it. that would be silly.
I did say they should be condemned for the things they have said.
You made an idiot of yourself on OWC, now you're doing it on this Board. And I say that not on the basis of something that "you might be thinking", but solely on the basis of what you're posting. ::)
At least Donagh appears to have the sense to keep his head down for a while after he posts crap... :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 12:58:36 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 11, 2008, 12:25:21 PM
Also, as for the "no Fenians about" comment relating to Blanchflower stadium - that's my home soccer pitch and never had a problem there at all! (Hence I'm against this alternative to the Maze!!)
That was in reference to the GAA saying the site is unacceptable.
Total horseshit! You directly accused OWC fans of being "happy" to overlook distance and scarcity of bars, restaurants etc around DB Park, since "there's no Fenians about" (a complete invention of yours, btw, since no-one on OWC ever posted anything of the sort)
Here is your exact quotation:
"It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place"
Your bigoted and offensive post was nothing whatever to do with the GAA's attitude to any stadium anywhere in Belfast, never mind the DB and seeing as it was only just after 10 o'clock this morning, so you can hardly pretend you had forgotten what you posted.
Disgraceful.
That post was a direct response to 'take_yer_points'. I stand by the original that you reproduced.
The OWDefenders are falling overthmsleves now working out plans for shuttle buses which were somehow unacceptable for the Long Kesh stadium, but this bloke take the prize:
"Shame about the GAA not being happy. It's sad to see an organisation that glorifies terrorists feel they are being left out in the cold - just as well they don't do anything non-inclusive themselves."
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:51:24 PM
The table on Page 79 is projected operating revenues, for the Maze (which apply were ever the stadium is built) . I am talking abouut the rationale for picking the Maze over Belfast, which is in section 11 of the report 'Conclusions and Reccommendations', from page 121.
This says that the reason for picking the Mze is that it will have a net cost of only £37 million after four years and this is based on projected cost of £240 million with £203 million revenue from spectators. And just for good measure those figures assume 0 running costs, in the first 4 years.
You need to read the whole report and not try and chery pick individual tables.
Not quite, you wrote this
"the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket".
Visitor spend figures are not calculated from ticket revenue, it is a seperate calculation. It is an estimate of what visitors are expected to spend while they are attending the Maze stadium.
The estimates for income gained from visitor spend are detailed in section 7 and they are also compared with visitor spend figures for other stadium options and also calculated in the figures for other options. If you have the opinion that the visitor income figures exaggerated then they could well be exaggerated for the other options.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 11:18:21 AM
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 11:11:49 AM
In the document Sammy offered as evidence of £100 ticket prices, PWC are calculating income from regular ticket sales, corporate boxes, premium seats, sponsorship, merchandise catering, naming rights, car parking.
Operating revenue calculated from regular ticket sales are based on current pricing models.
I just seen that. From what I can see on p79, they only need to raise £1.3 million per year through standard ticket sales.
The table on Page 79 is projected operating revenues, for the Maze (which apply were ever the stadium is built) . I am talking abouut the rationale for picking the Maze over Belfast, which is in section 11 of the report 'Conclusions and Reccommendations', from page 121.
This says that the reason for picking the Mze is that it will have a net cost of only £37 million after four years and this is based on projected cost of £240 million with £203 million revenue from spectators. And just for good measure those figures assume 0 running costs, in the first 4 years.
You need to read the whole report and not try and chery pick individual tables.
Sammy you said PWC said they'd have to charge £100 a ticket and despite a number of requests you have not been able to back this up.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 03:12:28 PM
At least Donagh appears to have the sense to keep his head down for a while after he posts crap.
Donagh has a life with a real paying full time job, so even if he did have the inclination to spend his own time replying to windbags who spend their most of their sad lives on three or four discussion forums, he can't afford to spend the firms time doing it.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 03:12:28 PM
Donagh made up an offensive and insulting slur against the whole of OWC and then tried to pretend he was referring to something else entirely.
No I didn't.
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:51:24 PM
The table on Page 79 is projected operating revenues, for the Maze (which apply were ever the stadium is built) . I am talking abouut the rationale for picking the Maze over Belfast, which is in section 11 of the report 'Conclusions and Reccommendations', from page 121.
This says that the reason for picking the Mze is that it will have a net cost of only £37 million after four years and this is based on projected cost of £240 million with £203 million revenue from spectators. And just for good measure those figures assume 0 running costs, in the first 4 years.
You need to read the whole report and not try and chery pick individual tables.
Not quite, you wrote this "the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket".
Visitor spend figures are not calculated from ticket revenue, it is a seperate calculation. It is an estimate of what visitors are expected to spend while they are attending the Maze stadium.
The estimates for income gained from visitor spend are detailed in section 7 and they are also compared with visitor spend figures for other stadium options and also calculated in the figures for other options. If you have the opinion that the visitor income figures exaggerated then they could well be exaggerated for the other options.
OK let's assume you're correct and the figures are total spectator revenue not just tickets (even though the report says different). So we have £30 quid per ticket and £80.34 spent on burgers and sundries. Even Wembley only charge £7 for a burger and chips meal and that includes a drink, what's the other £73 going to be spent on?
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:27:09 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 12:58:36 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 11, 2008, 12:25:21 PM
Also, as for the "no Fenians about" comment relating to Blanchflower stadium - that's my home soccer pitch and never had a problem there at all! (Hence I'm against this alternative to the Maze!!)
That was in reference to the GAA saying the site is unacceptable.
Total horseshit! You directly accused OWC fans of being "happy" to overlook distance and scarcity of bars, restaurants etc around DB Park, since "there's no Fenians about" (a complete invention of yours, btw, since no-one on OWC ever posted anything of the sort)
Here is your exact quotation:
"It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place"
Your bigoted and offensive post was nothing whatever to do with the GAA's attitude to any stadium anywhere in Belfast, never mind the DB and seeing as it was only just after 10 o'clock this morning, so you can hardly pretend you had forgotten what you posted.
Disgraceful.
That post was a direct response to 'take_yer_points'. I stand by the original that you reproduced.
Sorry, but there is no other conceivable interpretation of your post but that you were accusing OWCers of being happy to go to the DB Stadium because "there's no Fenians about" [it]. Once again, I will reproduce your exact words:
"It's very amusing to watch the reaction to the proposed DB over on OWC. It doesn't matter anymore that it's not within walking distance of the city centre or that there are no pubs of restaurants nearby, so long as there's no Fenians about they're all happy. Just confirms what we all knew in the first place"Absolutely no ambiguity whatever about that. But the fact that instead of withdrawing it and/or apologising, you prefer instead to try to pretend it is something else entirely merely "confirms what we all knew in the first place" about you!
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:27:09 PM
The OWDefenders are falling overthmsleves now working out plans for shuttle buses which were somehow unacceptable for the Long Kesh stadium, but this bloke take the prize:
"Shame about the GAA not being happy. It's sad to see an organisation that glorifies terrorists feel they are being left out in the cold - just as well they don't do anything non-inclusive themselves."
Nice try at diverting everyones attention to an individual post by someone else on another site, especially when it might be expected to elicit sympathy for you on here. But it won't work.
You fabricated an entirely malicious, offensive and bigoted slur on me and everyone else who posts on OWC and when taken up on it, tried to pretend your post was something else entirely, even though it most transparently was not.
Disgraceful.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:29:29 PM
Sammy you said PWC said they'd have to charge £100 a ticket and despite a number of requests you have not been able to back this up.
QuoteQuote from: SammyG on Today at 10:09:32 AM
In order to make the Maze 'cheaper' than the various Belfast sites, the PWC report said the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket.
Donagh; I do believe thats where that figure came from. Sorry Sammy dont mean to answer for you,
You're at it again! Donagh is quite capable of answering for himself - neither of us needs you to speak for him
Pardon me, should I wait for you to tell me which posts I am invited to respond to in future? ::)
Whereas, when you posted on OWC, I debated the issues with you in what I hope was at all times a moderate and respectful manner. As such, I will happily answer for everything I posted. Now as it happens, I have no problem in condemning any posters who may have subjected you to "bigoted and offensive posts" - some examples, please?
You weren't responsible for the bigoted posts EG, I have said that before. And as I have said to Sammy, I wont be going back to that site to dig up examples, they are all there should anyone wish to view them.
You seem quick enough to complain to the Mods on this Board
You seem quick to presume this. But of course you know what I do and don't report ::)
so don't whinge when you didn't even try to avail of the complaints procedure on OWC.
Sammy G is a mod there, I'm sure I would get far :D
However, unlike you, I don't flounce off in a hissy fit
I encountered a lot of bigotry on there, so left.
By your logic, Darren Graham retiring from the GAA was a "hissy fit".
You made an idiot of yourself on OWC, now you're doing it on this Board.
I did no such thing, it was the OWC board that embarrassed itself when its true colours came out when a GAA man came on to politely discuss a few issues. Akin to a pack of wolves.
Quoteit was the OWC board that embarrassed itself when its true colours came out when a GAA man came on to politely discuss a few issues
Thats ludicrous - "the board" is made up of many individuals with different opinion.
Should this board be embarassed by every cringeworthy moment Fearon creates for example? are you in part culpable for every bigoted statement on this board?
There has been numeorus other GAA men been on there for a lot longer than you and "the boards" true colours havent forced them out.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 03:43:49 PM
Sorry, but there is no other conceivable interpretation of your post but that you were accusing OWCers of being happy to go to the DB Stadium because "there's no Fenians about" [it]. Once again, I will reproduce your exact words:
I don't deny that so you don't have to reproduce it.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 03:43:49 PM
Absolutely no ambiguity whatever about that. But the fact that instead of withdrawing it and/or apologising, you prefer instead to try to pretend it is something else entirely merely "confirms what we all knew in the first place" about you!
I wasn't withdrawing anything, but if you took the time to consider things before prematurely ejaculating over ever thread you see, you might have come to the conclusion that I was making a distinction between the OWVolunteers and the residents in the vicinity of the DB stadium.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 03:43:49 PM
Nice try at diverting everyones attention to an individual post by someone else on another site, especially when it might be expected to elicit sympathy for you on here. But it won't work.
No, you said no
one on OWC expressed anything in the nature of what I posted. Well there's
one that proves you wrong.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 03:43:49 PM
You fabricated an entirely malicious, offensive and bigoted slur on me and everyone else who posts on OWC and when taken up on it, tried to pretend your post was something else entirely, even though it most transparently was not.
As I said, premature ejaculation
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 11, 2008, 03:43:49 PM
Disgraceful.
:D
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 03:50:57 PMso don't whinge when you didn't even try to avail of the complaints procedure on OWC.
Sammy G is a mod there, I'm sure I would get far :D
Certainly am and I asked you several times to point out the posts, that you had a problem with and you refused (and are still refusing)
Quote from: thejuice on March 11, 2008, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:29:29 PM
Sammy you said PWC said they'd have to charge £100 a ticket and despite a number of requests you have not been able to back this up.
QuoteQuote from: SammyG on Today at 10:09:32 AM
In order to make the Maze 'cheaper' than the various Belfast sites, the PWC report said the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket.
Donagh; I do believe thats where that figure came from. Sorry Sammy dont mean to answer for you,
Aye juice but Sammy knows full well that all tickets aren't going to be priced the same as there will also have Premium tickets and Corporate boxes costing substantially more than a standard ticket. Those areas will also have their own banqueting facilities with meals and drinks costing more than the standard ticket area. Then there's car parking, sponsorship, gift shops and other corporate hospitality etc... so at the very best he is being extremely disingenuous and at worst a liar.
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: thejuice on March 11, 2008, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:29:29 PM
Sammy you said PWC said they'd have to charge £100 a ticket and despite a number of requests you have not been able to back this up.
QuoteQuote from: SammyG on Today at 10:09:32 AM
In order to make the Maze 'cheaper' than the various Belfast sites, the PWC report said the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket.
Donagh; I do believe thats where that figure came from. Sorry Sammy dont mean to answer for you,
Aye juice but Sammy knows full well that all tickets aren't going to be priced the same as there will also have Premium tickets and Corporate boxes costing substantially more than a standard ticket. Those areas will also have their own banqueting facilities with meals and drinks costing more than the standard ticket area. Then there's car parking, sponsorship, gift shops and other corporate hospitality etc... so at the very best he is being extremely disingenuous and at worst a liar.
The PWC figures, quoted by me, are based on
SPECTATOR NUMBERS not corporate sponsorship etc, which are covered by a different bit of the report. Christ Donagh it's not that difficult.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 04:01:19 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:58:50 PM
Quote from: thejuice on March 11, 2008, 03:50:20 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 03:29:29 PM
Sammy you said PWC said they'd have to charge £100 a ticket and despite a number of requests you have not been able to back this up.
QuoteQuote from: SammyG on Today at 10:09:32 AM
In order to make the Maze 'cheaper' than the various Belfast sites, the PWC report said the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket.
Donagh; I do believe thats where that figure came from. Sorry Sammy dont mean to answer for you,
Aye juice but Sammy knows full well that all tickets aren't going to be priced the same as there will also have Premium tickets and Corporate boxes costing substantially more than a standard ticket. Those areas will also have their own banqueting facilities with meals and drinks costing more than the standard ticket area. Then there's car parking, sponsorship, gift shops and other corporate hospitality etc... so at the very best he is being extremely disingenuous and at worst a liar.
The PWC figures, quoted by me, are based on SPECTATOR NUMBERS not corporate sponsorship etc, which are covered by a different bit of the report. Christ Donagh it's not that difficult.
So are the people in the boxes and premium seats not spectators requiring car parking, shops, banqueting and other corporate hospitality? Will they or the companies that own the boxes not be paying substantially more per ticket than those in the standard ticket areas?
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 04:05:27 PMSo are the people in the boxes and premium seats not spectators requiring car parking, shops, banqueting and other corporate hospitality?
They certainly are but they're not included in the figures that I'm quoting (and the report is extremely vague on them in general).
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 04:08:41 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 04:05:27 PMSo are the people in the boxes and premium seats not spectators requiring car parking, shops, banqueting and other corporate hospitality?
They certainly are but they're not included in the figures that I'm quoting (and the report is extremely vague on them in general).
I think then we can lay the myth of £100 ticket or £80 burger in a grave somewhere then. Obviously some people will be paying a large premium while most others will not.
Not sure if I want to get into this debate but its sort of in my line of work so its interesting, but the figure that Sammy produced is likely to be the most accurate average ticket cost for a seat at the stadium available to the public at this stage.
The people proposing the development may have yet to disclose the range of tickets and prices, though im sure they have already done some finaincial feasability study already of course.
By the way does anyone know what stage this is at. Is there anything in Lisburns local council like drawing plans, EIA's, Feasibility reports etc?
Quote from: nifan on March 11, 2008, 03:55:33 PM
Thats ludicrous - "the board" is made up of many individuals with different opinion.
Should this board be embarassed by every cringeworthy moment Fearon creates for example? are you in part culpable for every bigoted statement on this board?
There has been numeorus other GAA men been on there for a lot longer than you and "the boards" true colours havent forced them out.
People here are quick to point out to tony when he is being an idiot.
there was an eerie silence from the decent posters over there while the vultures were picking.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 03:58:15 PM
Certainly am and I asked you several times to point out the posts, that you had a problem with and you refused (and are still refusing)
Refusing? I couldnt give a shite Sammy, I am done with that site. They can do what they want for all I care.
Incidentally, given that I have said I will never go back on the site, it would prove quite difficult therefore to quote those posts should I be arsed ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 11, 2008, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: nifan on March 11, 2008, 03:55:33 PM
Thats ludicrous - "the board" is made up of many individuals with different opinion.
Should this board be embarassed by every cringeworthy moment Fearon creates for example? are you in part culpable for every bigoted statement on this board?
There has been numeorus other GAA men been on there for a lot longer than you and "the boards" true colours havent forced them out.
People here are quick to point out to tony when he is being an idiot.
there was an eerie silence from the decent posters over there while the vultures were picking.
I had a quick nosey for myself there and in fairness I read a few posts from 'both sides of the fence' telling you to stick around and argue your points. I was only reading one thread but it's a pity you didn't take that advice.
Honestly Chris, I couldnt be arsed. Its just an internet board, and unless one enjoys the discussions, then theres really very little reason to stick around.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 03:39:56 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 01:51:24 PM
The table on Page 79 is projected operating revenues, for the Maze (which apply were ever the stadium is built) . I am talking abouut the rationale for picking the Maze over Belfast, which is in section 11 of the report 'Conclusions and Reccommendations', from page 121.
This says that the reason for picking the Mze is that it will have a net cost of only £37 million after four years and this is based on projected cost of £240 million with £203 million revenue from spectators. And just for good measure those figures assume 0 running costs, in the first 4 years.
You need to read the whole report and not try and chery pick individual tables.
Not quite, you wrote this "the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years and that this was based on 23 events generating 469000 spectators per year. 469000 per year for four years is 1876000. £207 million divided by 1876000 spectators = £110.34 per ticket".
Visitor spend figures are not calculated from ticket revenue, it is a seperate calculation. It is an estimate of what visitors are expected to spend while they are attending the Maze stadium.
The estimates for income gained from visitor spend are detailed in section 7 and they are also compared with visitor spend figures for other stadium options and also calculated in the figures for other options. If you have the opinion that the visitor income figures exaggerated then they could well be exaggerated for the other options.
OK let's assume you're correct and the figures are total spectator revenue not just tickets (even though the report says different). So we have £30 quid per ticket and £80.34 spent on burgers and sundries. Even Wembley only charge £7 for a burger and chips meal and that includes a drink, what's the other £73 going to be spent on?
Where in the report does it say different?
Visitor income = income from what visitors spend.
It has nothing to do with the ticket prices.
'Visitor Spend – the high NPV of visitor spending benefits for the New Stadium
option reflects the additional visitors and their spend that the stadium attracts
form outside Northern Ireland;Income from sporting bodies etc for rent is calculated elsewhere in operating income.
If you want to see how they calculate the income from visitors, knock yourself out in Section 7 and what % of what people spend is used in the calculation
Caculations made for GAA fans are based on day trips,
for 120k average spent at the Maze is less than a tenner
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 04:15:53 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 04:08:41 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 11, 2008, 04:05:27 PMSo are the people in the boxes and premium seats not spectators requiring car parking, shops, banqueting and other corporate hospitality?
They certainly are but they're not included in the figures that I'm quoting (and the report is extremely vague on them in general).
I think then we can lay the myth of £100 ticket or £80 burger in a grave somewhere then. Obviously some people will be paying a large premium while most others will not.
For the umpteenth time the figures I'm quoting are for SPECTATOR REVENUE, ie each spectator will generate £110.34 per event. These are based solely on the conclusions section of the report and are the reason why the Maze was 'more feasible' than Belfast.
More than happy to discuss, the issue of premium seats or corporate sponsorship etc, if you want but they have nothing to do with the figures I'm quoting.
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 05:02:59 PMWhere in the report does it say different?
Visitor income = income from what visitors spend.
It has nothing to do with the ticket prices.
'Visitor Spend – the high NPV of visitor spending benefits for the New Stadium
option reflects the additional visitors and their spend that the stadium attracts
form outside Northern Ireland;
Income from sporting bodies etc for rent is calculated elsewhere in operating income.
If you want to see how they calculate the income from visitors, knock yourself out in Section 7 and what % of what people spend is used in the calculation
Caculations made for GAA fans are based on day trips,
for 120k average spent at the Maze is less than a tenner
See previous answer to Donagh.
My question was
'Where in the report does it say different?'So you say the answer to my question is in here
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 05:11:12 PM
For the umpteenth time the figures I'm quoting are for SPECTATOR REVENUE, ie each spectator will generate £110.34 per event. These are based solely on the conclusions section of the report and are the reason why the Maze was 'more feasible' than Belfast.
More than happy to discuss, the issue of premium seats or corporate sponsorship etc, if you want but they have nothing to do with the figures I'm quoting.
;D good answer. :o
The concluding end of the report is a summary of the report.
Obviously you just try to digest the report headlines and still get it wrong.
The proposed Belfast stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of over £54m
The proposed Maze stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of £41m
How in your opinion does that make the PWC report biased towards the Maze?
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 06:46:13 PM
My question was
'Where in the report does it say different?'
So you say the answer to my question is in here
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 05:11:12 PM
For the umpteenth time the figures I'm quoting are for SPECTATOR REVENUE, ie each spectator will generate £110.34 per event. These are based solely on the conclusions section of the report and are the reason why the Maze was 'more feasible' than Belfast.
More than happy to discuss, the issue of premium seats or corporate sponsorship etc, if you want but they have nothing to do with the figures I'm quoting.
;D good answer. :o
The concluding end of the report is a summary of the report.
Obviously you just try to digest the report headlines and still get it wrong.
The proposed Belfast stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of over £54m
The proposed Maze stadium was projected to generate Visitor Spending of £41m
How in your opinion does that make the PWC report biased towards the Maze?
The Maze is proposed to generate visitor spending (to use your phrase) of £203 million not £41 million. £240 million initial cost with £37 million remaining after 4 years. It really isn't that difficult.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 07:24:46 PM
The Maze is proposed to generate visitor spending (to use your phrase) of £203 million not £41 million. £240 million initial cost with £37 million remaining after 4 years. It really isn't that difficult.
???
Visitor spending is not my phrase, it it the description used in the report.
There are only 2 tables in the conclusion 11.1 and 11.2
First you called it ticket revenue, then you called it spectator revenue, what next will you call it? ;D
The conclusion of PWC comes up with similar figures for Belfast and the Maze, why do you think the report is biased towards the Maze.
Do you have the foggiest notion of what you are rattling on about?
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 08:06:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 07:24:46 PM
The Maze is proposed to generate visitor spending (to use your phrase) of £203 million not £41 million. £240 million initial cost with £37 million remaining after 4 years. It really isn't that difficult.
First you called it ticket revenue, then you called it spectator revenue, what next will you call it? ;D
I said it was ticket revenue (as detailed in the report) you didn't accept this so I agreed that we'd assume it was total spectator revenue rather than just tickets (it still doesn't add up either way.
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 08:06:11 PM
The conclusion of PWC comes up with similar figures for Belfast and the Maze, why do you think the report is biased towards the Maze.
Because it blatantly distorts the Maze figures to enable it to reach it's conclusion (the conclusion that was requested by the people paying for the report)
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2008, 08:06:11 PM
Do you have the foggiest notion of what you are rattling on about?
Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 08:57:08 PM
Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.
Just one problem though, it leaves us without a stadium we never needed and the GAWA taking the boat to England for matches instead of the bus to Lisburn.
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 08:11:50 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 08:57:08 PM
Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.
Just one problem though, it leaves us without a stadium we never needed and the GAWA taking the boat to England for matches instead of the bus to Lisburn.
Not sure how you work that out. What it means is that we can now look at the needs of sports rather than the needs of a few eejits in the NIO/Lisburn Council. We can look at the various options for football (Blanchflower, North Foreshore, Titanic Quarter, upgrade WP etc) and choose the one that's best for us. At the same time, the GAA, Ulster Rugby (and all the other sports) can do the same thing. Everybody (except Poots) wins.
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 08:11:50 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 08:57:08 PM
Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.
Just one problem though, it leaves us without a stadium we never needed and the GAWA taking the boat to England for matches instead of the bus to Lisburn.
Donagh, get real.
we need a new stadium as well.
The only difference between us and the IFA is that their needs are immediate, while ours are medium term.
Read the posts below.
Quote from: snatter on March 11, 2008, 01:35:50 PM
Because most of them are crap.
Clones - 38 k capacity, 6k covered and seated? and in the wrong location
Casement 35 k - 2k covered and seated? and no room to develop
The govt were proposing to build a 40k all seated, all covered, state of the art, gaelic games sized stadium.
And it would have cost us sweet fa in comparison to building anything even remotely close ourselves.
The GAA is still committed to building one higher quality stadium in Ulster - 40k plus, two thirds seated and covered (see strategic review report).
If this sinks, we'll have to dip into our pockets a hell of a lot more.
Meanwhile, the spongers supreme in the IFA will probably be gifted a site by BCC, and on a head by head attendance basis, will get proportionately more funding from the govt than we'll get.
Quote from: snatter on March 11, 2008, 02:13:21 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on March 11, 2008, 01:47:31 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 11, 2008, 01:35:50 PM
The GAA is still committed to building one higher quality stadium in Ulster - 40k plus, two thirds seated and covered (see strategic review report).
Where is this Strategic Review report? Can it be viewed online/downloaded? To the layman, it looks as if the Ulster Council/GAA have no strategic direction in terms of its stadia. All they seem to want to do is build vast concrete terraces (to be filled once a year if lucky) with primative toilet (and other) facilities.
GAA Strategic Review Report: Go to page 20 and read section 8.4.3
http://www.gaa.ie/files/archives/official_reports/strategic_review_2002_part2b.pdf
Quote8.4.3 No such policy or plan is currently in place; instead investment in infrastructure is being undertaken on a haphazard and uncoordinated basis.
Therefore, it is recommended that:
The strategic planning and implementation of the Association's entire programme of investment in physical facilities should be controlled by Central Council, or by a dedicated sub-committee of that Council.
One 'major' stadium should be developed in each Province with the exception of Leinster; (A 'major' stadium would involve a capacity of 40,000 to 60,000, of which at least two-thirds would be seated and a minimum of 35% of the seats would be covered.)
In Leinster, consideration should be given to the development of two stadia - one with a capacity of approximately 25,000 and one with capacity of 35,000 to 40,000, both strategically located within the Province;
no 'major' stadium is recommended for Leinster, since that Province's 'major' games can be played in Croke Park.
One other 'medium sized' stadium (with capacity of 25,000 to 30,000 and with a similar proportion of covered seating as in a 'major' stadium) should be considered for each province, where demand justifies it.
The Main County Ground in each county should have a minimum capacity of 15,000 and a maximum capacity of 25,000, of which at least 35% should be seated; grounds with a capacity greater than 25,000 (other than those designated by Central Council for further development, as described in the preceding points) should not be given any financial help.
The projects outlined above should be prioritised in the following
order:
(i) the major stadium in each Province should be developed in an agreed sequence, one each year, commencing in 2005,to be used for the Provincial finals.
(ii) the four, or five, smaller capacity Provincial grounds, as detailed above, should then be developed.
(iii) the Main County Grounds should be brought up to the minimum standards required and Senior Inter-county Championship games should not be fixed for such venues unless the required standards are met.
(iv) other projects, as listed elsewhere in this report, should be developed
(v) finally, all other physical development projects should be developed.
UCC Dept of Economics - independently validates GAA's costings of building new Ulster staium:
http://www.ucc.ie/en/economics/research/workingpaperseries/downloads/DocumentFile,21945,en.pdf
According to the boffins at UCC, the proposed stadium makes sense.
Of course, getting the Govt to build it for you makes even more sense.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 08:54:37 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 08:11:50 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 08:57:08 PM
Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.
Just one problem though, it leaves us without a stadium we never needed and the GAWA taking the boat to England for matches instead of the bus to Lisburn.
Not sure how you work that out. What it means is that we can now look at the needs of sports rather than the needs of a few eejits in the NIO/Lisburn Council. We can look at the various options for football (Blanchflower, North Foreshore, Titanic Quarter, upgrade WP etc) and choose the one that's best for us. At the same time, the GAA, Ulster Rugby (and all the other sports) can do the same thing. Everybody (except Poots) wins.
What and end up with duplicated resources?
In your utopian dream, we'd have one 40k stadium for the GAA and another 20k one for soccer and IRFU.
A man with your undoubted accountancy prowess wouldn't have to consult PWC to establish that the total cost would be:
the cost of a 40k all seated, all covered stadium
+
the cost of a 20k all seated, all covered stadiumThe cost of one stadium to be shareed by all three codes would be:
the cost of a 40k all seated, all covered stadium
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:01:16 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 08:54:37 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 08:11:50 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 08:57:08 PM
Certainly do thanks and luckily, now that the report has been published, so does everybody else, which is why the Maze is now a dead-duck.
Just one problem though, it leaves us without a stadium we never needed and the GAWA taking the boat to England for matches instead of the bus to Lisburn.
Not sure how you work that out. What it means is that we can now look at the needs of sports rather than the needs of a few eejits in the NIO/Lisburn Council. We can look at the various options for football (Blanchflower, North Foreshore, Titanic Quarter, upgrade WP etc) and choose the one that's best for us. At the same time, the GAA, Ulster Rugby (and all the other sports) can do the same thing. Everybody (except Poots) wins.
What and end up with duplicated resources?
Duplicate resources that can actually be used, rather than a single resource that can't.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:01:16 AM
In your utopian dream, we'd have one 40k stadium for the GAA and another 20k one for soccer and IRFU.
Where did I say that?
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:01:16 AM
A man with your undoubted accountancy prowess wouldn't have to consult PWC to establish that the total cost would be:
the cost of a 40k all seated, all covered stadium
+
the cost of a 20k all seated, all covered stadium
The cost of one stadium to be shareed by all three codes would be:
the cost of a 40k all seated, all covered stadium
Err you seem to be missing the points that
1) I never mentioned the costs of the various stadiums as these haven't been costed yet
2) The Maze is unusable because it has no infrastructure
3) I'm not a member of the GAA so I really couldn't give a flying one what they spend their share of the money on.
£240 million divided between the three sports is £80 million each, more than enough for each sport to upgrade/re-build their facilities.
Quote from: SammyG on March 11, 2008, 08:57:08 PM
I said it was ticket revenue (as detailed in the report) you didn't accept this so I agreed that we'd assume it was total spectator revenue rather than just tickets (it still doesn't add up either way.
Because it blatantly distorts the Maze figures to enable it to reach it's conclusion (the conclusion that was requested by the people paying for the report)
What adds up is that you haven't a clue
"The figures, that they use to justify the Maze, only add up if there are 23 events per year at over £100 per ticket". ;D
"Sorry I was quoting the PWC figures, not giving my opinion, so you must mean that PWC are talking shite". ???
Then the PWC figures are correct?
"In order to make the Maze 'cheaper' than the various Belfast sites, the PWC report said the Maze would gerenate £207 million in ticket revenue, over the first four years" ;D
When the report´s conclusion (table 11.2) says that the Belfast venue would generate more income from visitor spending
Belfast Stadium Maze Stadium
Net operating surplus £27.6m £27.6m
Visitor spending £54.4m £41m
Contrib to
Sporting Bodies £41.8m £41.8m
Christ Main Street you're getting as bad as Donagh. For the fourth (or maybe fifth) time, I have not tried to dissect the PWC figures, on this thread (but I'm happy to do so if you want). I am talking about one specific issue, namely the justification for choosing the Maze over Belfast. In order to come to this conclusion, they stated that the Maze would cost £240 million to build but would generate £203 million in ticket revenue over the first four years, leaving a net cost of only £37 million (which was less than the net cost of the Belfast options). This gives the £110 per punter figure and that doesn't even allow for any operating costs.
As I've said if you want to go through the other figures, then I'm more than happy to debate them.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:42:46 AM
Christ Main In order to come to this conclusion, they stated that the Maze would cost £240 million to build but would generate £203 million in ticket revenue over the first four years, leaving a net cost of only £37 million (which was less than the net cost of the Belfast options). This gives the £110 per punter figure and that doesn't even allow for any operating costs.
EXACTLY where in the conclusion do they state that? Which table?
ticket revenue ;D
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:08:50 AM
Err you seem to be missing the points that
1) I never mentioned the costs of the various stadiums as these haven't been costed yet
Sorry Sammy, but you're attempting to hide from reality here.
To most sane people it's perfectly clear that building two stadia, when one would do, is a waste of resources.
Here, I'll put in primary school maths format to make it easier for you to understand
(the cost of a 40k all seated, all covered stadium for the GAA +
the cost of a 20k all seated, all covered stadium for the IFA/IRFU)
- the cost of a 40k all seated, all covered stadium for all 3 bodies
= duplicated resource (the cost of a 20k all seated, all covered stadium for the IFA/IRFU)
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:08:50 AM
2) The Maze is unusable because it has no infrastructure
On my computer, my post didn't mention the MAze, or any other location for that matter.
My point was soley to do with duplication of resources.
Maybe your OWC goggles have morphed my post, or you've had the word MAZE lasered onto the back of your eyelids or something.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:08:50 AM
3) I'm not a member of the GAA so I really couldn't give a flying one what they spend their share of the money on.
£240 million divided between the three sports is £80 million each, more than enough for each sport to upgrade/re-build their facilities.
Woah there OWC cowboy!
There's no way in hell that the wider GAA community are going to stand for an equal distibution of funds to build spectator facilities when the needs of each sport are plainly different.
ANY ALLOCATION OF FUNDS WOULD HAVE TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO REAL NEED, ie as evidenced by real attendance figures.
Based on actual attendences, at real matches, GAA atttendances dwarf those of rugby and soccer.
THERE IS NO WAY YOUR SPECTATOR ACCOMODATION NEEDS ARE EQUAL TO THOSE OF THE GAA.
Giving you guys the same amount from a fixed size pot is tantamount to discrimination against us.
If we did go down the wasteful duplicated resources route, then the only fair distribution would be to
1. ensure that specators in each stadium would be given the same level of comfort, ie all seated and covered.
2. give the same percentage contribution to the cost of each stadium.
Its likely that the share of the pot given to the 40k stadium would be mush greater becasue costs increase logarithmically, not linearly in relation to stadium capacity.
Anything else would be unfair and would penalise crowds at vastly better supported GAA matches.
To reinforce the differences in stadium capacity required, here's a post I made to you a long time ago:
Quote from: snatter on June 02, 2007, 08:24:13 AM
2005 Ulster Teams Championship attendances.
(NOTE that these exclude the qualifier series matches).
| USFC: Armagh V Tyrone | 61000 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone | 32000 |
| USFC: Derry V Armagh | 27633 |
| USFC: Donegal V Armagh | 25622 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Cavan | 23441 |
| USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh | 23107 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal | 18227 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Down | 18200 |
| USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan | 16492 |
| USFC: Monaghan V Derry | 16314 |
| USFC: Cavan V Antrim | 10500 |
| USFC: Replay Cavan V Antrim | 3865 |
| |
| AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin | 78514 |
| AIQF: Armagh V Laois | 32187 |
| AISF: Tyrone V Armagh | 65858 |
| AIF: Tyrone V Kerry | 82112 |
Note that these are official figures.
Earlier round games in particular will probably show figures lower than the real attendances - Non-paying kids aren't taken into account.
--------------------------------
Northern Ireland figures:
Competitve NI soccer matches played in the same period.
Northern Ireland V Azerbaijan 11909
Northern Ireland V England 14069
Northern Ireland V Wales 13451
JJB Irish Cup Final 2005 Portadown V Larne 5,431
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2008, 10:00:38 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:42:46 AM
Christ Main In order to come to this conclusion, they stated that the Maze would cost £240 million to build but would generate £203 million in ticket revenue over the first four years, leaving a net cost of only £37 million (which was less than the net cost of the Belfast options). This gives the £110 per punter figure and that doesn't even allow for any operating costs.
EXACTLY where in the conclusion do they state that? Which table?
ticket revenue ;D
It says it several times but I'm discussing it's use as the conclusion for the Belfast vs Maze options on Page 13
"Our conclusion therefore is that Option 5: a Three Sports Stadium at the MLK
site which has a NPC of £36.9 million, is the preferred option. It has a
significantly lower NPC than the other main options (and the comparator options, with
the exception of the 'Do Minimum')."The figures that make up this conclusion are at various places within the report.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 02, 2007, 08:24:13 AM
2005 Ulster Teams Championship attendances.
(NOTE that these exclude the qualifier series matches).
| USFC: Armagh V Tyrone | 61000 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone | 32000 |
| USFC: Derry V Armagh | 27633 |
| USFC: Donegal V Armagh | 25622 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Cavan | 23441 |
| USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh | 23107 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal | 18227 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Down | 18200 |
| USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan | 16492 |
| USFC: Monaghan V Derry | 16314 |
| USFC: Cavan V Antrim | 10500 |
| USFC: Replay Cavan V Antrim | 3865 |
| |
| AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin | 78514 |
| AIQF: Armagh V Laois | 32187 |
| AISF: Tyrone V Armagh | 65858 |
| AIF: Tyrone V Kerry | 82112 |
Note that these are official figures.
Earlier round games in particular will probably show figures lower than the real attendances - Non-paying kids aren't taken into account.
Snatter,
At first sight, your objection to duplication (40k GAA stadium and 20k football stadium) seems sensible. But quite apart from the Maze being of a less than suitable design for soccer and rugby and in a less than ideal location for those two codes, this overlooks two key objections to the Maze which should concern the GAA.
First, it is estimated by PWC to cost £240m (before overruns, btw). Yep, that's two hundred and forty million big ones. For a sports stadium in the middle of agricultural land (not downtown Tokyo!), which will be used a maximum of 23 times per year. Don't try and tell me that this is better value than e.g. to divide £80million between the three codes to use as they see best, put another £80m into all the
other sports played in NI (remember them?) and then put the remaining £80m to frivolous luxuries like schools and hospitals etc.
Second,
by your own 2005 figures, Ulster GAA simply does not need a 42k stadium. Of the 16 matches you list, 1., 13., 15. and 16. attracted crowds far too big for the Maze, so would have to be played at Croke Park. The crowds for the remaining 12 matches varied from 10,500 to 32,187 (plus the anomaly of the 3,865 Cavan/Antrim replay),
which equals an average of 20,632. Clearly, with 42k GAA places, the Maze would be too big. Remember, too, that the GAA would have to pay rent to HMG, plus VAT (avoided at Clones) and also see all their many existing Ulster stadia sit empty, whilst showpiece games were played on someone elses property.
Maybe I'm missing something (on my second point, at least), but surely to goodness a significant cash injection from the money saved by scrapping the Maze could be better used by the GAA - e.g. cover, toilets, facilities etc at Casement, Healy Park etc?
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:36:48 AM
It says it several times but I'm discussing it's use as the conclusion for the Belfast vs Maze options on Page 13
"Our conclusion therefore is that Option 5: a Three Sports Stadium at the MLK
site which has a NPC of £36.9 million, is the preferred option. It has a
significantly lower NPC than the other main options (and the comparator options, with
the exception of the 'Do Minimum')."
The figures that make up this conclusion are at various places within the report.
Your usual Bull, not supported by fact.
There is no mention there of ticket revenue.
Ticket revenue is only used as a part of calculating the benifit to the sporting bodies
Nonsense statement
"In order to come to this conclusion, they stated that the Maze would cost £240 million to build but would generate £203 million in ticket revenue over the first four years, leaving a net cost of only £37 million"
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 02, 2007, 08:24:13 AM
2005 Ulster Teams Championship attendances.
(NOTE that these exclude the qualifier series matches).
| USFC: Armagh V Tyrone | 61000 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone | 32000 |
| USFC: Derry V Armagh | 27633 |
| USFC: Donegal V Armagh | 25622 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Cavan | 23441 |
| USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh | 23107 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal | 18227 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Down | 18200 |
| USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan | 16492 |
| USFC: Monaghan V Derry | 16314 |
| USFC: Cavan V Antrim | 10500 |
| USFC: Replay Cavan V Antrim | 3865 |
| |
| AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin | 78514 |
| AIQF: Armagh V Laois | 32187 |
| AISF: Tyrone V Armagh | 65858 |
| AIF: Tyrone V Kerry | 82112 |
Note that these are official figures.
Earlier round games in particular will probably show figures lower than the real attendances - Non-paying kids aren't taken into account.
Snatter,
At first sight, your objection to duplication (40k GAA stadium and 20k football stadium) seems sensible. But quite apart from the Maze being of a less than suitable design for soccer and rugby and in a less than ideal location for those two codes, this overlooks two key objections to the Maze which should concern the GAA.
Evil,
I purposefully didn't mention location in any of my posts - I want to focus attention on the charade of building two stadiums when one would do.
You too, must have had the MAZE word lasered on the back of your eyelids.
But now you mention it, the following article sums up nicely where we are today:
Viewpoint: Why Maze stadium makes sense
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/article3506088.ece
Viewpoint: Why Maze stadium makes sense
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
How much longer will we be debating the merits of a 38,000-seater multi-sports stadium at the Maze, and what is it costing? Consultants handed the business case to Finance Minister Peter Robinson last month, recommending the Maze site, and now it is reported, despite denials, that the DUP has decided against it.
The issue has not yet come before the executive, but the omens are not encouraging.
The DUP is split over the matter and will want to avoid controversy in this delicate period following Ian Paisley's resignation.
Party interest may prevail, over the public's.
What seems certain is that the Maze is the only option for such an ambitious project, needing the support of unionists and nationalists in the Assembly and catering for football, rugby and Gaelic games. Belfast would be a more logical venue, but not only would a high-cost site have to be purchased - the Maze comes free - but also finding one suitable to both communities has proved to be a nightmare.
The nature of devolved government is that a consensus must be reached when large sums of public money are involved - and the consultants estimated that the stadium itself would cost £126m, plus £114m for improved transport infrastructure, a total of £240m.
The idea is that redevelopment of the entire Maze prison site for housing and hotels, etc would help pay for the stadium, but clearly there would initially be a considerable outlay for a sports and concert venue that may be used for only 30 days a year.
It was quite a coup to get the sports bodies agreed to use the Maze for their top games.
Another round of talks would have to begin if there was any change, and the prospect of the GAA agreeing to an east Belfast site, as rumoured, must be slim. Each sport - and each voting bloc in the executive - has a veto on any decision.
If the DUP has turned its back on the Maze - against the wishes of Culture Minister Edwin Poots - it can be assumed that Sinn Fein's insistence on commemorating the IRA hunger strikers in a "conflict transformation centre" was a major influence.
Although the centre would be as far from the stadium as Windsor Park is from Milltown, the potential for friction, as well as tourism, is obvious.
Several sites in Belfast have been investigated and discarded on the grounds of cost, transport difficulties and cross-community unacceptability.
he conclusion may have to be faced, after many years, that the Maze is the only possible venue, if the business case can be proven.
An east Belfast site, presenting the roads service with real problems, would be no solution, so the dilemma of the IFA, badly needing to replace Windsor, remains.
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2008, 10:59:23 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:36:48 AM
It says it several times but I'm discussing it's use as the conclusion for the Belfast vs Maze options on Page 13
"Our conclusion therefore is that Option 5: a Three Sports Stadium at the MLK
site which has a NPC of £36.9 million, is the preferred option. It has a
significantly lower NPC than the other main options (and the comparator options, with
the exception of the 'Do Minimum')."
The figures that make up this conclusion are at various places within the report.
Your usual Bull, not supported by fact.
There is no mention there of ticket revenue.
Ticket revenue is only used as a part of calculating the benifit to the sporting bodies
Nonsense statement
"In order to come to this conclusion, they stated that the Maze would cost £240 million to build but would generate £203 million in ticket revenue over the first four years, leaving a net cost of only £37 million"
FFS It really isn't that difficult, the report says that the stadium will cost £240 million but have a
net cost of £37 million after four years at just under 500K spectators per year. Therefore £203 million will be paid by just under 2 million spectators, so over £100 per punter.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 11:03:39 AM
FFS It really isn't that difficult, the report says that the stadium will cost £240 million but have a net cost of £37 million after four years at just under 500K spectators per year. Therefore £203 million will be paid by just under 2 million spectators, so over £100 per punter.
One further quick point occurs. If they are to stage 23 events per year, but only attract 500k spectators, that works out at just over 21k spectators per event. Why does the stadium need to hold 42k spectators, then?
Remember that the original proposal was for a far more appropriate 28k seater stadium. Until the GAA intervened and demanded it be bigger (with a much higher associated construction cost, btw). Might this not be because they already have a number of small-to-medium stadia of their own in Ulster, plus a bloody massive one in Croke, so an "in-between" stadium might occasionally come in handy, so long as it was going to be "free"?
Remember that the GAA's own spectator figures (as per Snatter) indicate that it is too small for a few GAA matches and too big for the rest. Seems very wasteful to me.
And that's before the difficulties it causes for soccer and rugby... :o
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 11:11:43 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 11:03:39 AM
FFS It really isn't that difficult, the report says that the stadium will cost £240 million but have a net cost of £37 million after four years at just under 500K spectators per year. Therefore £203 million will be paid by just under 2 million spectators, so over £100 per punter.
One further quick point occurs. If they are to stage 23 events per year, but only attract 500k spectators, that works out at just over 21k spectators per event. Why does the stadium need to hold 42k spectators, then?
Remember that the original proposal was for a far more appropriate 28k seater stadium. Until the GAA intervened and demanded it be bigger (with a much higher associated construction cost, btw). Might this not be because they already have a number of small-to-medium stadia of their own in Ulster, plus a bloody massive one in Croke, so an "inbetween" stadium might occasionally come in handy if it were going to be "free"?
Remember that the GAA's own spectator figures (as per Snatter) indicate that it is too small for a few GAA matches and too big for the rest. Seems very wasteful to me.
And that's before the difficulties it causes for soccer and rugby... :o
id say you arent far wrong there EG, at 28k its too small for say an ulster final but would be too big for national league games etc.
i still think the gaa would prefer to be thrown a few quid to improve a couple of their grounds and the rugby would still prefer to be given some money to improve ravenhill.
the whole project still looks like it would be very difficult to achieve.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
First, it is estimated by PWC to cost £240m (before overruns, btw). Yep, that's two hundred and forty million big ones. For a sports stadium in the middle of agricultural land (not downtown Tokyo!), which will be used a maximum of 23 times per year. Don't try and tell me that this is better value than e.g. to divide £80million between the three codes to use as they see best, put another £80m into all the other sports played in NI (remember them?) and then put the remaining £80m to frivolous luxuries like schools and hospitals etc.
Sorry you're totally ignoring my point about how allocation of any mythical pot must be made along lines of real need, not a straight three way split.
It all boils down to knowing that if you guys are sitting cosy in your all covered all seater, with site given for free by BCC, then we get treated the same.
We will not tolerate our much bigger crowds still having to stand in driving rain.
We will not tolerate you guys getting a free site while we don't.
We will not tolerate you guys having to pay proportionately less for your stadium.
Also remember - from the outset, it has been made clear that this is UK treasury money, not money alloacted to NI Plc.
If we don't use this money to build one symbolic shared space stadium, it will be returned to the UK exchequer.
And in the current fiscal environment, believe me, they will take it back.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 11:03:39 AM
FFS It really isn't that difficult, the report says that the stadium will cost £240 million but have a net cost of £37 million after four years at just under 500K spectators per year. Therefore £203 million will be paid by just under 2 million spectators, so over £100 per punter.
Apparantly it is impossible for you to understand how PWC calculate their figures otherwise you wouldn't be dogmatically sticking to your ticket revenue statement and that they are biased against Belfast location.
Dogma = sticking to your point of view, unsupported and contradicted by the facts.
As I have pointed out with reference to the specific tables in the report and with evidential reference to the figures used
for each stadium site.
You are writing bull
The PWC report states
A. Ticket revenue is only a part of the cost benifit to each sporting body which also includes sponsorship, advertising tv revenue etc
B. The PWC figures show that Belfast location would generate more income, this is explained by that visitors would spend more there that at the Maze.
Fair play snatter, but you are pissing against a wall. The only language these guys know is blackmail. The English Governement need to offer the money to coperative bodies only, go ahead, stop funding windsor, build the stadium and they will come on board in time. You have to be cruel to be kind to no men. It appears that the GAA knows whats better for their struggling rival organisation than the soccor moguls in University avenue themselves. In time they will thank us. Why were all the smart men born in Ireland GAA men.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:14:49 AM
Quote from: snatter on June 02, 2007, 08:24:13 AM
2005 Ulster Teams Championship attendances.
(NOTE that these exclude the qualifier series matches).
| USFC: Armagh V Tyrone | 61000 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone | 32000 |
| USFC: Derry V Armagh | 27633 |
| USFC: Donegal V Armagh | 25622 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Cavan | 23441 |
| USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh | 23107 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal | 18227 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Down | 18200 |
| USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan | 16492 |
| USFC: Monaghan V Derry | 16314 |
| USFC: Cavan V Antrim | 10500 |
| USFC: Replay Cavan V Antrim | 3865 |
| |
| AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin | 78514 |
| AIQF: Armagh V Laois | 32187 |
| AISF: Tyrone V Armagh | 65858 |
| AIF: Tyrone V Kerry | 82112 |
Note that these are official figures.
Earlier round games in particular will probably show figures lower than the real attendances - Non-paying kids aren't taken into account.
Second, by your own 2005 figures, Ulster GAA simply does not need a 42k stadium. Of the 16 matches you list, 1., 13., 15. and 16. attracted crowds far too big for the Maze, so would have to be played at Croke Park.
Match 1 was at Croker.
Match 2 (the repplay) was a capacity crowd at Clones.
The combined attendance of both matches was 93000.
Two 42k capacities would give a combined 84000 attendances, which isn't that far from what we got.
It is notable that Croekr is now generally unavailable for Ulster matches - especially after we generously allowed soccer and rugby to camp there.If the same two matches were played now, we would have a forced combined attendance of 64000.If anything, these two matches underline just how much we could do with the Maze!Matches 15 & 16 would almost certainly continue to be played in Croker as thye are the AISF and AIF.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
The crowds for the remaining 12 matches varied from 10,500 to 32,187 (plus the anomaly of the 3,865 Cavan/Antrim replay), which equals an average of 20,632. Clearly, with 42k GAA places, the Maze would be too big.
Not so, again some of these attendances were constrained by capacity.
I can't recall offhand exactly which ones, but my guess is that a fair few were played at Omagh (capacity back then of 20 something thousand?).
Have you read my earlier post - the one in which the GAA itself establishes that it does indeed need a 40k + stadium in Ulster?
Did you read within the same post that UCC economists have independently verified the attendance assumptions and costings?
Did you notice that the attendance figures used in the justification were from the early 1990's?
Championshiop attendances have actually gone up markedly since then.
If the GAA itself and independent economists both agree that it does need, and can afford to build a 40k capaity stadium in Ulster, what makes you feel qualified to say that they don't?
THE NEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
THE MAZE MEETS THAT NEED.
IF ITS BUILT, THE GAA WILL HEAVILY USE IT. FULL STOP.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
Remember, too, that the GAA would have to pay rent to HMG, plus VAT (avoided at Clones) and also see all their many existing Ulster stadia sit empty, whilst showpiece games were played on someone elses property.
The GAA certainly aren't in the business of making major decisions on ill-costed grounds.
It will alerady have satisfied itself that it makes financial sense to use the Maze.
Its pretty obvious (even to an untrained accountant like SammyG) that renting the MAze at pretty low rental rates is far batter than having to sink 10's of millions of our own money into a lesser standard stadium of our own.
When it comes to moeny, the GAA are cute hoors.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
Maybe I'm missing something (on my second point, at least), but surely to goodness a significant cash injection from the money saved by scrapping the Maze could be better used by the GAA - e.g. cover, toilets, facilities etc at Casement, Healy Park etc?
You are missing something - if you guys are sitting in an all seated, all covered stadium, tailored to your attendance needs, then we wnat the same.
We won't be satisfied with anything less.
Better toilets just won't do.
Croppies lie down no longer mate.
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2008, 11:38:05 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 11:03:39 AM
FFS It really isn't that difficult, the report says that the stadium will cost £240 million but have a net cost of £37 million after four years at just under 500K spectators per year. Therefore £203 million will be paid by just under 2 million spectators, so over £100 per punter.
Apparantly it is impossible for you to understand how PWC calculate their figures otherwise you wouldn't be dogmatically sticking to your ticket revenue statement and that they are biased against Belfast location.
Dogma = sticking to your point of view, unsupported and contradicted by the facts.
As I have pointed out with reference to the specific tables in the report and with evidential reference to the figures used
for each stadium site.
You are writing bull
The PWC report states
A. Ticket revenue is only a part of the cost benifit to each sporting body which also includes sponsorship, advertising tv revenue etc
B. The PWC figures show that Belfast location would generate more income, this is explained by that visitors would spend more there that at the Maze.
All of that is correct (except PWCs figures are nonsense but that's a different argument) but it has nothing to do wth the point I'm making. It would be like me saying that a Ford Mondeo cost £18000 and you saying I'm wrong because an Astra only costs £15000.
Quote from: behind the wire on March 12, 2008, 11:19:14 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 11:11:43 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 11:03:39 AM
FFS It really isn't that difficult, the report says that the stadium will cost £240 million but have a net cost of £37 million after four years at just under 500K spectators per year. Therefore £203 million will be paid by just under 2 million spectators, so over £100 per punter.
One further quick point occurs. If they are to stage 23 events per year, but only attract 500k spectators, that works out at just over 21k spectators per event. Why does the stadium need to hold 42k spectators, then?
Remember that the original proposal was for a far more appropriate 28k seater stadium. Until the GAA intervened and demanded it be bigger (with a much higher associated construction cost, btw). Might this not be because they already have a number of small-to-medium stadia of their own in Ulster, plus a bloody massive one in Croke, so an "inbetween" stadium might occasionally come in handy if it were going to be "free"?
Remember that the GAA's own spectator figures (as per Snatter) indicate that it is too small for a few GAA matches and too big for the rest. Seems very wasteful to me.
And that's before the difficulties it causes for soccer and rugby... :o
id say you arent far wrong there EG, at 28k its too small for say an ulster final but would be too big for national league games etc.
i still think the gaa would prefer to be thrown a few quid to improve a couple of their grounds and the rugby would still prefer to be given some money to improve ravenhill.
the whole project still looks like it would be very difficult to achieve.
Well the GAA disagree with you.
The Maze is a practical giveaway compared with having to upgrade one of our own stadia to anything even close in quality.
Go and read my earlier post on the GAA's strategic review stadium recommendations, and the UCC economists verification of them.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
First, it is estimated by PWC to cost £240m (before overruns, btw). Yep, that's two hundred and forty million big ones. For a sports stadium in the middle of agricultural land (not downtown Tokyo!), which will be used a maximum of 23 times per year. Don't try and tell me that this is better value than e.g. to divide £80million between the three codes to use as they see best, put another £80m into all the other sports played in NI (remember them?) and then put the remaining £80m to frivolous luxuries like schools and hospitals etc.
Sorry you're totally ignoring my point about how allocation of any mythical pot must be made along lines of real need, not a straight three way split.
Nowhere have I said that whatever money is released by scrapping the Maze should be split exactly equally between the three codes, so don't make false assumptions or cast false aspersions.
I would be perfectly happy to accept an independently assessed split. (Which, btw, would mean Ulster Rugby getting v.little, on the basis (a) it has by far the lowest participation levels of the three codes; (b) it attracts the fewest spectators; (c) it has already received significant grants etc to redevelop Ravenhill and (d) Ravenhill is now pretty much adequate for 90% of its games)
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
It all boils down to knowing that if you guys are sitting cosy in your all covered all seater, with site given for free by BCC, then we get treated the same.
We will not tolerate our much bigger crowds still having to stand in driving rain.
We will not tolerate you guys getting a free site while we don't.
We will not tolerate you guys having to pay proportionately less for your stadium.
For someone who is clearly so aggrieved at our "luxury" versus your "spartan" facilities, your demand for the Maze overlooks one very pertinent point. If/when the Maze is built, I've no doubt it will be very comfortable. Fine - I don't begrudge GAA or Rugby fans that for one moment. But that will only be a comfort for 5 or 6 GAA games per year. Existing GAA stadia will still be as crap as ever for all the other games which are played in them (or are they going to lie unused after the Maze opens?).
Whereas, by scrapping the Maze, this would free up millions for the GAA to use to upgrade their existing stadia to a decent, acceptable level![Btw, it is not NI soccer's choice to be all-seater, rather it is a
FIFA demand. Many of us would much prefer to be allowed to stand on the terraces]
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
Also remember - from the outset, it has been made clear that this is UK treasury money, not money alloacted to NI Plc.
If we don't use this money to build one symbolic shared space stadium, it will be returned to the UK exchequer.
And in the current fiscal environment, believe me, they will take it back.
That was the blackmail put around by the previous administration prior to the restoration of devolved powers. Since then, many of the players behind this (e.g. Hansen) have moved back to GB, so no longer give a stuff. And the fact that Robinson actually has the power to pull the plug on the Maze suggests that he also has the power to re-allocate that money which was formerly ring-fenced (or at least benefit from the proceeds of the development of extra land at the Maze which would be released by the scrapping of the Stadim). Otherwise, why would he look a gift horse in the mouth, scrap the "free" Maze Stadium and STILL have to find the money for soccer's overriding need (or see the NI team play permanently overseas?). Whatever else he is, Robinson's not that stupid!
Quote from: feetofflames on March 12, 2008, 11:40:30 AM
Fair play snatter, but you are pissing against a wall. The only language these guys know is blackmail. The English Governement need to offer the money to coperative bodies only, go ahead, stop funding windsor, build the stadium and they will come on board in time. You have to be cruel to be kind to no men. It appears that the GAA knows whats better for their struggling rival organisation than the soccor moguls in University avenue themselves. In time they will thank us. Why were all the smart men born in Ireland GAA men.
The UK Government is NOT funding Windsor - that's the whole problem!
If it
were doing so, as it has done to the tune of hundreds of millions for England/Wembley, Scotland/Hampden and Wales/Millennium, then we wouldn't have to even consider the Maze. And we not talking huge numbers, either. My guess is that £20m TOPS would see WP upgraded to an acceptable 25k capacity. Compare that with the expenditure of a minimum of £240m on the Maze (for 4-5 soccer matches p.a.), plus ongoing maintenace costs of several millions per year.
P.S. Just so you won't feel
too oppressed, I would be more than happy to see the GAA receive a fair share of the £240m+ to be saved by scrapping the Maze. Or is that not the sort of language you understand? :o
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 11:47:58 AM
All of that is correct (except PWCs figures are nonsense but that's a different argument) but it has nothing to do wth the point I'm making. It would be like me saying that a Ford Mondeo cost £18000 and you saying I'm wrong because an Astra only costs £15000.
No Sammy, it is correct because my figures of the PWC report come from reading it, understanding it, referring to the actual information and tables contained in the report and seeing through your bull.
It is indeed another argument about the credibility value of PWC's figures.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 08:54:37 AM
Not sure how you work that out. What it means is that we can now look at the needs of sports rather than the needs of a few eejits in the NIO/Lisburn Council. We can look at the various options for football (Blanchflower, North Foreshore, Titanic Quarter, upgrade WP etc) and choose the one that's best for us. At the same time, the GAA, Ulster Rugby (and all the other sports) can do the same thing. Everybody (except Poots) wins.
You know as well as I do that the DUP are going to veto Maze because they can't stand having to share it with Fenians. If they use their veto, then there will be no stadium and your pals will be catching the boat to England while we continue to Clones.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 08:56:02 AM
Donagh, get real.
we need a new stadium as well.
The only difference between us and the IFA is that their needs are immediate, while ours are medium term.
Read the posts below.
As you say we have no immediate need and we have the resources to build or overhaul one ourselves without having to wait for Stormont - a luxury the IFA don't have.
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 12:56:04 PMYou know as well as I do that the DUP are going to veto Maze because they can't stand having to share it with Fenians.
You seem to be fixated on Fenians for some reason and as usual ignore the fact that football and rugby are already cross-community. The DUP (as with all the parties) have people who support the Maze and people who oppose it but the issue is not about support, it is a purely financial decision. If Pete the Punt spent £240 million on a white elephant he would be legally accountable for that spend. Now that the business case has (finally) been released, a blind man on a charging horse can see that it doesn't add up, so he has no choice, legally, other than to pulll the plug.
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 12:56:04 PM
If they use their veto, then there will be no stadium and your pals will be catching the boat to England while we continue to Clones.
No idea what that is meant to mean, apart from your usual veiled threats. As I've already said any application for a new stadium will be dealt with on it's merits (as the Maze was) and accepted or rejected on that basis. Doesn't matter if the stadium is for football, rugby, GAA, field hockey, athletics or hare coursing, it will stand or fall on it's merits.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
First, it is estimated by PWC to cost £240m (before overruns, btw). Yep, that's two hundred and forty million big ones. For a sports stadium in the middle of agricultural land (not downtown Tokyo!), which will be used a maximum of 23 times per year. Don't try and tell me that this is better value than e.g. to divide £80million between the three codes to use as they see best, put another £80m into all the other sports played in NI (remember them?) and then put the remaining £80m to frivolous luxuries like schools and hospitals etc.
Sorry you're totally ignoring my point about how allocation of any mythical pot must be made along lines of real need, not a straight three way split.
Nowhere have I said that whatever money is released by scrapping the Maze should be split exactly equally between the three codes, so don't make false assumptions or cast false aspersions.
Correct.
And nowhere did you say exactly how you propsoed to split the money, so I just reaffirmed what I had previously posted,
ie any allocation to develop stadia facilities must be done proportional to real need, as demostrated by real attendance figures.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 12:22:27 PM
I would be perfectly happy to accept an independently assessed split. (Which, btw, would mean Ulster Rugby getting v.little, on the basis (a) it has by far the lowest participation levels of the three codes; (b) it attracts the fewest spectators; (c) it has already received significant grants etc to redevelop Ravenhill and (d) Ravenhill is now pretty much adequate for 90% of its games)
In principle, yes that is what we would look for.
But your criteria is flawed - if these funds are ringfenced for stadium development, then attendance should be the sole criteria.
I fail to see how participation rates relate to stadium usage.
Should the IFA get 10's millions extra for a stadium because they can get more people to play
Sunday Saturday league soccer, but can't attrract moer than 15k to watch NI at any new east belfast stadium?
Surely the only factor is the real attendances for each sport.
The funding is for much needed development of inadequate stadia to modern standards.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
It all boils down to knowing that if you guys are sitting cosy in your all covered all seater, with site given for free by BCC, then we get treated the same.
We will not tolerate our much bigger crowds still having to stand in driving rain.
We will not tolerate you guys getting a free site while we don't.
We will not tolerate you guys having to pay proportionately less for your stadium.
For someone who is clearly so aggrieved at our "luxury" versus your "spartan" facilities, your demand for the Maze overlooks one very pertinent point. If/when the Maze is built, I've no doubt it will be very comfortable. Fine - I don't begrudge GAA or Rugby fans that for one moment. But that will only be a comfort for 5 or 6 GAA games per year. Existing GAA stadia will still be as crap as ever for all the other games which are played in them (or are they going to lie unused after the Maze opens?).
Whereas, by scrapping the Maze, this would free up millions for the GAA to use to upgrade their existing stadia to a decent, acceptable level!
[Btw, it is not NI soccer's choice to be all-seater, rather it is a FIFA demand. Many of us would much prefer to be allowed to stand on the terraces]
The GAA has less of a problem building say 5k stands at County grounds, eg as recently done in Newry. These are suitable for National league games an lesser championship matches.
The gap in our resources is at a higher level.
We have failed to safely & comfortably accomodate the higher crowds that go to larger championship matches.
Historically we haven't been able to direct sufficient resources to fund development of a proper higher capacity stadium.
The mooted shared stadium would plug this gap for us.
That's why the GAA support it.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 12:22:27 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:20:58 AM
Also remember - from the outset, it has been made clear that this is UK treasury money, not money alloacted to NI Plc.
If we don't use this money to build one symbolic shared space stadium, it will be returned to the UK exchequer.
And in the current fiscal environment, believe me, they will take it back.
That was the blackmail put around by the previous administration prior to the restoration of devolved powers. Since then, many of the players behind this (e.g. Hansen) have moved back to GB, so no longer give a stuff. And the fact that Robinson actually has the power to pull the plug on the Maze suggests that he also has the power to re-allocate that money which was formerly ring-fenced (or at least benefit from the proceeds of the development of extra land at the Maze which would be released by the scrapping of the Stadim). Otherwise, why would he look a gift horse in the mouth, scrap the "free" Maze Stadium and STILL have to find the money for soccer's overriding need (or see the NI team play permanently overseas?). Whatever else he is, Robinson's not that stupid!
well, I haven't heard anything to contradict the original
In a way I hope that it is a case of use it or lose it.
Forcing you guys to share might be the only way that the GAA get a substantively public funded stadium.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 12:31:21 PM
The UK Government is NOT funding Windsor - that's the whole problem!
If it were doing so, as it has done to the tune of hundreds of millions for England/Wembley, Scotland/Hampden and Wales/Millennium, then we wouldn't have to even consider the Maze. And we not talking huge numbers, either. My guess is that £20m TOPS would see WP upgraded to an acceptable 25k capacity. Compare that with the expenditure of a minimum of £240m on the Maze (for 4-5 soccer matches p.a.), plus ongoing maintenace costs of several millions per year.
P.S. Just so you won't feel too oppressed, I would be more than happy to see the GAA receive a fair share of the £240m+ to be saved by scrapping the Maze. Or is that not the sort of language you understand? :o
You cant give out what you don't have in the first place, especially if the conditions for the promise don't exist anymore.
Costs of the Maze are close to £190m near enough a 55/45 split for constr and infrastr.
Possibly you are including what the State would gain by selling the land for housing + business
No matter where a stadium is built the costs are going to be enormous.
I don´t know why those cost figures for British stadiums (refixes or rebuilt) cant be translated to Ireland.
A Belfast soccer stadium is going to cost a relative fortune, Howard has been trying to have his voice heard that the IFA are skint and don't even earn enough each year to pay for his hairdresser.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 01:12:01 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 12:56:04 PMYou know as well as I do that the DUP are going to veto Maze because they can't stand having to share it with Fenians.
You seem to be fixated on Fenians for some reason and as usual ignore the fact that football and rugby are already cross-community. The DUP (as with all the parties) have people who support the Maze and people who oppose it but the issue is not about support, it is a purely financial decision. If Pete the Punt spent £240 million on a white elephant he would be legally accountable for that spend. Now that the business case has (finally) been released, a blind man on a charging horse can see that it doesn't add up, so he has no choice, legally, other than to pulll the plug.
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 12:56:04 PM
If they use their veto, then there will be no stadium and your pals will be catching the boat to England while we continue to Clones.
No idea what that is meant to mean, apart from your usual veiled threats. As I've already said any application for a new stadium will be dealt with on it's merits (as the Maze was) and accepted or rejected on that basis. Doesn't matter if the stadium is for football, rugby, GAA, field hockey, athletics or hare coursing, it will stand or fall on it's merits.
Sammy, you have a vested interest in opposing the Maze/Long Kesh stadium so I expect you to try and ridicule the PWC report, even if you haven't managed to do it very successfully on this thread so far. Now, if (and that's a very big if) the case doesn't stack up when the land is coming for free then it's hardly likely to stack up anywhere else. Besides, the GAA have already said that none of the other sites are suitable for our games. So what you are left with is the zero sum game of the DUP vetoing the Maze and SF vetoing any other venue. You don't get a stadium and we go ahead and plough our own furrow. The only loser I see here is the IFA and their supporters.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 01:12:01 PM
Doesn't matter if the stadium is for football, rugby, GAA, field hockey, athletics or hare coursing, it will stand or fall on it's merits.
I
demand more information on hare coursing stadia. :P
Dear NI Football afficionados
Does it take the openminded forward thinkers in the GAA to aspell it out to IFA each time. Listen folks the GAA and to a lesser extent the rugby have revitalised, and reinvigorated the public interest in Sports here. Have a bit of sense and at least ride on the crest of our wave. If ever the GAA could do the IFA a turn it would be to take the NI soccor team and give them a game on Casement, I guarantee that the crowd would be bigger than anything at Windsor in the past 20 years. We just fcukin love sport, us Gaels but more importantly we can do it better, but we dont want to do it at anyones expense. As far as Im concerned we have saved the blushes of rugby and soccor in the south, would it not be also charitable to save soccor in the North. Us gaels will always help out a 'partner'
Yours in sport
A gael in the gale
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PMSammy, you have a vested interest in opposing the Maze/Long Kesh stadium so I expect you to try and ridicule the PWC report,
Correct
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
even if you haven't managed to do it very successfully on this thread so far.
That's probably because I haven't discussed the PWC figures on this thread (as I repeat for the sixth time)
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
Now, if (and that's a very big if) the case doesn't stack up when the land is coming for free then it's hardly likely to stack up anywhere else.
You're ignoring several issues, namely the cost of infrastructure (at least £120 million for the Maze and unknown for other sites), the cost of the land at the Maze (how the fcuk can millions of pounds worth of land be deemed free, just to make the figures add up?), the fact that a 20-25K stadium will cost considerably less than a 38K one, the option of upgrading existing facilities etc.
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
Besides, the GAA have already said that none of the other sites are suitable for our games.
And I repeat again I couldn't care less where the GAA build their stadium, my interest is only in the NI football team (and to a lesser extenet Ulster Rugby)
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
So what you are left with is the zero sum game of the DUP vetoing the Maze and SF vetoing any other venue.
Firstly the DUP can't veto anything, it will be down to the executive to look at the figures and decide and secondly what grounds would SF have for vetoing a football stadium, provided the figures add up?
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
You don't get a stadium and we go ahead and plough our own furrow. The only loser I see here is the IFA and their supporters.
Only if you accept your zero-sum blackmail.
Brian feeney in today's Irish news.
Symbolism at heart of DUP stadium turnaround Brian Feeney
By Brian Feeney
12/03/08
The signals that the DUP has got cold feet about a sports stadium at the Maze are evidence of a wider malaise in unionism.
When Peter Robinson finally turns down the plans for the stadium you'll hear lots of talk about 'the business case' and where to find £240 million and 'revenues consequences' and other gobbledegook.
The real reason the DUP will turn down the stadium is symbolism.
It's not just the concerns about a conflict transformation centre in the complex, which will certainly incorporate memorials to republican hunger strikers.
It's also the prospect of sharing the place with the GAA, the fact that the stadium will be used regularly on Sundays, that tricolours will be flown and the Soldier's Song played.
Unionists want what they call a 'national' stadium, though of what nation they can't say, but more importantly one that they own. They can't own one if they have to share it with fenians prancing about in it.
That's why you hear talk now of Windsor Park and the Blanchflower stadium in east Belfast. They know there's no danger of the GAA buying into either venue or of fenians patronising such venues.
Symbolism is why the DUP were delighted to have the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL), just as the UUP in 2000 were prepared to hand Sinn Fein health and education rather than let them get their hands on DCAL.
If you've ever thought about it, you may have wondered why the DUP wanted such a department.
After all, the DUP is to culture, arts and leisure what the Netherlands is to mountain climbing.
Well, that isn't strictly true because you can't do mountain-climbing in the Netherlands even if you wanted to. In the case of the DUP they are notoriously agin culture, arts and leisure. Even if they could engage in such pursuits they wouldn't.
You never know what they might lead to.
To paraphrase Doctor Johnson, a DUP minister, "culture is like a dog walking on its hinder legs. It is not done well but you are surprised to find it done at all".
It's an inherent absurdity.
It's reminiscent of the American satirist Tom Lehrer who decided he could no longer perform after Henry Kissinger won the Nobel peace prize in 1973. "That day," Lehrer said, "satire died."
Why were the DUP so keen to get DCAL? Simple.
To stop fenians gaelicising culture, arts and leisure, that's why.
The DUP wants to continue the well-worn unionist pastime of trying to abolish or conceal any manifestation of Irishness.
That's what lies behind the daft nonsense going on in Banbridge and Limavady about saucers and mugs.
There's a simple way for unionists to avoid these silly confrontations and that is for unionists to accept equal prominence for nationalist symbols.
Ideally, somewhere in the shimmering Shangri-La there will be a day when both the union jack and tricolour fly over the town halls in Banbridge and Limavady and at Stormont too.
It won't be any time soon. Unionists refuse to countenance any Irish symbolism full stop, even though in some cases they aren't aware that some of their own cherished symbols are Irish.
If they did accept equal prominence for Irish symbolism there would be no reason to remove unionist kitsch from town halls. It could happily sit alongside Irish kitsch. They won't however, so the result is no symbols of either side are permitted.
Unionists whinge on about republicans removing every unionist article from public buildings, denying unionist identity and so on. Yet no-one can get it into their bone heads that it is precisely because they refuse to recognise the existence of the other side's symbols that they can't have their own.
The agreement that Ian Paisley signed up to prevents them from owning anything exclusively any more, from the Office of First Minister down to a display cabinet in Ballygobackwards town hall.
If they turn down the Maze stadium Sinn Fein will veto any other location. The same principle applies as to saucers.
If they want to call some place their 'national' stadium then they have to recognise there's another legitimate view of the world.
If they won't, then they get nothing.
And the Editoral in the same 'paper'.
Maze investment too shaky a bet
Pro Fide et Patria
Editorial
12/03/08
IF a new stadium was ever to be built at the Maze, it needed the unequivocal support of our main sporting bodies, a range of political parties and, perhaps most importantly, the ordinary ticket-buying supporters.
While the project did not lack ambition, and in other circumstances might even have symbolised the new era which has emerged in Northern Ireland, the consensus which it required has simply failed to materialise.
Sports officials offered a general en-dorsement of the proposals, without ever displaying firm enthusiasm for the wider concepts which were involved.
GAA and rugby followers appeared at best apathetic about the prospect of heading to the new complex, while soccer fans made it abundantly clear that they were fund-amentally opposed to the entire scheme.
The final straw could well have arrived through a split in the DUP, which may have been subject of half-hearted denials but is plainly waiting to make its presence felt.
It remains to be seen whether a different location can be seriously considered or if the upgrading of existing venues is the only real option.
However, investing at least £240 million at the Maze, against a background of growing uncertainties, looks like a gamble which will be very difficult to justify.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
Now, if (and that's a very big if) the case doesn't stack up when the land is coming for free then it's hardly likely to stack up anywhere else.
You're ignoring several issues, namely the cost of infrastructure (at least £120 million for the Maze and unknown for other sites), the cost of the land at the Maze (how the fcuk can millions of pounds worth of land be deemed free, just to make the figures add up?), the fact that a 20-25K stadium will cost considerably less than a 38K one, the option of upgrading existing facilities etc.
Sammy, as per the Belfast Telegraph's editorial today, unless you get a site in Belfast for free, the Belfast option can't be cheaper than the Maze.
If BCC try to gift soccer and rugby a site, but not one to the GAA, I can't imagine any self respecting nationalist party backing the proposal.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 01:41:50 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
Besides, the GAA have already said that none of the other sites are suitable for our games.
And I repeat again I couldn't care less where the GAA build their stadium, my interest is only in the NI football team (and to a lesser extenet Ulster Rugby)
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
So what you are left with is the zero sum game of the DUP vetoing the Maze and SF vetoing any other venue.
Firstly the DUP can't veto anything, it will be down to the executive to look at the figures and decide and secondly what grounds would SF have for vetoing a football stadium, provided the figures add up?
eh?.... I'd imagine that SF would have more than a passing interest in the fair allocation of resources to all sports, not a lop-sided allocation to the lesser supported NI soccer team.
In fact they ahve already shown an interest in the unfair allocation of resources at council level: Sports Council statistics show that out of 662 council-owned pitches; just 59 are set aside for Gaelic games
http://www.ballymoneytimes.co.uk/news/GIVE-GAA-ITS-FAIR-SHARE.1380045.jp
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 01:41:50 PM
Firstly the DUP can't veto anything, it will be down to the executive to look at the figures and decide and secondly what grounds would SF have for vetoing a football stadium, provided the figures add up?
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 01:20:14 PM
You don't get a stadium and we go ahead and plough our own furrow. The only loser I see here is the IFA and their supporters.
Only if you accept your zero-sum blackmail.
The DUP have already taken the decision to veto Long Kesh - I'm sure you must have heard, they're jumping for joy over on OWC - before anyone has analysed the figures. So it's quite obvious that it's not the figures they have a problem with but sharing a stadium with the GAA. Call it blackmail if you like but the DUP can't expect to veto every nationalist request, insulting us as they do it, and then expect to get their pet projects like this and the 11 council model in the RPA.
I reckon Feeney hit the nail on the head there.
Its the symbolism of the Maze and the prospect of sharing with the GAA that they really cant stomach.
All other arguments they have come up with are because of these factors.
Lets be honest, if they were planning a shared stadium in Belfast with a memorial to republicans on site and the other option was a stadium somewhere like the maze, without the history, they would be coming up with arguments against the Belfast site.
Of this I am sure.
It would be interesting to see the costing for a Belfast soccer stadium
Planning issues
design
land value
Site clearance
Construction
Infrastructure
Water supply and exit
electricity
sewage
parking
All for an anchor tenant Glentoran who will pay some rent
and 3 or 4 soccer internationals a year.
It would be interesting if the shinners agreed to park the memorial centre idea for a year or two, eg hand the issue over to some commission or somthing.
It could be argued that the shinners are exerting a veto of their own by insisting that the centre get built.
After all, if
1. the UK govt has donated the site
2. the UK govt agrees to fund the stadium
3. all three sports bodies are united in wanting the stadium,
then why shuld the shinners and dup exert any sort of veto over the issue?
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 02:08:44 PM
It would be interesting if the shinners agreed to park the memorial centre idea for a year or two, eg hand the issue over to some commission or somthing.
It could be argued that the shinners are exerting a veto of their own by insisting that the centre get built.
After all, if
1. the UK govt has donated the site
2. the UK govt agrees to fund the stadium
3. all three sports bodies are united in wanting the stadium,
then why shuld the shinners and dup exert any sort of veto over the issue?
I really can't understand why you are still persisting with this. The CRC has nothing to do with the DUP vetoing the site. As Fenney has said in the article above, they don't want to share with the GAA e.g. Maurice Morrow and Nigel Dodds comments on the GAA Monday and yesterday. SF said in the Assembly yesterday they would veto the East Belfast venue because of the insulting and triumphalist way the DUP have wielded their veto so far in terms of the Irish Language Act, devolution of P&J and now the Long Kesh stadium. If they insist in playing that game, then the nationalist electorate will expect SF to respond in kind. As I said before, we have no real need for the new stadium but the soccer people have and because of the DUP, they will not get it.
Quote from: Donagh on March 12, 2008, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 02:08:44 PM
It would be interesting if the shinners agreed to park the memorial centre idea for a year or two, eg hand the issue over to some commission or somthing.
It could be argued that the shinners are exerting a veto of their own by insisting that the centre get built.
After all, if
1. the UK govt has donated the site
2. the UK govt agrees to fund the stadium
3. all three sports bodies are united in wanting the stadium,
then why shuld the shinners and dup exert any sort of veto over the issue?
I really can't understand why you are still persisting with this. The CRC has nothing to do with the DUP vetoing the site. As Fenney has said in the article above, they don't want to share with the GAA e.g. Maurice Morrow and Nigel Dodds comments on the GAA Monday and yesterday. SF said in the Assembly yesterday they would veto the East Belfast venue because of the insulting and triumphalist way the DUP have wielded their veto so far in terms of the Irish Language Act, devolution of P&J and now the Long Kesh stadium. If they insist in playing that game, then the nationalist electorate will expect SF to respond in kind. As I said before, we have no real need for the new stadium but the soccer people have and because of the DUP, they will not get it.
I'd say that just becasue the DUP aren't flexible on this doesn't mean that you have to be as well.
If you show some flexibility, you might find one or two unionists might reconsider.
I don't doubt that for some unionists, the CRC is the real and only obstacle.
Remove it, and you will be seen as having done al you can to facilitate any chance of us using a new maze stadium.
It all seems a bit mad to me that all 3 sports bodies can agree on the stadium - so why not push ahead with it regardless of all the vetos, political noise, posturing, etc.
btw, what did Maurice Morrow and Nigel Dodds say about the GAA?
If this stadium is built, within 1 month of it being opened the IIFA will be falling over themselves to give Linfield the birdie and to play GSTQ in it. Imagine a national stadium in NI where the only anthems ringing out at sporting events are Amhran Na bhfiann and Irelands Call. If i was a unionist Id be shitting chocolate oranges over that one, and Id be writing no later than tomnorrow to the IFA demanding they move out of the garage they call home and stop underselling my national pride and national team.
Then again Im a gael in the Gale.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Match 1 was at Croker.
Match 2 (the repplay) was a capacity crowd at Clones.
The combined attendance of both matches was 93000.
Two 42k capacities would give a combined 84000 attendances, which isn't that far from what we got.
In combining the first two match attendances, you are employing bizarre, almost laughable "logic". For Match 1 (Armagh v Tyrone), nearly 20k spectators would be locked out of the Maze. This would be in return for allowing a maximum of an extra 10k specatators at Match 2 (the replay) by playing that at the Maze instead of Clones. Note that it is not certain that Match 2 would have attracted this extra 11k, that the GAA would have had to pay two sets of rent, plus VAT, for the use of the Maze, plus the fact that the 42k fans accommodated in the Maze for Match 1. might have preferred to travel to Croke for a day out.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
It is notable that Croekr is now generally unavailable for Ulster matches - especially after we generously allowed soccer and rugby to camp there.
If the same two matches were played now, we would have a forced combined attendance of 64000.
If anything, these two matches underline just how much we could do with the Maze!
It is the GAA's choice to rent Croke out to the IRFU and FAI. They are perfectly entitled to withhold use of the stadium should soccer or rugby matches conflict with their own needs (indeed they have, come to think of it, since ROI are playing a "home" match vs Colombia in London in May). Or are you seriously saying the GAA couldn't find a date for an Ulster Final between Armagh and Tyrone at Croke because of a soccer or rugby match taking priority? :D
Anyhow, the present use of Croke by FAI/IRFU is only temporary (2-3 years?). Whereas the Maze will have to last for the next 50-odd years.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Matches 15 & 16 would almost certainly continue to be played in Croker as thye are the AISF and AIF.
And? How does that help your case for the Maze?
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
The crowds for the remaining 12 matches varied from 10,500 to 32,187 (plus the anomaly of the 3,865 Cavan/Antrim replay), which equals an average of 20,632. Clearly, with 42k GAA places, the Maze would be too big.
Not so, again some of these attendances were constrained by capacity.
I can't recall offhand exactly which ones, but my guess is that a fair few were played at Omagh (capacity back then of 20 something thousand?).
Your logic is again awry. Matches which achieved attendances of 30k+ cannot have been played at Healy Park. Which means, if HP's capacity was 20k+, that Matches 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were not sold out, even in a small-to-medium sized stadium. Therefore, why would they need 42k for games attracting, say, 18k in a stadium holding greater than that? Which again demonstrates how
your figures show that of 16 or 18 major Ulster games p.a., most only require a small-medium venue, but some require a v.large venue (CP), leaving only a handful requiring a medium-large venue like the Maze. And for those, Clones is available.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Have you read my earlier post - the one in which the GAA itself establishes that it does indeed need a 40k + stadium in Ulster?
Did you read within the same post that UCC economists have independently verified the attendance assumptions and costings?
Did you notice that the attendance figures used in the justification were from the early 1990's?
Championshiop attendances have actually gone up markedly since then.
There is a difference between "need" and "want" - especially when Govt money for the former is not forthcoming, but is for the latter, indeed "free" of charge! Ideally, I might "need" an expensive cashmere coat for the occasional severe storm like today's, but I can't afford one. However, if someone offers me a Duffle Coat for nothing, I'm hardly going to say no, especially when it will prove perfectly serviceable 90% of the time!
As for the UCC economists, there have been other, equally independent analysts (e.g. NITB, UU) whgo have rubbished the case for the Maze. You pays your
economists money, you take your choice...
As for attendance figures, I have used those from 2005, as supplied by you.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
If the GAA itself and independent economists both agree that it does need, and can afford to build a 40k capaity stadium in Ulster, what makes you feel qualified to say that they don't?
THE NEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
THE MAZE MEETS THAT NEED.
IF ITS BUILT, THE GAA WILL HEAVILY USE IT. FULL STOP.
The GAA has not "established" an unanswerable case for anything. Rather, they have asserted why they would accept the Maze. As others here have pointed out, at least part of their motivation is likely that they don't want to be seen to be so ungrateful as to say "No" to a "sharted space" venture which is being supplied for free. And for all the Reports and Statements etc from them, can you discern any real enthusiasm? For instance, why weren't they jumping up and down at the delays which have been experienced up to now, never mind since the weekend's rumours that the stadium may be scrapped?
And I would repeat, out of those 2005 games, when you exclude those where the Maze is too small (Croke) and then those where the Maze is too big (the 18k games etc), how many does that leave in between?
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
Remember, too, that the GAA would have to pay rent to HMG, plus VAT (avoided at Clones) and also see all their many existing Ulster stadia sit empty, whilst showpiece games were played on someone elses property.
The GAA certainly aren't in the business of making major decisions on ill-costed grounds.
It will alerady have satisfied itself that it makes financial sense to use the Maze.
Its pretty obvious (even to an untrained accountant like SammyG) that renting the MAze at pretty low rental rates is far batter than having to sink 10's of millions of our own money into a lesser standard stadium of our own.
When it comes to moeny, the GAA are cute hoors.
My whole point is that if the Maze were scrapped, even a fraction of the money saved could be substituted for the GAA's own money, which presently needs to spent on the County Grounds etc.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
Maybe I'm missing something (on my second point, at least), but surely to goodness a significant cash injection from the money saved by scrapping the Maze could be better used by the GAA - e.g. cover, toilets, facilities etc at Casement, Healy Park etc?
You are missing something - if you guys are sitting in an all seated, all covered stadium, tailored to your attendance needs, then we wnat the same.
We won't be satisfied with anything less.
Better toilets just won't do.
It seems to me that one of the reasons why facilities are so poor at so many GAA grounds is because of the GAA's policy of building so many relatively large, but somewhat under-utilised ground throughout the country. Inevitably, the push for size and numbers has diluted the money to ensure high standards. Whereas, had they instead concentrated on mostly smaller, well-appointed grounds (10k capacity, with seating and cover etc) for most counties, but one or two larger regional grounds* in each Province, these latter could also have been to a better standard. (And before you go off on one about me telling the GAA how to run its business, this is an argument I've gleaned from this Board!)
But I return to my central point that a fair share of the £240m+ which could be saved by scrapping the Maze would go a hell of a long way towards improving existing GAA grounds, grounds which inevitably will be used even less should the Maze get built. And if they are being used less, what incentive will there be to improve them over and above the minimum necessary?
* - Speaking of which, you have kept rather quiet about Monaghan's plans both to enlarge and improve Clones. What will you say if the Maze is built and Monaghan go ahead anyhow, as they've claimed they will?
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Croppies lie down no longer mate.
At no time in this debate with you have I used offensive or perjorative terms like this, nor have I ever. Such snidey remarks only demean your argument. Indeed they actually say a great deal more about you than they do about me.
Ive read that the maze stadium has already cost £10m in consultancy and other fees already. My sources arent 100% reliable but thats the figure being tossed about. still a long way of the Bertie bowl.
10m? That´s just the hello money.
What´s in the IFA coffers?
Who is going to help them design a new plan?
The samaritans?
well as I said I have not read an official statement quoting that figure so I wouldnt put too much weight behind it yet but we all know how expensive "consultancy" can be. I dont know who's pocket that £10m came from.
This is the reason I don't want to share a national stadium with the GAA-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sliabh/388905221/
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable. Now scurry away off with your conspiracy theories.
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable. Now scurry away off with your conspiracy theories.
:D :D :D
Any poxy excuse they can think of bar admit the real reason
:D :D :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 12, 2008, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable. Now scurry away off with your conspiracy theories.
:D :D :D
Any poxy excuse they can think of bar admit the real reason
:D :D :D
I am surmising you have never been at a sporting event then?
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 12, 2008, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable. Now scurry away off with your conspiracy theories.
:D :D :D
Any poxy excuse they can think of bar admit the real reason
:D :D :D
So what is the 'real reason', as you seem to think the dozens of reasons that you've ben given aren't 'real'?
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 12, 2008, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable. Now scurry away off with your conspiracy theories.
:D :D :D
Any poxy excuse they can think of bar admit the real reason
:D :D :D
I am surmising you have never been at a sporting event then?
You surmise wrong.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 05:24:47 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 12, 2008, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable. Now scurry away off with your conspiracy theories.
:D :D :D
Any poxy excuse they can think of bar admit the real reason
:D :D :D
So what is the 'real reason', as you seem to think the dozens of reasons that you've ben given aren't 'real'?
Do try to keep up Sammy, I've already given the real reason, in agreement with Mr Feeneys article.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 12, 2008, 05:34:04 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 05:24:47 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 12, 2008, 05:20:03 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable. Now scurry away off with your conspiracy theories.
:D :D :D
Any poxy excuse they can think of bar admit the real reason
:D :D :D
So what is the 'real reason', as you seem to think the dozens of reasons that you've ben given aren't 'real'?
Do try to keep up Sammy, I've already given the real reason, in agreement with Mr Feeneys article.
Sorry I had to do some work, this afternoon (or at least pretend to) and I can't be arsed going back through the thread, so humour me and tell me again.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 03:31:46 PM
It is the GAA's choice to rent Croke out to the IRFU and FAI. They are perfectly entitled to withhold use of the stadium should soccer or rugby matches conflict with their own needs (indeed they have, come to think of it, since ROI are playing a "home" match vs Colombia in London in May). Or are you seriously saying the GAA couldn't find a date for an Ulster Final between Armagh and Tyrone at Croke because of a soccer or rugby match taking priority? :D
EG,
As an aside (I'm sure at 45 pages in length this thread has seen the odd digression), many within the GAA do feel that soccer and rugby needs have been prioritised over those in the GAA. Central Council have banned club teams playing on March 17th from having a familiarising/training session prior to the finals. This courtesy was afforded to all rugby teams playing this year. Similarily, no league finals or schools finals are allowed this year as the pitch has to recover from the rugby matches.
I would not dare suggest that Central Council would move a flagship game from Croker but there is no doubt that ordinary GAA-folk are losing out on access to our primary venue. I was at our County Convention late last year and this was a huge issue (due to a number of teams losing out on the dream of playing in Croke)r. 2 years ago these people were shouted down as backwoods men and naysayers but not anymore. The "good neighbours" and "national interest" arguments are losing ground as Central Council do exactly as you suggest they'd never do!
If the Rule 42 vote was to be held again tomorrow I suspect it wouldn't be as clear-cut a result at all.
/Jim.
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
This is the reason I don't want to share a national stadium with the GAA-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sliabh/388905221/
People at either end - Kop stands if you like will have a shite view. A GAA pitch is way too long to play football on, making the whole idea unfeasable.
It's the biggest reason and the biggest fear.
There is a difference between a 40k stadium and an 80k stadium
I have noted that the soccer fans don't complain so much when the atmosphere and the game is good (that one time).
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/182/388905218_f53d6f5c9a.jpg?v=0)
I don't think the IFA have any financial clout, I think they would be bankrupted if they even had to commission a study, a design. This time you might have to listen to Howard Wells, when he says the IFA don't have any money.
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
This is the reason I don't want to share a national stadium with the GAA-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sliabh/388905221/
isnt there alot of soccer/football pitches with running tracks around them, surely it has the same effect. i remember old wembley's stands are far from the pitch. especially at the goal ends. would temporary extended seating work. A fair few stadia in USA have removable stands as they cater for both baseball and gridiron. Sure didnt the Arizona pitch roll in and out of the stadium on wheels. i know thats not useful here due to space constraints but just goes to show that almost anything is possible theses days,
Quote from: thejuice on March 12, 2008, 08:36:44 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on March 12, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
This is the reason I don't want to share a national stadium with the GAA-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sliabh/388905221/
isnt there alot of soccer/football pitches with running tracks around them, surely it has the same effect. i remember old wembley's stands are far from the pitch. especially at the goal ends. would temporary extended seating work. A fair few stadia in USA have removable stands as they cater for both baseball and gridiron. Sure didnt the Arizona pitch roll in and out of the stadium on wheels. i know thats not useful here due to space constraints but just goes to show that almost anything is possible theses days,
Absolutely fantastic stadium,73000 seats, retractable roof, retractable pitch, even air-conditioning!!! and all built for about the same as the estimates for the Maze.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Match 1 was at Croker.
Match 2 (the repplay) was a capacity crowd at Clones.
The combined attendance of both matches was 93000.
Two 42k capacities would give a combined 84000 attendances, which isn't that far from what we got.
In combining the first two match attendances, you are employing bizarre, almost laughable "logic". For Match 1 (Armagh v Tyrone), nearly 20k spectators would be locked out of the Maze. This would be in return for allowing a maximum of an extra 10k specatators at Match 2 (the replay) by playing that at the Maze instead of Clones. Note that it is not certain that Match 2 would have attracted this extra 11k, that the GAA would have had to pay two sets of rent, plus VAT, for the use of the Maze, plus the fact that the 42k fans accommodated in the Maze for Match 1. might have preferred to travel to Croke for a day out.
Evil,
I've just checked my figures - the second match was actually at Croker, on a Saturday.
The low attendance was explained by the fact that it was a Saturday and that people didn't have enough time/lacked the inclination to organise a second trip to Dublin within six days.
I'd say that a fair proportion of those who stayed at home for the replay might have been inclined to take the much shorter trip up the M1 to the Maze.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 08:57:03 PM
Absolutely fantastic stadium,73000 seats, retractable roof, retractable pitch, even air-conditioning!!! and all built for about the same as the estimates for the Maze.
:o were ever you there?
it cost $455 million (£224m) ( €292m )
63,400 permanent seats (can be expanded to 73,719)
Of course the snag being, in our case, extended seats would be used for IFA & IRFU games, and removed for GAA games when its likely that the larger capacity would be required for GAA games.
So close.....yet so far, Ted :P
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
It is notable that Croekr is now generally unavailable for Ulster matches - especially after we generously allowed soccer and rugby to camp there.
If the same two matches were played now, we would have a forced combined attendance of 64000.
If anything, these two matches underline just how much we could do with the Maze!
It is the GAA's choice to rent Croke out to the IRFU and FAI. They are perfectly entitled to withhold use of the stadium should soccer or rugby matches conflict with their own needs (indeed they have, come to think of it, since ROI are playing a "home" match vs Colombia in London in May). Or are you seriously saying the GAA couldn't find a date for an Ulster Final between Armagh and Tyrone at Croke because of a soccer or rugby match taking priority? :D
Anyhow, the present use of Croke by FAI/IRFU is only temporary (2-3 years?). Whereas the Maze will have to last for the next 50-odd years.
Evil,
You may scoff and disbelieve, but the truth is that Croker has been removed as an option for Ulster championship matches.
If you don't believe me, maybe you would believe the GAA, or BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/northern_ireland/gaelic_games/6359015.stm
Croke ruled out for Ulster finalCroke Park has successfully hosted the last three Ulster finals
This year's Ulster senior football final will not be held in Croke Park.
GAA's headquarters has hosted the last three deciders but the 2006
Leinster final has been scheduled for the same day as the Ulster
showpiece - 15 July.
This means that the Ulster final is set to return to Clones, which has a
capacity of just over 30,000.
"It's beyond our control. The decison was taken by Congress to alleviate
national fixture congestion," said Ulster PRO Martin Martin McAvinney.
The Ulster Council Annual Report states that "due to the changes invoked
by the Special Congress the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".The move to Croke Park from Clones in 2004 was a controversial decision
but each Ulster final has been hailed as a success.
The Dublin stadium's superior capacity of 82,000 was the reason for the
move south.
The Ulster Council Annual Convention will take place in Toome on 24
February.
The convention will see Michael Greenan step down as Ulster Council
President after three years in the post - his successor is Donegal man
Tom Daly.
The council will also reaffirm its commitment to a possible new national
stadium for Northern Ireland.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:25:04 PMGAA's headquarters has hosted the last three deciders but the 2006
Leinster final has been scheduled for the same day as the Ulster
showpiece - 15 July.
This means that the Ulster final is set to return to Clones, which has a
capacity of just over 30,000.
It doesn't mention football/rugby, it was double booked because the Leinster final was on the same day. ::) Also I'm not sure how it would be a problem as neither football or rugby matches are played on the 15th of July.
Quote from: thejuice on March 12, 2008, 09:22:41 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 08:57:03 PM
Absolutely fantastic stadium,73000 seats, retractable roof, retractable pitch, even air-conditioning!!! and all built for about the same as the estimates for the Maze.
:o were ever you there?
Not yet, hoping to visit the next time I'm in the states
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 10:43:38 AM
The crowds for the remaining 12 matches varied from 10,500 to 32,187 (plus the anomaly of the 3,865 Cavan/Antrim replay), which equals an average of 20,632. Clearly, with 42k GAA places, the Maze would be too big.
Not so, again some of these attendances were constrained by capacity.
I can't recall offhand exactly which ones, but my guess is that a fair few were played at Omagh (capacity back then of 20 something thousand?).
Your logic is again awry. Matches which achieved attendances of 30k+ cannot have been played at Healy Park. Which means, if HP's capacity was 20k+, that Matches 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were not sold out, even in a small-to-medium sized stadium. Therefore, why would they need 42k for games attracting, say, 18k in a stadium holding greater than that? Which again demonstrates how your figures show that of 16 or 18 major Ulster games p.a., most only require a small-medium venue, but some require a v.large venue (CP), leaving only a handful requiring a medium-large venue like the Maze. And for those, Clones is available.
No gap in my or the GAA's logic. We'll easily make use of any shared stadium.
The GAA has committed to putting a minimum of 150000 bums on seats per year (versus an IFA commitment of 80k, and IRFU commitment of 40k).
My guess is that would include
- the Ulster final 42k?
- two semi finals 2 * 32k?
- one/two AI quarter final (1/2) * 42k?
- one biannual aussie rules match
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:25:04 PMGAA's headquarters has hosted the last three deciders but the 2006
Leinster final has been scheduled for the same day as the Ulster
showpiece - 15 July.
This means that the Ulster final is set to return to Clones, which has a
capacity of just over 30,000.
It doesn't mention football/rugby, it was double booked because the Leinster final was on the same day. ::) Also I'm not sure how it would be a problem as neither football or rugby matches are played on the 15th of July.
Sammy,
the important bit was helpfully highlighted in red.
Here, I'll make it bigger and put in orange on black background.
That might make it easier for to read when you're wearing your OWC goggles.
"It's beyond our control. The decison was taken by Congress to alleviate
national fixture congestion," said Ulster PRO Martin Martin McAvinney.
The Ulster Council Annual Report states that "due to the changes invoked
by the Special Congress the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:51:31 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:25:04 PMGAA's headquarters has hosted the last three deciders but the 2006
Leinster final has been scheduled for the same day as the Ulster
showpiece - 15 July.
This means that the Ulster final is set to return to Clones, which has a
capacity of just over 30,000.
It doesn't mention football/rugby, it was double booked because the Leinster final was on the same day. ::) Also I'm not sure how it would be a problem as neither football or rugby matches are played on the 15th of July.
Sammy,
the important bit was helpfully highlighted in red.
Here, I'll make it bigger and put in orange on black background.
That might make it easier for to read when you're wearing your OWC goggles.
"It's beyond our control. The decison was taken by Congress to alleviate
national fixture congestion," said Ulster PRO Martin Martin McAvinney.
The Ulster Council Annual Report states that "due to the changes invoked
by the Special Congress the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
Highlighting them doesn't make them any more true. I repeat football and rugby don't play on the 15th of July, the clash was with the Leinster final (which presumably the GAA decided was more important).
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 12, 2008, 03:31:46 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
Have you read my earlier post - the one in which the GAA itself establishes that it does indeed need a 40k + stadium in Ulster?
Did you read within the same post that UCC economists have independently verified the attendance assumptions and costings?
Did you notice that the attendance figures used in the justification were from the early 1990's?
Championshiop attendances have actually gone up markedly since then.
There is a difference between "need" and "want" - especially when Govt money for the former is not forthcoming, but is for the latter, indeed "free" of charge! Ideally, I might "need" an expensive cashmere coat for the occasional severe storm like today's, but I can't afford one. However, if someone offers me a Duffle Coat for nothing, I'm hardly going to say no, especially when it will prove perfectly serviceable 90% of the time!
As for the UCC economists, there have been other, equally independent analysts (e.g. NITB, UU) whgo have rubbished the case for the Maze. You pays your economists money, you take your choice...
As for attendance figures, I have used those from 2005, as supplied by you.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 11:41:00 AM
If the GAA itself and independent economists both agree that it does need, and can afford to build a 40k capaity stadium in Ulster, what makes you feel qualified to say that they don't?
THE NEED HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
THE MAZE MEETS THAT NEED.
IF ITS BUILT, THE GAA WILL HEAVILY USE IT. FULL STOP.
The GAA has not "established" an unanswerable case for anything. Rather, they have asserted why they would accept the Maze. As others here have pointed out, at least part of their motivation is likely that they don't want to be seen to be so ungrateful as to say "No" to a "sharted space" venture which is being supplied for free. And for all the Reports and Statements etc from them, can you discern any real enthusiasm? For instance, why weren't they jumping up and down at the delays which have been experienced up to now, never mind since the weekend's rumours that the stadium may be scrapped?
Evil,
you're totally missing the point.
The GAA's strategic report and the UCC's independent verification both came about BEFORE there was even the whiff of agreement on the Maze.
We haven't just dreamt up this 42k capacity because the stadium is free.
The report wan't just about Ulster either - it was setting a national spatial framework for stadium development.
The need for one new high quality was justified on the grounds of the GAA paying for it itself (admittedly an alien concept for NI fans to comprehend).
Of course, once the Maze proposals started to fly, we made sure that (as anchor tenants) that it matched our needs, as previously definedin section 8.4.3 of the SRR.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:53:29 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:51:31 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:25:04 PMGAA's headquarters has hosted the last three deciders but the 2006
Leinster final has been scheduled for the same day as the Ulster
showpiece - 15 July.
This means that the Ulster final is set to return to Clones, which has a
capacity of just over 30,000.
It doesn't mention football/rugby, it was double booked because the Leinster final was on the same day. ::) Also I'm not sure how it would be a problem as neither football or rugby matches are played on the 15th of July.
Sammy,
the important bit was helpfully highlighted in red.
Here, I'll make it bigger and put in orange on black background.
That might make it easier for to read when you're wearing your OWC goggles.
"It's beyond our control. The decison was taken by Congress to alleviate
national fixture congestion," said Ulster PRO Martin Martin McAvinney.
The Ulster Council Annual Report states that "due to the changes invoked
by the Special Congress the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
Highlighting them doesn't make them any more true. I repeat football and rugby don't play on the 15th of July, the clash was with the Leinster final (which presumably the GAA decided was more important).
Good grief, lets try again shall we.
When the Ulster Council have been told by the GAA that "the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us", they mean that "the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
ie, NO ULSTER CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES CAN NOW BE PLAYED THERE IN FUTURE.
Tonight's key word Sammy - FUTURE.
The Ulster Council weren't referring to a past one-off ban from Croker - they were referring to a FUTURE ban that has already been enacted by the GAA.
That's right - Croker is getting used too much and Ulster have been told to push off in future.
They will not be able to play Ulster championship games there in future.
In future they will not be able to play games there.
Is it sinking in yet?
Do you gettit?
You know - the future - the thing that most OWC'ers are diametrically opposed to when they hark back to the past, to a mythical age when they could just ignore the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, and pretend that it and its more numerous spectators didn't exist.
I thought the orange on black would have worked, christ this is hard work.
Gettit?
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:08:19 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:53:29 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:51:31 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:25:04 PMGAA's headquarters has hosted the last three deciders but the 2006
Leinster final has been scheduled for the same day as the Ulster
showpiece - 15 July.
This means that the Ulster final is set to return to Clones, which has a
capacity of just over 30,000.
It doesn't mention football/rugby, it was double booked because the Leinster final was on the same day. ::) Also I'm not sure how it would be a problem as neither football or rugby matches are played on the 15th of July.
Sammy,
the important bit was helpfully highlighted in red.
Here, I'll make it bigger and put in orange on black background.
That might make it easier for to read when you're wearing your OWC goggles.
"It's beyond our control. The decison was taken by Congress to alleviate
national fixture congestion," said Ulster PRO Martin Martin McAvinney.
The Ulster Council Annual Report states that "due to the changes invoked
by the Special Congress the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
Highlighting them doesn't make them any more true. I repeat football and rugby don't play on the 15th of July, the clash was with the Leinster final (which presumably the GAA decided was more important).
Good grief, lets try again shall we.
When the Ulster Council have been told by the GAA that "the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us", they mean that "the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
ie, NO ULSTER CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES CAN NOW BE PLAYED THERE IN FUTURE.
Tonight's key word Sammy - FUTURE.
The Ulster Council weren't referring to a past one-off ban from Croker - they were referring to a FUTURE ban that has already been enacted by the GAA.
That's right - Croker is getting used too much and Ulster have been told to push off in future.
They will not be able to play Ulster championship games there in future.
In future they will not be able to play games there.
Is it sinking in yet?
Do you gettit?
You know - the future - the thing that most OWC'ers are diametrically opposed to when they hark back to the past, to a mythical age when they could just ignore the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, and pretend that it and its more numerous specators doesn't exist.
I thought the orange on black would have worked, christ this is hard work.
Gettit?
Right let me get this straight. It's the IFA's fault that the GAA decided, that the Leinster final was more important than the Ulster final and therefore we should sign up to a stadiium, which is too big, too expensive, has no infrastructure and no way of getting to. Right OK got that, thanks for the clarification. ::)
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:26:28 PM
Historically the GAA community has not done well out of govt funding in Northern Ireland:
Fcuk me, after all this time the penny has finally dropped, you're on a wind-up. I've got to say congratulations, you had me, for a while but you just pushed it slightly to far.
GAA not getting enough funding, that's brilliant. ;D
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:12:30 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:08:19 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:53:29 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:51:31 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 09:41:13 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 09:25:04 PMGAA's headquarters has hosted the last three deciders but the 2006
Leinster final has been scheduled for the same day as the Ulster
showpiece - 15 July.
This means that the Ulster final is set to return to Clones, which has a
capacity of just over 30,000.
It doesn't mention football/rugby, it was double booked because the Leinster final was on the same day. ::) Also I'm not sure how it would be a problem as neither football or rugby matches are played on the 15th of July.
Sammy,
the important bit was helpfully highlighted in red.
Here, I'll make it bigger and put in orange on black background.
That might make it easier for to read when you're wearing your OWC goggles.
"It's beyond our control. The decison was taken by Congress to alleviate
national fixture congestion," said Ulster PRO Martin Martin McAvinney.
The Ulster Council Annual Report states that "due to the changes invoked
by the Special Congress the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
Highlighting them doesn't make them any more true. I repeat football and rugby don't play on the 15th of July, the clash was with the Leinster final (which presumably the GAA decided was more important).
Good grief, lets try again shall we.
When the Ulster Council have been told by the GAA that "the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us", they mean that "the future use of our National Stadium has
effectively been removed from us".
ie, NO ULSTER CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES CAN NOW BE PLAYED THERE IN FUTURE.
Tonight's key word Sammy - FUTURE.
The Ulster Council weren't referring to a past one-off ban from Croker - they were referring to a FUTURE ban that has already been enacted by the GAA.
That's right - Croker is getting used too much and Ulster have been told to push off in future.
They will not be able to play Ulster championship games there in future.
In future they will not be able to play games there.
Is it sinking in yet?
Do you gettit?
You know - the future - the thing that most OWC'ers are diametrically opposed to when they hark back to the past, to a mythical age when they could just ignore the most attended sport in Northern Ireland, and pretend that it and its more numerous specators doesn't exist.
I thought the orange on black would have worked, christ this is hard work.
Gettit?
Right let me get this straight. It's the IFA's fault that the GAA decided, that the Leinster final was more important than the Ulster final and therefore we should sign up to a stadiium, which is too big, too expensive, has no infrastructure and no way of getting to. Right OK got that, thanks for the clarification. ::)
Mopery rant over?
Christ, this is supremely hard work.
On my computer, I was merely informing Evil Genius that he was mistaken in thinking that larger Ulster Championship matches could be played at Croke Park.
That's all, not blaming the IFA for the decision, or the bad weather, your paranoia, your delusions, or anything else.
I truly hope you understand.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:12:30 PM
Right let me get this straight. It's the IFA's fault that the GAA decided, that the Leinster final was more important than the Ulster final and therefore we should sign up to a stadiium, which is too big, too expensive, has no infrastructure and no way of getting to. Right OK got that, thanks for the clarification. ::)
Are you having another episode already?
Just when I thought you couldn't possibly post anything as stupid as earlier today, you come up with this gem.
It's a ribtickler.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:32:05 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:26:28 PM
Historically the GAA community has not done well out of govt funding in Northern Ireland:
Fcuk me, after all this time the penny has finally dropped, you're on a wind-up. I've got to say congratulations, you had me, for a while but you just pushed it slightly to far.
GAA not getting enough funding, that's brilliant. ;D
What?
Sports Council statistics show that out of 662 council-owned pitches; just 59 are set aside for Gaelic games. Fact.
I suppose under OWC accountancy rules, that sounds like a fair allocation to the GAA?
Quote from: Main Street on March 12, 2008, 10:34:12 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:12:30 PM
Right let me get this straight. It's the IFA's fault that the GAA decided, that the Leinster final was more important than the Ulster final and therefore we should sign up to a stadiium, which is too big, too expensive, has no infrastructure and no way of getting to. Right OK got that, thanks for the clarification. ::)
Are you having another episode already?
Just when I thought you couldn't possibly post anything as stupid as earlier today, you come up with this gem.
It's a ribtickler.
Glad you enjoyed it, and good to see that your irony bypass was a complet success.
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:32:05 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:26:28 PM
Historically the GAA community has not done well out of govt funding in Northern Ireland:
Fcuk me, after all this time the penny has finally dropped, you're on a wind-up. I've got to say congratulations, you had me, for a while but you just pushed it slightly to far.
GAA not getting enough funding, that's brilliant. ;D
What?
Sports Council statistics show that out of 662 council-owned pitches; just 59 are set aside for Gaelic games. Fact.
I suppose under OWC accountancy rules, that sounds like a fair allocation to the GAA?
What have council pitches got to do with anything? You were talking about funding or have you realised you were talking shite and decided to change the subject.
p.s. How many of the publically funded GAA grounds are available to other sports?
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:38:17 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:32:05 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:26:28 PM
Historically the GAA community has not done well out of govt funding in Northern Ireland:
Fcuk me, after all this time the penny has finally dropped, you're on a wind-up. I've got to say congratulations, you had me, for a while but you just pushed it slightly to far.
GAA not getting enough funding, that's brilliant. ;D
What?
Sports Council statistics show that out of 662 council-owned pitches; just 59 are set aside for Gaelic games. Fact.
I suppose under OWC accountancy rules, that sounds like a fair allocation to the GAA?
What have council pitches got to do with anything? You were talking about funding or have you realised you were talking shite and decided to change the subject.
p.s. How many of the publically funded GAA grounds are available to other sports?
I was highlighting past unfairness in public sports provision in Norther Ireland, and the commitment of GAA followers to ensure that such unfairness in public sports funding doesn't recurr.
Pretty easy to do with stark figures like that.
59 out of 662 pitches?
Thats a shameful imbalance if you ask me.
Do you not agree?
As for no of GAA grounds open for other sports?
None. And rightly so.
We paid for them after all.
They're ours to do with as we see fit.
Its a privilege you get through ownership, a privilege gained by hard fundraising, sacrifice and effort.
As opposed to publicly funded sports facilities, the provision of which should broadly reflect public need, but markedly fail to do so in Northern Ireland.
Good article on this subject from Brian Feeney in Irish News yesterday. Basically he explained that unionist opposition to the Long Kesh stadium stems from an aversion to sharing anything with fenians and by implication he rightly asserted that the IFA was sectarian and monocultural. This message though hardly needed to be spelt out to most people in the six counties who know they way things were, are and ever will be up here
Load of balls tony.
I have no aversion to "sharing anything with fenians" but remain far from convinced the maze id the right option for NI football.
Stop your usual bigot bullshit.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2008, 10:36:09 AM
Good article on this subject from Brian Feeney in Irish News yesterday. Basically he explained that unionist opposition to the Long Kesh stadium stems from an aversion to sharing anything with fenians and by implication he rightly asserted that the IFA was sectarian and monocultural. This message though hardly needed to be spelt out to most people in the six counties who know they way things were, are and ever will be up here
The article was complete bollix (it's quoted a few pages back) and it was totallly contradicted by the Irish News editorial.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2008, 10:36:09 AM
Good article on this subject from Brian Feeney in Irish News yesterday. Basically he explained that unionist opposition to the Long Kesh stadium stems from an aversion to sharing anything with fenians and by implication he rightly asserted that the IFA was sectarian and monocultural. This message though hardly needed to be spelt out to most people in the six counties who know they way things were, are and ever will be up here
The article was complete bollix (it's quoted a few pages back) and it was totallly contradicted by the Irish News editorial.
Which was itself contradicted yesterday by none other than the GAA president:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/duffy-afraid--grant-row-could--provoke-rifts-1314984.html
QuoteMeanwhile, GAA president Nickey Brennan has said he is still very much behind the notion of building a stadium on the site of the old Maze prison.
"We made out position clear on it and we embraced the idea when it came first," he said. "But it's up to the politicians now."
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 10:48:10 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2008, 10:36:09 AM
Good article on this subject from Brian Feeney in Irish News yesterday. Basically he explained that unionist opposition to the Long Kesh stadium stems from an aversion to sharing anything with fenians and by implication he rightly asserted that the IFA was sectarian and monocultural. This message though hardly needed to be spelt out to most people in the six counties who know they way things were, are and ever will be up here
The article was complete bollix (it's quoted a few pages back) and it was totallly contradicted by the Irish News editorial.
Which was itself contradicted yesterday by none other than the GAA president:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/duffy-afraid--grant-row-could--provoke-rifts-1314984.html
QuoteMeanwhile, GAA president Nickey Brennan has said he is still very much behind the notion of building a stadium on the site of the old Maze prison.
"We made out position clear on it and we embraced the idea when it came first," he said. "But it's up to the politicians now."
Sorry you've lost me, how is an IN editorial, which doesn't mention Brennan and which actually says that sports officials were on-board, contradicted by Brennan's quote?
Quote"Maze investment too shaky a bet"
"IF a new stadium was ever to be built at the Maze, it needed the unequivocal support of our main sporting bodies, a range of political parties and, perhaps most importantly, the ordinary ticket-buying supporters.
While the project did not lack ambition, and in other circumstances might even have symbolised the new era which has emerged in Northern Ireland, the consensus which it required has simply failed to materialise.
Sports officials offered a general endorsement of the proposals, without ever displaying firm enthusiasm for the wider concepts which were involved.
GAA and rugby followers appeared at best apathetic about the prospect of heading to the new complex, while soccer fans made it abundantly clear that they were fundamentally opposed to the entire scheme.
The final straw could well have arrived through a split in the DUP, which may have been subject of half-hearted denials but is plainly waiting to make its presence felt.
It remains to be seen whether a different location can be seriously considered or if the upgrading of existing venues is the only real option.
However, investing at least £240 million at the Maze, against a background of growing uncertainties, looks like a gamble which will be very difficult to justify"
Lads we spent 14+ hours and 6 pages debating this yesterday, surely even the lads in Stormount or Lisburn Council wouldnt be that bothered and wether or not its built will have no bearing on what any of us think.
First post: March 12, 2008, 08:11:50 AM
Last Post: March 12, 2008, 10:45:59 PM
I never said stop by the way. ;)
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 10:56:49 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 10:48:10 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 13, 2008, 10:36:09 AM
Good article on this subject from Brian Feeney in Irish News yesterday. Basically he explained that unionist opposition to the Long Kesh stadium stems from an aversion to sharing anything with fenians and by implication he rightly asserted that the IFA was sectarian and monocultural. This message though hardly needed to be spelt out to most people in the six counties who know they way things were, are and ever will be up here
The article was complete bollix (it's quoted a few pages back) and it was totallly contradicted by the Irish News editorial.
Which was itself contradicted yesterday by none other than the GAA president:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/duffy-afraid--grant-row-could--provoke-rifts-1314984.html
QuoteMeanwhile, GAA president Nickey Brennan has said he is still very much behind the notion of building a stadium on the site of the old Maze prison.
"We made out position clear on it and we embraced the idea when it came first," he said. "But it's up to the politicians now."
Sorry you've lost me, how is an IN editorial, which doesn't mention Brennan and which actually says that sports officials were on-board, contradicted by Brennan's quote?
Quote"Maze investment too shaky a bet"
"IF a new stadium was ever to be built at the Maze, it needed the unequivocal support of our main sporting bodies, a range of political parties and, perhaps most importantly, the ordinary ticket-buying supporters.
While the project did not lack ambition, and in other circumstances might even have symbolised the new era which has emerged in Northern Ireland, the consensus which it required has simply failed to materialise.
Sports officials offered a general endorsement of the proposals, without ever displaying firm enthusiasm for the wider concepts which were involved.
GAA and rugby followers appeared at best apathetic about the prospect of heading to the new complex, while soccer fans made it abundantly clear that they were fundamentally opposed to the entire scheme.
The final straw could well have arrived through a split in the DUP, which may have been subject of half-hearted denials but is plainly waiting to make its presence felt.
It remains to be seen whether a different location can be seriously considered or if the upgrading of existing venues is the only real option.
However, investing at least £240 million at the Maze, against a background of growing uncertainties, looks like a gamble which will be very difficult to justify"
The IN claimed the GAA were apatetic.
Brennan says they're not.
Simple really.
Do you want more big letters to make it easier for you?
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:27:31 AMThe IN claimed the GAA were apatetic.
Brennan says they're not.
Simple really.
Do you want more big letters to make it easier for you?
I think you might need your glasses checked, the IN said the supporters were apathetic (which is clearly true) but specifically says that the sports officials were on-board.
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:38:17 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:35:01 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 12, 2008, 10:32:05 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 12, 2008, 10:26:28 PM
Historically the GAA community has not done well out of govt funding in Northern Ireland:
Fcuk me, after all this time the penny has finally dropped, you're on a wind-up. I've got to say congratulations, you had me, for a while but you just pushed it slightly to far.
GAA not getting enough funding, that's brilliant. ;D
What?
Sports Council statistics show that out of 662 council-owned pitches; just 59 are set aside for Gaelic games. Fact.
I suppose under OWC accountancy rules, that sounds like a fair allocation to the GAA?
What have council pitches got to do with anything? You were talking about funding or have you realised you were talking shite and decided to change the subject.
p.s. How many of the publically funded GAA grounds are available to other sports?
59
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 11:31:13 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:27:31 AMThe IN claimed the GAA were apatetic.
Brennan says they're not.
Simple really.
Do you want more big letters to make it easier for you?
I think you might need your glasses checked, the IN said the supporters were apathetic (which is clearly true) but specifically says that the sports officials were on-board.
woops, for once you're right -they did say fans and not the GAA itself, which I'm sure you'd accept does wholeheartedly endorse the MAze proposals.
I'd disagree with what the IN are saying tho'.
Most GAA people I know would be keen to be onboard if a publicy funded stadium is to be built in NI.
We've long memories and want to make sure we get treated fairly.
It wouldn't be catastrophic for us if one wasn't built, in contrast to you guys, so we're generally less passionate about whether it gets built.
But to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
There's a clear distinction if you've the mental agility to see it.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:38:00 AMBut to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
Interesting I didn't know you were passionate about motorbike racing and also didn't know that it was included in the Maze proposals. Can you give me some details?
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:38:00 AMBut to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
Interesting I didn't know you were passionate about motorbike racing and also didn't know that it was included in the Maze proposals. Can you give me some details?
go on then, I'll indulge you in your diversionary tactic.
Tell me - how many fans does NI motor racing attract annually?
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:38:00 AMBut to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
Interesting I didn't know you were passionate about motorbike racing and also didn't know that it was included in the Maze proposals. Can you give me some details?
go on then, I'll indulge you in your diversionary tactic.
Wasn't a diversionary tactic at all (I can't stand any motor sports), it was just a reply to your nonsense about 'NIs best attended sport'.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:45:44 AM
Tell me - how many fans does NI motor racing attract annually?
NW200 attracts 200K, Ulster GP attracts 95-100K plus all the hundreds of smaller events
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:45:44 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:38:00 AMBut to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
Interesting I didn't know you were passionate about motorbike racing and also didn't know that it was included in the Maze proposals. Can you give me some details?
go on then, I'll indulge you in your diversionary tactic.
Wasn't a diversionary tactic at all (I can't stand any motor sports), it was just a reply to your nonsense about 'NIs best attended sport'.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:45:44 AM
Tell me - how many fans does NI motor racing attract annually?
NW200 attracts 200K, Ulster GP attracts 95-100K plus all the hundreds of smaller events
Ha Ha!
Looks like your accountancy skills have let you down again Sammy! ;D ;D
The GAA
CHAMPIONSHIP ONLY attendance figures I posted to you earlier give an annual attendance of
535072, far in excess of your combined motorbike total of
295000, .
Note that the GAA figures exclude
championship qualifiers
national league games
all ireland club champioship games
any hurling matches.
These would easily add a few hundred thousand more to the total.
In face of overwhelming evidence, do you now accept that Gaelic Football is by Northern Ireland's best attended sport?
Quote from: snatter on June 02, 2007, 08:24:13 AM
2005 Ulster Teams Championship attendances.
(NOTE that these exclude the qualifier series matches).
| USFC: Armagh V Tyrone | 61000 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Tyrone | 32000 |
| USFC: Derry V Armagh | 27633 |
| USFC: Donegal V Armagh | 25622 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Cavan | 23441 |
| USFC: Armagh V Fermanagh | 23107 |
| USFC: Replay Armagh V Donegal | 18227 |
| USFC: Tyrone V Down | 18200 |
| USFC: Replay Tyrone V Cavan | 16492 |
| USFC: Monaghan V Derry | 16314 |
| USFC: Cavan V Antrim | 10500 |
| USFC: Replay Cavan V Antrim | 3865 |
| |
| AIQF: Tyrone V Dublin | 78514 |
| AIQF: Armagh V Laois | 32187 |
| AISF: Tyrone V Armagh | 65858 |
| AIF: Tyrone V Kerry | 82112 |
Note that these are official figures.
Earlier round games in particular will probably show figures lower than the real attendances - Non-paying kids aren't taken into account.
--------------------------------
Northern Ireland figures:
Competitve NI soccer matches played in the same period.
Northern Ireland V Azerbaijan 11909
Northern Ireland V England 14069
Northern Ireland V Wales 13451
JJB Irish Cup Final 2005 Portadown V Larne 5,431
Sorry but this is getting really boring, you are clearly incapable of reading what is posted before replying. I was replying to your quote about 'NI's best supported sport' and you rebutt my reply by quoting a load of matches from Clones and Dublin (neither of which were in NI the last time I looked). And even if you stretch your logic and just take matches between NI teams (regardless of where they were played) you come to 227798, which is less than the two biggest Motorbike events (FFS the NW200 nearly has that on it's own) and that's not counting the hundreds of smaller events.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:24:15 PM
Sorry but this is getting really boring, you are clearly incapable of reading what is posted before replying. I was replying to your quote about 'NI's best supported sport' and you rebutt my reply by quoting a load of matches from Clones and Dublin (neither of which were in NI the last time I looked). And even if you stretch your logic and just take matches between NI teams (regardless of where they were played) you come to 227798, which is less than the two biggest Motorbike events (FFS the NW200 nearly has that on it's own) and that's not counting the hundreds of smaller events.
My figures are clearly for matches that feature Northern Irish teams only.
Nearly all games shown would be played within the six counties if the Maze were built.
The only exceptions would likely be the AIF (82k), AISF(65k), Monaghan V Derry (16k) and Cavan V Antrim(10k).
Subtracting those from 535k still gives a total of 362k, still way in excess of your 295/300k.
And that's without even going to the hassle of adding
championship qualifiers
national league games
all ireland club champioship games
any hurling matches.
Those would bump the difference up even higher.
As per my previous post, this is getting really boring. I never mentioned the Maze, so I've no idea why your bringing it up. I repeat (yet again) I'm just talking about your claim that GAA is 'NI's best supported sport', which is clearly untrue.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:03:02 PM
NW200 attracts 200K, Ulster GP attracts 95-100K plus all the hundreds of smaller events
An outright lie. I take it there are tickets receipts to show this great attendance? There wouldn't be a hope in hell of fitting 200k people into the Triangle area. The NW attendance figure is usually estimated at 100k people and as someone who lived in the area for a time even that figure is grossly exaggerated. I'm assuming they must count the same people two or three times i.e. they count the number of hotel rooms filled for the few days and total them for an attendance figure.
As Sammy can't tell the difference between being a contrary old fart and irony, probably the line between fact and fiction is just as feint.
Quote from: Donagh on March 13, 2008, 12:45:25 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:03:02 PM
NW200 attracts 200K, Ulster GP attracts 95-100K plus all the hundreds of smaller events
An outright lie. I take it there are tickets receipts to show this great attendance? There wouldn't be a hope in hell of fitting 200k people into the Triangle area. The NW attendance figure is usually estimated at 100k people and as someone who lived in the area for a time even that figure is grossly exaggerated. I'm assuming they must count the same people two or three times i.e. they count the number of hotel rooms filled for the few days and total them for an attendance figure.
That's the figure that's always quoted, I've no interest in motor sport so if you say it's bollix then I'll take your word for it. Certainly not going to start a fight over a sport I've no interest in.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:37:29 PM
I repeat (yet again) I'm just talking about your claim that GAA is 'NI's best supported sport', which is clearly untrue.
Naturally, one could question what defines "Sport" or more particularly "supporting". To a vast swathe of Irish people "supporting" means donning an over-priced, sweat-shop-produced, Premiership endorsed jersey and getting rat-arsed in some pub while watching "Ford Super Sunday".
However, only someone very disingenuous would deny that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south). It would also take someone very disingenuous to deny that the GAA have not always received coverage or funding in Northern Ireland than was comensurate with the levels of attendance or participation.
/Jim.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 13, 2008, 01:03:30 PM
only someone very disingenuous would deny that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south).
Indeed it would, take a bow Sammy.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 13, 2008, 01:03:30 PM
only someone very disingenuous would deny that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south).
Indeed it would, take a bow Sammy.
Except for the minor problem that I didn't deny it but sure don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
And I quote
"I'm just talking about your claim that GAA is 'NI's best supported sport', which is clearly untrue"
Didnt deny it eh :-\
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:32:59 PM
And I quote
"I'm just talking about your claim that GAA is 'NI's best supported sport', which is clearly untrue"
Didnt deny it eh :-\
:D :D :D :D :D :D
Christ it's like a P1 literacy class, in here today.
Read my post and then read Jim's post and see if you can spot the differences between the two, and then come back to me and if you get it right you can have a gold star. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 01:28:25 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 13, 2008, 01:03:30 PM
only someone very disingenuous would deny that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south).
Indeed it would, take a bow Sammy.
Except for the minor problem that I didn't deny it but sure don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
If you don't deny it on the evidence availble, by extension can we take it that you now accept that gaelic football is the best atteneded sport in Northern Ireland?
I can accept that there is some difficulty when it comes to comparing figures of matches involving Northern Irish teams that are actually played 20 miles across the border, but surely you'd accept that in general, Armagh fans live in armagh, and Tyrone fans live in Tyrone.
So let me put it another way, on the basis of the figures I've given, would you accept that, of people who live in Northern Ireland who have attended a major sport event in the preceding year, a higher proportion would have attended a major gaelic football match than any other major competition, and that they attended more times?
btw, re the motorbike figures, I find it funny thatyou can instantly quote figures that suit your purpose without any verification, yet typically you want to see triplicate proof of anything with which you disagree, your old "I haven't personally seen it, so I don't know its true" defence.
Stop squirming Sammy, you have been caught out once again, and no amounts of insults about peoples intelligence as is all to common from yourself (classy btw) will get you out of it.
In fact I must say thank you, you really have made me laugh today. :D :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:43:20 PM
Stop squirming Sammy, you have been caught out once again, and no amounts of insults about peoples intelligence as is all to common from yourself (classy btw) will get you out of it.
In fact I must say thank you, you really have made me laugh today. :D :D
How the fcuk have I been 'caught out'?
snatter said GAA was 'NI's best supported sport', which I disputed
Jim M said "that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south)", which I haven't disputed
Two different answers to two different questions.
It really isn't that difficult.
Its not difficult at all, its hilarious.
Anyway, back on topic. The article by Feeney really hit the nail on the head imo. Maybe not for all NI fans but for a huge amount, in my personal opinion.
The only reason nobody will admit this is that they will be told to cop on and stop being bigots.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:43:20 PM
Stop squirming Sammy, you have been caught out once again, and no amounts of insults about peoples intelligence as is all to common from yourself (classy btw) will get you out of it.
In fact I must say thank you, you really have made me laugh today. :D :D
How the fcuk have I been 'caught out'?
snatter said GAA was 'NI's best supported sport', which I disputed
Jim M said "that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south)", which I haven't disputed
Two different answers to two different questions.
It really isn't that difficult.
Sammy G,
you are most clearly lying, and even worse attempting to fraudulently manufacture quotes in my name.
You have some nerve, I reckon we'd need a team of 20 just to keep tabs on your lies and fabrications.
For the record, despite your manufactured quotation marks, I most clearly did not state
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 01:47:09 PMsnatter said GAA was 'NI's best supported sport', which I disputed
I, like Jim, claimed that it was the best attended sport:
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:38:00 AMBut to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
Interesting I didn't know you were passionate about motorbike racing and also didn't know that it was included in the Maze proposals. Can you give me some details?
Yet another lie to add to the total.
Discredited yet again, its becoming a habit.
Maybe Sammy is just being ironic (by his definition)
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 01:58:58 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:43:20 PM
Stop squirming Sammy, you have been caught out once again, and no amounts of insults about peoples intelligence as is all to common from yourself (classy btw) will get you out of it.
In fact I must say thank you, you really have made me laugh today. :D :D
How the fcuk have I been 'caught out'?
snatter said GAA was 'NI's best supported sport', which I disputed
Jim M said "that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south)", which I haven't disputed
Two different answers to two different questions.
It really isn't that difficult.
Sammy G,
you are most clearly lying, and even worse attempting to fraudulently manufacture quotes in my name.
You have some nerve, I reckon we'd need a team of 20 just to keep tabs on your lies and fabrications.
For the record, despite your manufactured quotation marks, I most clearly did not state Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 01:47:09 PMsnatter said GAA was 'NI's best supported sport', which I disputed
I, like Jim, claimed that it was the best attended sport:
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:38:00 AMBut to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
Interesting I didn't know you were passionate about motorbike racing and also didn't know that it was included in the Maze proposals. Can you give me some details?
Yet another lie to add to the total.
Discredited yet again, its becoming a habit.
Apologies I meant attended that was a typo, but it doesn't effect the overall point. You said sport in NI, Jim said field-sport on the whole island. Two totally different things
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 02:09:49 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 01:58:58 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 01:47:09 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:43:20 PM
Stop squirming Sammy, you have been caught out once again, and no amounts of insults about peoples intelligence as is all to common from yourself (classy btw) will get you out of it.
In fact I must say thank you, you really have made me laugh today. :D :D
How the fcuk have I been 'caught out'?
snatter said GAA was 'NI's best supported sport', which I disputed
Jim M said "that Gaelic Games are the best attended field-sports on this island (north or south)", which I haven't disputed
Two different answers to two different questions.
It really isn't that difficult.
Sammy G,
you are most clearly lying, and even worse attempting to fraudulently manufacture quotes in my name.
You have some nerve, I reckon we'd need a team of 20 just to keep tabs on your lies and fabrications.
For the record, despite your manufactured quotation marks, I most clearly did not state Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 01:47:09 PMsnatter said GAA was 'NI's best supported sport', which I disputed
I, like Jim, claimed that it was the best attended sport:
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 12:03:02 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 11:41:01 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 11:38:00 AMBut to be clear, if it does get built, as NI's best attended sport, we'd be passionate about making sure that we get catered for.
Interesting I didn't know you were passionate about motorbike racing and also didn't know that it was included in the Maze proposals. Can you give me some details?
Yet another lie to add to the total.
Discredited yet again, its becoming a habit.
Apologies I meant attended that was a typo, but it doesn't effect the overall point. You said sport in NI, Jim said field-sport on the whole island. Two totally different things
Yes it bloody well does affect the point.
I, like Jim, would possibly accept that more people in NOrthern Ireland support English soccer premiership teams.
But in terms of actual attendances, gaelic football is the best attended sport within Northern Ireland by a country mile.
I can't think of any other sport (field sport or non-field sport) that comes close.
If you had any grace, you'd finally concede the point.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 01:49:58 PM
Anyway, back on topic. The article by Feeney really hit the nail on the head imo. Maybe not for all NI fans but for a huge amount, in my personal opinion.
The only reason nobody will admit this is that they will be told to cop on and stop being bigots.
What do you base this opinion on?
would have thought a lot of the attendance for motor sports were southerners/mexicans etc as well.
I know a few motor-racing-mad folk that go up there to see glimpses of zooming vehicles blurring by (and getting rat-faced on bad booze too).
You have to spell it out for poor sam - he has a point in a way though, the motor racing is prob one of the biggest attended 'sports' actually HELD in NI
though a number of GAA championship games in Casement, Celtic Park Derry city, Healy park Omagh etc would surely be up there, and overall eclipse the numbes at motor sports when added up over the year, making Gaelic games the best attended sports in NI - as well as having the most NI based folk attend them as well (in the aforementioned grounds and then also in Clones, Croke park etc).
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 02:18:44 PMIf you had any grace, you'd finally concede the point.
I won't concede the point because I don't believe it. As I've already said motorbike racing is the best attended sport in NI (even if you take Donagh's figures rather than the official ones).
Quote from: lynchbhoy on March 13, 2008, 02:24:18 PM
would have thought a lot of the attendance for motor sports were southerners/mexicans etc as well.
I know a few motor-racing-mad folk that go up there to see glimpses of zooming vehicles blurring by (and getting rat-faced on bad booze too).
You have to spell it out for poor sam - he has a point in a way though, the motor racing is prob one of the biggest attended 'sports' actually HELD in NI
though a number of GAA championship games in Casement, Celtic Park Derry city, Healy park Omagh etc would surely be up there, and overall eclipse the numbes at motor sports when added up over the year, making Gaelic games the best attended sports in NI - as well as having the most NI based folk attend them as well (in the aforementioned grounds and then also in Clones, Croke park etc).
I phrased it another way for him:
QuoteSo let me put it another way, on the basis of the figures I've given, would you accept that, of people who live in Northern Ireland who have attended a major sport event in the preceding year, a higher proportion would have attended a major gaelic football match than any other major competition, and that they attended more times?
If the Maze were ever built he wouldn't have this smokescreen to throw up.
It would highlight just how gaelic football is the most attended sport amongst NI residents.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 02:36:14 PMI phrased it another way for him:
QuoteSo let me put it another way, on the basis of the figures I've given, would you accept that, of people who live in Northern Ireland who have attended a major sport event in the preceding year, a higher proportion would have attended a major gaelic football match than any other major competition, and that they attended more times?
Apart from motorbike racing, that would be correct and ceratinly in terms of field sports it is definitely correct (and I've never disputed it)
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 02:36:14 PM
If the Maze were ever built he wouldn't have this smokescreen to throw up.
What smokescreen? I have never disputed your figures or that GAA matches are well attended. I have only disputed your claim that GAA is the best attended sport in NI.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 02:36:14 PM
It would highlight just how gaelic football is the most attended sport amongst NI residents.
Not sure how you figure that. Even PWC (with there ridiculously inflated figures) only show the GAA having 5.5 matches per year with 150000 total attendance, still less than motorbiking.
sammy, those are the figures for matches in the maze potentially, not for all spectators of gaa, which nobody here has shown.
Quote from: nifan on March 13, 2008, 03:04:31 PM
sammy, those are the figures for matches in the maze potentially, not for all spectators of gaa, which nobody here has shown.
Agreed but we're only discussing the attendance at 'big events', if you include all the small events the motobike figures are even higher (as are the GAA figures obviously)
Maybe the OWC should consider sharing with the motorbike track crowd.
What will a Belfast soccer stadium cost?
Just how will the IFA even get a loan of £5m to kick start a design?
The real shame here and indictment on how the six counties works is that a relative handful of bigots (ie North of Ireland soccer fans who number between 5,000 and 12,000 depending on the fortunes of the team) can scupper a brand new badly needed multi use stadium, flying in the face of professional consultants, governments etc, even when the parent body that runs soccer ( albeit on a monocultural basis) the IFA, consents to the stadium.
As I said before it merely proves that the six county statelet is unbiased as the majority tribal leaders have to pander constantly to the bigotry of their tribe instead of taking decisionson the basis of the wider populace, which is how proper functioning democracies work.
Thats the way it always has been up here and always will be until partition is ended
Tony, have you a few letters already in the pipeline?
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 03:08:54 PM
Maybe the OWC should consider sharing with the motorbike track crowd.
Happy to share with anybody but I doubt that FIFA will let us play matches on a raod outside Antrim ;)
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 03:08:54 PM
What will a Belfast soccer stadium cost?
About 1/4 of the cost of the Maze depending on design and capacity
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 03:08:54 PM
Just how will the IFA even get a loan of £5m to kick start a design?
They'll apply for a grant the same as every other sporting body does (including the GAA).
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 03:30:04 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 03:08:54 PM
Maybe the OWC should consider sharing with the motorbike track crowd.
Happy to share with anybody but I doubt that FIFA will let us play matches on a raod outside Antrim ;)
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 03:08:54 PM
What will a Belfast soccer stadium cost?
About 1/4 of the cost of the Maze depending on design and capacity
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 03:08:54 PM
Just how will the IFA even get a loan of £5m to kick start a design?
They'll apply for a grant the same as every other sporting body does (including the GAA).
And how much will they pay for their site?
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 03:36:43 PM
And how much will they pay for their site?
Depends on the site but it'll be a lot less than the Maze.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 03:39:30 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 03:36:43 PM
And how much will they pay for their site?
Depends on the site but it'll be a lot less than the Maze.
why?
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 03:39:30 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 03:36:43 PM
And how much will they pay for their site?
Depends on the site but it'll be a lot less than the Maze.
why?
Because it will be a fraction of the size and won't require huge infrastructure spend.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 03:54:07 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 03:39:30 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 03:36:43 PM
And how much will they pay for their site?
Depends on the site but it'll be a lot less than the Maze.
why?
Because it will be a fraction of the size and won't require huge infrastructure spend.
what would you say to those who claim that the pro-Belfast brigade's failure to find a suitable site in over four years of searching proves that there actually isn't one?
Finding one suitable to both communities has proved to be a nightmare, according to yesterday's Belfast Telegraph editorial.
And how would you counter PWC's claims that the extra expense of having to buy a high-cost Belfast site will offset the toal cost (free site & infrastructure) at the Maze?
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 04:23:42 PMwhat would you say to those who claim that the pro-Belfast brigade's failure to find a suitable site in over four years of searching proves that there actually isn't one?
I would say that no one has actually been looking, as they've been awaiting the outcome of the Maze business case. There are at least 4 options (Blanchflower, North Foreshore, Titanic Quarter or upgrade WP) which may or may not be viable but need to be properly assesed.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 04:23:42 PM
Finding one suitable to both communities has proved to be a nightmare, according to yesterday's Belfast Telegraph editorial.
Apart from the fact that the Telegraph is paid for by NIO advertising and will therefore say or do anything to promote the Maze (even lie in it's editorials). This is clearly nonsense since we are talking about a football only stadium and football is now and always has been totally cross-community.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 04:23:42 PM
And how would you counter PWC's claims that the extra expense of having to buy a high-cost Belfast site will offset the toal cost (free site & infrastructure) at the Maze?
By the simple fact that the Maze is not free it is worth tens of millons (there was a proper valuation done but I haven't got the figure to hand). When this is taken into account the PWC figures are completely reversed and show that Belfast is considerable cheaper. City centre stadiums are cheaper to build and more cost effective to run. This has been shown to be the case, all over the world. You might have noticed that the GAA built Croke Park in Dublin not in a field outside Tullamore.
Estimates for a 30,000 seater stadium are £140m for construction and infrastucture
Not including site clearing or land value.
Howard Wells
'Even now at Windsor we can't run international football on 13,000 tickets anyway. Our five-year plan now suggests we need an extra 7,000 tickets per match to just break even.'
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 04:48:53 PM
Estimates for a 30,000 seater stadium are £140m for construction and infrastucture
Not including site clearing or land value.
Not sure where that figure came from. The Liberty Stadium in Swansea (which would be perfect for footballs needs) opened less than 3 years ago and cost £27 million. Even allowing for inflation I doubt the cost would have gone up 5 fold in three years.
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 04:23:42 PM
Howard Wells
'Even now at Windsor we can't run international football on 13,000 tickets anyway. Our five-year plan now suggests we need an extra 7,000 tickets per match to just break even.'
One of the few Hard Wells quotes that I agree with.
I wonder what Hard's strategy is for attracting Cross Community support for the team. With its current monocultural ethos, support and therefore income will always be restricted regardless of the size of the stadium.
By the way it has been my long held view that the Real Ireland team should be able to play at the New Provinicial Stadium as they have more supporters based in the six counties than the North's team. Also it would provide an additional revenue stream as well
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
we are talking about a football only stadium and football is now and always has been totally cross-community.
Soccer yes, the NI football teams supporters, most certainly not, bar a small minority.
Certainly not a proportionate mix by any means.
And these are the people who are most relevant when deciding where the NI team will play.
At least we can admit we dont attract Unionists, that said, theres very little Sammy will admit to in general.
Construction and infrastructure costs come from the detailed PWC report of which Sammy demonstrated incredible incompetence with comprehending basic tables and facts.
I doubt he even tried to.
So far I have yet to see one appraisal of the PWC report that challenges those figures and claimed that a 30k stadium in Belfast can be done for 100m, 90m, 80m, 70m or less.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 05:04:38 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
we are talking about a football only stadium and football is now and always has been totally cross-community.
Soccer yes, the NI football teams supporters, most certainly not, bar a small minority.Certainly not a proportionate mix by any means.
Two questions
1) When did I mention NI supporters?
2) What do you base your figures on?
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 05:04:38 PM
And these are the people who are most relevant when deciding where the NI team will play.
Sorry who are 'the people'? If you mean the supporters then you couldn't be more wrong, we have been ignored at every turn. Even though we've spent countless hours researching and analysing the various proposals and have (at last) been shown to be right.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 13, 2008, 05:04:38 PM
At least we can admit we dont attract Unionists, that said, theres very little Sammy will admit to in general.
What am I not admiitting now?
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 05:08:09 PM
Construction and infrastructure costs come from the detailed PWC report of which Sammy demonstrated incredible incompetence with comprehending basic tables and facts.
I doubt he even tried to.
For the seventh time, I have not once, on this thread, mentioned or discussed the tables in the PWC report, much less shown any 'incredible incompetence'. I am happy to discuss the report, line by line, if you want but it wil;l probably get even more boring than this thread already is.
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 05:08:09 PM
So far I have yet to see one appraisal of the PWC report that challenges those figures and claimed that a 30k stadium in Belfast can be done for 100m, 90m, 80m, 70m or less.
Err that would be because a full appraisal hasn't been done yet but if you take comparisons from other stadia (Swansea £27 million, Hull £44 million or Wigan £30 million etc) the £140 million seems to be a bit over the top (to say the least).
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:09:44 PM
Sorry who are 'the people'? If you mean the supporters then you couldn't be more wrong, we have been ignored at every turn. Even though we've spent countless hours researching and analysing the various proposals and have (at last) been shown to be right.
And the best you could come with was the classic £100 ticket.
Not the brightest sparks these OWC experts are they?
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 05:17:42 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:09:44 PM
Sorry who are 'the people'? If you mean the supporters then you couldn't be more wrong, we have been ignored at every turn. Even though we've spent countless hours researching and analysing the various proposals and have (at last) been shown to be right.
And the best you could come with was the classic £100 ticket.
Not the brightest sparks these OWC experts are they?
For the eighth time (Christ this is getting tedious), the £100 ticket is in relation to one specific section of the PWC report, as you are well aware.
;D
The one thing I am well aware of is that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
The £100 ticket again just when I thought you were being (what you call) ironic.
There must be a huge differential between building at the Maze and building in Belfast that I am not aware of.
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 05:54:19 PM
;D
The one thing I am well aware of is that you haven't a clue what you are talking about.
Pot and kettle
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 05:54:19 PM
The £100 ticket again just when I thought you were being (what you call) ironic.
WTF are you on about?
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 05:54:19 PM
There must be a huge differential between building at the Maze and building in Belfast that I am not aware of
The differential is based on smaller capacity and massively reduced infrastructure costs. Surely a clever man like yourself could have worked that out?
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:59:05 PM
The differential is based on smaller capacity and massively reduced infrastructure costs. Surely a clever man like yourself could have worked that out?
It doesn't take a great deal of cleverness to examine the facts and not take on board guessestimates from someone who shall we say ignores their value.
The figures you have presented for other stadiums also exemplify this laxity with facts, ignoring other values like land value and infrastructure costs.
City Stadium costs can be as much as £7000/seat Arsenal or closer to home a cheaper €7000/seat Landsdowne
I haven't seen that report on massively reduced infrastructure costs for a Belfast stadium, where is it?
The only report I have seen is the PWC report which outlines in detail the high infrastructure costs in Belfast.
But by some amazing dexterity you rubbish the PWC figures without demonstrating one example that you understand the PWC figures, without recourse to one fact you claim massively reduced infrastructure costs.
Not that I give two fecks for soccer in NI. If there is a decision to scuttle the Maze then the IFA are more likely to go to the dogs for years.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:09:44 PM
1) When did I mention NI supporters?
You didnt, nor did I say you did ::)
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:09:44 PM
2) What do you base your figures on?
I didnt quote any figures, just said it was a small minority of nationalists that support NI. Not even the biggest OWC bulshitter would argue otherwise.
But feel free to produce figures to prove me wrong.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:09:44 PM
Sorry who are 'the people'? If you mean the supporters then you couldn't be more wrong, we have been ignored at every turn.
Many of your arguments are due to the location, surely you werent thinking of the awkward trip the team coaches would have?? :D :D
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:09:44 PM
Even though we've spent countless hours researching and analysing the various proposals and have (at last) been shown to be right.
On what I have learned on this thread, thats debatable.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:09:44 PM
What am I not admiitting now?
Read it Sammy, think then type. I said theres little you will admit to IN GENERAL. Think of the many times you were proved to be telling lies and refused to admit this.
It cant be that hard to remember at least some of them, you do it all the time!
Quote from: snatter on March 13, 2008, 04:23:42 PM
And how would you counter PWC's claims that the extra expense of having to buy a high-cost Belfast site will offset the toal cost (free site & infrastructure) at the Maze?
Snatter,
You and I have said our piece and in the absence of new developments, there's probably not a great deal either of us can add to what we've already posted.
But there is one pretty irrefutable item of fact in this whole debate, of critical importance, which you have misrepresented several times - namely your canard that the Maze site is "free".
As outlined by PWC, it is estimated that the construction of the stadium will cost £126m. This is to be completed by Developers, in return for being allowed to develop the site for houses, retail, industry etc. (In addition, the Government will spend £114m on providing transport and infrastructure support, giving a total stadium cost of £240m.)
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n
As we all know, Developers are not Charities. Therefore, they are not going to spend £126m building a stadium unless they believe that the associated development rights are worth
at least that amount - otherwise they could not hope to make a profit.
Therefore, the Maze Stadium site, by the Government's own figures (as valued by PWC), is costing us all at least £126m..
Therefore, for the sake of rational debate, I wish you would stop calling it "free", since it is unquestionably anything but.
Of course, obtaining a suitable, equivalent site in Belfast is liable to cost even more. However, i can think of at least two ways by which this may be avoided.
The first is to develop existing sports sites in co-operation with the owners. For soccer, this might mean redeveloping Windsor Park, which could easily and cheaply be upgraded to hold 20-25,000 seats. As for GAA, I am not familiar with Casement, but I daresay the Government could come to an arrangement to fund the upgrade of that stadium (or if unfeasible, alternative stadia in NI). Rugby is a slightly different case, since when Ulster Rugby got permission and funding to upgrade Ravenhill, the alterations they made actually slightly reduced the capacity (effectively they traded terrace space for corporate entertainment etc). This proves that the new 13,000 capacity is seen by them as being adequate for all but a handful of games, which might have been played at the Maze, but could easily be staged at a revamped Windsor.
The second would be to utilise land which has little or no effective development value, due to planning or usage restrictions. One such example is Ormeau Park. Because of its location and present usage, there is no way on earth anyone could get permission to tarmac over a part of this and build houses, shops, offices etc. Therefore, if BCC were to put it up for sale, no-one would be interested in buying it. Therefore, it effectively has no value. However, it ought to be possible to obtain permission for a change of use from one leisure activity (sports pitches) to another (sports stadium), as was done when part of the Park was given over to the construction of a Tennis/Sports Centre. And, of course, there may be other such sites (Blanchflower Park? Maysfield?) which offer similar opportunities.
In addition to which, none of these is likely to require £114m spent on it by the Government to provide suitable transport and infrastructure links, since Belfast is already the best served location in NI in this regard.
Of course, proponents of the Maze may point to the PWC Report which claims that they considered alternative Belfast locations and concluded that none was cheaper than the Maze. However, this conclusion is unreliable. All along, the Government was insistant that only a single, multi-use stadium, acceptable to all three codes, would be considered. And since the GAA, as was their right, made it perfectly clear that they would not accept any site in Belfast, then the Government was effectively forced to champion the Maze, if it was to get its multi-use stadium. In the light of that, and since the Government was paying for it, we should none of us be too surprised when PWC's Report concluded that the Maze was "cheaper" than Belfast.
Had the Government considered single-use stadia for the three codes, and PWC had looked harder in Belfast, we might have got a very different conclusion.
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 06:54:43 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 05:59:05 PM
The differential is based on smaller capacity and massively reduced infrastructure costs. Surely a clever man like yourself could have worked that out?
It doesn't take a great deal of cleverness to examine the facts and not take on board guessestimates from someone who shall we say ignores their value.
The figures you have presented for other stadiums also exemplify this laxity with facts, ignoring other values like land value and infrastructure costs.
SO let me get this straight. When we're costing the Maze we have to ignore land costs (it's free after all) and infrastructure, so that the figures add up but when we're talking about a Belfast site we have to include the build cost plus the land and infrastructure values!!! I presume you work for either PWC or the NIO?
p.s. the figures I quoted were for total build not just stadium costs (but you knew that already)
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 06:54:43 PM
City Stadium costs can be as much as £7000/seat Arsenal or closer to home a cheaper €7000/seat Landsdowne
They can and they can be as low as £1278 per seat at Swansea or £1193 per seat at Wigan.
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 06:54:43 PM
I haven't seen that report on massively reduced infrastructure costs for a Belfast stadium, where is it?
For the umpteenth time it hasn't been produced yet as a site hasn't even been chosen/costed but Belfast doesn't need an entire new road system, it already has bus and train access, it already has hotels/pubs/car parks etc, so they won't need to be built specially.
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 06:54:43 PM
The only report I have seen is the PWC report which outlines in detail the high infrastructure costs in Belfast.
But by some amazing dexterity you rubbish the PWC figures without demonstrating one example that you understand the PWC figures, without recourse to one fact you claim massively reduced infrastructure costs.
This is getting silly now. I repeat again I have not given any response to the PWC figures, on this thread. So how can I have rubbished them? For the umpteenth time, if you want to debate the report, line by line, let me know.
Quote from: Main Street on March 13, 2008, 06:54:43 PM
Not that I give two fecks for soccer in NI. If there is a decision to scuttle the Maze then the IFA are more likely to go to the dogs for years.
I'd take my chances with a more than likely rather than go to the Maze and make it definite. The Maze would have killed off sport in NI, within a few years, as it soaked up all the available resources, to try and justify itself. Thank fcuk it now looks likely that it won't be happening.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
we are talking about a football only stadium and football is now and always has been totally cross-community.
A wee song for SammyG
He sits alone at a table in a small cafe
Drowning his tears in a bottomless cup of coffee
And hes tumbling into his thoughts
His memories are all tied in knots
And who is going to save him
No one wants to know him
She stands alone in a place where no one knows her name
She catches them staring they turn around and vanish the frame
And shes nursing her head and her pride
She died long ago deep down inside
And who is going to save her
No one wants to know her
(CHORUS)
I cant believe that youd pull on a sleeve when you cry
You stick in the knife then give the kiss of life
Live the lie
And we all have a saviour
So do yourself a favour
Stop livin the lie
He sits alone and looks up to the eyes of an angel
She catches him staring and smiles the smile of an angel
And she asks him if this chair is free
He said yes will you sit here with me
No one would have saved him
We should all learn from them
(CHORUS)
Lie.... lie.... stop livin the lie
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
He said they would use their veto to block any other stadium other that that originally agreed for Long Kesh.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:52:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
He said they would use their veto to block any other stadium other that that originally agreed for Long Kesh.
And I repeat again that no party has a veto on sports funding. Providing the request adds up and is made through the correct channels, then any attempt to veto it would result in a court case. And that ignores the fact that there never was (and hopefully never will be) any agreement on the Maze site. It was always subject to the business case and as it doesn't add up then the projecvt is dead.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:59:35 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:52:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
He said they would use their veto to block any other stadium other that that originally agreed for Long Kesh.
And I repeat again that no party has a veto on sports funding. Providing the request adds up and is made through the correct channels, then any attempt to veto it would result in a court case. And that ignores the fact that there never was (and hopefully never will be) any agreement on the Maze site. It was always subject to the business case and as it doesn't add up then the projecvt is dead.
You're wrong Sammy. A simple 'petition of concern' is all that is needed by SF and they have the numbers to deny cross community support and ensure no other stadium is built.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:12:08 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:59:35 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:52:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
He said they would use their veto to block any other stadium other that that originally agreed for Long Kesh.
And I repeat again that no party has a veto on sports funding. Providing the request adds up and is made through the correct channels, then any attempt to veto it would result in a court case. And that ignores the fact that there never was (and hopefully never will be) any agreement on the Maze site. It was always subject to the business case and as it doesn't add up then the projecvt is dead.
You're wrong Sammy. A simple 'petition of concern' is all that is needed by SF and they have the numbers to deny cross community support and ensure no other stadium is built.
We'll see, although it would be funny to see the 'Ireland of equals' brigade trying to block a cross-community stadium. purely out of spite, rather than for any sporting or monetary reason.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:15:35 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:12:08 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:59:35 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:52:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
He said they would use their veto to block any other stadium other that that originally agreed for Long Kesh.
And I repeat again that no party has a veto on sports funding. Providing the request adds up and is made through the correct channels, then any attempt to veto it would result in a court case. And that ignores the fact that there never was (and hopefully never will be) any agreement on the Maze site. It was always subject to the business case and as it doesn't add up then the projecvt is dead.
You're wrong Sammy. A simple 'petition of concern' is all that is needed by SF and they have the numbers to deny cross community support and ensure no other stadium is built.
We'll see, although it would be funny to see the 'Ireland of equals' brigade trying to block a cross-community stadium. purely out of spite, rather than for any sporting or monetary reason.
There's no we'll see about it Sammy, that's fact, but on your other points:
1. A stadium at DB would not be cross community
2. The nationalist electorate are crying out for SF to stand up to the DUP after they blocked the ILA "out of spite" and the insulting comments about the GAA made by Dodds and Morrow earlier in the week.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:23:27 AM1. A stadium at DB would not be cross community
1) I never mentioned DB
2) Even if it was at DB it would still be cross-community as both football and rugby are cross-community
3) Even if neither of those were true, the IFA can still aplly for funding in the normal way and be accepted or rejected.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:23:27 AM
2. The nationalist electorate are crying out for SF to stand up to the DUP after they blocked the ILA "out of spite" and the insulting comments about the GAA made by Dodds and Morrow earlier in the week.
Sorry but I can't see what some petty squabble between the DUP and SF has to do with sport in NI.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:29:25 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:23:27 AM1. A stadium at DB would not be cross community
1) I never mentioned DB
2) Even if it was at DB it would still be cross-community as both football and rugby are cross-community
3) Even if neither of those were true, the IFA can still aplly for funding in the normal way and be accepted or rejected.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:23:27 AM
2. The nationalist electorate are crying out for SF to stand up to the DUP after they blocked the ILA "out of spite" and the insulting comments about the GAA made by Dodds and Morrow earlier in the week.
Sorry but I can't see what some petty squabble between the DUP and SF has to do with sport in NI.
Sammy,
here's the reality of what's need for genuine cross community acceptance:
Quote from Belfast Telegraph.........
The nature of devolved government is that a consensus must be reached when large sums of public money are involved....
Another round of talks would have to begin if there was any change, and the prospect of the GAA agreeing to an east Belfast site, as rumoured, must be slim. Each sport - and each voting bloc in the executive - has a veto on any decision.
You glibly claim that soccer is cross-community, and on that basis any stadium it builds should be regarded as a cross-community one.
I would say that for a new stadium to be genuinely cross community, it needs
1. the support of unionists and nationalists.
2. to cater for all major field sports played in both communities, ie gaelic fotball, soccer and rugby.
3. to be located on a site acceptable to both communities.
To exclude one sport, especially the most attended one, with the economic benefits its much larger fan base delivers, removes any pretence of your soccer/rugby stadium being cross community.
Any stadium that excludes Northern Ireland's most attended sport will fail miserably to reflect the community breakdown here, and will be regarded as nothing more than an OrangeDome.
As I see it, the only way you can ensure that you
don't have a gaelic footballer about the place is by going it alone and keeping the cost down to such a level that you need at best, only minimal grant aid.
Unless you are somehow gifted a free site, that won't happen.
If yoiu are relying on Belfast City Council to gift you guys a free site so that you don't have to share with the GAA, then forget it.
Opinions have hardened, now that its perfectly clear that you want to go down your separatist route, to keep the GAA out at all costs.
No self-respecting nationalist councillor is going to hand over public land when the underlying goal is build a stadium whose location and design are carefully chosen to exclude the best atteneded sport in Northern Ireland.
I love how your posts don't even consider that if somehow, a Belfast site was given handeed over by BCC, that a precondition wouldn't exist that any site would have to include galeic games.
After all, with 150k per year projected GAA fans, versus a paltry 80k soccer fans, the economic argumnets alone would dictate that having the GAA on board is a must for any city.
The shinners, SDLP and I assume the Alliance party will never allow this essentially sectarian stadium to go ahead, not when all three sports have agreed to the Maze, a site that is acceptable to both communities, in a stadium that caters for all three sports.
For once, there is a glimmer of sense in what you say about moving above petty political squabbles.
After all if
the GAA, the IRFU and the IFA can all agree on location and stadium design, and the UK govt is willing to fund it, why should petty political squabbles get in the way?
Roll on and build what the three sports bodies want.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:29:25 AM
3) Even if neither of those were true, the IFA can still aplly for funding in the normal way and be accepted or rejected.
No Sammy, you haven't got this power sharing thing yet have you? SF can block funding to the IFA from now until Gerry gets his united Ireland and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Of course if they want to raise their own money to build a stadium that's entirely up to them.
Brilliant rant snatter but you seem to have missed 2 important points
1) I have no problem sharing a stadium with anybody (in fact as you point out the more usage the better value it becomes)
2) The Maze business case doesn't add up, so it's dead and we now have to look at alternatives. Those alternatives could be a multi-sports stadium somewhere else (Belfast would be my prferred option obviously), a football only stadium (if it passes the business case), upgrade existing stadia or even just divvy the money up and let the various sports sort themselves out. Once all of these options have been properly assesed then we can make a decision and move forward.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:43:39 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:29:25 AM
3) Even if neither of those were true, the IFA can still aplly for funding in the normal way and be accepted or rejected.
No Sammy, you haven't got this power sharing thing yet have you? SF can block funding to the IFA from now until Gerry gets his united Ireland and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Of course if they want to raise their own money to build a stadium that's entirely up to them.
Are you saying that sports council and lottery funding (the main sources of sports funding) are now controlled by the Assembly? And if you are, can you tell me when this was announced, as it's the first I've heard of it.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:45:27 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:43:39 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:29:25 AM
3) Even if neither of those were true, the IFA can still aplly for funding in the normal way and be accepted or rejected.
No Sammy, you haven't got this power sharing thing yet have you? SF can block funding to the IFA from now until Gerry gets his united Ireland and there isn't anything anyone can do about it. Of course if they want to raise their own money to build a stadium that's entirely up to them.
Are you saying that sports council and lottery funding (the main sources of sports funding) are now controlled by the Assembly? And if you are, can you tell me when this was announced, as it's the first I've heard of it.
First line of my last post (thanks for the compliments btw):
The nature of devolved government is that a consensus must be reached when large sums of public money are involved....Only way you guys can circumvent this veto is to go it alone and keep costs down.
Only problem ....how will you ever afford to buy a Belfast site big enough (and small enough to keep the GAA out, but that's an aside)?
Its almost guaranteed that SF/SDLP/Alliance will support a genuine cross-community venture a-la-Maze, so how high do you rate your chances of them giving you a site?
Assuming of course, that you actually find one?
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:45:27 AM
Are you saying that sports council and lottery funding (the main sources of sports funding) are now controlled by the Assembly? And if you are, can you tell me when this was announced, as it's the first I've heard of it.
I've never know the lottery to provide 100% funding for anything and they certainly wouldn't make an exception for the incompetents in the IFA. A new stadium would be way out of the sports council's league and besides they get a large part of their funding from DCAL. Face it Sammy you ain't getting a stadium anywhere else, though when FIFA shuts Windsor down you'll be able to save a few pound on the air fares as the mountain will be coming to Mohammad, as they might say.
Just seen Gerry's statement ;D ;D ;D
QuoteBut Gerry Kelly of Sinn Fein said his party would "not accept a stadium being built on any other site".
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have confirmed they would play games at the Maze venue.
The site is just outside Lisburn in County Antrim.
Mr Kelly, who was a former IRA prisoner in the Maze, said the conflict transformation centre was designed to help other people around the world learn from the peace process.
"Regenerating this site has the potential to create up to 10,000 new jobs - many of which would be at the higher value end of the scale - and to lever up to £1bn investment," he said.
Discussions about the Long Kesh or Maze site have gone on for nearly 10 years.
Mr Kelly believes that in order to take advantage of opportunities at the 2012 Olympics "to lever further investment and employment, the time to fully implement the Long Kesh masterplan is now."
Funniest thing I've read in years. 10,000 jobs ;D ;D, 2012 Olympics ;D ;D £1bn investment ;D ;D Fcuk me he makes Poots sound like a sensible politician.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 11:49:44 AM
Funniest thing I've read in years. 10,000 jobs ;D ;D, 2012 Olympics ;D ;D £1bn investment ;D ;D Fcuk me he makes Poots sound like a sensible politician.
And he's the man that will decide whether you get a new stadium or not. :D
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 10:43:54 AM
Brilliant rant snatter but you seem to have missed 2 important points
1) I have no problem sharing a stadium with anybody (in fact as you point out the more usage the better value it becomes)
2) The Maze business case doesn't add up, so it's dead and we now have to look at alternatives. Those alternatives could be a multi-sports stadium somewhere else (Belfast would be my prferred option obviously), a football only stadium (if it passes the business case), upgrade existing stadia or even just divvy the money up and let the various sports sort themselves out. Once all of these options have been properly assesed then we can make a decision and move forward.
SammyG,
you have consistently advocated what you call a "football-only stadium", and we would call a soccer/rugby only stadium.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
we are talking about a football only stadium and football is now and always has been totally cross-community.
Why would you even consider excluding gaelic games?
Do you not get the point that by excluding NI's best attended sport, any such stadium
- fails any sesnible definition of a cross community stadium.
- fails to reap the economic benefits of attracting practically twice the number of fans soccer would bring.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 12:21:22 PMSammyG,
you have consistently advocated what you call a "football-only stadium", and we would call a soccer/rugby only stadium.
Quote from: SammyG on March 13, 2008, 04:32:59 PM
we are talking about a football only stadium and football is now and always has been totally cross-community.
I think you're having a bit of difficulty reading (again). That quote was in reply to a specific question. My preferred option is now and always has been a multi-sports facility. However if that isn't available then, of course, I'll take a football only or football/rugby or footballl/gaelic or football/greyhounds or whatever combination works best.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 12:21:22 PM
Why would you even consider excluding gaelic games?
I've never suggested excluding anybody. If however the GAA decide not to come on-board, then that's hardly my fault (or the IFA's).
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 12:21:22 PM
Do you not get the point that by excluding NI's best attended sport, any such stadium
See previous answer
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 12:21:22 PM
- fails any sesnible definition of a cross community stadium.
Nonsense, if one sport decides to exclude itself, while other cross-community sports continue, then it is a cross-community facility.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 12:21:22 PM
- fails to reap the economic benefits of attracting practically twice the number of fans soccer would bring.
There are no economic benefits from the Maze, that's why it has failed. The economic benfits of any other stadium will be measured on their on merits.
There isnt much mention of the Titanic Quarter. Whats wrong with that location, could someone give me an address to I can look at it on Googlemaps.
Quote from: thejuice on March 14, 2008, 12:45:20 PM
There isnt much mention of the Titanic Quarter. Whats wrong with that location, could someone give me an address to I can look at it on Googlemaps.
TQ would be most peoples preferred option but was ruled out by the Maze advisory panel, early on, because the GAA vetoed any Belfast site. Now that the Maze plans are dead, TQ should definitely be one of the sites that is looked at and analysed.
p.s. I haven't a clue what the google maps ref is.
Quote from: thejuice on March 14, 2008, 12:45:20 PM
There isnt much mention of the Titanic Quarter. Whats wrong with that location, could someone give me an address to I can look at it on Googlemaps.
Someone else already has plans for the area:
http://www.titanic-quarter.com/
Queen's island:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Queen's+Island+belfast&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wl
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 12:51:45 PM
Quote from: thejuice on March 14, 2008, 12:45:20 PM
There isnt much mention of the Titanic Quarter. Whats wrong with that location, could someone give me an address to I can look at it on Googlemaps.
TQ would be most peoples preferred option but was ruled out by the Maze advisory panel, early on, because the GAA vetoed any Belfast site. Now that the Maze plans are dead, TQ should definitely be one of the sites that is looked at and analysed.
£1 million per acre even if the owner was willing to sell. Where would the IFA get that kind of money? Not to mention the infrastructure improvements. :D Dream on Sammy...
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 12:53:36 PM
Quote from: thejuice on March 14, 2008, 12:45:20 PM
There isnt much mention of the Titanic Quarter. Whats wrong with that location, could someone give me an address to I can look at it on Googlemaps.
Someone else already has plans for the area:
http://www.titanic-quarter.com/
Still plenty of room for a stadium, as they're only using a percentage of the site and they're struggling to sell/lease the flats and offices that are already agreed. The major factor will be cost rather than space availability. I'd imagine they'd want to get the arm in, which may make a stadium unworkable.
Edit: Posted at the same time as Donagh (with the same conclusion strangely enough)
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:52:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
He said they would use their veto to block any other stadium other that that originally agreed for Long Kesh.
There is every chance that this is just another example of SF doing what they do rather well i.e. politics. Frankly, other than locals like Paul Butler, SF have no particular interest in a sports stadium
per se, esp a "National NI Stadium" sited in a predominantly Unionist area and serving rugby and football (as well as GAA). However, they do have a great interest in the Long Kesh site (for obvious reasons) and so are keen on the ICTC/Museum etc
Conversely, the DUP have generally never had much interest in sport and for political reasons, have now gone rather "cold" on the Maze Stadium proposal, despite the vested interest of Poots and Donaldson.
Therefore, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if SF and the DUP cobbled together a plan whereby SF would drop their "demand" for a Stadium at the Maze, in return for the DUP not making difficulties over the ICTC/Museum. That way (possibly in conjunction with BCC?) the DUP could satisfy the soccer/rugby element amongst their support with a Belfast Stadium (revamp Windsor or build anew), and SF get to placate their GAA constituency by compensatory funding to the GAA. Meanwhile, we the taxpayers all benefit by the money saved, the Exchequer is happy and the three codes get what they want.
It's called local politics - what we've actually been lacking in this part of the world for decades - and as yesterdays "horsetrading" over Council Reform (SF = 7, DUP = 15, Result - 11), the local parties have picked up on it remarkably quickly.
Or have you not been reading your instructions from Connolly House recently? ;)
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
First line of my last post
The nature of devolved government is that a consensus must be reached when large sums of public money are involved....
And as the Irish News Editorial from two days ago pointed out, what concensus there was from the three codes over the Maze Stadium is ebbing away. That's the reality of the situation.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 01:07:38 PM
Or have you not been reading your instructions from Connolly House recently? ;)
Gets funnier every time EG :o
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 01:07:38 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:52:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 09:30:01 AM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 09:27:22 AM
Gerry Kelly on the radio this morning said it's Long Kesh or nothing. About time that bunch of pansies stood up for themselves.
Just as well he doesn't make decisions on sports funding then, isn't it.
He said they would use their veto to block any other stadium other that that originally agreed for Long Kesh.
There is every chance that this is just another example of SF doing what they do rather well i.e. politics. Frankly, other than locals like Paul Butler, SF have no particular interest in a sports stadium per se, esp a "National NI Stadium" sited in a predominantly Unionist area and serving rugby and football (as well as GAA). However, they do have a great interest in the Long Kesh site (for obvious reasons) and so are keen on the ICTC/Museum etc
Conversely, the DUP have generally never had much interest in sport and for political reasons, have now gone rather "cold" on the Maze Stadium proposal, despite the vested interest of Poots and Donaldson.
Therefore, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if SF and the DUP cobbled together a plan whereby SF would drop their "demand" for a Stadium at the Maze, in return for the DUP not making difficulties over the ICTC/Museum. That way (possibly in conjunction with BCC?) the DUP could satisfy the soccer/rugby element amongst their support with a Belfast Stadium (revamp Windsor or build anew), and SF get to placate their GAA constituency by compensatory funding to the GAA. Meanwhile, we the taxpayers all benefit by the money saved, the Exchequer is happy and the three codes get what they want.
It's called local politics - what we've actually been lacking in this part of the world for decades - and as yesterdays "horsetrading" over Council Reform (SF = 7, DUP = 15, Result - 11), the local parties have picked up on it remarkably quickly.
Or have you not been reading your instructions from Connolly House recently? ;)
It's quite possible that they might do a deal but I don't think they will because unlike the RPA it's not merely a political issue but one that has a wider significance in terms of symbolism and equality. It's quite clear to nationalists that the DUP want to squirm away with having anything to do with the GAA and their rebel games on the Sabbath. The Shinners have been waiting for their chance to stand up to DUP bigotry and I reckon this is where they are going to make it i.e. by showing them that the old days are gone, that if they want anything done they will have to respect the nationalist culture in both their words and actions. Let's not forget that the three sporting bodies have expressed a wiliness to share the Long Kesh site, the DUP are the only players looking to prevent that.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 10:23:27 AM
2. The nationalist electorate are crying out for SF to stand up to the DUP after they blocked the ILA "out of spite"
And how are SF responding? Oh yes, by preparing to accommodate, not "stand up to", Peter Robinson when he steps into Big Ian's shoes.
Or didn't you notice yesterday's compromise over Local Government reform? ::)
I wouldn't dare to guess the prevailing sentiment in the Nationalist Community, but if forced to make a guess, I'd say they are becomning increasingly concerned with real political issues, like housing, water rates, taxes, mortgage rates, Council services, hospitals, schools, jobs and a thousand other day-to-day concerns, rather than "gesture" politics like the ILA.
In this context, whilsts sport, culture and the arts are important, they don't pay the rent at the end of the month. Which may explain explain, for instance, the lack of enthusiasm, even interest, identified by the Irish News in its recent Editorial over the whole Maze Stadium debate?
P.S. Out of interest, what language were the Nationalist people "crying out" in over the ILA? One which we
all might understand? ;)
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
Only problem ....how will you ever afford to buy a Belfast site big enough
I have already addressed this point in one of my previous posts. You know, the one where I was forced to point out (again) that the Maze site is not, in fact "free"? That is, the one where it might be possible to use one or more existing sports sites, of municipal or public land which could only get permission for leisure use, not development?
And in any case, even if we are starting from the basis of a Maze site worth £126m, plus the likely saving on a £114m Bill for Transport/Infrastructure etc which wouldn't be needed for Belfast, we've actually got the best part of £200m to play with if we scrap the Maze and still save money. And as other comparable cities in the UK (Swansea, Hull, Milton Keynes etc) have demonstrated, less than £200m should be more than adequate.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
(and small enough to keep the GAA out, but that's an aside)
By vetoing the other two sports over any Belfast site, the GAA is doing a very good job of keeping
itself out. The GAA doesn't want a new stadium in Belfast. Fine. Since the other two do, why not just give the GAA their fair share of the money and let them spend it wherever they like? Or after years of cpomplaing about being denied Government funding, is the GAA actually now likely not to want it? ::)
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
Its almost guaranteed that SF/SDLP/Alliance will support a genuine cross-community venture a-la-Maze, so how high do you rate your chances of them giving you a site?
As has been increasingly been demonstrated over much more important and contentious issues than sport, the local parties are quite capable of trading their various demands in one area for concessions in another. Don't be too surprised if the Maze turns out to be another such area, and maybe quicker than you think. After all, it's less than a year since Big Ian* vetoed the use of Ormeau Park, on the basis that he didn't want greyhound racing near his Martyrs Memorial Church.
* - Whatever happened to him, I wonder? :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
First line of my last post
The nature of devolved government is that a consensus must be reached when large sums of public money are involved....
And as the Irish News Editorial from two days ago pointed out, what concensus there was from the three codes over the Maze Stadium is ebbing away. That's the reality of the situation.
As Sammy kindly corrected me yesterday, the IN editiorial did nothing of the sort.
It merely claimed that support from GAA and rugby fans was apathetic at best.
Well, just hours laterm the GAA emphatically re-endorsed the Maze:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/duffy-afraid--grant-row-could--provoke-rifts-1314984.html
Quote
Meanwhile, GAA president Nickey Brennan has said he is still very much behind the notion of building a stadium on the site of the old Maze prison.
"We made out position clear on it and we embraced the idea when it came first," he said. "But it's up to the politicians now."
I haven't detected any decrease in support from rugby or soccer bodies either.
Michael Reid, Ulster Rugby CEO, was recently interviewed (5th February), giving the politicians a proverbial kick upo the arse, and telling them to get on with it:
http://www.ulsterrugby.ie/11_6448.php
QuoteNow that the Maze is the only option, there is no doubt that these are state-of-the-art facilities, and we got a lot of changes that we asked for. The design is a three tier design. We have got the capacity of the bottom bowl of the stadium reduced from 25000 to 18000; we got the Box levels that were up in Levels 2 & 3, brought down to Level 1, so with a crowd of 18000, we could have that self contained on one level for rugby, and we also got a lot of technical changes made that we wanted. We have also negotiated a substantial decrease in rent. Only a quarter of the crowd at Ravenhill sit and if you charge the same price for a seat here, to sit at the Maze, we could make £75-80k more per match, simply because everyone would be seated. Even with rent which would be about £30k per match, we would still be £40- 50k better off. That is at today's prices in about 4 years time, so there is no need for astronomical price increases.
Is that putting you in a difficult position to consider it? If something better came up in Belfast are you already committed to the Maze?
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there. The difficulty here for all of us is we are in a country where we had politicians who when they were effectively in opposition, threw stones. Now they are in power, they have to show some leadership here, and I believe it is unfair on Sport to be put in a position where we have to decide. There is one option for us, which is the Maze.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 02:35:56 PM
And how are SF responding?
Or didn't you notice yesterday's compromise over Local Government reform?
Which may explain explain, for instance, the lack of enthusiasm, even interest, identified by the Irish News in its recent Editorial over the whole Maze Stadium debate?
P.S. Out of interest, what language were the Nationalist people "crying out" in over the ILA? One which we all might understand? ;)
See my previous post.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 13, 2008, 07:20:51 PM
As outlined by PWC, it is estimated that the construction of the stadium will cost £126m. This is to be completed by Developers, in return for being allowed to develop the site for houses, retail, industry etc. (In addition, the Government will spend £114m on providing transport and infrastructure support, giving a total stadium cost of £240m.)
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=87616&pt=n
As we all know, Developers are not Charities. Therefore, they are not going to spend £126m building a stadium unless they believe that the associated development rights are worth at least that amount - otherwise they could not hope to make a profit.
The £126m pays for infrastructure to a vast complex as well as a stadium. I'd imagine there is an exchequer and community return from all this activity.
When people say free they mean it´s not going to cost the sports bodies valuable cash.
For Lansdowne road on a basic 55k capacity no one batted an eyelid about the Gov providing Eur 190m.
So I´d assume that from an exchequer at least ten times larger, a similar sum would hardly be noticed.
Usually sporting bodies are crying out for funds. Sporting bodies and fans would be fighting mad to get the sort of one off promise from the Exchequer for a stadium with only a few strings attached.
That's the main reason why I can't take the OWC objections too serious, too quick not to be grateful and just say thank you very much, too quick to cry terrorist shrine, too quick to dismiss the positives and accentuate the negatives.
It's too big, its too far, there's no effin road, no watering holes.
It's no done deal yet that the DUP will just say no to the Maze.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
Only problem ....how will you ever afford to buy a Belfast site big enough
I have already addressed this point in one of my previous posts. You know, the one where I was forced to point out (again) that the Maze site is not, in fact "free"? That is, the one where it might be possible to use one or more existing sports sites, of municipal or public land which could only get permission for leisure use, not development?
And in any case, even if we are starting from the basis of a Maze site worth £126m, plus the likely saving on a £114m Bill for Transport/Infrastructure etc which wouldn't be needed for Belfast, we've actually got the best part of £200m to play with if we scrap the Maze and still save money. And as other comparable cities in the UK (Swansea, Hull, Milton Keynes etc) have demonstrated, less than £200m should be more than adequate.
EG,
by your rationale, no site could ever be regarded as free, becasue we could get planning permission to do whatever we like with it, and then flog it off for housing.
Its a nonsensical argument.
Current recreational zoning is no barrier to developing land.
It can be lifted at a stroke of a pen if its perceived as being for the greater good, as many south Belfast rugby clubs will happily tell you when they cashed in and moved elsewhere.
I believe many GAA units are currently considering selling up for supermarkets/housing and moving to cheaper sites as well.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
(and small enough to keep the GAA out, but that's an aside)
By vetoing the other two sports over any Belfast site, the GAA is doing a very good job of keeping itself out. The GAA doesn't want a new stadium in Belfast. Fine. Since the other two do, why not just give the GAA their fair share of the money and let them spend it wherever they like? Or after years of cpomplaing about being denied Government funding, is the GAA actually now likely not to want it? ::)
This is a complete lie - there is no proof that GAA has veto'ed Belfast.
It merely
preferred the Maze.
Here, I've helpfully posted the GAA's Ulster Secretary's comments below.
Comments that, I should add, went shamefully unreported in the BBC, Belfast Telegraph, Newsletter.
Maybe that's why you're hopelessly mis-informed.
Or maybe you just can't handle the truth.
Quote from: snatter on July 25, 2007, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: phpearse on July 25, 2007, 12:59:17 PM
Notice that the bbc.co.uk/ni website has not published any comments from the Ulster Council relating to their statement. Either an oversight on behalf of the bbc or poor pr work from the Ulster Council. In any case in todays paper we can read what the position of the Ulster Council is and it is in stark contrast to the information we heard yesterday:
QuoteUlster did not say no to Belfast stadia plans
GAA
By Paddy Heaney
Ulster Council secretary Danny Murphy has refuted claims that the GAA has refused to agree to a multi-sports stadium being built in Belfast.
Northern Ireland Sports Minister Edwin Poots was reported as telling a meeting of the Assembly's culture comittee that the GAA ruled out proposed stadia both on Belfast's north foreshore and in the Titanic Quarter.
Gaelic games, soccer and rugby would be played at any future venue and plans have been drawn up for a 35,000-capacity stadium at the Maze site, outside Lisburn.
However, Ulster secretary Murphy has strongly denied the suggestion that the northern GAA body had taken a stance against a stadium in Belfast.
He insisted that the Ulster Council had simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium. Murphy also noted that the Ulster Council had never been asked to consider the Titanic Quarter site.
Murphy said: "The Ulster GAA considered the two sites which were put forward to us, one on the northern foreshore, and the other one was the Maze/Long Kesh site.
"As far as we were concerned, the Titanic Quarter was eliminated by the time it got to the stage where we were involved.
"We chose the Maze/Long Kesh site because we believe it represented the best location.
"We did not take a decision against a Belfast site. We took a pro-active view on behalf of the Council's need for a stadium and its location.''
When asked to explain why the Ulster Council preferred the former prison site, Murphy cited finance and accessibility for the entire province as key reasons.
"When the matter was put to us, the economic argument had already reduced the field to two. The economic argument favoured the Maze/Long Kesh site as opposed to the northern foreshore," said Murphy.
"Our preference would be to take in the jurisdiction of the province of Ulster.
"We cover the nine counties of Ulster and teams from all across it. If the stadium was going to meet a useful purpose it had to be accessible for the all of the teams that play in our jurisdiction.
"When we looked at the two sites our preferred option was for the Maze,'' he added.
When asked if he was annoyed that the DUP politician had appeared to misrepresent the Ulster Council's position on the issue, Murphy said: "I don't have a transcript of what he was supposed to have said so I can't comment.
"All I can say is that we expressed our preference from the two sites which were put before us at the time.''
Poots made the comments yesterday during a meeting of the Assembly's culture committee, which was called during the summer recess in order to address the controversial issue.
During the meeting Poots stated that the Irish Football Association was open to various sites, but its chief executive, Howard Wells, had a personal preference for the Maze.
Poots told the committee that rugby's Ulster Branch favoured a Belfast site – but that the GAA was opposed to a stadium in the city.
Could one of our OWC posters perhaps let the guys over on OWC know the true position of the Ulster Council on this matter!!
Interesting that BBC NI have had no problems reporting Wells "clarification" of his position.
Even if the GAA has been typically poor on the PR front, surely somebody in the BBC NI sports section must read the IN?
Or maybe not, and thats the problem with their lobsided reporting.
The real story here should be that the two sports bodies chiefs have categorically denied the ministers claims. The bbc should be pressurising poots to explain the basis and motivation for his statement.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 02:30:26 PM
It's quite possible that they might do a deal but I don't think they will because unlike the RPA it's not merely a political issue but one that has a wider significance in terms of symbolism and equality. It's quite clear to nationalists that the DUP want to squirm away with having anything to do with the GAA and their rebel games on the Sabbath. The Shinners have been waiting for their chance to stand up to DUP bigotry and I reckon this is where they are going to make it i.e. by showing them that the old days are gone, that if they want anything done they will have to respect the nationalist culture in both their words and actions. Let's not forget that the three sporting bodies have expressed a wiliness to share the Long Kesh site, the DUP are the only players looking to prevent that.
When it comes to it, we are talking about £240m+ of public money being spent on a venue that the GAA will use for a maximum of eight days per year.
After years of contesting elections, SF have developed a very acute ability to count, so I personally would be surprised if they will allow the stadium to take priority over their voters' concerns during the remaining 357 days of the year. After all, the most important statemant on this whole issue came from Wee Marty, when he said "No ICTC/Museum = No Stadium". That's a hell of a way short of saying their MUST be a stadium.
In fact, the Stadium might just provide a very convenient "figleaf" for Peter Robinson, when he has to explain why he isn't blocking SF'd plans for the H Blocks etc: "OK, they've got their Memorial and ICTC etc, but at least I prevented them from getting 'their' Stadium out there, as well"
Politics, eh? Don't Ya Just Love it... :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 14, 2008, 01:35:49 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 01:07:38 PM
Or have you not been reading your instructions from Connolly House recently? ;)
Gets funnier every time EG :o
And your eagerness to step in and kiss the arse of Donagh, Fearon etc, when they're* quite capable of defending themselves, becomes ever more
predictable.
As is your unwillingness to address the substance of my post: too hard for you, is it? Or do you just prefer to snipe from the sidelines, then run away?
* - Well Donagh, anyhow.
While reading through another forum, brought up an interesting angle on all this..... QuoteMore seriously, apart from the two departed Paisleys, guess who else wasn't at the DUP's recent Lisbon conference of the long knives - Poots. Now the MPs are all home, DUP sources start leaking the story about the party shelving the Maze... while Poots is in America.
Can anyone else see a pattern emerging here? How long has Junior's last ally got now?
Poots will now either do as he's told, or will be replaced as Sports Minister. Robinson and Dodds will call the shots, and they want a stadium in Belfast, their base.
What would be really interesting to know is how Lagan Valley MP and MLA Jeffrey Donaldson managed to end up as the new Junior Minister. Isn't the Maze in his constituency?
Surely he couldn't have shafted his fellow Lisburn DUP colleague and turned his back on plans for a prestigious, if slightly tainted, stadium in his own constituency for a measly junior cabinet role? But then, the junior minister's position is generally regarded as the green room for potential policing or justice ministers...
Oh, this is gonna be good.
Posted by ******** on Mar 10, 2008 @ 04:16 AM
I would be amazed if Jeffrey Donaldson "shafted" anybody politically.
Where's the track record for him doing anything like that.
I'm not fan of the DUP, but this project has been, is and would always be rotten to the core, and if it's finally being binned as a result of DUP posturing, so be it.
Posted by ********** on Mar 10, 2008 @ 09:14 AM
Surely he couldn't have shafted his fellow Lisburn DUP colleague and turned his back on plans for a prestigious, if slightly tainted, stadium in his own constituency for a measly junior cabinet role?
Check back over the period Poots been "in office", anytime there's been a major development Jeffrey has been conspicuous in his absence.
If one were one for the conspiracy theories, you'd say that Poots getting the "Culture" job was a monumental stitch up all along; a job he was patently unqualified for that would deal with all those things the DUP voter base just love: the GAA, gays, the Irish language. The Maze fiasco has just been the very tasty icing on the cake; putting Poots "in charge" of choosing the "National" Stadium has had exactly the result expected and desired- the man's days are numbered.
Posted by *********on Mar 10, 2008 @ 11:52 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 03:22:57 PM
And your eagerness to step in and kiss the arse of Donagh, Fearon etc, when they're* quite capable of defending themselves, becomes ever more predictable.
As is your unwillingness to address the substance of my post: too hard for you, is it? Or do you just prefer to snipe from the sidelines, then run away?
* - Well Donagh, anyhow.
I dont see how by slagging your tired old cliches I am kissing Donaghs arse. It was directed at you, not Donagh, and not in defence of Donagh.
As as for the Tony comments, its been quite a while since I had any interaction with Tony, and if I'm not mistaken I was giving out to him then, but dont let that get in the way of your bitching.
As for the substance being too hard (another childish snipe, speaking of snipes) no its not, its quite interesting reading. I wont comment too much however as I have already given my views on this topic, and unlike some, dont see the point in repeating my points over and over.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
First line of my last post
The nature of devolved government is that a consensus must be reached when large sums of public money are involved....
And as the Irish News Editorial from two days ago pointed out, what concensus there was from the three codes over the Maze Stadium is ebbing away. That's the reality of the situation.
As Sammy kindly corrected me yesterday, the IN editiorial did nothing of the sort.
It merely claimed that support from GAA and rugby fans was apathetic at best.
So the opinions of the fans of GAA and rugby don't count, then? (Never mind those of soccer fans who are overwhelmingly "anti")
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
Well, just hours laterm the GAA emphatically re-endorsed the Maze:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/duffy-afraid--grant-row-could--provoke-rifts-1314984.html
Quote
Meanwhile, GAA president Nickey Brennan has said he is still very much behind the notion of building a stadium on the site of the old Maze prison.
"We made out position clear on it and we embraced the idea when it came first," he said. "But it's up to the politicians now."
Well, we'll have to agree to differ, but I personally was gratified by the lukewarm response by Brennan when informed the Maze might now be scrapped. Where was the outrage? The demands for the Politicians to stand their ground? It certainly doesn't read like a ringing endorsement to me! "Leave it to the Politicians", eh? Those would be the same politicians who now appear to be going cold on the Maze?
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
I haven't detected any decrease in support from rugby or soccer bodies either.
Michael Reid, Ulster Rugby CEO, was recently interviewed (5th February), giving the politicians a proverbial kick upo the arse, and telling them to get on with it:
http://www.ulsterrugby.ie/11_6448.php
QuoteNow that the Maze is the only option, there is no doubt that these are state-of-the-art facilities, and we got a lot of changes that we asked for. The design is a three tier design. We have got the capacity of the bottom bowl of the stadium reduced from 25000 to 18000; we got the Box levels that were up in Levels 2 & 3, brought down to Level 1, so with a crowd of 18000, we could have that self contained on one level for rugby, and we also got a lot of technical changes made that we wanted. We have also negotiated a substantial decrease in rent. Only a quarter of the crowd at Ravenhill sit and if you charge the same price for a seat here, to sit at the Maze, we could make £75-80k more per match, simply because everyone would be seated. Even with rent which would be about £30k per match, we would still be £40- 50k better off. That is at today's prices in about 4 years time, so there is no need for astronomical price increases.
Is that putting you in a difficult position to consider it? If something better came up in Belfast are you already committed to the Maze?
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there. The difficulty here for all of us is we are in a country where we had politicians who when they were effectively in opposition, threw stones. Now they are in power, they have to show some leadership here, and I believe it is unfair on Sport to be put in a position where we have to decide. There is one option for us, which is the Maze.
Reid is too cute to piss the Government off over something which, in reality, doesn't really matter to Ulster Rugby. Three games per season (max?). He's far more concerned with redeveloping Ravenhill - with a reduced capacity, btw - for which Government funding, planning permission etc is critical.
For me, the key phrase of that whole quotation is "We are committed to the Maze,
because it is the only thing that's there" Note his unwillingness to assert that it is the
best solution to rugby's needs. Note, also, that he left the door open to change his mind should another option arise.
As for soccer, you may not have detected it, but in his last Programme notes (NI v Bulgaria in February), Howard Wells for the first time ever alluded to the possiblility that the Maze might NOT be the only show in town, when he demanded that the politicians get on with it and build a new stadium "wherever it may be". Considering he is being paid by the Government and is angling for his next job with them (Sports Council? London 2012), this was a remarkable deviation from his usual role of Chief Cheerleader" for the Maze!
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
Only problem ....how will you ever afford to buy a Belfast site big enough
I have already addressed this point in one of my previous posts. You know, the one where I was forced to point out (again) that the Maze site is not, in fact "free"? That is, the one where it might be possible to use one or more existing sports sites, of municipal or public land which could only get permission for leisure use, not development?
And in any case, even if we are starting from the basis of a Maze site worth £126m, plus the likely saving on a £114m Bill for Transport/Infrastructure etc which wouldn't be needed for Belfast, we've actually got the best part of £200m to play with if we scrap the Maze and still save money. And as other comparable cities in the UK (Swansea, Hull, Milton Keynes etc) have demonstrated, less than £200m should be more than adequate.
EG,
by your rationale, no site could ever be regarded as free, becasue we could get planning permission to do whatever we like with it, and then flog it off for housing.
Its a nonsensical argument.
Current recreational zoning is no barrier to developing land.
It can be lifted at a stroke of a pen if its perceived as being for the greater good, as many south Belfast rugby clubs will happily tell you when they cashed in and moved elsewhere.
I believe many GAA units are currently considering selling up for supermarkets/housing and moving to cheaper sites as well.
Nonsense! GAA or Rugby Clubs are entirely different from public bodies, in that assuming it can get planning permission, there is little or no bar to them selling land, in return for a big fat profit with which to assuage their members.
By your logic, BCC could sell Belfast City Hall to be used as a luxury hotel, or any of the parks they control for housing etc and make an absolute fortune. But they don't, both because there is usually a statutory duty on them to maintain their property on behalf of the ratepayers, as well as an electorate to answer to.
And you haven't addressed the fact that there is nothing stopping e.g. Linfield or Glentoran, or Antrim GAA (Casement) from coming to an agreement with the Government to develop their property, thereby obviating the need to shell out on an expensive site.
Plus the fact of the infrastructure savings offered by Belfast over the Maze.
And have I mentioned the environmental costs of building a stadium in the country which will only be accessible for 90% of the users by private car?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 03:45:23 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 01:11:42 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
First line of my last post
The nature of devolved government is that a consensus must be reached when large sums of public money are involved....
And as the Irish News Editorial from two days ago pointed out, what concensus there was from the three codes over the Maze Stadium is ebbing away. That's the reality of the situation.
As Sammy kindly corrected me yesterday, the IN editiorial did nothing of the sort.
It merely claimed that support from GAA and rugby fans was apathetic at best.
So the opinions of the fans of GAA and rugby don't count, then? (Never mind those of soccer fans who are overwhelmingly "anti")
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
Well, just hours laterm the GAA emphatically re-endorsed the Maze:
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/duffy-afraid--grant-row-could--provoke-rifts-1314984.html
Quote
Meanwhile, GAA president Nickey Brennan has said he is still very much behind the notion of building a stadium on the site of the old Maze prison.
"We made out position clear on it and we embraced the idea when it came first," he said. "But it's up to the politicians now."
Well, we'll have to agree to differ, but I personally was gratified by the lukewarm response by Brennan when informed the Maze might now be scrapped. Where was the outrage? The demands for the Politicians to stand their ground? It certainly doesn't read like a ringing endorsement to me! "Leave it to the Politicians", eh? Those would be the same politicians who now appear to be going cold on the Maze?
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 02:57:53 PM
I haven't detected any decrease in support from rugby or soccer bodies either.
Michael Reid, Ulster Rugby CEO, was recently interviewed (5th February), giving the politicians a proverbial kick upo the arse, and telling them to get on with it:
http://www.ulsterrugby.ie/11_6448.php
QuoteNow that the Maze is the only option, there is no doubt that these are state-of-the-art facilities, and we got a lot of changes that we asked for. The design is a three tier design. We have got the capacity of the bottom bowl of the stadium reduced from 25000 to 18000; we got the Box levels that were up in Levels 2 & 3, brought down to Level 1, so with a crowd of 18000, we could have that self contained on one level for rugby, and we also got a lot of technical changes made that we wanted. We have also negotiated a substantial decrease in rent. Only a quarter of the crowd at Ravenhill sit and if you charge the same price for a seat here, to sit at the Maze, we could make £75-80k more per match, simply because everyone would be seated. Even with rent which would be about £30k per match, we would still be £40- 50k better off. That is at today's prices in about 4 years time, so there is no need for astronomical price increases.
Is that putting you in a difficult position to consider it? If something better came up in Belfast are you already committed to the Maze?
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there. The difficulty here for all of us is we are in a country where we had politicians who when they were effectively in opposition, threw stones. Now they are in power, they have to show some leadership here, and I believe it is unfair on Sport to be put in a position where we have to decide. There is one option for us, which is the Maze.
Reid is too cute to piss the Government off over something which, in reality, doesn't really matter to Ulster Rugby. Three games per season (max?). He's far more concerned with redeveloping Ravenhill - with a reduced capacity, btw - for which Government funding, planning permission etc is critical.
For me, the key phrase of that whole quotation is "We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there" Note his unwillingness to assert that it is the best solution to rugby's needs. Note, also, that he left the door open to change his mind should another option arise.
As for soccer, you may not have detected it, but in his last Programme notes (NI v Bulgaria in February), Howard Wells for the first time ever alluded to the possiblility that the Maze might NOT be the only show in town, when he demanded that the politicians get on with it and build a new stadium "wherever it may be". Considering he is being paid by the Government and is angling for his next job with them (Sports Council? London 2012), this was a remarkable deviation from his usual role of Chief Cheerleader" for the Maze!
EG,
do you not get it - there is no alternative to the Maze.
That's your reality that you've failed to grasp.
Five years later, not one site has emerged in Belfast that is
a. available
b. cheap enough
c. has no planning issues
d. in an accepatable location to both communities
There's no point whinging about the Maze unless you can deliver the goods and develop an alternative.
After five years, you lot should be told to put up or shut up.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 03:54:19 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:08:32 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
Only problem ....how will you ever afford to buy a Belfast site big enough
I have already addressed this point in one of my previous posts. You know, the one where I was forced to point out (again) that the Maze site is not, in fact "free"? That is, the one where it might be possible to use one or more existing sports sites, of municipal or public land which could only get permission for leisure use, not development?
And in any case, even if we are starting from the basis of a Maze site worth £126m, plus the likely saving on a £114m Bill for Transport/Infrastructure etc which wouldn't be needed for Belfast, we've actually got the best part of £200m to play with if we scrap the Maze and still save money. And as other comparable cities in the UK (Swansea, Hull, Milton Keynes etc) have demonstrated, less than £200m should be more than adequate.
EG,
by your rationale, no site could ever be regarded as free, becasue we could get planning permission to do whatever we like with it, and then flog it off for housing.
Its a nonsensical argument.
Current recreational zoning is no barrier to developing land.
It can be lifted at a stroke of a pen if its perceived as being for the greater good, as many south Belfast rugby clubs will happily tell you when they cashed in and moved elsewhere.
I believe many GAA units are currently considering selling up for supermarkets/housing and moving to cheaper sites as well.
Nonsense! GAA or Rugby Clubs are entirely different from public bodies, in that assuming it can get planning permission, there is little or no bar to them selling land, in return for a big fat profit with which to assuage their members.
By your logic, BCC could sell Belfast City Hall to be used as a luxury hotel, or any of the parks they control for housing etc and make an absolute fortune. But they don't, both because there is usually a statutory duty on them to maintain their property on behalf of the ratepayers, as well as an electorate to answer to.
And you haven't addressed the fact that there is nothing stopping e.g. Linfield or Glentoran, or Antrim GAA (Casement) from coming to an agreement with the Government to develop their property, thereby obviating the need to shell out on an expensive site.
Plus the fact of the infrastructure savings offered by Belfast over the Maze.
And have I mentioned the environmental costs of building a stadium in the country which will only be accessible for 90% of the users by private car?
Quotesell Belfast City Hall to be used as a luxury hotel, or any of the parks they control for housing etc and make an absolute fortune. But they don't, both because there is usually a statutory duty on them to maintain their property
Again, simply not true.
There is no legal impediment to any local authority selling off any of its parks.
The only barrier would be
a. strength of public opposition
b. the requirement to show that the proceeds are being used judiciously, in line with the authority's needs.
Several london authorities have done it.
I recall that Ards Borough Council were propsoing to flog a kiddies playground last year, before locals got wind of it and kicked up a fuss.
Interestingly, the key argument most often used by protesters is the loss of public open amenity spaces, ie exactly the same loss that would occur if you turn parkland into stadia.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
(and small enough to keep the GAA out, but that's an aside)
By vetoing the other two sports over any Belfast site, the GAA is doing a very good job of keeping itself out. The GAA doesn't want a new stadium in Belfast. Fine. Since the other two do, why not just give the GAA their fair share of the money and let them spend it wherever they like? Or after years of cpomplaing about being denied Government funding, is the GAA actually now likely not to want it? ::)
This is a complete lie - there is no proof that GAA has veto'ed Belfast.
It merely preferred the Maze.
Here, I've helpfully posted the GAA's Ulster Secretary's comments below.
Comments that, I should add, went shamefully unreported in the BBC, Belfast Telegraph, Newsletter.
Maybe that's why you're hopelessly mis-informed.
Or maybe you just can't handle the truth.
Quote from: snatter on July 25, 2007, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: phpearse on July 25, 2007, 12:59:17 PM
Notice that the bbc.co.uk/ni website has not published any comments from the Ulster Council relating to their statement. Either an oversight on behalf of the bbc or poor pr work from the Ulster Council. In any case in todays paper we can read what the position of the Ulster Council is and it is in stark contrast to the information we heard yesterday:
QuoteUlster did not say no to Belfast stadia plans
GAA
By Paddy Heaney
Ulster Council secretary Danny Murphy has refuted claims that the GAA has refused to agree to a multi-sports stadium being built in Belfast.
Northern Ireland Sports Minister Edwin Poots was reported as telling a meeting of the Assembly's culture comittee that the GAA ruled out proposed stadia both on Belfast's north foreshore and in the Titanic Quarter.
Gaelic games, soccer and rugby would be played at any future venue and plans have been drawn up for a 35,000-capacity stadium at the Maze site, outside Lisburn.
However, Ulster secretary Murphy has strongly denied the suggestion that the northern GAA body had taken a stance against a stadium in Belfast.
He insisted that the Ulster Council had simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium. Murphy also noted that the Ulster Council had never been asked to consider the Titanic Quarter site.
Murphy said: "The Ulster GAA considered the two sites which were put forward to us, one on the northern foreshore, and the other one was the Maze/Long Kesh site.
"As far as we were concerned, the Titanic Quarter was eliminated by the time it got to the stage where we were involved.
"We chose the Maze/Long Kesh site because we believe it represented the best location.
"We did not take a decision against a Belfast site. We took a pro-active view on behalf of the Council's need for a stadium and its location.''
When asked to explain why the Ulster Council preferred the former prison site, Murphy cited finance and accessibility for the entire province as key reasons.
"When the matter was put to us, the economic argument had already reduced the field to two. The economic argument favoured the Maze/Long Kesh site as opposed to the northern foreshore," said Murphy.
"Our preference would be to take in the jurisdiction of the province of Ulster.
"We cover the nine counties of Ulster and teams from all across it. If the stadium was going to meet a useful purpose it had to be accessible for the all of the teams that play in our jurisdiction.
"When we looked at the two sites our preferred option was for the Maze,'' he added.
When asked if he was annoyed that the DUP politician had appeared to misrepresent the Ulster Council's position on the issue, Murphy said: "I don't have a transcript of what he was supposed to have said so I can't comment.
"All I can say is that we expressed our preference from the two sites which were put before us at the time.''
Poots made the comments yesterday during a meeting of the Assembly's culture committee, which was called during the summer recess in order to address the controversial issue.
During the meeting Poots stated that the Irish Football Association was open to various sites, but its chief executive, Howard Wells, had a personal preference for the Maze.
Poots told the committee that rugby's Ulster Branch favoured a Belfast site – but that the GAA was opposed to a stadium in the city.
Could one of our OWC posters perhaps let the guys over on OWC know the true position of the Ulster Council on this matter!!
Interesting that BBC NI have had no problems reporting Wells "clarification" of his position.
Even if the GAA has been typically poor on the PR front, surely somebody in the BBC NI sports section must read the IN?
Or maybe not, and thats the problem with their lobsided reporting.
The real story here should be that the two sports bodies chiefs have categorically denied the ministers claims. The bbc should be pressurising poots to explain the basis and motivation for his statement.
Very careful choice of words, there. "We did not veto Belfast, we merely preferred the Maze of the choices presented to us". Which is another way of saying "We did not
have to veto Belfast" i.e. since the Government knows that we are the only one of the three bodies which is not beholden to them, and since they (HMG) have insisted on all three sports coming together on one site, the message is quite clear enough. (And before anyone jumps in, I don't blame the GAA for playing their hand so skilfully. In fact, I wish my own sport's administrators were so adroit)
Or, to put it another way, is there any site in any location in Belfast which
would be acceptable to the GAA? My guess is that it would have to be West, (maybe South ?) Belfast - both of which would compromise Casement. And would the GAA really want a 42k capacity stadium in Belfast? Just as soccer fans do not want to travel to the Maze from their Eastern/Urban heartland, might it not be that GAA fans may not want to travel to Belfast from their Central/Rural heartlands (esp. Donegal, Monagan and Cavan fans)?
Looks like the Alliance Party are sticking to their guns about the Maze as well:
QuoteLagan Valley Alliance MLA Trevor Lunn also threw down the gauntlet to the DUP saying Northern Ireland might never get a new stadium if the DUP runs scared from the Maze.
Mr Lunn said: "If this project does not proceed, it will be the biggest example of looking a gift horse in the mouth in the history of Northern Ireland. It will send a message round the world that we prefer to be seen as a sporting and cultural backwater.
"I say to the DUP, 'you have come a long way, don't trip over this hurdle'. You are sitting in Government with Sinn Fein, test their bona-fides again. Nobody needs to win or lose on this one. It's a penalty kick and it's too good to miss."
Lets face it its Long Kesh or the Long road to England or Scotland for the monocultural supporters of the North of Ireland soccer team ;D
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 04:10:41 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:15:09 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 02:54:15 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 11:07:54 AM
(and small enough to keep the GAA out, but that's an aside)
By vetoing the other two sports over any Belfast site, the GAA is doing a very good job of keeping itself out. The GAA doesn't want a new stadium in Belfast. Fine. Since the other two do, why not just give the GAA their fair share of the money and let them spend it wherever they like? Or after years of cpomplaing about being denied Government funding, is the GAA actually now likely not to want it? ::)
This is a complete lie - there is no proof that GAA has veto'ed Belfast.
It merely preferred the Maze.
Here, I've helpfully posted the GAA's Ulster Secretary's comments below.
Comments that, I should add, went shamefully unreported in the BBC, Belfast Telegraph, Newsletter.
Maybe that's why you're hopelessly mis-informed.
Or maybe you just can't handle the truth.
Quote from: snatter on July 25, 2007, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: phpearse on July 25, 2007, 12:59:17 PM
Notice that the bbc.co.uk/ni website has not published any comments from the Ulster Council relating to their statement. Either an oversight on behalf of the bbc or poor pr work from the Ulster Council. In any case in todays paper we can read what the position of the Ulster Council is and it is in stark contrast to the information we heard yesterday:
QuoteUlster did not say no to Belfast stadia plans
GAA
By Paddy Heaney
Ulster Council secretary Danny Murphy has refuted claims that the GAA has refused to agree to a multi-sports stadium being built in Belfast.
Northern Ireland Sports Minister Edwin Poots was reported as telling a meeting of the Assembly's culture comittee that the GAA ruled out proposed stadia both on Belfast's north foreshore and in the Titanic Quarter.
Gaelic games, soccer and rugby would be played at any future venue and plans have been drawn up for a 35,000-capacity stadium at the Maze site, outside Lisburn.
However, Ulster secretary Murphy has strongly denied the suggestion that the northern GAA body had taken a stance against a stadium in Belfast.
He insisted that the Ulster Council had simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium. Murphy also noted that the Ulster Council had never been asked to consider the Titanic Quarter site.
Murphy said: "The Ulster GAA considered the two sites which were put forward to us, one on the northern foreshore, and the other one was the Maze/Long Kesh site.
"As far as we were concerned, the Titanic Quarter was eliminated by the time it got to the stage where we were involved.
"We chose the Maze/Long Kesh site because we believe it represented the best location.
"We did not take a decision against a Belfast site. We took a pro-active view on behalf of the Council's need for a stadium and its location.''
When asked to explain why the Ulster Council preferred the former prison site, Murphy cited finance and accessibility for the entire province as key reasons.
"When the matter was put to us, the economic argument had already reduced the field to two. The economic argument favoured the Maze/Long Kesh site as opposed to the northern foreshore," said Murphy.
"Our preference would be to take in the jurisdiction of the province of Ulster.
"We cover the nine counties of Ulster and teams from all across it. If the stadium was going to meet a useful purpose it had to be accessible for the all of the teams that play in our jurisdiction.
"When we looked at the two sites our preferred option was for the Maze,'' he added.
When asked if he was annoyed that the DUP politician had appeared to misrepresent the Ulster Council's position on the issue, Murphy said: "I don't have a transcript of what he was supposed to have said so I can't comment.
"All I can say is that we expressed our preference from the two sites which were put before us at the time.''
Poots made the comments yesterday during a meeting of the Assembly's culture committee, which was called during the summer recess in order to address the controversial issue.
During the meeting Poots stated that the Irish Football Association was open to various sites, but its chief executive, Howard Wells, had a personal preference for the Maze.
Poots told the committee that rugby's Ulster Branch favoured a Belfast site – but that the GAA was opposed to a stadium in the city.
Could one of our OWC posters perhaps let the guys over on OWC know the true position of the Ulster Council on this matter!!
Interesting that BBC NI have had no problems reporting Wells "clarification" of his position.
Even if the GAA has been typically poor on the PR front, surely somebody in the BBC NI sports section must read the IN?
Or maybe not, and thats the problem with their lobsided reporting.
The real story here should be that the two sports bodies chiefs have categorically denied the ministers claims. The bbc should be pressurising poots to explain the basis and motivation for his statement.
Very careful choice of words, there. "We did not veto Belfast, we merely preferred the Maze of the choices presented to us". Which is another way of saying "We did not have to veto Belfast" i.e. since the Government knows that we are the only one of the three bodies which is not beholden to them, and since they (HMG) have insisted on all three sports coming together on one site, the message is quite clear enough. (And before anyone jumps in, I don't blame the GAA for playing their hand so skilfully. In fact, I wish my own sport's administrators were so adroit)
Or, to put it another way, is there any site in any location in Belfast which would be acceptable to the GAA? My guess is that it would have to be West, (maybe South ?) Belfast - both of which would compromise Casement. And would the GAA really want a 42k capacity stadium in Belfast? Just as soccer fans do not want to travel to the Maze from their Eastern/Urban heartland, might it not be that GAA fans may not want to travel to Belfast from their Central/Rural heartlands (esp. Donegal, Monagan and Cavan fans)?
Or alternatively, there actually is no conspiracy.
Maybe the GAA actually mean what the say,
ie of the two sites put to them , they preferred the Maze to the North Foreshore (THE ONLY OTHER BELFAST OPTION PUT TO THEM).
You don't have to be a brain surgeon or professor of spatial planning to realise that the Maze is clsoer to GAA heartlands and would reasonably be expected to attract more GAA fans than the more cumbersome journey into and through Belfast.
That was their reasoning.
You can either accept it, or go on to peddle your own unsubstaniated theories.
I have no reason to disbelieve what the GAA say, so I'll believe the above statement until someone can prove that they're lying.
I'll certainly give no credence to your unsubstinated conspiracy theory until you can at least back it up.
Again maybe you just can't handle the truth.
And just for the record, the GAA don't have a veto on Belfast - they play several major games in Casement.
Indeed Casement is much closer to many fans in Down, Armagh, Tyrone, Derry than Clones is.
You sometimes hear fans in those counties complaining about having to go to Clones.
Conversely, it would be natural for fans in Cavan/Monaghan/South Donegal to complain about Casement being far away.
This is due to what I would term "geography", not an anti-Belfast veto on the part of the GAA.
In an ideal world, we'd have one top class stadium somewhere central, eg dungannon.
Then nobody would complain.
But, hey, the Maze is only a short hop up the M1 from Dungannon, so its certainly more centrally located than either Casement or Clones.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:57:06 PM
EG,
do you not get it - there is no alternative to the Maze.
That's your reality that you've failed to grasp.
Interesting that you have gone from arguing that the Maze is the best option etc, to falling back on the Hobson's Choice argument!
Let me restate what it is I do "get". Whilst the NIO was in charge of these things, the projected cost of the Maze was still reasonably low and no-one actually had to produce a Business Case for it, you're right: there was no alternativbe to the Maze. Note my use of "was".
Since it was first proposed, we have had working devolution restored to NI, with locally accountable politicians taking many of the decision formerly taken by the NIO including, it seems this one.
Second, the price has rocketed fro the original 28k seater, £85m suggested cost. (That's right, three times the cost! :o)
Third, the backers of the Maze have now had to come clean over their Business Plan - and let's face it, it has made a less than overwhelming case.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:57:06 PM
Five years later, not one site has emerged in Belfast that is
a. available
b. cheap enough
c. has no planning issues
d. in an accepatable location to both communities
There's no point whinging about the Maze unless you can deliver the goods and develop an alternative.
After five years, you lot should be told to put up or shut up.
No site in Belfast has yet emerged since no one with sufficient clout/resources etc was actually looking for one. All those who might have been in such a position were swallowing the "Maze or Nothing" line from the Government.
Much more pertinent to me is the fact that five years after it was first proposed, not one brick has been laid on what is an empty site for a stadium, to which all three users are said to be signed up, with the Govenment's money ready and waiting.
To borrow an airline term, the Maze Stadium is not so much the
only "show", as a "no-show"! :D
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 04:15:23 PM
Looks like the Alliance Party are sticking to their guns about the Maze as well:
What? Both of them? Or just Mr. Lunn? :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 04:28:21 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:57:06 PM
EG,
do you not get it - there is no alternative to the Maze.
That's your reality that you've failed to grasp.
Interesting that you have gone from arguing that the Maze is the best option etc, to falling back on the Hobson's Choice argument!
Let me restate what it is I do "get". Whilst the NIO was in charge of these things, the projected cost of the Maze was still reasonably low and no-one actually had to produce a Business Case for it, you're right: there was no alternativbe to the Maze. Note my use of "was".
Since it was first proposed, we have had working devolution restored to NI, with locally accountable politicians taking many of the decision formerly taken by the NIO including, it seems this one.
Second, the price has rocketed fro the original 28k seater, £85m suggested cost. (That's right, three times the cost! :o)
Third, the backers of the Maze have now had to come clean over their Business Plan - and let's face it, it has made a less than overwhelming case.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:57:06 PM
Five years later, not one site has emerged in Belfast that is
a. available
b. cheap enough
c. has no planning issues
d. in an accepatable location to both communities
There's no point whinging about the Maze unless you can deliver the goods and develop an alternative.
After five years, you lot should be told to put up or shut up.
No site in Belfast has yet emerged since no one with sufficient clout/resources etc was actually looking for one. All those who might have been in such a position were swallowing the "Maze or Nothing" line from the Government.
Much more pertinent to me is the fact that five years after it was first proposed, not one brick has been laid on what is an empty site for a stadium, to which all three users are said to be signed up, with the Govenment's money ready and waiting.
To borrow an airline term, the Maze Stadium is not so much the only "show", as a "no-show"! :D
Christ, I've heard it all now.
So the reason nobody has found an alternative to the Maze is that they were'nt looking hard enough!! :D :D :D
You've had
FIVE YEARS to try.
Maybe you were all spending too much time on GAA chat boards when you should have been out looking.
Hey have you tried google maps recently? Its not a bad place to start.
If it takes you
FIVE YEARS to
START looking properly, have you idea of when you might finish?
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:57:06 PMdo you not get it - there is no alternative to the Maze.
That's your reality that you've failed to grasp.
Even if that was true (which it clearly isn't), it still wouldn't be a reason to favour the Maze, as the MAze still doesn't add up. It would be a reason for doing nothing
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:57:06 PM
Five years later, not one site has emerged in Belfast that is
a. available
b. cheap enough
c. has no planning issues
d. in an accepatable location to both communities
For the 3rd time, no other sites have been assesed so none have been ruled in or out.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 03:57:06 PM
There's no point whinging about the Maze unless you can deliver the goods and develop an alternative.
After five years, you lot should be told to put up or shut up.
Or to put it another way, after more than 5 years, no business case, transport infrastructure, planning request etc had been submitted for the Maze, despite millioons of pounds already having been spent. And now that the business case has been published it holds as much water as a very leaky sieve and has been rejected.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 04:26:34 PM
Or alternatively, there actually is no conspiracy.
Maybe the GAA actually mean what the say,
ie of the two sites put to them , they preferred the Maze to the North Foreshore (THE ONLY OTHER BELFAST OPTION PUT TO THEM).
You don't have to be a brain surgeon or professor of spatial planning to realise that the Maze is clsoer to GAA heartlands and would reasonably be expected to attract more GAA fans than the more cumbersome journey into and through Belfast.
That was their reasoning.
You can either accept it, or go on to peddle your own unsubstaniated theories.
I have no reason to disbelieve what the GAA say, so I'll believe the above statement until someone can prove that they're lying.
I'll certainly give no credence to your unsubstinated conspiracy theory until you can at least back it up.
Again maybe you just can't handle the truth.
Fow a vast swathe of OWC'ers (although I'd think that EG isn't one of them) there has to be a conspiracy when it comes to the GAA. Remember a number of contributors postulated that the GAA got on board this project purely because the saw an opportunity to mess other sports around. The reality is that the GAA have a stadium in Belfast already and that in Ulster context the Maze site would be more central/accessible. As anyone would do in a negotiation they went for the option that best suits their needs. Of course any negotiating gambit can change if circumstances do.
It's not sinister, it's business.
/Jim.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 03:15:29 PM
When it comes to it, we are talking about £240m+ of public money being spent on a venue that the GAA will use for a maximum of eight days per year.
After years of contesting elections, SF have developed a very acute ability to count, so I personally would be surprised if they will allow the stadium to take priority over their voters' concerns during the remaining 357 days of the year. After all, the most important statemant on this whole issue came from Wee Marty, when he said "No ICTC/Museum = No Stadium". That's a hell of a way short of saying their MUST be a stadium.
In fact, the Stadium might just provide a very convenient "figleaf" for Peter Robinson, when he has to explain why he isn't blocking SF'd plans for the H Blocks etc: "OK, they've got their Memorial and ICTC etc, but at least I prevented them from getting 'their' Stadium out there, as well"
Politics, eh? Don't Ya Just Love it... :D
You really don't have any understanding of how this issue is playing out over here. Perhaps you are spending to much time in Ealing and relying on OWC for your information. If I were you I'd be getting prepared for the surprise because you ain't getting a stadium anywhere else other than Long Kesh.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 04:49:36 PMYou really don't have any understanding of how this issue is playing out over here. Perhaps you are spending to much time in Ealing and relying on OWC for your information. If I were you I'd be getting prepared for the surprise because you ain't getting a stadium anywhere else other than Long Kesh.
When all else fails go back to personal abuse and blackmail, brilliant Donagh although I'm surprised it took this llong for the mask to slip.
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on March 14, 2008, 04:48:41 PMFow a vast swathe of OWC'ers (although I'd think that EG isn't one of them) there has to be a conspiracy when it comes to the GAA. Remember a number of contributors postulated that the GAA got on board this project purely because the saw an opportunity to mess other sports around. The reality is that the GAA have a stadium in Belfast already and that in Ulster context the Maze site would be more central/accessible. As anyone would do in a negotiation they went for the option that best suits their needs. Of course any negotiating gambit can change if circumstances do.
It's not sinister, it's business.
/Jim.
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
Sammy, you going to the scousers goons Champions League game at the San Giro? If so, do you fancy participating in an act of reconciliation by meeting up and buying me a pint?
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 04:37:06 PM
Christ, I've heard it all now.
So the reason nobody has found an alternative to the Maze is that they were'nt looking hard enough!! :D :D :D
You've had FIVE YEARS to try.
Maybe you were all spending too much time on GAA chat boards when you should have been out looking.
Hey have you tried google maps recently? Its not a bad place to start.
If it takes you FIVE YEARS to START looking properly, have you idea of when you might finish?
The Maze has already cost the Government (correction: you and me) millions of pounds in consultancy fees etc and after five years, still not one brick has been laid. So if we are all to believe the Government's assurance that the Maze will go ahead (i.e. as the only show in town), why would any private developer spend millions more chasing a lost cause? Now as it happens, we have already had two developers express interest in a Belfast stadium. One of these was Durnien, who came up with a proposal for Ormeau Park (which incidentally wouldn't have cost council taxpayers a penny). The other was for Maysfield, a site which i think is now being reconsidered in the light of the DUP getting cold feet over the Maze.
Anyhow, the Ormeau proposal faltered in the face of personal opposition by Ian Paisley. But with his imminent demise, that major obstacle might allow Ormeau also to be revisited.
[Two more minor points. I originally stated that no-one
with the necessary clout or resources is likely to have been looking that closely for a Beflast alternative - I did not include myself in that category, any more than I would suggest that you should have got yourself of to the Maze to start building your stadium, instead of spending so much time on GAA Chatboards ::). Second, the use of big capitals and coulours does not make a weak argument stronger; if anything, it only draws attention to its weakness]
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:53:14 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 04:49:36 PMYou really don't have any understanding of how this issue is playing out over here. Perhaps you are spending to much time in Ealing and relying on OWC for your information. If I were you I'd be getting prepared for the surprise because you ain't getting a stadium anywhere else other than Long Kesh.
When all else fails go back to personal abuse and blackmail, brilliant Donagh although I'm surprised it took this llong for the mask to slip.
What are you talking about now? He's going around in circles without addressing anything. The fact is that the only stadium that is going to be built is the one proposed for the old Maze-Long Kesh site. If there's no stadium there, then there'll be none built anywhere unless the IFA have a spare £40 million or so lying around somewhere. Ohh and I'm not blackmailing or insulting anyone, simply pointing out the facts as told by the people in charge.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
Never trust a Fenian eh? ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 05:02:26 PM
Anyhow, the Ormeau proposal faltered in the face of personal opposition by Ian Paisley. But with his imminent demise, that major obstacle might allow Ormeau also to be revisited.
Again you are simply out of touch. Ormeau was blew out of the water by the residents not Paisley. I was at a few of the meeting as were some of your fellow OWC types who bate a hasty retreat with their tails between their legs when they realised the strength of the opposition.
Sammy - thats quite a guess as to the motives of the GAA.
Why wouldnt they want a stadium at the Maze. It seems to be designed to suit their needs and they are happy with the location.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
Never trust a Fenian eh? ::)
I say 'the GAA played a blinder' and I wish the IFA was as good and in Donagh world this becomes 'never trust a Fenian'. Fcuk me that's brilliant even by your standards.
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 04:49:36 PM
You really don't have any understanding of how this issue is playing out over here. Perhaps you are spending to much time in Ealing and relying on OWC for your information. If I were you I'd be getting prepared for the surprise because you ain't getting a stadium anywhere else other than Long Kesh.
On balance, I think I'd be better off relying on OWC for my information - if that were my only source on such matters - than I would the latest Press Release from Connolly House! :D
Anyway, it's not where you live, it's what you know that counts. Patrick Moore has never lived on the Moon or even been into space, but I'd still trust his opinion on what's going on outside the Earth's atmosphere! ;)
Quote from: nifan on March 14, 2008, 05:09:28 PM
Sammy - thats quite a guess as to the motives of the GAA.
Why wouldnt they want a stadium at the Maze. It seems to be designed to suit their needs and they are happy with the location.
I didn't say they didn't want it, I said they didn't need it. Of course they'd use it it's built but they're not overly bothered (see Nicky Brennans reaction) if it isn't.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:10:27 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
Never trust a Fenian eh? ::)
I say 'the GAA played a blinder' and I wish the IFA was as good and in Donagh world this becomes 'never trust a Fenian'. Fcuk me that's brilliant even by your standards.
Well Danny Murphy said on the previous thread they never vetoed anything but all of a sudden you are able to read all of these other machinations. As I said never trust a Fenian...
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
The more you have repeated this Veto line the more I suspect it's validity.
Do have any GAA quote source for this?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 14, 2008, 05:01:55 PM
Sammy, you going to the scousers goons Champions League game at the San Giro? If so, do you fancy participating in an act of reconciliation by meeting up and buying me a pint?
Hoping to but don't know about tickets yet (actually might have more chance of tickets for the haemorhoids) but if I'm there I'lll let you stand me a pint, as you're on a freebie.
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:14:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
The more you have repeated this Veto line the more I suspect it's validity.
Do have any GAA quote source for this?
Read the GAA statement (as posted by snatter) plus the minutes of the various DCAL committees. The GAA vetoed Belfast as they already have a Belfast stadium.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 14, 2008, 05:11:21 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 04:49:36 PM
You really don't have any understanding of how this issue is playing out over here. Perhaps you are spending to much time in Ealing and relying on OWC for your information. If I were you I'd be getting prepared for the surprise because you ain't getting a stadium anywhere else other than Long Kesh.
On balance, I think I'd be better off relying on OWC for my information - if that were my only source on such matters - than I would the latest Press Release from Connolly House! :D
Anyway, it's not where you live, it's what you know that counts. Patrick Moore has never lived on the Moon or even been into space, but I'd still trust his opinion on what's going on outside the Earth's atmosphere! ;)
Interesting that you highlight an astromoner, a surveryor and explorer of new places.
If only you lot had shown the same adventurous spirit over the last five years, scouring the highways and byways of Belfast.
You might have found us all a better site than the maze. :D :D
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 05:12:54 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:10:27 PM
Quote from: Donagh on March 14, 2008, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
Never trust a Fenian eh? ::)
I say 'the GAA played a blinder' and I wish the IFA was as good and in Donagh world this becomes 'never trust a Fenian'. Fcuk me that's brilliant even by your standards.
Well Danny Murphy said on the previous thread they never vetoed anything but all of a sudden you are able to read all of these other machinations. As I said never trust a Fenian...
No he didn't he said that they would only accept the Maze (which is vetoing other sites). If you will only accept one site whatever the case for the others you have exercised a veto.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:14:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
The more you have repeated this Veto line the more I suspect it's validity.
Do have any GAA quote source for this?
Read the GAA statement (as posted by snatter) plus the minutes of the various DCAL committees. The GAA vetoed Belfast as they already have a Belfast stadium.
Take the OWC goggles off Sammy.
The GAA merely affirmed that they had chosen the better of two options put to them.
They chose the Maze becasue it was closer to the GAA supporters, and by extension would probably draw bigger crowds than if GAA fans ahad to drive into an dthrough Belfast.
If you think Danny Murphy is lying, then show us the proof.
Otherwise go back to your fantasy world.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:14:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
The more you have repeated this Veto line the more I suspect it's validity.
Do have any GAA quote source for this?
Read the GAA statement (as posted by snatter) plus the minutes of the various DCAL committees. The GAA vetoed Belfast as they already have a Belfast stadium.
Take the OWC goggles off Sammy.
The GAA merely affirmed that they had chosen the netter of two options put to them.
If you think Danny Murphy is lying, then show us the proof.
Otherwise go back to your fantasy world.
He isn't lying, he said that they rejected Belfast, which they did and which is confirmed by DCAL. Read the statement
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:17:59 PM
No he didn't he said that they would only accept the Maze (which is vetoing other sites). If you will only accept one site whatever the case for the others you have exercised a veto.
"Ulster secretary Murphy has
strongly denied the suggestion that the northern GAA body had taken a stance against a stadium in Belfast.
He insisted that the Ulster Council had
simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium. Murphy also noted that the Ulster Council had never been asked to consider the Titanic Quarter site.
Murphy said: "The Ulster GAA considered the two sites which were put forward to us, one on the northern foreshore, and the other one was the Maze/Long Kesh site.
"As far as we were concerned,
the Titanic Quarter was eliminated by the time it got to the stage where we were involved. "
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:20:43 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:19:10 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:16:08 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:14:11 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 04:55:41 PM
I've said many times that the GAA have played a blinder, they have no need for the stadiium so they vetoed the only workable options and then wait for the whole shebang to collapse. They then say not our fault mate and take their share of the money and move on. I just wish to fcuk the IFA had either the money or the business sense of the GAA and been ableto play the same card.
The more you have repeated this Veto line the more I suspect it's validity.
Do have any GAA quote source for this?
Read the GAA statement (as posted by snatter) plus the minutes of the various DCAL committees. The GAA vetoed Belfast as they already have a Belfast stadium.
Take the OWC goggles off Sammy.
The GAA merely affirmed that they had chosen the netter of two options put to them.
If you think Danny Murphy is lying, then show us the proof.
Otherwise go back to your fantasy world.
He isn't lying, he said that they rejected Belfast, which they did and which is confirmed by DCAL. Read the statement
Well I suppose if you choose one of two choices, then the flipside is that you must reject the other.
It doesn't mean that you have somehow got a veto against the other choice.
To illustrate, if had the chance of going out with Kylie or Mylene Klass, I would choose Kylie.
If Kylie dumped me, I certainly wouldn't veto Mylene
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:24:10 PMWell I suppose if you choose one of two choices, then the flipside is that you must reject the other.
It doesn't mean that you have somehow got a veto against the other choice.
To illustrate, if had the chance of going out with Kylie or Mylene Klass, I would choose Kylie.
If Kylie dumped me, I certainly wouldn't veto Mylene
As Kylie is now dead will the GAA be coming on board with Mylene? ;)
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
WHAT VETO?
Is there an intellectual void somewhere?
Has the huma race started to regress?
I thought the Kylie and Mylene example summed it up perfectly.
Rejecting one option and choosing another for the best of reasons DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VETO.
Would you seriously contend that by choosing Kylie, I was vetoing Mylene?
If you/DCAl/Poots have any EVIDENCE that the GAA are lying, and have a veto against Belfst, then bring it to the table.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:38:50 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
WHAT VETO?
Is there an intellectual void somewhere?
Has the huma race started to regress?
I thought the Kylie and Mylene example summed it up perfectly.
Rejecting one option and choosing another for the best of reasons DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VETO.
Would you seriously contend that by choosing Kylie, I was vetoing Mylene?
If you/DCAl/Poots have any EVIDENCE that the GAA are lying, and have a veto against Belfst, then bring it to the table.
The GAA said they did not want a Belfast site, knowing that all three sports had to be on board. I don't see how anybody (even you) can say that is not exercising a veto.
p.s. If you genuinely think differently you should contact DCAL, I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear that Poots has been lying to committees.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:42:58 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:38:50 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
WHAT VETO?
Is there an intellectual void somewhere?
Has the huma race started to regress?
I thought the Kylie and Mylene example summed it up perfectly.
Rejecting one option and choosing another for the best of reasons DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VETO.
Would you seriously contend that by choosing Kylie, I was vetoing Mylene?
If you/DCAl/Poots have any EVIDENCE that the GAA are lying, and have a veto against Belfst, then bring it to the table.
The GAA said they did not want a Belfast site, knowing that all three sports had to be on board. I don't see how anybody (even you) can say that is not exercising a veto.
p.s. If you genuinely think differently you should contact DCAL, I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear that Poots has been lying to committees.
When did they say
Quotethey did not want a Belfast site
?
On my computer they made clear that they chose the Maze on geographic & associated economic grounds.
On my computer they went out of there way to stress that their decision was not part of any anti-Belfast agenda.
Time to take the OWC interface out of your modem and read the GAA statement me thinks.
Still waiting for proof of any veto..........
Here, hopefully your OWC filters let these statements from Danny Murphy thru':
Quote"He insisted that the Ulster Council had simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium."
Quote"We chose the Maze/Long Kesh site because we believe it represented the best location.
We did not take a decision against a Belfast site. We took a pro-active view on behalf of the Council's need for a stadium and its location.'
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:47:05 PM
When did they say Quotethey did not want a Belfast site
?
At the meetings with DCAL, which are minuted
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:47:05 PMStill waiting for proof of any veto..........
What word would you use?
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:51:47 PM
At the meetings with DCAL, which are minuted
Minuted in your brain more likely.
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:54:25 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:51:47 PM
At the meetings with DCAL, which are minuted
Minuted in your brain more likely.
You've already posted a link to one BBC report, on a DCAL committee meetin (was that just in my brain), there are other minutes on the DCAL site if you want to have a dig about.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:51:47 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:47:05 PM
When did they say Quotethey did not want a Belfast site
?
At the meetings with DCAL, which are minuted
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 05:47:05 PMStill waiting for proof of any veto..........
What word would you use?
Then post them here.
Who made the claim? Poots/ you / your OWC cronies / somebody in the NIO?
Come on....we're waiting.
Then IF somebody apart form yourself wishes to contradict the GAA's statement, let's see the proof/basis of their claim.
I think we've given up any hope of you producing any proof.
------------
Once more, just for the record, here's the GAA statements.
You never know osmosis might mean that the facts slowy filter through the OWC thought block:
Quote"He insisted that the Ulster Council had simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium."
Quote"We chose the Maze/Long Kesh site because we believe it represented the best location.
We did not take a decision against a Belfast site. We took a pro-active view on behalf of the Council's need for a stadium and its location.'
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:56:32 PM
You've already posted a link to one BBC report, on a DCAL committee meetin (was that just in my brain)
No that was Poot's quote in your brain,
the minutes containing the GAA veto? are a figment of your imagination
If choosing the Maze is by your definition a veto then all 3 sporting bodies exercised a veto by ypur definition.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
NOPE -
the report plainly says that Poots has claimed that the GAA vetoed Belfast.
The GAA subsequently refuted that claim.
I previously highlighted the fact that neither the BBC/Belfast telegrph/Newsletter chose to carry the GAA's rebuttal.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
NOPE -
the report plainly says that Poots has claimed that the GAA vetoed Belfast.
The GAA subsequently refuted that claim.
I previously highlighted the fact that neither the BBC/Belfast telegrph/Newsletter chose to carry the GAA's rebuttal.
I'd guess they didn't carry the rebuttal because it wasn't a rebuttal, it was a re-statement of the GAA's position and confirmation that they had vetoed any Belfast site. Especially given that both the BBC and Telegraph are 100% pro-Maze at all costs.
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 06:25:12 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
NOPE -
the report plainly says that Poots has claimed that the GAA vetoed Belfast.
The GAA subsequently refuted that claim.
I previously highlighted the fact that neither the BBC/Belfast telegrph/Newsletter chose to carry the GAA's rebuttal.
I'd guess they didn't carry the rebuttal because it wasn't a rebuttal, it was a re-statement of the GAA's position and confirmation that they had vetoed any Belfast site. Especially given that both the BBC and Telegraph are 100% pro-Maze at all costs.
OK, back to Kylie and Mylene then.
If I choose Kylie, am I vetoing Mylene? or merely making my preference?
The IFA, GAA and UR were all of the same opinion on the Maze, ALL rejected whatever else was on offer, all have stated this publically
A statement of unity.
Howard Wells. 'Ni fans are delusional, when will those stubborn fans get the message that we don't have the money, that the Maze is the best location on offer and we want the stadium built there asap with the taxpayers money'.
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 07:33:23 PM
The IFA, GAA and UR were all of the same opinion on the Maze, ALL rejected whatever else was on offer, all have stated this publically
A statement of unity.
Howard Wells. 'Ni fans are delusional, when will those stubborn fans get the message that we don't have the money, that the Maze is the best location on offer and we want the stadium built there asap with the taxpayers money'.
You're missing two, fairly important, points
1) Hard Wells works for DCAL not the IFA
2) The Maze is being rejected because it doesn't add up, not because the sports have backed out.
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 07:29:22 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 06:25:12 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
NOPE -
the report plainly says that Poots has claimed that the GAA vetoed Belfast.
The GAA subsequently refuted that claim.
I previously highlighted the fact that neither the BBC/Belfast telegrph/Newsletter chose to carry the GAA's rebuttal.
I'd guess they didn't carry the rebuttal because it wasn't a rebuttal, it was a re-statement of the GAA's position and confirmation that they had vetoed any Belfast site. Especially given that both the BBC and Telegraph are 100% pro-Maze at all costs.
OK, back to Kylie and Mylene then.
If I choose Kylie, am I vetoing Mylene? or merely making my preference?
And I reaeat my question, now that Kylie's dead will you be happy to move on to Mylene? If not then it's fairly clear that you didn't make a choice for Kylie, you vetoed Mylene.
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 08:31:42 AM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 07:29:22 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 06:25:12 PM
Quote from: snatter on March 14, 2008, 06:14:37 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 14, 2008, 05:31:46 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 14, 2008, 05:29:17 PM
Sammy just reads headlines, well just about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6912363.stm)
without realizing that the source is Poots.
What headlines? The report says that the GAA vetoed Belfast, which is confirmed in the DCAL minutes and in the GAA statement.
NOPE -
the report plainly says that Poots has claimed that the GAA vetoed Belfast.
The GAA subsequently refuted that claim.
I previously highlighted the fact that neither the BBC/Belfast telegrph/Newsletter chose to carry the GAA's rebuttal.
I'd guess they didn't carry the rebuttal because it wasn't a rebuttal, it was a re-statement of the GAA's position and confirmation that they had vetoed any Belfast site. Especially given that both the BBC and Telegraph are 100% pro-Maze at all costs.
OK, back to Kylie and Mylene then.
If I choose Kylie, am I vetoing Mylene? or merely making my preference?
And I reaeat my question, now that Kylie's dead will you be happy to move on to Mylene? If not then it's fairly clear that you didn't make a choice for Kylie, you vetoed Mylene.
You see that's where you're hopelessly wrong.
I'd never veto Mylene.
But I would always prefer Kylie.
There you go, a preference, but no veto.
-----------------------------------------
Once more, just for the record, here's the GAA statements.
You never know osmosis might mean that the facts slowly filter through the OWC thought block:
Quote"He insisted that the Ulster Council had simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium."
Quote"We chose the Maze/Long Kesh site because we believe it represented the best location.
We did not take a decision against a Belfast site. We took a pro-active view on behalf of the Council's need for a stadium and its location.'
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 08:27:50 AM
You're missing two, fairly important, points
1) Hard Wells works for DCAL not the IFA
As the CEO of the IFA he is mandated to act in the interests of the IFA by the IFA executive. If they are not happy with his performance then they can mandate him to act accordingly or terminate his contract.
Maybe you should check out the minutes of the IFA meetings.
Quote2) The Maze is being rejected because it doesn't add up, not because the sports have backed out
.
That sentence is nonsensical, why am I not surprised that you claim such a nonsense statement as important.
All the sporting bodies have chosen the Maze and rejected Belfast.
By your nonsensical definition of a veto that means all sporting bodies have exercised a veto over the Belfast location.
Quote from: Main Street on March 15, 2008, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 08:27:50 AM
You're missing two, fairly important, points
1) Hard Wells works for DCAL not the IFA
As the CEO of the IFA he is mandated to act in the interests of the IFA by the IFA executive. If they are not happy with his performance then they can mandate him to act accordingly or terminate his contract.
Maybe you should check out the minutes of the IFA meetings.
Quote2) The Maze is being rejected because it doesn't add up, not because the sports have backed out
.
That sentence is nonsensical, why am I not surprised that you claim such a nonsense statement as important.
All the sporting bodies have chosen the Maze and rejected Belfast.
By your nonsensical definition of a veto that means all sporting bodies have exercised a veto over the Belfast location.
Sorry Rugby said they would use the Maze but would look at any Belfast proposals, the IFA said the same, GAA said that they were not prepared to use any Belfast sites and as it was all 3 or none, they exercised their veto. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
I repeat again, if the GAA are not vetoing Belfast, will they copme on-board now that the Maze is dead?
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 02:28:16 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 15, 2008, 10:55:04 AM
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 08:27:50 AM
You're missing two, fairly important, points
1) Hard Wells works for DCAL not the IFA
As the CEO of the IFA he is mandated to act in the interests of the IFA by the IFA executive. If they are not happy with his performance then they can mandate him to act accordingly or terminate his contract.
Maybe you should check out the minutes of the IFA meetings.
Quote2) The Maze is being rejected because it doesn't add up, not because the sports have backed out
.
That sentence is nonsensical, why am I not surprised that you claim such a nonsense statement as important.
All the sporting bodies have chosen the Maze and rejected Belfast.
By your nonsensical definition of a veto that means all sporting bodies have exercised a veto over the Belfast location.
Sorry Rugby said they would use the Maze but would look at any Belfast proposals, the IFA said the same, GAA said that they were not prepared to use any Belfast sites and as it was all 3 or none, they exercised their veto. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
I repeat again, if the GAA are not vetoing Belfast, will they copme on-board now that the Maze is dead?
QuoteGAA said that they were not prepared to use any Belfast sites and as it was all 3 or none, they exercised their veto
Total bollocks.
Prove otherwise.
Show the us one statement from the GAA where they ever said such a thing.
I've already shown their statement where they said the complete opposite.
You can't handle the truth, or don't understand it.
-----------------------------------------
Once more, just for the record, here's the GAA statements.
You never know osmosis might mean that the facts slowly filter through the OWC thought block:
Quote"He insisted that the Ulster Council had simply expressed its preference for the Maze site without ever taking a negative position on a city-based stadium."
Quote"We chose the Maze/Long Kesh site because we believe it represented the best location.
We did not take a decision against a Belfast site. We took a pro-active view on behalf of the Council's need for a stadium and its location.'
[/quote]
snatter
For the 3rd time, if DCAL are lying and the GAA didn't veto Belfast, does that mean that now the Maze is dead, they will come on-board with a Belfast stadium (if a workable one can be found)?
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 06:59:38 PM
snatter
For the 3rd time, if DCAL are lying and the GAA didn't veto Belfast, does that mean that now the Maze is dead, they will come on-board with a Belfast stadium (if a workable one can be found)?
Good to see you're now considering that the GAA didn't actually veto the Maze, nad that they merely preferred it.
Maybe the truth has actually made it out there to OWC land and is starting to filter through.
Moving on, the Maze only dies if the DUP scupper it.
If that happens, imo, all bets are off as to what happens.
For starters, the UK Govt has
1. always tied funding to the political symbolism of the Maze
2. always insisted that any publicly funded stadium must include the GAA.
The GAA will insist on coming onboard any publicly funded stadium project - with a projected footfall of 150k pa versus 80pa for soccer and 40k for rugby, they would have every right to.
For the main course, Five years later, not one site has emerged in Belfast that is
a. available
b. cheap enough
c. has no planning issues
d. in an acceptable location to both communities
displaying comic genius, EG claims that this is because Belfast proponents weren't looking hard enough.
I'd say its more likely that no such site exists.
I'd also say that its almost certain that, fed up with us ungrateful scroungers, the UK Govt will pull the previously ring-fenced funding, and divert it back to the treasury, never to be seen again.
Quote from: snatter on March 15, 2008, 07:27:28 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 06:59:38 PM
snatter
For the 3rd time, if DCAL are lying and the GAA didn't veto Belfast, does that mean that now the Maze is dead, they will come on-board with a Belfast stadium (if a workable one can be found)?
Good to see you're now considering that the GAA didn't actually veto the Maze, nad that they merely preferred it.
Maybe the truth has actually made it out there to OWC land and is starting to filter through.
Not considering anything, I was asking a hypothetiical question. which your complete failure to even attempt to answer, is an answer in itself.
Quote from: SammyG on March 15, 2008, 02:28:16 PM
Sorry Rugby said they would use the Maze but would look at any Belfast proposals, the IFA said the same, GAA said that they were not prepared to use any Belfast sites and as it was all 3 or none, they exercised their veto. It really isn't that difficult to understand.
I repeat again, if the GAA are not vetoing Belfast, will they copme on-board now that the Maze is dead?
You forgot to spoof about the mythical mystery dcal minutes ;D
The Maze stadium was always and is now the only show in town.
ULSTER RUGBY30 January 2006
IRFU backs Maze stadium proposal
NIO Sports Minister David Hanson has welcomed the decision of the Irish Rugby Football Union and the Ulster Branch to commit in principle to the multi-sports stadium at the Maze site close to Lisburn City.22/06/2007
Ulster Rugby CEO Michael Reid today made the following statement regarding recent press coverage regarding the MAZE stadium proposals.
"In light of certain media articles in the last 24 hours I would like to reiterate the position of Ulster Rugby as stated at the NI Assembly DCAL meeting held on Thursday afternoon at Stormont.
I would like to clarify the following points:
Ulster Rugby remain committed in principal to a stadium at the Maze / Long Kesh site."
"At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster Rugby."
5/02/08
UR have "signed up" to what appears to be a minimum commitment of probably three matches per year at a proposed Maze Stadium. That's it exactly.
The only actual option on the table at the moment is the Maze. There has been talk for a long, long time of Belfast City Council putting forward another option, but for now, the Maze is the only option there.
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there.IFA20/01/2006
NI football authorities have voted in principle to support a new multi-sports stadium on the former Maze prison site.
IFA Chief Executive Howard Wells said the decision was in the best interests of football in the province
Voting for the proposal, the soccer body said that they were prepared to "progress the matter with Government" on the basis that two other sports also found the stadium proposal attractive.
REJECTIONISTS
MARCH 14 2008However, some members of the DUP oppose the Maze site because they argue Belfast would be a much better location.
Other unionists have raised concerns that the Maze master plan also includes plans for the preservation of some of the old H-Block prison buildings as part of a conflict transformation centre.
Some DUP members, including Economy Minister Nigel Dodds, have voiced concerns that the retention of the prison buildings could be used as a shrine to terrorism.
The funny thing is all the anti GAA brigade on OWC constantly say we should keep politics out of sport, yet the Anti Maze brigade are doing quite the opposite, siding with the DUP in not wanting to share with the GAA when the sports bodies are all on board.
For shame.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 16, 2008, 10:11:19 AM
The funny thing is all the anti GAA brigade on OWC constantly say we should keep politics out of sport, yet the Anti Maze brigade are doing quite the opposite, siding with the DUP in not wanting to share with the GAA when the sports bodies are all on board.
For shame.
Can you show me one occaision were anyone on OWC has made a political comment? As far as siding with the DUP, what a load of bollix, the DUP along with everybody else have now read the business case and it doesn't add up. The fact that some of the DUP have finally realised the reality of the situation doesn't have anything to do with politics.
As far as the sports bodies being on-board, I presume you're having trouble reading again.
Quote from: SammyG on March 16, 2008, 05:57:43 PM
Can you show me one occaision were anyone on OWC has made a political comment?
Brilliant!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 16, 2008, 07:21:47 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 16, 2008, 05:57:43 PM
Can you show me one occaision were anyone on OWC has made a political comment?
Brilliant!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Excellent response, but some actual quotes would have been more useful.
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 16, 2008, 10:11:19 AM
The funny thing is all the anti GAA brigade on OWC constantly say we should keep politics out of sport, yet the Anti Maze brigade are doing quite the opposite, siding with the DUP in not wanting to share with the GAA when the sports bodies are all on board.
For shame.
Ive never said i didnt want to share with the gaa, and neither have most people I know - some have questioned the effect of a gaa pitch but i dont think thats insurmountable
Quote from: SammyG on March 16, 2008, 09:29:25 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 16, 2008, 07:21:47 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 16, 2008, 05:57:43 PM
Can you show me one occaision were anyone on OWC has made a political comment?
Brilliant!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Excellent response, but some actual quotes would have been more useful.
SammyG asking for quotes ;D
Don't we all remember the time before last christmas when Sammy went to the pub for a session .
After winding up the thread
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=5905.msg213038#msg213038 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=5905.msg213038#msg213038)
"the ONLY reason that the Maze is being proposed for the stadium is because of the H Blocks. If the H Blocks didn't exist nobody in there right mind would be proposing building a stadium in a field in the middle of nowhere."'strange that they (Sinn Fein) were able to coax/co-erce the GAA into backing them in backing a memorial to their hunger strikers'Then the classic
"I'll withdraw it (that remark) when somebody produces some evidence to contradict it"
"I deliberately used the phrase coaxed/co-erced. I don't know which it was but it was certainly one or the other. There is no business or sporting reason for the GAA to support the Maze, so it must be for political reasons".
Quote from: SammyG on March 16, 2008, 09:29:25 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 16, 2008, 07:21:47 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 16, 2008, 05:57:43 PM
Can you show me one occaision were anyone on OWC has made a political comment?
Brilliant!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Excellent response, but some actual quotes would have been more useful.
Sammy I have told you a few times now I have no intentions of going onto that site. So will you stop asking me for quotes from it!!!!
A terribly sad attempt to get me back on your sad wee website :D :D :D :D
Selective quotations, MS, which don't tell the whole, up-to-date situation. For example, Hanson, who was the main driving force from the NIO behind the Maze project is no longer in NI, never mind influencing it anymore.
Quote from: Main Street on March 15, 2008, 10:42:19 PM
The Maze stadium was always and is now the only show in town.
ULSTER RUGBY
30 January 2006
IRFU backs Maze stadium proposal
NIO Sports Minister David Hanson has welcomed the decision of the Irish Rugby Football Union and the Ulster Branch to commit in principle to the multi-sports stadium at the Maze site close to Lisburn City.
22/06/2007
Ulster Rugby CEO Michael Reid today made the following statement regarding recent press coverage regarding the MAZE stadium proposals.
"In light of certain media articles in the last 24 hours I would like to reiterate the position of Ulster Rugby as stated at the NI Assembly DCAL meeting held on Thursday afternoon at Stormont.
I would like to clarify the following points:
Ulster Rugby remain committed in principal to a stadium at the Maze / Long Kesh site."
"At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster
Rugby."
5/02/08
UR have "signed up" to what appears to be a minimum commitment of probably three matches per year at a proposed Maze Stadium. That's it exactly. The only actual option on the table at the moment is the Maze. There has been talk for a long, long time of Belfast City Council putting forward another option, but for now, the Maze is the only option there.
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there.
Re. rugby, Reid's is hardly a ringing endorsement of the Maze - "probably three matches a year" and then only because "the Maze is the only option there". In fact, it should be read in the light of UR's pressing (and continuing) need to keep HMG sweet whilst funding and planning pewrmission etc for the redevelopment of Ravenhill is completed. Indeed, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Ulster might fail to qualify for the Heineken Cup if things don't improve, in which case they will not be using the Maze at all, since HRC Group games are the only games possibly envisaged for the Maze by UR!
Quote from: Main Street on March 15, 2008, 10:42:19 PM
IFA
20/01/2006
NI football authorities have voted in principle to support a new multi-sports stadium on the former Maze prison site.
IFA Chief Executive Howard Wells said the decision was in the best interests of football in the province
Voting for the proposal, the soccer body said that they were prepared to "progress the matter with Government" on the basis that two other sports also found the stadium proposal attractive.
HW has always been the main (only?) cheerleader for the Maze from amongst the three codes. This is because he is actually employed by DCAL and it suits his personal agenda*. As such, he has long used the argument of "the only show in town" as his main justification for advocating the Maze.
Yet in his Programme Notes for the NI v Bulgaria friendly last month, his previously uncompromising stance showed significant slippage. Quoting from a BBC report derived by them from those Notes, he said:
"Without the ability to sell more tickets for international games the IFA five-year plan will come to nothing.
"A new stadium, or a much improved one, is vital to this," said Wells.
Later he stated:
"Without a new stadium or a much improved one, the future for football here is gloomy," he insisted.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/irish/7232222.stm
And elsewhere (though not quoted by BBC), he referred to the need for a new stadium asap "wherever it may be".
* - Btw, Wells does not represent the general thinking within the IFA, never mind the vast bulk of NI supporters. And as the Irish News Editorial argued, support from all levels, both within and outwith all three sports, is liable to be critical to the Maze's chances of ever getting built.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 11:51:09 AM
Selective quotations, MS, which don't tell the whole, up-to-date situation. For example, Hanson, who was the main driving force from the NIO behind the Maze project is no longer in NI, never mind influencing it anymore.
Stick to the point.
From the beginning we have been fed the non stop crap that the GAA has exercised some sort of veto over a Belfast location.
Both you and SammyG have ad nauseum repeated this line.
I have demonstarted that there was no Belfast option, both the IFA and UR have said that .
The so called selective quotes from Ulster Rugby state clearly that the Maze location was the only show in town
"At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster
Rugby.""The only actual option on the table at the moment is the Maze. There has been talk for a long, long time of Belfast City Council putting forward another option, but for now, the Maze is the only option there.
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there".
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 16, 2008, 10:11:19 AM
The funny thing is all the anti GAA brigade on OWC constantly say we should keep politics out of sport, yet the Anti Maze brigade are doing quite the opposite, siding with the DUP in not wanting to share with the GAA when the sports bodies are all on board.
For shame.
As I have already stated clearly more than once on this Board, "Ussuns" on OWC are NOT all the same when it comes to the Maze (or any other issue, for that matter, as e.g the Ian Paisley Resignation thread proves).
There are a variety of reasons why the clear majority (though not unamimity) of OWC posters oppose the Maze. In my direct experience, and according to all the evidence, the overwhelming majority do so because they consider that defects in the location, design and cost will seriously harm the IFA and NI soccer in the long term, since it will hurt our attendances and therefore our finances.
Now it is also the case that some of those also have reservations about being lumped in with so controversial and emotive a site as the Maze i.e. it unncessarily introduces a political element into our sport, with which we are not happy. Speaking for myself, I greatly dislike this unwelcome imposition upon my sport as well (although if everything else about the scheme were OK, I daresay I could live with it).
However, I know of hardly anyone from amongst the NI support whose chief reason for opposing the Maze is this political aspect; moreover, I have not met or even heard of one NI fan who believes the Maze proposal is an otherwise good one, but still opposes it solely because of the political aspect. I repeat, not one.
Perhaps you could find one for me? Oh, I forgot - you like to make all sorts of wild allegations about what people are posting on OWC, but feel you are absolved from having to substantiate them, since you've sworn not to go back...
Can I suggest that you foreswear referring to the site, since you can't have it both ways, like some yappy wee bastard of a dog that starts a fight in the park by sneaking up on another dog from behind and biting it on the arse, then runs aways and hides whilst all the other big dogs in the vicinity square up to each other... ::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on March 17, 2008, 10:17:35 AM
I have no intentions of going onto that site [OWC}. So will you stop asking me for quotes from it!!!!
A terribly sad attempt to get me back on your sad wee website :D :D :D :D
You don't have to "support" the site even by posting on it, never mind by subscribing to it. All we're saying is that if you're going to refer to it, then at least have the integrity to back up your references by quoting from it. Otherwise, following your weak attempts at debate over there, you now merely expose your lack of credibility to the posters of this Board.
After all, if Donagh - who refuses to become a Patron on a point of principle - can browse the site in order to find ammunition for his posts, why can't you? Think of it as another means of ingratiating yourself further with him, without it appearing such an obvious effort at arselicking... :D
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 12:05:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 11:51:09 AM
Selective quotations, MS, which don't tell the whole, up-to-date situation. For example, Hanson, who was the main driving force from the NIO behind the Maze project is no longer in NI, never mind influencing it anymore.
Stick to the point.
From the beginning we have been fed the non stop crap that the GAA has exercised some sort of veto over a Belfast location.
Both you and SammyG have ad nauseum repeated this line.
I have demonstarted that there was no Belfast option, both the IFA and UR have said that .
The so called selective quotes from Ulster Rugby state clearly that the Maze location was the only show in town
"At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster
Rugby."
"The only actual option on the table at the moment is the Maze. There has been talk for a long, long time of Belfast City Council putting forward another option, but for now, the Maze is the only option there.
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there".
Which point, MS?
With these particular posts I was making the case that neither the GAA nor UR is particularly enthusiastic about the Maze, with the IFA only appearing so from a combination of Hobson's Choice (they're skint) and Wells's personal Agenda.
And now even the IFA "commitment" to the Maze appears to be eroding somewhat, if Wells's most recent public pronouncement is anything to go by. And on this point, whilst I am not privvy to any behind the scenes manoueuvering which may be going on, I hardly think it merely coincidental that with the DUP getting cold feet over the Maze for political reasons and leaking that some sort of replacement for soccer might be built at the Blanchflower Stadium, Wells should now appear to concede ground from his previous "Maze or Nothing" stance. After all the IFA already had an interest in the Blancjflower Stadium, inc. plans to centre their NI Youth Academy there, and near neighbours Glentoran - the second biggest club in the Province - have also expressed an interest in buying into the Stadium.
None of this has anything directly to do with the exercise (or otherwise) by the GAA of a veto over any multi-use stadium on a Belfast site, which you seem to be conflating with this particular topic.
EG would ya ever go out and have a few pints or a walk in the park - this non stop long long posting isnt healthy.
Anyway after 59 pages - is Páirc na Cise Fada going ahead or not?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 12:29:53 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 12:05:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 11:51:09 AM
Selective quotations, MS, which don't tell the whole, up-to-date situation. For example, Hanson, who was the main driving force from the NIO behind the Maze project is no longer in NI, never mind influencing it anymore.
Stick to the point.
From the beginning we have been fed the non stop crap that the GAA has exercised some sort of veto over a Belfast location.
Both you and SammyG have ad nauseum repeated this line.
I have demonstarted that there was no Belfast option, both the IFA and UR have said that .
The so called selective quotes from Ulster Rugby state clearly that the Maze location was the only show in town
"At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster
Rugby."
"The only actual option on the table at the moment is the Maze. There has been talk for a long, long time of Belfast City Council putting forward another option, but for now, the Maze is the only option there.
We are committed to the Maze, because it is the only thing that's there".
Which point, MS?
With these particular posts I was making the case that neither the GAA nor UR is particularly enthusiastic about the Maze, with the IFA only appearing so from a combination of Hobson's Choice (they're skint) and Wells's personal Agenda.
And now even the IFA "commitment" to the Maze appears to be eroding somewhat, if Wells's most recent public pronouncement is anything to go by. And on this point, whilst I am not privvy to any behind the scenes manoueuvering which may be going on, I hardly think it merely coincidental that with the DUP getting cold feet over the Maze for political reasons and leaking that some sort of replacement for soccer might be built at the Blanchflower Stadium, Wells should now appear to concede ground from his previous "Maze or Nothing" stance. After all the IFA already had an interest in the Blancjflower Stadium, inc. plans to centre their NI Youth Academy there, and near neighbours Glentoran - the second biggest club in the Province - have also expressed an interest in buying into the Stadium.
None of this has anything directly to do with the exercise (or otherwise) by the GAA of a veto over any multi-use stadium on a Belfast site, which you seem to be conflating with this particular topic.
Out of interest, who's the biggest club in the province?
Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2008, 01:28:42 PM
Anyway after 59 pages - is Páirc na Cise Fada going ahead or not?
If by that you mean the proposed stadium at The Maze, I'd say it's looking less likely by the day.
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 01:51:30 PM
Out of interest, who's the biggest club in the province?
Though it gives me no great pleasure to say it, that would be Linfield. In fact, there is a case for saying they are the "biggest" in Ireland (though what the criteria should be is arguable, to say the least)
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 01:51:30 PM
Out of interest, who's the biggest club in the province?
Though it gives me no great pleasure to say it, that would be Linfield. In fact, there is a case for saying they are the "biggest" in Ireland (though what the criteria should be is arguable, to say the least)
Where would Derry City fall in? I'd imagine they'd be quite big too.
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
Where would Derry City fall in? I'd imagine they'd be quite big too.
Derry are a small provincial side in the scheme of things. The big two in Belfst, four in Dublin and Cork would be bigger and more successful then them.
I havent read all these pages. Can I summise that the socer fans are lukewarm on the idea and the GAA lads are reacting badly as this threatens their free stadium?
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 01:51:30 PM
Out of interest, who's the biggest club in the province?
Though it gives me no great pleasure to say it, that would be Linfield. In fact, there is a case for saying they are the "biggest" in Ireland (though what the criteria should be is arguable, to say the least)
Where would Derry City fall in? I'd imagine they'd be quite big too.
I see what you mean (I should have said Irish League rather than NI/Province). Linfield are still ahead of DCFC by almost every criterion. Derry could certainly argue they are "bigger" than the Glens on the basis of the last 15-20 years, but even then they have been somewhat inconsistent over that period. In the longer term, their record doesn't really compare to Gemtoran's, it has to be said.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 02:49:08 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 02:04:11 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 01:51:30 PM
Out of interest, who's the biggest club in the province?
Though it gives me no great pleasure to say it, that would be Linfield. In fact, there is a case for saying they are the "biggest" in Ireland (though what the criteria should be is arguable, to say the least)
Where would Derry City fall in? I'd imagine they'd be quite big too.
I see what you mean (I should have said Irish League rather than NI/Province). Linfield are still ahead of DCFC by almost every criterion. Derry could certainly argue they are "bigger" than the Glens on the basis of the last 15-20 years, but even then they have been somewhat inconsistent over that period. In the longer term, their record doesn't really compare to Gemtoran's, it has to be said.
Don't know much about them to be honest but thought they would've been big enough. Definitely bigger than my home club - the mighty Swifts! ;)
Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2008, 02:45:06 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
Where would Derry City fall in? I'd imagine they'd be quite big too.
Derry are a small provincial side in the scheme of things. The big two in Belfst, four in Dublin and Cork would be bigger and more successful then them.
Tbf, Derry is a traditional "soccer" town, in a way that Cork has never really been, so I'd guess that their fans would take exception to being lumped behind Cork Hibs/Celtic/City/Whateverthehelltheyrecallingthemselvesthisweek
Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2008, 02:45:06 PM
]I havent read all these pages. Can I summise that the socer fans are lukewarm on the idea and the GAA lads are reacting badly as this threatens their free stadium?
NI soccer fans are overwhelmingly opposed to the Maze Stadium, for a variety of reasons to do with location, design, cost etc. There is also a political element to this opposition in that many do not want to be associated with so politically controversial a site, but this is by no means the main, or even a significant element of the opposition (despite what certain non-NI soccer fans would tell you! ;))
As for the GAA, even if there is little of the hostility of the soccer community, I can honestly discern no great enthusiasm for the project, either from amongst their Administrators or supporters. I guess that most are prepared to go along with it both because it is "free" and also because they don't wish to antagonise a Government which is/was set upon it, particularly for it's "shared space" aspect. (Fair enough on the GAA's part, I should add)
That said, if a select number of posters on this Board are representative, there may be a constituency amongst the GAA support which is very enthusiastic towards the Maze and correspondingly scornful towards NI soccer fans who oppose it.
Anyhow, Dublinfella, you couldn't supply any tips on how soccer fans might deal with the GAA over stadium-sharing problems by any chance? ;) :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 03:02:49 PM
[
Anyhow, Dublinfella, you couldn't supply any tips on how soccer fans might deal with the GAA over stadium-sharing problems by any chance? ;) :D
With extreme hostility I would suggest!! ;D ;D
While the circumstances are different in the sense of the GAA's input is wanted and welcome here, its interesting to see the same posters jumping up and down in fury at the thought of a 'free' stadium for soccer in Tallaght and jumping up and down with fury because soccer wont take the free stadium in Belfast. The GAA isnt consistant enough in its approach to share with any sports on a long term basis.
Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2008, 02:45:06 PM
Quote from: take_yer_points on March 17, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
Where would Derry City fall in? I'd imagine they'd be quite big too.
Derry are a small provincial side in the scheme of things. The big two in Belfst, four in Dublin and Cork would be bigger and more successful then them.
I havent read all these pages. Can I summise that the socer fans are lukewarm on the idea and the GAA lads are reacting badly as this threatens their free stadium?
wrong, just like every other post you've put on this board. and who the fock are the big soccer clubs in dublin? scamrock rovers/bohs/st pats? would they draw 5k between them? man u have more supporters in tallaght then rovers in the whole of dublin..
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 12:29:53 PM
Which point, MS?
Which point ;D ;D
The point of the last 10 pages of the thread, that's what feckin point.
I am not interested to get into a windbag discussion with someone whoose self absorbed head is all over the place.
Get some feckin focus, read the feckin posts before you come back with a silly comment.
The points I have made are fully supported with quotes and have not been challenged or refuted with any semblance of rational focussed debate. There were no Belfast option proposals, all sporting bodies say so, there was nothing to veto by the GAA. There is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that the GAA dictated the location.
All the available evidence points to that the Maze location was dictated by entities outside the control of the 3 sporting bodies.
Whatever happens in the future is another issue
Quote from: dublinfella on March 17, 2008, 03:17:49 PM
[fury at the thought of a 'free' stadium for soccer in Tallaght and jumping up and down with fury because soccer wont take the free stadium in Belfast.
There's a big difference between a "free" stadium for 3 sports and a free stadium for one sport and then only for one freeloading sc**bag failed entity of a club from that sport.
Anyway as far as I can make out between all the quotes by EG/Sammy -Soccer in the North actually wants a free stadium in Belfast and doesnt want one in Long Kesh because it's too far from Belfast ?? ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on March 17, 2008, 04:32:53 PMand doesnt want one in Long Kesh because it's too far from Belfast ?? ::)
I presume that is either a pisstake or you haven't read the thread. The issues with the Maze are:
No infrastructure
No road access
No public transport access
Cost
Nothing to do with how far it is from Belfast.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 03:53:18 PM
The points I have made are fully supported with quotes and have not been challenged or refuted with any semblance of rational focussed debate. There were no Belfast option proposals, all sporting bodies say so, there was nothing to veto by the GAA. There is absolutely no evidence to support the contention that the GAA dictated the location.
Apart from the fact that you posted the evvidence a couple of pages back.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 03:53:18 PM
All the available evidence points to that the Maze location was dictated by entities outside the control of the 3 sporting bodies.
No all evidence points to the 3 sports bodies being given various options. Football and Rugby said they were happy with anywhere and the GAA said no to Belfast.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 03:53:18 PM
Whatever happens in the future is another issue
Indeed it will be interesting to see if the GAA will now come on board with a city stadium, now that the Maze is dead (becuase, after all, we've been told enough times that they have no veto!!!)
I don't know why cost would be an issue. No one in NI is going to be paying for it.
I'll get my coat . . .
Quote from: SammyG on March 17, 2008, 06:38:54 PM
No all evidence points to the 3 sports bodies being given various options. Football and Rugby said they were happy with anywhere and the GAA said no to Belfast.
Where is all that written down? in the dcal minutes? ;D
Ulster Rugby
"At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster Rugby"QuoteIndeed it will be interesting to see if the GAA will now come on board with a city stadium, now that the Maze is dead (becuase, after all, we've been told enough times that they have no veto!!!)
All 3 sports bodies have to agree , therefore you could say all 3 have some sort of veto, the lie being spouted around is that there was some Belfast option that the GAA exercised some veto over.
Lets see if the Maze is dead and lets see if there is a viable Belfast option for a multi sports stadium.
Looks to me so far that the DUP are just posing to appease their electorate.
Looks to me that if the Maze is rejected then that's the end of a multi sports facility.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 07:18:07 PM
Quote from: SammyG on March 17, 2008, 06:38:54 PM
No all evidence points to the 3 sports bodies being given various options. Football and Rugby said they were happy with anywhere and the GAA said no to Belfast.
Where is all that written down? in the dcal minutes? ;D
As per several previous conversations, yes it is detailed in the DCAL minutes. Further info at http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/culture/2007mandate/moe/070724.htm (http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/culture/2007mandate/moe/070724.htm) and http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/culture/2007mandate/moe/080221.htm (http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/culture/2007mandate/moe/080221.htm)
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 07:18:07 PM
Ulster Rugby
"At no time has a business proposal or governance solution been made available in relation to a Belfast Stadium nor have Belfast City Council ever met with a representative from Ulster Rugby"
Interesting selective quoting yet again. UR haven't seen a proposal from BCC, because there hasn't been one. That doesn't mean they won't look at one if/when one becomes available.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 07:18:07 PM
QuoteIndeed it will be interesting to see if the GAA will now come on board with a city stadium, now that the Maze is dead (becuase, after all, we've been told enough times that they have no veto!!!)
All 3 sports bodies have to agree , therefore you could say all 3 have some sort of veto, the lie being spouted around is that there was some Belfast option that the GAA exercised some veto over.
See previous answer. DCAL confirm that 6 Belfast options were discussed and 2 put forward and the GAA said no to any Belfast site.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 07:18:07 PM
Lets see if the Maze is dead and lets see if there is a viable Belfast option for a multi sports stadium.
Indeed, as I've been saying for a long time. The first priority was to stop the Maze white elephant, now that it's dead, we can move on to looking at the available options and choosing whats best for sport. Hopefully that will be a multi-sport stadium but if not then divvy the money up and let the sports get on with their own lives.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 07:18:07 PM
Looks to me so far that the DUP are just posing to appease their electorate.
I'd imagine the thought of a court case over mis-use of public funds would be weighing more heavily. Given that most DUP voters would vote for a monkey in a red, white and blue rosette. And a lot of the DUP MLAs seem to have little or no interest in sport.
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2008, 07:18:07 PM
Looks to me that if the Maze is rejected then that's the end of a multi sports facility.
Depends on whether the GAA will come on-board with a workable city stadium, if not then you're probably right (unfortunately).
Quote from: SammyG on March 17, 2008, 08:25:44 PM
Interesting selective quoting yet again. UR haven't seen a proposal from BCC, because there hasn't been one. That doesn't mean they won't look at one if/when one becomes available.
The perfectly adequate court verified quote is eye witness evidence that Ulster Rugby hasn't been approached or they havent seen a proposal.
If they do see a proposal they could do a lot of things, look at it, laugh at it, cry at it.
QuoteSee previous answer. DCAL confirm that 6 Belfast options were discussed and 2 put forward and the GAA said no to any Belfast site.
Jaysus Sammy reading DUP politicans assembly speak is marginally less attractive that reading your posts.
We already know that Poots has claimed the GAA exercised what he calls a veto, which the GAA emphatically deny.
The minutes claim that the IFA exercised a veto
´Mr McCausland: The IFA has identified that it would prefer the Maze site. Apparently, it does not want a Belfast site. I find that interesting given the fact that most football supporters would prefer a Belfast site´I am deeply shocked Sammy, firstly the minister tried to shift the onus on the GAA for the location, the GAA deny that in a blazing rebuke to Poots then we have the IFA saying out loud it wants the Maze, saying NO to Belfast.
In general on the Belfast option 28/02/2008
'The council assured the Minister that the proposal would be ready, but it is still not ready. In fact, Belfast City Council has not even discussed it yet. Therefore, it will be several more months, at the earliest, before anybody gets to see the proposal because the council will have to approve it through its committee stage and it will have to be endorsed at a full council meeting, too.''The response from Belfast City Council has been poor. I urge the Minister and the Department to rule Belfast out as an option at this stage. There are other proposals for the north foreshore site. Looking at this matter from the point of view of a business case, it is clear that the option is hypothetical. It is unfair to have such hypothetical options in the business case. It is unfair to the other sites'.
Too much attention is being afforded to OWC bigots who are at the end of the day the only oponents to the Maze site. Sinn Fein have said it will be there or nowhere so relax everyone. At the end of the day the Brit Government wants the Maze and the three main bodies, namely the IFA, URFU,and IFA. What chance have three or four thousand bigots got of stopping this?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 12:05:55 PM
Perhaps you could find one for me? Oh, I forgot - you like to make all sorts of wild allegations about what people are posting on OWC, but feel you are absolved from having to substantiate them, since you've sworn not to go back...
Oh stop whingeng EG, anyone can log on there and see for themselves. I couldnt be arsed.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 12:05:55 PM
Can I suggest that you foreswear referring to the site
Suggest away :D :D :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 12:05:55 PM
like some yappy wee bastard of a dog that starts a fight in the park by sneaking up on another dog from behind and biting it on the arse, then runs aways and hides whilst all the other big dogs in the vicinity square up to each other... ::)
EG, do you think saying someone is "like some yappy wee bastard" is in fact different from saying someone is a "yappy wee bastard" and therefore is less personally abusive?
If your going to take the moral high ground here, at least cut the childish stuff out yourself.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 12:13:23 PM
You don't have to "support" the site even by posting on it, never mind by subscribing to it. All we're saying is that if you're going to refer to it, then at least have the integrity to back up your references by quoting from it. Otherwise, following your weak attempts at debate over there, you now merely expose your lack of credibility to the posters of this Board.
Weak attempts at debate there, lack of credibility here?
EG repeating this old chestnut over and over doesnt make it true. I merely pointed out the bigotry I encountered over there. And for pointing out the bigotry I encountered on your precious site I must endure your persistant attempts to discredit me personally and your personal insults.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 17, 2008, 12:13:23 PM
After all, if Donagh - who refuses to become a Patron on a point of principle - can browse the site in order to find ammunition for his posts, why can't you? Think of it as another means of ingratiating yourself further with him, without it appearing such an obvious effort at arselicking... :D
Pathetic. Funny how anyone in agreement with, of in defense of one of your arch enemies on here (be honest) is singled out for ridicule by either being called "gay" or accused of "arse licking".
Real schoolyard stuff EG, bully boy tactics. Totally pathetic.
I can't view OWC (the forum) at all. Is it because I is Déisigh?
'Big three' sports chiefs snub Stormont stadium meeting invite
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/39Big-three39-sports-chiefs-snub.3921776.jp
The three main sporting bodies involved in the Maze stadium plan have rejected an invitation to meet a Stormont committee to further discussions on the proposals.
The Department of Culture Arts and Leisure committee asked for the meeting with the three men in charge of the IFA, GAA and Ulster Rugby to talk about the stalled plan.
Howard Wells of the IFA, the GAA's Danny Murphy and Mike Reid of Ulster Rugby, who all support the original proposals have already met the committee.
In a thinly-veiled snub at the delay on a decision to build the stadium, they wrote to say there was nothing further to discuss.
The sports chiefs said that in the lack of any viable alternative and the unlikelihood of other options being brought forward within a time frame which would prove acceptable to all three sports - particularly soccer - they feel there is nothing to be added to the current debate.
The three men added that they are convinced the current plan will provide a stadium which will cover its operating costs and provide income for the sports involved.
Howard Wells said he felt that it was a time for action rather than words.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have already told the Assembly they would play games at the new stadium.
Other options examined and so far rejected include a possible stadium on reclaimed land in north Belfast and the refurbishment of the three sporting codes' existing venues.
What other country, artificial gerrymandered statelet in the World, would you find a government pandering to the wishes of a few thousand narrowminded bigots (ie owc supporters) and delay the construction of a brand new multi use stadium which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by the three sporting bodies and the vast majority of the spectators( ie GAA and Rugby) that will use it. >:(
T Fearon, what did the northern Ireland Supporters or players ever do to you, it looks to me like you are as biased, if not more so than you claim they are. I doubt they are as bad as you make them out to be.
QuoteThe three main sporting bodies involved in the Maze stadium plan have rejected an invitation to meet a Stormont committee to further discussions on the proposals.
Don't really see why they didn't turn up to discuss the issue, even just for courtesy to restate their position
It never ceases to amaze me how many times and how many ways people can disagree in Northern Ireland. I honestly do not know how you get anything accomplished up there at all, take for example the new stadium. :-\
This site seems to have more than its fair share of northern gentlemen who are a tad intolerant of one another.
If nothing else, I could do nothing but laugh at the hypocrisy of David McNarry. The man has a short memory.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Sports-chiefs-accused-of-own.3923915.jp
Alliance MLA Trevor Lunn accused the DUP of delaying tactics and of using the stadium row as a political football.
He asked: "How can it be that the sporting bodies, the majority of the population, well-informed business experts can be so wrong and a small band of diehard unionists be right?"
Another rat leaves the sinking ship
From yesterday's Sunday Tribune
QuoteMAZE STADIUM IN JEOPARDY AS ADVISER RESIGNS
Troubled project suffers a final blow with the resignation of key figure
Terry McLaughlin
The most senior adviser involved in the proposed development of the Maze Stadium project has resigned his post.
Tony Whitehead's decision to return to England after five years working on the Maze project has stunned his colleagues at the Northern Ireland Strategic Investment Board.
It is the final confirmation that the multi million pound scheme to transform the former 360-acre Hunger Strike prison site on the outskirts of Lisburn has collapsed.
Whitehead, a former high ranking executive with the Confederation of British Industry, had been head hunted in order to coordinate the project.
His 15 years of expertise in the development and delivery of large scale urban regeneration schemes linked to Public and Private Finance Initiatives was seen as crucial to the success of the Maze dream.
And on a personal basis, Whitehead's commitment to the vision of a shared post conflict future built in Northern Ireland around the Maze was absolute.
A spokesman from the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister at Stormont said that Whitehead "after five years in Northern Ireland had decided to pursue new career opportunities".
However, the Sunday Tribune understands that the main factor in Whitehead's decision to leave was directly linked to his frustration at the continued series of delays and ever present undercurrent of political interference surrounding the Maze scheme.
Quote from: SammyG on April 14, 2008, 04:32:33 PM
Another rat leaves the sinking ship
From yesterday's Sunday Tribune
QuoteMAZE STADIUM IN JEOPARDY AS ADVISER RESIGNS
Troubled project suffers a final blow with the resignation of key figure
Terry McLaughlin
The most senior adviser involved in the proposed development of the Maze Stadium project has resigned his post.
Tony Whitehead's decision to return to England after five years working on the Maze project has stunned his colleagues at the Northern Ireland Strategic Investment Board.
It is the final confirmation that the multi million pound scheme to transform the former 360-acre Hunger Strike prison site on the outskirts of Lisburn has collapsed.
Whitehead, a former high ranking executive with the Confederation of British Industry, had been head hunted in order to coordinate the project.
His 15 years of expertise in the development and delivery of large scale urban regeneration schemes linked to Public and Private Finance Initiatives was seen as crucial to the success of the Maze dream.
And on a personal basis, Whitehead's commitment to the vision of a shared post conflict future built in Northern Ireland around the Maze was absolute.
A spokesman from the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister at Stormont said that Whitehead "after five years in Northern Ireland had decided to pursue new career opportunities".
However, the Sunday Tribune understands that the main factor in Whitehead's decision to leave was directly linked to his frustration at the continued series of delays and ever present undercurrent of political interference surrounding the Maze scheme.
This sounds more like he got fed up waiting on the politicians to make up their mind. The main people inviolved - the 3 sporting bodies are committed to the project as much now as they were 5 years ago.
Quote from: Deal_Me_In on April 14, 2008, 04:53:13 PM
This sounds more like he got fed up waiting on the politicians to make up their mind. The main people inviolved - the 3 sporting bodies are committed to the project as much now as they were 5 years ago.
That's what it sounded like to me.
Quote
However, the Sunday Tribune understands that the main factor in Whitehead's decision to leave was directly linked to his frustration at the continued series of delays and ever present undercurrent of political interference surrounding the Maze scheme.
Looks like the DUP no camp will get their own way on this one.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 14, 2008, 04:59:34 PM
Looks like the DUP no camp will get their own way on this one.
And OWC will have to get used to taking the boat to England ;D
Quote from: SammyG on April 14, 2008, 04:32:33 PM
Another rat leaves the sinking ship
Aye, ....you lot will know a lot a fair bit about ships before you ever have the money to build a wee stadium of your own..
All a bit ironic that you'll be soon travelling a lot further than the 11 miles to the Maze.
:D :D
Quote from: snatter on April 14, 2008, 05:23:49 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 14, 2008, 04:32:33 PM
Another rat leaves the sinking ship
Aye, ....you lot will know a lot a fair bit about ships before you ever have the money to build a wee stadium of your own..
We'll see. I'd have thought a slice of £240 million would go a long way
Quote from: snatter on April 14, 2008, 05:23:49 PM
All a bit ironic that you'll be soon travelling a lot further than the 11 miles to the Maze.
Given that we travel all over the world, travelling 11 miles is not and never has been the issue (as you well know). Although it's good to see you've at least reconciled yourself to the fact that the white elephant is dead.
It seems that this project has been scuttled primarily by North East of Ire;and monocultural soccer supporters whose number is greatly less than local GAA and Rugby fans.
I and many others will now expect Sinn Fein to honour their promise and veto a stadium in any other location thus leaving local soccer in the lurch and at death's door. ;D
Quote from: SammyG on April 14, 2008, 05:44:07 PM
Quote from: snatter on April 14, 2008, 05:23:49 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 14, 2008, 04:32:33 PM
Another rat leaves the sinking ship
Aye, ....you lot will know a lot a fair bit about ships before you ever have the money to build a wee stadium of your own..
We'll see. I'd have thought a slice of £240 million would go a long way
Quote from: snatter on April 14, 2008, 05:23:49 PM
All a bit ironic that you'll be soon travelling a lot further than the 11 miles to the Maze.
Given that we travel all over the world, travelling 11 miles is not and never has been the issue (as you well know). Although it's good to see you've at least reconciled yourself to the fact that the white elephant is dead.
I call you on sabatoge. Sure don't you live in England anyway? You're just being selfish here :D
Quote from: SammyG on April 14, 2008, 05:44:07 PM
We'll see. I'd have thought a slice of £240 million would go a long way
What makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million? The stadium land was part of a pet project by Tony Blair and the NIO, you seriously think Gordon Brown is going to hand money over t the IFA if the stadium is scuttled – no chance. He's making everyone else pay to buy back the empty Brit barracks and he'll do the same here which means that any money going to the IFA will have to come out of the Assembly's budget – which means you'll get next to feck all.
This whole stadium episode gives everyone an opportunity to display in no uncertain terms that the days of playing the Orange card are well and truly over.
Sinn Fein says it will veto a stadium in any other location. It had better be true to its word
Quote from: T Fearon on April 15, 2008, 11:14:49 AM
This whole stadium episode gives everyone an opportunity to display in no uncertain terms that the days of playing the Orange card are well and truly over.
Sinn Fein says it will veto a stadium in any other location. It had better be true to its word
Tony if you or anyone else is interested in putting this issue to Gerry Adams and the SF leadership at Stormont, they'll be having a number of public meetings including one in the Ashburn Hotel in Lurgan tonight at 8pm.
* Tues 8th April - Belfast (The Europa Hotel) - 7.30pm
* Sun 13th April - Strabane (Fountain St Community Centre) - 8pm
* Tues 15th April - Upper Bann (Asbourne Hotel, Lurgan) - 8pm
* Wed 16th April - Derry (The Guildhall) - 8pm
* Thurs 17th April - Toomebridge (The Elk) - 8pm
* Fri 18th April - Fermanagh (The Slieve Russell) - 8pm
* Sun 20th April - Down (The Downshire Arms Hotel, Hilltown) - 8pm
* Tues 22nd April - Newry Armagh (Silverbridge Resource Centre) - 8pm
* Wed 23rd April - Galbally (Galbally Community Centre) - 8pm
Donagh, ffs Portydown wans in the Ashburn is the perfect recipe for a full scale riot ;D
Aye, I know – was at the last one. I thought McGuinness was going to have to phone for Gerry Kelly at one stage. ;)
Quote from: Donagh on April 15, 2008, 10:36:50 AMWhat makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?
You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 03:53:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 15, 2008, 10:36:50 AMWhat makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?
You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.
If the land is sold off, the money will be given back to the British exchequer who own the land. It will then be given to the Assembly as part of their yearly budget i.e. it will not given as extra money on top of the annual NI allocation. So there will be no extra money available to give to anybody any more than there was this year or last. The only reason that the thing was viable in the first place was that the previous Labour regime ring-fenced the land for the stadium. No stadium, no money from sale of the land, no money for the IFA and plenty of boat trips for the GAWA.
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 03:53:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 15, 2008, 10:36:50 AMWhat makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?
You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.
Hypothetically, if they ever did sell the land, the money would be controlled by the NI assembly - it was gifted to NI by the exchequer, so presumably they could do what they like with it.
BUT....as you already know, all major spend has to be approved by both Unionist and Nationalist blocks.
Not a snowball's chance of any Nationalist support for any stadium unless
1. it caters for NI's most attended sport, namely gaelic football
2. it is located on a site acceptable to both communities.
You only have to look at the recent sectarian savagery perptrated by / inflicted on sports fans in Belfast to see the reluctance of the Nationalist community to locate a shared space stadium there.
Bang goes your myth of a better match day atmosphere.
Nope, I think that NI's best ever chance of decent stadium provision will sink if Robinson attempts to override the three sprts bodies (and UK Govt's ) wishes.
The revenue strapped UK Govt will gladly take the money back (just look at how they're risking a politically damaging strike by English police over a measly 50 million).
Hypothetically, if the assembly did flog the Maze site, the NI assembly would see stadium development as a much lower priority faced with other more important demands on budgets it controls.
Additionally, I detect no appetite from Nationalist / Alliance parties for the wasteful duplication of resources that would result from separate stadia developments by the three main sports bodies.
My guess is that you lot would get very little.
I also doubt that your probable plan B, ie the granting of a free site by Belfast City Councilo will get off the ground, well not without a simultaneous gifting of a stadium site to the GAA.
Remember that the pro-Maze Alliance now control the balance of power there.
Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.
Talk about stuck between a rock and a hard place ;D
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 03:53:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 15, 2008, 10:36:50 AMWhat makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?
You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.
Hypothetically, if they ever did sell the land, the money would be controlled by the NI assembly - it was gifted to NI by the exchequer, so presumably they could do what they like with it.
BUT....as you already know, all major spend has to be approved by both Unionist and Nationalist blocks.
Not a snowball's chance of any Nationalist support for any stadium unless
1. it caters for NI's most attended sport, namely gaelic football
2. it is located on a site acceptable to both communities.
Which is what everybody (except a few GAA hardliners) wants.
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
You only have to look at the recent sectarian savagery perptrated by / inflicted on sports fans in Belfast to see the reluctance of the Nationalist community to locate a shared space stadium there.
Bang goes your myth of a better match day atmosphere.
I have no idea what this means, can you give me some details?
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
Nope, I think that NI's best ever chance of decent stadium provision will sink if Robinson attempts to override the three sprts bodies (and UK Govt's ) wishes.
The revenue strapped UK Govt will gladly take the money back (just look at how they're risking a politically damaging strike by English police over a measly 50 million).
In what way is anybody over-riding the sports bodies? If the business case doesn't add up (which it doesn't) it would be madness for the sports bodies to get involved in a white elephant.
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
Hypothetically, if the assembly did flog the Maze site, the NI assembly would see stadium development as a much lower priority faced with other more important demands on budgets it controls.
And I would agree.
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
Additionally, I detect no appetite from Nationalist / Alliance parties for the wasteful duplication of resources that would result from separate stadia developments by the three main sports bodies.
Again agree
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
My guess is that you lot would get very little.
WHo in the name of fcuk are 'you lot'?
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
I also doubt that your probable plan B, ie the granting of a free site by Belfast City Councilo will get off the ground, well not without a simultaneous gifting of a stadium site to the GAA.
Remember that the pro-Maze Alliance now control the balance of power there.
When all else fails go back to blackmail (ignoring the fact that the GAA are excluding themselves, not the other way round). Excellent approach, as always.
Quote from: Main Street on April 15, 2008, 04:34:22 PM
Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.
If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. >:(
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
I also doubt that your probable plan B, ie the granting of a free site by Belfast City Councilo will get off the ground, well not without a simultaneous gifting of a stadium site to the GAA.
Remember that the pro-Maze Alliance now control the balance of power there.
One of the options being looked at for Belfast was a 100% private development.
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 03:53:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 15, 2008, 10:36:50 AMWhat makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?
You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.
Hypothetically, if they ever did sell the land, the money would be controlled by the NI assembly - it was gifted to NI by the exchequer, so presumably they could do what they like with it.
BUT....as you already know, all major spend has to be approved by both Unionist and Nationalist blocks.
Not a snowball's chance of any Nationalist support for any stadium unless
1. it caters for NI's most attended sport, namely gaelic football
2. it is located on a site acceptable to both communities.
Well, you're half right (emboldened). Assuming the Assembly gains control over the money, then there will be two choices open to it.
1. Say "Thank you very much", and just chuck it into the general budget. Which is all very well, until NI are forced at some stage to play their matches outside NI and/or the IFA lose their legal battle with Linfield and go bust. Either way, the pressure on the DUP (responsible for binning the Maze, remember) from NI supporters would be electorally damaging. Think about it: they would be taking away a stadium which, for all its faults, would have done the job kindovaway, and replacing it with zilch.
Which leaves them to:
2. Take a portion of the money allocated to the Maze and use it to sort out the IFA's problems the cheapest possible way (renovate Windsor? Co-operate with BCC?). Of course, the other two sports (and SF and SDLP) will naturally object, so the DUP will allocate them some money. The leftovers can then go back into the general budget, as a nice little windfall for the general majority of the public, who actually don't give a damn about sport.
Of course, Option 2 will leave a considerable amount of "horse-trading" as to the actual amounts for each sport, but they're managing it over schools, housing, hospitals etc, so I don't see why sport should be any different. And in the end, all three sports will agree, since none of them ever cared for The Maze (and two of them didn't need it), so a cash windfall for them to spend as they see fit will do the trick.
By the way, Snatter, whatever happened to your former certainty that the Maze Stadium would be built, come what may? I'll still not be popping any champagne corks until I see it officially and publicly buried, but it might just be time to get a couple of bottles out of the cellar, to put in the fridge... ;)
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:40:15 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 15, 2008, 04:34:22 PM
Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.
If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. >:(
I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2008, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:40:15 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 15, 2008, 04:34:22 PM
Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.
If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. >:(
I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.
Now now lads, you dont want to be falling out with each other. :o
Quote from: stiffler on April 15, 2008, 06:16:27 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2008, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:40:15 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 15, 2008, 04:34:22 PM
Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.
If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. >:(
I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.
Now now lads, you dont want to be falling out with each other. :o
Thanks for your concern, but when it comes to the important aspects of this issue, we're both pretty much in accord: No to the Maze! ;)
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 03:53:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 15, 2008, 10:36:50 AMWhat makes you think you'll get a slice of £240 million?
You're right, with the money from selling off the land, for housing, it'll probably be more than £240 million in the pot but I was trying not to be too greedy.
Hypothetically, if they ever did sell the land, the money would be controlled by the NI assembly - it was gifted to NI by the exchequer, so presumably they could do what they like with it.
BUT....as you already know, all major spend has to be approved by both Unionist and Nationalist blocks.
Not a snowball's chance of any Nationalist support for any stadium unless
1. it caters for NI's most attended sport, namely gaelic football
2. it is located on a site acceptable to both communities.
Which is what everybody (except a few GAA hardliners) wants.
Yes, so why are you protesting for a Belfast stadium when you know that this is not acceptable to most GAA fans?
And not suprising given recent sectarian attacks in the city.
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
You only have to look at the recent sectarian savagery perptrated by / inflicted on sports fans in Belfast to see the reluctance of the Nationalist community to locate a shared space stadium there.
Bang goes your myth of a better match day atmosphere.
I have no idea what this means, can you give me some details?
You know exactly what this means, Celtic fan stabbed by Linfield / Rangers / Chelsea fans in Belfast.
Connaught rugby fan critical in hospital after similar incident.
Both targeted for being fans of "Taig" teams, quite obviously. Imagine what GAA fans would get >:(
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:38:39 PMQuote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
My guess is that you lot would get very little.
WHo in the name of fcuk are 'you lot'?
Jesus Sammy, isnt it obvious he is talking about the IFA here ::)
Stop faking being offended and cop on!
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 15, 2008, 07:00:15 PMYes, so why are you protesting for a Belfast stadium when you know that this is not acceptable to most GAA fans?
Firstly I've no idea what 'most GAA fans' think, as there has been no attempt to survey them. I know some who support Belfast, some who support the Maze and some who couldn't give a shite either way. Secondly I support a Belfast stadium because it is the only option that stacks up financially. I have said many, many times that if somebody can show me a way to make the Maze work, then I'll happily support it.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 15, 2008, 07:00:15 PM
And not suprising given recent sectarian attacks in the city.
Sectarian attacks have decreased dramattically over the last few years, and even if they hadn't I'm not sure how a neutral site in Belfast, is more or less dangerous than a Loyalist site at the Maze.
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 15, 2008, 07:00:15 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: snatter on April 15, 2008, 04:26:59 PM
You only have to look at the recent sectarian savagery perptrated by / inflicted on sports fans in Belfast to see the reluctance of the Nationalist community to locate a shared space stadium there.
Bang goes your myth of a better match day atmosphere.
I have no idea what this means, can you give me some details?
You know exactly what this means, Celtic fan stabbed by Linfield / Rangers / Chelsea fans in Belfast.
Connaught rugby fan critical in hospital after similar incident.
Both targeted for being fans of "Taig" teams, quite obviously. Imagine what GAA fans would get >:(
Complete and utter bullshit. And a bit sick that you would use these sickening attacks to try and back up your argument.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 15, 2008, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 04:40:15 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 15, 2008, 04:34:22 PM
Linfield have the IFA by the balls as well.
If it wasn't for the Linfield contract, we'd have had a decent stadium long ago. Another of Maggie Thatcher's bright ideas, the oul hoor. >:(
I suspect Thatcher was rather more preoccupied with matters like the Miners Strike, Falklands, Hunger Strike, EEC Rebate etc, to concern herself over a new stand at a football ground. The fault doubtless lies with some half-witted Junior NIO Minister in Jim Prior's administration and the Civil Servants who misadvised him/her.
I know but I blame Maggie on everything that went wrong in the 80's, whether it was directly her fault or not. ;)
Quote from: SammyG on April 15, 2008, 07:42:58 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 15, 2008, 07:00:15 PMYes, so why are you protesting for a Belfast stadium when you know that this is not acceptable to most GAA fans?
Firstly I've no idea what 'most GAA fans' think, as there has been no attempt to survey them. I know some who support Belfast, some who support the Maze and some who couldn't give a shite either way.
Why would any GAA fan want another GAA stadium built in Belfast when we already have one, Casement Park, capable of hosting 25-30,000. Your fantasies are getting funnier by the minute :D
Spotted this glorious quote from OWC on the financial case against the new stadium.
"There is no further research cited in the report in respect of concerts, but comparison with, say, Croke Park in Dublin would cast significant doubt on the realism of PwC's forecast. In 2007, for example, Croke Park – located in a much bigger city with a much larger catchment area than the Maze – was only able to attract one concert."
Very disingenuous to say the least lads. Now I see how SammyG finds it so easy to spin bare faced lies on public forums. Only a matter of time before all the navel gazing lies and spin comes back to haunt you. :D
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 10:41:45 AM
Spotted this glorious quote from OWC on the financial case against the new stadium.
"There is no further research cited in the report in respect of concerts, but comparison with, say, Croke Park in Dublin would cast significant doubt on the realism of PwC's forecast. In 2007, for example, Croke Park – located in a much bigger city with a much larger catchment area than the Maze – was only able to attract one concert."
Very disingenuous to say the least lads.
If that is the only point you can take exception to from a long and detailed Report, I'd say it is you who is being disingenuous in your efforts to disparage it! Anyhow, here is the full effort, since I think it merits a wider readership.
RESPONSE TO PwC REPORT: 'PROPOSED MULTI-SPORTS STADIUM FOR NORTHERN IRELAND'
1. INTRODUCTION: IN-BUILT BIAS
1.1 The process that has led to the current proposal to build a stadium at the site of the former Maze prison at a stated cost of £240m(!) to the taxpayer is conceptually biased. The proposal seeks to provide an answer to the question "What should we do with the Maze?" ... but the question that should have been asked is "Where is the best location for a stadium?"
1.2 The Government has spent over £9m on consultants to develop the Maze proposal, and spent nothing on proposals for any other locations, yet cites the absence of worked-up proposals for Belfast as a reason for favouring the Maze! This is disingenuous.
1.3 The assessment that PwC has carried out is biased in favour of the Maze:
Belfast options other than North Foreshore are excluded completely from the assessment, despite the fact that no proper consideration has yet been given to Titanic Quarter, Ormeau Park, Maysfield, or any other Belfast location.
The two-sport stadium at North Foreshore which is included is assessed at a more expensive 30,000 capacity, even though a lower-cost 25,000 would be sufficient for football and rugby.
Non-financial criteria are emphasised, resulting in bias towards the most expensive option (Maze):
o The Maze is credited for its apparent compliance with the "shared future" policy, but this is almost wholly spurious: a stadium, by its nature, can never be shared, since events will take place on different days! The supporters of each sport will no more mix at the Maze than they currently do at their separate venues.
o The presumed requirement for three sports to be involved in the same stadium means that an apparent veto exercised by the GAA in favour of the Maze has ruled out potentially cheaper and more value-for-money options in Belfast.
2. COSTS
Actual capital costs
2.1 It is instructive to examine the actual cost of the Maze stadium proposal and the alternatives. A comparison of actual costs shows that the Maze is, in fact, the most expensive option – over 70% more expensive than the enhanced refurbishment of existing stadia.
Table of actual costs (based on PwC figures)
............................................. Stadium costs .. Infrastructure costs .. Total costs
Option 1 (Do Minimum) ....................... £41m ............ 0 .................... £41m
Option 2 (Refurbish existing venues) ........ £110m ........... 0 .................... £110m
Option 3 (Enhanced refurb. existing venues) . £131m ........... £9m .................. £140m
Option 4a (North Foreshore 30,000) .......... £100m ........... £58m ................. £158m
Option 4b (North Foreshore 38,500) .......... £126m ........... £58m ................. £184m
Option 5 (Maze 38,500) ...................... £126m ........... £115m ................ £241m
Not considered (Other Belfast sites) ........ ? ............... ? .................... ?
2.2 Because the stadium is the only component of the overall Maze plan that will involve large volumes of traffic entering and exiting at one time, many of the infrastructure improvements, e.g. M1 widening, identified for the Maze site are necessary only because of the stadium, yet PwC has attributed initially only 80% of all of these costs to the stadium, reducing to 60% after ten years. This means that the final cost figure for infrastructure at the Maze is likely to be even more than £115m.
Value for money?
2.3 PwC forecasts that the stadium will only be used on only 23 occasions each year. Does it represent value-for-money for the taxpayer to spend £142m on road improvements that will only be necessary for 23 days of every year, when less money could be spent on improvements in Belfast that could be of daily benefit to commuters and others?
Private sector
2.4 Moreover, the PwC report does not take account of the potential for private sector involvement in a Belfast stadium, which would reduce the cost to the taxpayer. (Proposals by private developers for stadiums in Belfast have been submitted to Belfast City Council.)
Assumptions and theoretical costs
2.5 PwC uses a "net present cost" (NPC) calculation to argue that the Maze is the cheapest option over 25 years. This calculation is based on assumptions about operating costs, revenue and visitor spending, and theoretical figures such as "site opportunity costs" and "residual value". These assumptions, of course, may turn out to be optimistic or unrealistic, and the other sums would only be realised if any of the sites were to be sold. At the present time, there is no indication of any intention to sell any of the sites into private ownership in the short or medium term. (See section 3 for more on revenue assumptions.)
2.6 The PwC report includes theoretical opportunity costs in its calculations, the result of which is to reduce the stated cost of the Maze proposal (by virtue of land value there being less than at North Foreshore). The calculation, however, is based on a 60-acre site requirement , giving an opportunity cost figure for North Foreshore of £47m (compared to £10m at the Maze), even though the present owners of the site plan to keep it in public ownership. There is, however, no explanation as to why a 60-acre site is considered necessary. The Millennium Stadium in Cardiff, for example, has a footprint of only 10 acres . Part of the rationale for a city location is the requirement for a much smaller site due to the presence of urban transport infrastructure, entertainment venues, etc. The opportunity cost of a smaller site, therefore, could be as little as £8m (less than that identified for the Maze proposal).
3. REVENUE
3.1 We know that the actual cost of the Maze proposal is, by quite some margin, the most expensive option. The economic case for the Maze, therefore, is based entirely on assumptions about how many additional events it can attract to Northern Ireland, and how much additional revenue can be generated by those events. If these assumptions turn out to be unrealistic, the Maze stadium will not be financially viable. The Maze, therefore, constitutes the highest risk option, since it entails by far the highest capital expenditure and therefore the greatest dependence on assumptions about future costs and revenue.
3.2 "Contribution to sporting bodies" is identified separately from the stadium operating surplus/deficit , and on this basis an annual operating deficit is shown against the enhanced refurbishment option . This is because any profit is recorded separately under "contribution to sporting bodies" heading and contributions to a "sinking fund" – applied to cover the cost of maintenance, etc. – therefore produces a loss. This may give the impression that sporting events held at refurbished stadia would be unviable, but when the "contribution to sporting bodies" is included, there is a forecast profit of £32m (calculated as NPC). This compares to an equivalent forecast surplus for the Maze of £69m, but on the basis of £100m more capital investment .
Table showing net present value of each option in terms of actual capital costs and assumed total operating surplus/deficit (based on PwC figures)
............................................. Actual capital costs .. Net operating surplus/deficit (stadium and sporting bodies combined)
Option 1 (Do Minimum) ....................... £41m .................. £29m
Option 2 (Refurbish existing venues) ........ £110m ................. £34m
Option 3 (Enhanced refurb. existing venues) . £140m ................. £32m
Option 4a (North Foreshore 30,000) .......... £158m ................. £27m
Option 4b (North Foreshore 38,500) .......... £184m ................. £69m
Option 5 (Maze 38,500) ...................... £241m ................. £69
Not considered (Other Belfast sites) ........ ? ..................... ?
Assumed additional events
3.3 The business case for the new stadium is dependent on the assumption that it will attract annually seven major events other than those contracted by the three sporting bodies. Suggestions for such events include:
Three concerts every year, based on "indications" from unspecified "consultations with a number of leading entertainment promoters". It is unclear whether these were "indications" of additional events, or whether it would merely be displacement from existing venues in Belfast such as the Odyssey, Botanic Gardens and Ormeau Park. There is no further research cited in the report in respect of concerts, but comparison with, say, Croke Park in Dublin would cast significant doubt on the realism of PwC's forecast. In 2007, for example, Croke Park – located in a much bigger city with a much larger catchment area than the Maze – was only able to attract one concert.
Three "other sporting/entertainment events" every year. Examples given are:
o A "speedway/rally event" attracting 30,000 people paying £50 per ticket on average: there is no indication of any research to suggest there is a market in Northern Ireland for such an event and such a pricing policy.
o An NFL (American football) exhibition match attracting 20,000 people at £20 per adult ticket : there is no indication that the likelihood of attracting such a match has been researched.
One additional sports event hosted by one of the existing sporting bodies. A suggested for this is autumn rugby internationals – yet it is acknowledged that the IRFU has already sold premium seats for these matches at Lansdowne Road.
3.4 These concerts and "other events" are forecast to produce annual revenue of £1.3m , so failure to attract these events in the forecast numbers would bring into doubt the stadium's viability.
Contracted events
3.5 It is assumed that, among the contracted sports events will be one unspecified "pre-season soccer tournament" , attracting 25,000 supporters. It is unclear on what basis such a popular pre-season tournament could be attracted annually to the Maze when such tournaments are not attracted annually to Windsor Park, and when they are they do not attract similar attendances.
3.6 It is assumed that the all-Ireland Setanta Cup final would be played at the Maze every second year, attracting an attendance of 10,000 . This cup final, however, is alternated between North and South only in the event of the two finalists being from either jurisdiction. When two Southern teams reach the final (as happened in 2006), it is played in the South and past evidence indicates that a Setanta Cup final would only be played in Northern Ireland once every three years. The 2007 final, played in Belfast, achieved an attendance of 6,500 , so a forecast of 10,000 is very optimistic.
3.7 It is assumed that the Irish Cup final will achieve an annual attendance of 10,000. Attendances at this event, however, fluctuate depending on which teams reach the final: in 2005, only 5,500 attended the final between Larne and Portadown, and even the prospect of playing this fixture in a 38,500 stadium could reduce attendance due to the likely lack of atmosphere.
3.8 The Irish FA is, in any case, seeking to build a smaller stadium and to upgrade existing club stadia, which would be more suitable for domestic cup finals.
3.9 All the contracted events attributed to the GAA are unspecified.
Sponsorship and corporate revenue
3.10 It is assumed that naming rights at the Maze will produce revenue of £1m every year, yet only half that in an alternative new-build stadium and nil at refurbished existing stadia.
3.11 It is assumed that 40 boxes and 1250 "premium seats" will be sold at the Maze stadium.
Car parking
3.12 PwC forecasts £142,000 in car parking revenue from 19 events : not only are spectators to be encouraged to travel by private car rather than on foot or by public transport, but they are going to be charged for the privilege of parking at the site. Is this good value for the customer?
4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT
Maze bottleneck
4.1 In the PwC report, no proper account has been taken of access or transport problems. The proposed solution for overcoming the Maze site's isolation is to build a new junction, lane and slip road off the M1 at a cost of £99m. A single slip road and extra motorway lane will be totally inadequate to cope with the forecast number of visitors to the stadium, all of whom would be attempting to enter and exit the site at the same time. (Spectators at a stadium in the city, served by numerous roads, rail, and other public transport and pedestrian options would disperse via many routes, thus causing much less congestion.)
4.2 The lack of entertainment facilities noted below will also compound the transport difficulties: with no reason for fans to arrive early or to stay after the match, everyone will seek to arrive and leave at the same time, contributing further to the bottleneck on the single slip road on to the motorway.
Public transport and pedestrian access
4.3 There are no public transport plans for the Maze site: it is unlikely that any such plans could compete with the already-existing options for bus and rail travel to and from Belfast and the rest of Northern Ireland, especially considering the access problem noted above.
4.4 Given its location, pedestrian and cycling access to the Maze will be non-existent, yet pedestrian accessibility has been identified as a key success factor for stadiums.
5. CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND OPINION
Customers ignored
5.1 Incredibly, PwC has taken no account of the vital ingredient for any stadium enterprise: the customer experience. PwC did not even consult with customers: supporters of all three sports – on whom the success of any stadium is entirely dependent – have been ignored.
Match atmosphere and experience
5.2 If PwC had spoken to supporters, they would have learned that the atmosphere at any sporting event is just as important as what happens on the pitch, and is crucial to the popularity of such events. The atmosphere at a 38,500 stadium – which PwC acknowledges will rarely be filled – at an isolated location such as the Maze will be lost. For football, PwC forecasts an average attendance of 12,667 – in other words, a two-thirds-empty stadium! Similarly, for rugby the forecast is for a 15,000 average attendance – 60% empty! (And even for GAA, the forecast is an average of 27,500 – still 30% empty!)
5.3 The average forecast attendance for all contracted sports events is 18,000: it is therefore forecast that the stadium will be less-than-half full on average.
5.4 The experience outside the stadium will also be a poor one. An out-of-town location, in use for only 23 days per year, will not be able to sustain sufficient entertainment facilities to meet the pre- and post-match demands of fans in the same way as a city location. Fans expect to be able to meet up with friends before an event, or to celebrate or commiserate after an event: this is all part of the experience and will not be possible at the Maze.
5.5 If the stadium is incapable of delivering an enjoyable match-day experience, and risks delivering an unenjoyable one (due to the congestion beforehand and afterwards), it will not succeed in attracting additional fans. Revenue will not meet expectations and the financial viability will be in jeopardy.
Lack of confidence
5.6 PwC recognises that the supporters are not convinced by the case for the Maze: that is why it recommends a "hearts and minds" campaign to win over public support. Clearly, a business case is not enough.
6. THE ENVIRONMENT
6.1 Incredibly, no account whatsoever is taken of environmental issues. No environmental impact assessment has been carried out, although it is Government policy that all major projects should undergo such an assessment.
6.2 The urgent need to cut carbon emissions should be a key consideration in all policy decisions. The UK, like all EU countries, is committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 , yet the Maze proposal will have the opposite effect of increasing carbon emissions by its dependence on the private car. It is crazy for a responsible Government on the one hand to be promoting a huge out-of-town development such as the Maze while on the other hand encouraging us to use our cars less.
7. ECONOMICS
7.1 The report acknowledges that visitor/tourism spending before and after events is an important economic benefit of a stadium – and also acknowledges that this benefit cannot be maximised at an out-of-town location. The actual value of the lost economic activity which would result from an out-of-town build, however is under-estimated by basing calculations, for football and rugby fans, only on those spectators who visit and spend the night : the vast majority of fans who live in Northern Ireland, and who would, given the opportunity, spend money before and after sporting events, is ignored! The economic multiplier effect for city locations is estimated at around 2.5 as opposed to 1.4 for out-of-town locations.
***ENDS***
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 17, 2008, 12:02:43 PM
If that is the only point you can take exception to from a long and detailed Report, I'd say it is you who is being disingenuous in your efforts to disparage it! Anyhow, here is the full effort, since I think it merits a wider readership.
Life's too short to read through the rest of that rubbish. So have you nothing to say about the point I raised?
Quote6.1 No environmental impact assessment has been carried out
This would also be a breach of a European Law if the stadium was approved without an EIA carried out. Depends on what stage the planning process is at. If it has been put in for approval to the council on this alone from my experience, if there is no EIA accompanying the proposal then it will be turned down straight away, thats if the above article is telling the truth.
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 12:19:55 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 17, 2008, 12:02:43 PM
If that is the only point you can take exception to from a long and detailed Report, I'd say it is you who is being disingenuous in your efforts to disparage it! Anyhow, here is the full effort, since I think it merits a wider readership.
Life's too short to read through the rest of that rubbish. So have you nothing to say about the point I raised?
I personally don't know enough about Croke Park and Concerts to comment on that specific point, which is why I didn't. Assuming you do know the situation, please enlighten me.
Then when you've done so, would you like to explain how you can dismiss a long and detailed Report as "rubbish" if, by your own admission, you didn't take the time to read it?
Playing the man (Amalgamation) again Donagh, rather than the ball (Report)? ::)
Quote from: thejuice on April 17, 2008, 12:51:33 PM
Quote6.1 No environmental impact assessment has been carried out
This would also be a breach of a European Law if the stadium was approved without an EIA carried out. Depends on what stage the planning process is at. If it has been put in for approval to the council on this alone from my experience, if there is no EIA accompanying the proposal then it will be turned down straight away, thats if the above article is telling the truth.
From what I gather, the Amalgamation has a couple of guys working on this who are pretty expert in the field of local government, Planning Permission etc, so I doubt they make such a bald assertion without being sure of their case, especially since the backers of the Maze would only have to produce an EIA so as to discredit them (Amalgamation).
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 17, 2008, 01:38:39 PM
Quote from: thejuice on April 17, 2008, 12:51:33 PM
Quote6.1 No environmental impact assessment has been carried out
This would also be a breach of a European Law if the stadium was approved without an EIA carried out. Depends on what stage the planning process is at. If it has been put in for approval to the council on this alone from my experience, if there is no EIA accompanying the proposal then it will be turned down straight away, thats if the above article is telling the truth.
From what I gather, the Amalgamation has a couple of guys working on this who are pretty expert in the field of local government, Planning Permission etc, so I doubt they make such a bald assertion without being sure of their case, especially since the backers of the Maze would only have to produce an EIA so as to discredit them (Amalgamation).
OK, I just wasnt sure of the source, and its not just some journo ranting.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 17, 2008, 01:30:58 PM
I personally don't know enough about Croke Park and Concerts to comment on that specific point, which is why I didn't. Assuming you do know the situation, please enlighten me.
Then when you've done so, would you like to explain how you can dismiss a long and detailed Report as "rubbish" if, by your own admission, you didn't take the time to read it?
Playing the man (Amalgamation) again Donagh, rather than the ball (Report)? ::)
Well it's kind of looking into a bin. You see the blue wheelie bin (OWC website), open the lid and look in (reading the first two sections), seeing the rubbish (lies and spin in the first two sections) and you can be pretty certain that it's all rubbish (the report).
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 03:10:47 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 17, 2008, 01:30:58 PM
I personally don't know enough about Croke Park and Concerts to comment on that specific point, which is why I didn't. Assuming you do know the situation, please enlighten me.
Then when you've done so, would you like to explain how you can dismiss a long and detailed Report as "rubbish" if, by your own admission, you didn't take the time to read it?
Playing the man (Amalgamation) again Donagh, rather than the ball (Report)? ::)
Well it's kind of looking into a bin. You see the blue wheelie bin (OWC website), open the lid and look in (reading the first two sections), seeing the rubbish (lies and spin in the first two sections) and you can be pretty certain that it's all rubbish (the report).
Is that the best you've got? Very poor, even by your standards.
You see, people are always suspicious when someone uses flowery metaphors in a response to distract attention from the substance of the debate! But to humour you, I'll continue in kind to point out that you can't just have lifted the lid, had a quick look in and decided that all the contents were rubbish. After all, the fact that you picked one morsel from near the bottom (i.e. buried deep in what is quite a detailed Report) indicates that you must have gone through the contents.
And as I've said, if amidst all the arguments, one rather minor point was all you could take issue with, then that can actually be taken as an
endorsement from you that the rest is hard to deny, otherwise you'd have applied your forensic skills much more widely! Which was the final corroboration I needed to reproduce here the Report in full.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention! :D
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 03:10:47 PM(reading the first two sections)
So you only read the first two sections but you managed to quote one line from the middle of a paragraph, in the 3rd section. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2008, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 03:10:47 PM(reading the first two sections)
So you only read the first two sections but you managed to quote one line from the middle of a paragraph, in the 3rd section. ::)
I glanced through it on OWC this morning and as you know well each of the sections are in different posts and with using the Page Down button I obviously missed one.
Here, you never got back to me on the hidden threads on OWC - what's wrong are ye too embarrassed to show us the extremists you are sheltering over there?
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 05:19:14 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2008, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 03:10:47 PM(reading the first two sections)
So you only read the first two sections but you managed to quote one line from the middle of a paragraph, in the 3rd section. ::)
I glanced through it on OWC this morning and as you know well each of the sections are in different posts and with using the Page Down button I obviously missed one.
Aye right ::) Any chance you're gonna tell us what your original cryptic post was about?
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 05:19:14 PM
Here, you never got back to me on the hidden threads on OWC - what's wrong are ye too embarrassed to show us the extremists you are sheltering over there?
Sorry thought I had got back to you. The threads are patrons only, to stop muppets posting shite, nothing embarrassing or extreme. In fact most of the patrons only stuff is about sharing info on cheap hotels and flights to away matches, one of the benefits that more than covers your fiver outlay.
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2008, 05:31:42 PM
Sorry thought I had got back to you. The threads are patrons only, to stop muppets posting shite, nothing embarrassing or extreme. In fact most of the patrons only stuff is about sharing info on cheap hotels and flights to away matches, one of the benefits that more than covers your fiver outlay.
So why hide that section instead of limiting access as you have done with the others?
The GAA didn't seek to have any other concerts in Croker last year as they had a busy enough schedule with the 6 nations, soccer and our own games (as you well know).
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 08:31:09 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2008, 05:31:42 PM
Sorry thought I had got back to you. The threads are patrons only, to stop muppets posting shite, nothing embarrassing or extreme. In fact most of the patrons only stuff is about sharing info on cheap hotels and flights to away matches, one of the benefits that more than covers your fiver outlay.
So why hide that section instead of limiting access as you have done with the others?
Either pay your fiver (one-off) and satisfy your curiousity about the advance travel plans of the NI away support etc, or don't. Either way, desist from what is a a painfully transparent attempt to change the subject away from the matter in hand, which is the Amalgamation Response to the Maze proposal. Speaking of which:
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 08:31:09 PM
The GAA didn't seek to have any other concerts in Croker last year as they had a busy enough schedule with the 6 nations, soccer and our own games (as you well know).
Fine. The GAA chose not to have more than 1 concert in CP during 2007. The Amalgamation should therefore either rewrite or delete that comment.
Anyhow, now that you have undoubtedly read the Report in full, is there anything else to which you take exception? Or may we assume that it has, in fact, passed the test of Donagh's
bin-hoking forensic analysis and is unimpeachible?
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 08:31:09 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2008, 05:31:42 PM
Sorry thought I had got back to you. The threads are patrons only, to stop muppets posting shite, nothing embarrassing or extreme. In fact most of the patrons only stuff is about sharing info on cheap hotels and flights to away matches, one of the benefits that more than covers your fiver outlay.
So why hide that section instead of limiting access as you have done with the others?
Either pay your fiver (one-off) and satisfy your curiousity about the advance travel plans of the NI away support etc, or don't. Either way, desist from what is a a painfully transparent attempt to change the subject away from the matter in hand, which is the Amalgamation Response to the Maze proposal. Speaking of which:
Sorry, which bit of that was addressed to you?
From that response to the PWC report
'(And even for GAA, the forecast is an average of 27,500 – still 30% empty!)'
What is the source for that forecast?
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 02:19:36 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 01:47:28 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 17, 2008, 08:31:09 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 17, 2008, 05:31:42 PM
Sorry thought I had got back to you. The threads are patrons only, to stop muppets posting shite, nothing embarrassing or extreme. In fact most of the patrons only stuff is about sharing info on cheap hotels and flights to away matches, one of the benefits that more than covers your fiver outlay.
So why hide that section instead of limiting access as you have done with the others?
Either pay your fiver (one-off) and satisfy your curiousity about the advance travel plans of the NI away support etc, or don't. Either way, desist from what is a a painfully transparent attempt to change the subject away from the matter in hand, which is the Amalgamation Response to the Maze proposal. Speaking of which:
Sorry, which bit of that was addressed to you?
Meanwhile, back at the debate:
Anyhow, now that you have undoubtedly read the Report in full, is there anything else to which you take exception? Or may we assume that it has, in fact, passed the test of Donagh's
bin-hoking forensic analysis and is unimpeachible?
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 02:38:04 PM
Meanwhile, back at the debate:
Anyhow, now that you have undoubtedly read the Report in full, is there anything else to which you take exception? Or may we assume that it has, in fact, passed the test of Donagh's bin-hoking forensic analysis and is unimpeachible?
Don't you f**king tell me what I have or haven't done. I haven't read the report as it's irrelevant and I have better things to be doing. If there's to be no stadium at Long Kesh there will be no stadium anywhere, either way, it is of no interest to me except maybe taking a little pleasure in watching all of you OWC backslappers taking the boat to England if you get your way. Now feck off somewhere else and stop interrupting my conversations with other people, you irritating little person.
Quote from: Main Street on April 18, 2008, 02:22:26 PM
From that response to the PWC report
'(And even for GAA, the forecast is an average of 27,500 – still 30% empty!)'
What is the source for that forecast?
It's on page 3 of the PWC report, the GAA will have 5.5 events (not sure which match will only get one half!!) and total attendance of 150000, so 27K per match.
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 02:51:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 02:38:04 PM
Meanwhile, back at the debate:
Anyhow, now that you have undoubtedly read the Report in full, is there anything else to which you take exception? Or may we assume that it has, in fact, passed the test of Donagh's bin-hoking forensic analysis and is unimpeachible?
Don't you f**king tell me what I have or haven't done. I haven't read the report as it's irrelevant and I have better things to be doing. If there's to be no stadium at Long Kesh there will be no stadium anywhere, either way, it is of no interest to me except maybe taking a little pleasure in watching all of you OWC backslappers taking the boat to England if you get your way. Now feck off somewhere else and stop interrupting my conversations with other people, you irritating little person.
Ooohhhh, get her! :D
Why don't you pop out to the shops for a bit of retail therapy? New shoes, or maybe a handbag - that should do it... ;)
Then having calmed down, perhaps you can explain why, after your having introduced the Amalgamation Report on the Maze Stadium to this thread about, ahem, the Maze Stadium, you now seem pretty desperate to distract our attention from it? The Report's contents a bit hard to dispute, eh? After all, we all know your
modus operandi, Donagh, you'll have read it more carefully than a Connolly House Press Release, that's for sure! ;)
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 02:51:42 PMI haven't read the report as it's irrelevant
If you haven't read it, how do you know it's irrelevant?
Quote from: SammyG on April 18, 2008, 03:27:27 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 02:51:42 PMI haven't read the report as it's irrelevant
If you haven't read it, how do you know it's irrelevant?
Oi Sammy! Donagh's
bare-faced lie comment that he hasn't read the Report was in reply to me.
So to quote the Great Man/Woman/Girlie: "Now feck off somewhere else and stop interrupting my conversations with other people, you irritating little person" ;)
Quote from: SammyG on April 18, 2008, 03:27:27 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 02:51:42 PMI haven't read the report as it's irrelevant
If you haven't read it, how do you know it's irrelevant?
See my previous post.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 03:20:04 PM
Then having calmed down, perhaps you can explain why, after your having introduced the Amalgamation Report on the Maze Stadium to this thread about, ahem, the Maze Stadium, you now seem pretty desperate to distract our attention from it?
I'm not distracting from anything, just thought it was humorous i.e. that you boys are all creaming yourselves over such a great job when one glance though could tell even the most disinterested or even ignorant that it's full of distortions and lies. I do hope you it's successful in its purpose though as our Sammy will be able to get to the friendlies now as well.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 03:20:04 PM
After all, we all know your modus operandi, Donagh, you'll have read it more carefully than a Connolly House Press Release
Maybe, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I actually read it either. But I'm glad you think I have a
modus operandi. :D
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 04:01:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 03:20:04 PM
Then having calmed down, perhaps you can explain why, after your having introduced the Amalgamation Report on the Maze Stadium to this thread about, ahem, the Maze Stadium, you now seem pretty desperate to distract our attention from it?
I'm not distracting from anything, just thought it was humorous i.e. that you boys are all creaming yourselves over such a great job when one glance though could tell even the most disinterested or even ignorant that it's full of distortions and lies. I do hope you it's successful in its purpose though as our Sammy will be able to get to the friendlies now as well.
Well, seeing as you've apparently calmed down, I'll accept that you have not, in fact, carefully read the Report which you nonetheless damned, but merely (conveniently?) glanced over it. ;)
So now we've got that sorted, do you care to list these "distortions and lies" of which you say the Report is "full"?
(Apart from the one about Croke only being 'able to attract' one concert in 2007, when it should have read only 'requiring to attract' one concert in 2007, which I'll allow, since it hardly deals a fatal blow to the overall Report)
Public funding ring fenced for a multi sports facility.
3 Sports agree on location.
Multi sports facility plan about to be scuttled by the turkeys voting for their christmas.
Turkeys arrange a party to celebrate the upcoming event.
Turkeys announce how wonderful this event will be for their future health and happiness.
A credit they say to their ability to pick out questions in a masterplan.
There are fears now that more Turkeys around the 6 counties will start to pick out flaws in the masterplan to spend £400m on a couple of dual carraigeways.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 04:19:37 PM
Well, seeing as you've apparently calmed down, I'll accept that you have not, in fact, carefully read the Report which you nonetheless damned, but merely (conveniently?) glanced over it. ;)
So now we've got that sorted, do you care to list these "distortions and lies" of which you say the Report is "full"?
(Apart from the one about Croke only being 'able to attract' one concert in 2007, when it should have read only 'requiring to attract' one concert in 2007, which I'll allow, since it hardly deals a fatal blow to the overall Report)
What part of 'I don't give a fcuk about your sport, your stadium and your report' do you not understand? If I was to take more than my passing interest in soccer it certainly wouldn't be in a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC who are spinning lies about the GAA to sink the Long Kesh stadium – the GAA-Long Kesh stadium connection is as far as my interest goes – apart from laughing at the GAWA wannabe little Englanders.
You would think the norn iron fans would be in favour of a new stadium as soon as possible in order to cement their future. The longer they go with third rate facilities, the sooner there will be an all ireland team.
The personal stuff on this thread is unbelievably childish.
"play the ball, not the man" obviously only counts when certain men are being played.
The hypocracy is unreal.
Quote from: Main Street on April 18, 2008, 04:30:24 PM
Public funding ring fenced for a multi sports facility.
Public funding ringfenced by Ministers/NIO when NI was administered under Direct Rule. Stormont now has responsibility for this matter.
Quote from: Main Street on April 18, 2008, 04:30:24 PM
3 Sports agree on location.
Politicians disagree on location. Politicians will decide, not the three sports.
Quote from: Main Street on April 18, 2008, 04:30:24 PM
Multi sports facility plan about to be scuttled by the turkeys voting for their christmas.
Turkeys arrange a party to celebrate the upcoming event.
Turkeys announce how wonderful this event will be for their future health and happiness.
A credit they say to their ability to pick out questions in a masterplan.
There are fears now that more Turkeys around the 6 counties will start to pick out flaws in the masterplan to spend £400m on a couple of dual carraigeways.
Your blethering on about turkeys and Christmas is not helpful, insightful or original.
PWC produced a Report to justify the selection of the Maze as the site of a multi-use Stadium. Representatives (i.e. the Amalgamation) of one of the three main Usergroups (i.e soccer fans) whom PWC hope to attract* to the Stadium have produced a detailed Report outlining why they think PWC's work is so flawed as to be worthless. The Amalgamation Report (reproduced above) is comprehensive, without being too long or difficult for the layman to follow.
Therefore, would you or anyone else within the pro-Maze camp like to tell us how/why you think the Amalgamation Report is unreliable? Or do you just prefer to sneer and whinge in a general "I don't like it, so it must be wrong" kind of a way?
* - How revealing that in compiling their Report on what is best for fans of GAA, Soccer and Rugby, PWC conspicuously declined ever to ask fans of those three sports for their views! :o
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
You would think the norn iron fans would be in favour of a new stadium as soon as possible in order to cement their future.
We are in favour of a new stadium as soon as possible. However, there is no point in jumping out of the (Windsor Park) "frying pan" into the "fire" that is the Maze. Remember, if the Maze should get built, we will all be stuck with it for the next 50+ years, so we all need to be persuaded that it is the right option. On which point, it may be OK for GAA and Rugby, but having studied the plan carefully, soccer fans are ever more convinced that whilst it may appear to solve our present short-term Stadium problem, it will actually be a long-term disaster. Which is only what the Amalgamation Report is saying.
On which point, do you care to give us your opinions on that Report?
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
The longer they go with third rate facilities, the sooner there will be an all ireland team.
In our 128 year history, we have managed to survive the secession of 3/4 of our territory, two World Wars and 30 years of The Troubles, including a four year period when we were forced to play our home games in England.
Somehow, I'm sure we'll manage to come through this latest difficulty.
But thank you for your concern... ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 05:55:24 PM
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
You would think the norn iron fans would be in favour of a new stadium as soon as possible in order to cement their future.
We are in favour of a new stadium as soon as possible. However, there is no point in jumping out of the (Windsor Park) "frying pan" into the "fire" that is the Maze. Remember, if the Maze should get built, we will all be stuck with it for the next 50+ years, so we all need to be persuaded that it is the right option. On which point, it may be OK for GAA and Rugby, but having studied the plan carefully, soccer fans are ever more convinced that whilst it may appear to solve our present short-term Stadium problem, it will actually be a long-term disaster. Which is only what the Amalgamation Report is saying.
On which point, do you care to give us your opinions on that Report?
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
The longer they go with third rate facilities, the sooner there will be an all ireland team.
In our 128 year history, we have managed to survive the secession of 3/4 of our territory, two World Wars and 30 years of The Troubles, including a four year period when we were forced to play our home games in England.
Somehow, I'm sure we'll manage to come through this latest difficulty.
But thank you for your concern... ;)
I havnt read the pwc report so i wouldnt be reading a response to it ::). What year do you think you will be watching norn iron in a new stadium then?
QuoteIn our 128 year history, we have managed to survive the secession of 3/4 of our territory
OY!!! What's that supposed to mean? :D
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 05:28:47 PM
What part of 'I don't give a fcuk about your sport, your stadium and your report' do you not understand?
For someone who "doesn't give a fcuk" about our sport and stadium, why do you continue to browse our website, then? Or take the trouble to insult us at length in your posts on this part of the Board? Strange behaviour, I must say. ???
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 05:28:47 PM
If I was to take more than my passing interest in soccer it certainly wouldn't be in a foreign team such as Northern Ireland
"Foreign team"? Is Donagh not still in Northern Ireland? I'd hate to think the Struggle for National Liberation had been successful and I missed the celebrations... ;)
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 05:28:47 PM
I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC who are spinning lies about the GAA to sink the Long Kesh stadium – the GAA-Long Kesh stadium connection is as far as my interest goes – apart from laughing at the GAWA wannabe little Englanders.
"Spinning lies" is it? I've already allowed you your one "lie" singular (though I prefer misconception, myself), if for no other reason than that it was only ever a minor part of the Report anyhow.
So you would you now like to accept the third (fourth?) (fifth?) challenge to enlighten us as to where this Report is "full" of the lies, errors, irrelevances etc you allege? Or do you prefer to go on looking silly for having raised the Report in the first place, before failing conspicuously and utterly in your attempt to disparage it, so that you are now reduced to petty insults in an effort to cover your embarrassment? :D
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 06:05:10 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 18, 2008, 05:55:24 PM
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
You would think the norn iron fans would be in favour of a new stadium as soon as possible in order to cement their future.
We are in favour of a new stadium as soon as possible. However, there is no point in jumping out of the (Windsor Park) "frying pan" into the "fire" that is the Maze. Remember, if the Maze should get built, we will all be stuck with it for the next 50+ years, so we all need to be persuaded that it is the right option. On which point, it may be OK for GAA and Rugby, but having studied the plan carefully, soccer fans are ever more convinced that whilst it may appear to solve our present short-term Stadium problem, it will actually be a long-term disaster. Which is only what the Amalgamation Report is saying.
On which point, do you care to give us your opinions on that Report?
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 05:37:41 PM
The longer they go with third rate facilities, the sooner there will be an all ireland team.
In our 128 year history, we have managed to survive the secession of 3/4 of our territory, two World Wars and 30 years of The Troubles, including a four year period when we were forced to play our home games in England.
Somehow, I'm sure we'll manage to come through this latest difficulty.
But thank you for your concern... ;)
I havnt read the pwc report so i wouldnt be reading a response to it ::).
The Amalgamation have read PWC's Report very carefully, and in their analysis of it have been scrupulous in specifying exactly where they think it wrong, with extracts. Therefore, it should be possible to come to an opinion on the Amalgamation's analysis by reading what they (Amalgamation) have written. After all, even Donagh was able to take it all in with a quick glance in order to be able to reach his conclusion! :D
Quote from: stiffler on April 18, 2008, 06:05:10 PM
What year do you think you will be watching norn iron in a new stadium then?
Don't really know - it could be 5, 6 even 10 years. But if so, i'm sure we'll survive somehow. Our first priority was to see off the Maze, which might now be being fulfilled (I'll still not believe it until it's official, mind). If we can win that battle, I'm confident we can win the next battle for an an alternative home.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 18, 2008, 06:06:15 PM
QuoteIn our 128 year history, we have managed to survive the secession of 3/4 of our territory
OY!!! What's that supposed to mean? :D
Oh, i think you know, you little scamp, you! ;)
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 18, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
The personal stuff on this thread is unbelievably childish.
"play the ball, not the man" obviously only counts when certain men are being played.
The hypocracy is unreal.
Indeed, His Holiness. None more spectacular than this tirade....
a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC but I somehow doubt that was what you were getting at ;)
Quote from: Chrisowc on April 18, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 18, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
The personal stuff on this thread is unbelievably childish.
"play the ball, not the man" obviously only counts when certain men are being played.
The hypocracy is unreal.
Indeed, His Holiness. None more spectacular than this tirade....
a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC
but I somehow doubt that was what you were getting at ;)
So which bit of that 'tirade' is untrue Chris and which 'man' is it personally directed at?
Well, it might not be playing one specific man you are definately 'having a go'
As for what is untrue? I don't really have to go too far do I?
The first two words will do for starters. Once you've grasped that then I'll go through the rest.
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Chrisowc on April 18, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 18, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
The personal stuff on this thread is unbelievably childish.
"play the ball, not the man" obviously only counts when certain men are being played.
The hypocracy is unreal.
Indeed, His Holiness. None more spectacular than this tirade....
a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC
but I somehow doubt that was what you were getting at ;)
So which bit of that 'tirade' is untrue Chris and which 'man' is it personally directed at?
Let's see
It isn't a foreign team, it's based in the country it represents and always has been
It doesn't attract loyalists (happily or otherwise) who prefer to support Engerlund
It has no connections or attendancve by any neo-Nazi groups and you need to withdraw this allegation.
You keep wittering about people being 'ill-informed' yet you continue to read the board and are able to comment on a lengthy response (to dismiss it as irrelevant) without having read it. Ill-informed indeed.
It's foreign to me Sammy. I think I've probably been in 'Northern Ireland' as many times as you've been in Spain. Was a fecking shithole as well – I try not to go back that often. Full of boys like your man Marty from OWC. You know they type – tries to hard to pretend they're straight out of thon movie Quadrophenia. I'm not a betting man but I'd lay good money they even chant in a Cockney accent when they go to the soccer on a Saturday afternoon. I do pity you having to live there. Opps that's right you got out when you could as well. Good man yerself. My sympathies all the same.
Re. the neo-Nazi thing. A good friend of mine, who also happens to be a block booker at Windsor picked up a copy of a little magazine called 'Blood and Honour' outside the stadium (he knows I have an interest in such things). Now that these people are able to openly sell this rag and that people were buying it, tell us that neo-Nazis do attend NI games at Windsor Park, so I will not be withdrawing anything.
Have to shoot off here. The national broadcaster with the mast on top of Divis mountain is showing the 'Magnificent Seven' this evening. Strangely for them and unlike the documentary on Charlie Kerins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Kerins) they aired last night, there's no subtitles on this one. Small luxuries hi...
Quote from: Chrisowc on April 18, 2008, 08:15:12 PM
Well, it might not be playing one specific man you are definately 'having a go'
As for what is untrue? I don't really have to go too far do I?
The first two words will do for starters. Once you've grasped that then I'll go through the rest.
Ach Chris, sure life would be awful boring if you didn't have a go at something.
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 09:20:56 PM
Re. the neo-Nazi thing. A good friend of mine, who also happens to be a block booker at Windsor picked up a copy of a little magazine called 'Blood and Honour' outside the stadium (he knows I have an interest in such things). Now that these people are able to openly sell this rag and that people were buying it, tell us that neo-Nazis do attend NI games at Windsor Park, so I will not be withdrawing anything.
I don't know what's the most laughably bullshit statement here - Donagh having a good friend who is a block booker at Windsor Park, or a magazine called Blood and Honour for sale outside an International game there. I happen to be a block booker and have been to many, many international games at Windsor park and beyond, and have not seen the likes of that for sale in Belfast or anywhere else.
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 09:20:56 PMRe. the neo-Nazi thing. A good friend of mine, who also happens to be a block booker at Windsor picked up a copy of a little magazine called 'Blood and Honour' outside the stadium (he knows I have an interest in such things). Now that these people are able to openly sell this rag and that people were buying it, tell us that neo-Nazis do attend NI games at Windsor Park, so I will not be withdrawing anything.
Absolute horse-shit. Christ Doangh you must be getting desperate if you're making up shite like that.
Quote from: SammyG on April 19, 2008, 06:13:18 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 09:20:56 PMRe. the neo-Nazi thing. A good friend of mine, who also happens to be a block booker at Windsor picked up a copy of a little magazine called 'Blood and Honour' outside the stadium (he knows I have an interest in such things). Now that these people are able to openly sell this rag and that people were buying it, tell us that neo-Nazis do attend NI games at Windsor Park, so I will not be withdrawing anything.
Absolute horse-shit. Christ Doangh you must be getting desperate if you're making up shite like that.
Don't shoot the messenger Sammy. You'd be better off weeding out the scumbags in you own support first. I suppose that goes with the territory when you play your games in a hard-line loyalist area in a 'stadium' :D owned by a club who can cout on the support of neo-Nazi cutthroats and who themselves sell CDs glorifying attacks on rivals with '"hammers and hatchets".
Quote from: Solomon Kane on April 19, 2008, 05:21:37 PM
I don't know what's the most laughably bullshit statement here - Donagh having a good friend who is a block booker at Windsor Park
Actually I've a few mates who are block-bookers as I think some of your OWC buddies should be able to confirm. One of them is even a former peeler. :o
Quote from: Donagh on April 19, 2008, 08:22:45 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on April 19, 2008, 05:21:37 PM
I don't know what's the most laughably bullshit statement here - Donagh having a good friend who is a block booker at Windsor Park
Actually I've a few mates who are block-bookers as I think some of your OWC buddies should be able to confirm. One of them is even a former peeler. :o
I'm sure they are over the moon with some of the hateful bile you spew here, or have you the balls to tell it to their faces?
On the other hand, it all reeks of "some of my best friends are black".
Quote from: Solomon Kane on April 19, 2008, 10:27:08 PM
I'm sure they are over the moon with some of the hateful bile you spew here, or have you the balls to tell it to their faces?
On the other hand, it all reeks of "some of my best friends are black".
Fortunately they are people who live in the real world, don't bury their heads in the ground and are happy to acknowledge and respect people with different opinions to themselves - unlike the little mutual masturbation cabal you have going on over on OWC.
Jezuz, OWC boys, can none of you not admit that you have a problem with some idiots, who would be loyalist and/or racist/sectarian?
Not all but some?
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2008, 11:34:55 PM
Jezuz, OWC boys, can none of you not admit that you have a problem with some idiots, who would be loyalist and/or racist/sectarian?
Not all but some?
They live in la la land where everything is wonderful, ach shure arent they the self professed 'best fans in the world'! :-[
The OWC contingent havent got it in them to admit they have issues, shure wasnt the Lennon incident just one idiot with a 20p piece.
Sammyg etc will do whatever it takes and say whatever it takes to deflect damaging PR away from the norths team, just look at the effort they put into following Fearon waround the newspapers/radio/tv etc. They are obsessed with ridding themselves of bad PR and shure I had them searching the Jim Rome show that airs in the states because I told them i went on the air and slammed them after they went after holly aged 8 from Kent.
Quote from: stew on April 19, 2008, 11:49:26 PM
shure I had them searching the Jim Rome show that airs in the states because I told them i went on the air and slammed them after they went after holly aged 8 from Kent.
:D I'd forgotten about that.
Quote from: Donagh on April 19, 2008, 11:18:08 PM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on April 19, 2008, 10:27:08 PM
I'm sure they are over the moon with some of the hateful bile you spew here, or have you the balls to tell it to their faces?
On the other hand, it all reeks of "some of my best friends are black".
Fortunately they are people who live in the real world, don't bury their heads in the ground and are happy to acknowledge and respect people with different opinions to themselves - unlike the little mutual masturbation cabal you have going on over on OWC.
That is possibly the most ironic statement from anyone ever.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2008, 11:34:55 PM
Jezuz, OWC boys, can none of you not admit that you have a problem with some idiots, who would be loyalist and/or racist/sectarian?
Not all but some?
I have no problem admitting a small minority of our fans are dickheads. You can put a label on them, but dickheads are dickheads whatever and wherever they are. There is enough discussion about this on the OWC website. Where I do have a problem is with other dickheads that will attempt to smear us all because of the past or sometimes imagined antics of that minority.
Quote from: Solomon Kane on April 20, 2008, 12:08:56 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2008, 11:34:55 PM
Jezuz, OWC boys, can none of you not admit that you have a problem with some idiots, who would be loyalist and/or racist/sectarian?
Not all but some?
I have no problem admitting a small minority of our fans are dickheads. You can put a label on them, but dickheads are dickheads whatever and wherever they are. There is enough discussion about this on the OWC website. Where I do have a problem is with other dickheads that will attempt to smear us all because of the past or sometimes imagined antics of that minority.
Solomon, I'm not labelling you all as dickheads, but I would appreciate it if you (the OWC posters on this board) would admit that you have a band of LOYALIST/NEO-NAZI/SECTARIAN cnuts who go to matches and support your team.
Not wanting "photographs" or "sackcloth and ashes", just an admittance of a problem.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 20, 2008, 12:47:56 AMSolomon, I'm not labelling you all as dickheads, but I would appreciate it if you (the OWC posters on this board) would admit that you have a band of LOYALIST/NEO-NAZI/SECTARIAN cnuts who go to matches and support your team.
Not wanting "photographs" or "sackcloth and ashes", just an admittance of a problem.
Why would we admit something that is complete bollix?
I have never in 30 odd years of going to NI matches, seen anything to do with Neo-Nazism. Just because Donagh makes something up, doesn't mean that it suddenly becomes fact.
As far as sectarianism, there was a problem in the past, which has now been dealt with and I have not heard or seen any sectarianism for many years.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 20, 2008, 12:47:56 AM
Quote from: Solomon Kane on April 20, 2008, 12:08:56 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2008, 11:34:55 PM
Jezuz, OWC boys, can none of you not admit that you have a problem with some idiots, who would be loyalist and/or racist/sectarian?
Not all but some?
I have no problem admitting a small minority of our fans are dickheads. You can put a label on them, but dickheads are dickheads whatever and wherever they are. There is enough discussion about this on the OWC website. Where I do have a problem is with other dickheads that will attempt to smear us all because of the past or sometimes imagined antics of that minority.
Solomon, I'm not labelling you all as dickheads, but I would appreciate it if you (the OWC posters on this board) would admit that you have a band of LOYALIST/NEO-NAZI/SECTARIAN cnuts who go to matches and support your team.
Not wanting "photographs" or "sackcloth and ashes", just an admittance of a problem.
A serious question for you GDA - where do you get your perceptions of NI fans? Is it on this board, the media, OWC or somewhere else? The nearest I have saw to racism among NI fans over the past decade or so has been some eejit full of drink asking a Chinese tourist in Copenhagen for a chicken fried rice. Stupid - yes, racist - probably, regardless of the motivation but neo-nazi? I don't think so.
Quote from: Donagh on April 19, 2008, 08:22:45 PM
Actually I've a few mates who are block-bookers as I think some of your OWC buddies should be able to confirm. One of them is even a former peeler. :o
Aren't you the right fella :D :D
Sure I met a cafflick once and he was a decent bloke. ::)
Quote from: Chrisowc on April 18, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 18, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
The personal stuff on this thread is unbelievably childish.
"play the ball, not the man" obviously only counts when certain men are being played.
The hypocracy is unreal.
Indeed, His Holiness. None more spectacular than this tirade....
a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC
but I somehow doubt that was what you were getting at ;)
Whatever about agreeing with the arguments, I was having a go at the personal abuse coming from both sides.
Re the hypocracy, well yes, that was referring to a particular poster who harps on about playing the ball not the man, but is happy to dish it out as well.
But while I was commenting on personal abuse from both "sides" its interesting that you higlighted an example of this from one particular side. :)
Solomon, it is less than a deacde since Neil Lennon received disgusting sectarian/rascist (butter it up how you like)abuse from a section of N.I supporters, while representing the team.
It was clear that this was not being perpetrated by a a handful of people. of people. At the time there were hundreds invovled, some probably having a go for the craic of it! Have these idiots suddenly withdrawn support for the team and no longer attend games??, or have their mindsights significantly changed. Some possibly yes, the majority i would think not!!
Quote from: Yes I Would on April 20, 2008, 12:20:25 PM
Solomon, it is less than a deacde since Neil Lennon received disgusting sectarian/rascist (butter it up how you like)abuse from a section of N.I supporters, while representing the team.
It was clear that this was not being perpetrated by a a handful of people. of people. At the time there were hundreds invovled, some probably having a go for the craic of it! Have these idiots suddenly withdrawn support for the team and no longer attend games??, or have their mindsights significantly changed. Some possibly yes, the majority i would think not!!
I know all about it - I was there. It was wrong, disgusting, terrible etc. It was also a catalyst for change. I would put the figures doing it at about 200, but it may have been more or indeed less. There is no way of telling and I sure as hell haven't met anyone who has owned up to doing it. Some mindsets may have changed due to the press onslaught that followed, others may have just decided to keep their nasty thoughts to themselves. More importantly it gave the rest of us the kick up the asses we needed to tell these nitwits to shut the f**k up if they started their nonsense again. I have done this and I have seen others do it. It is important to remember that he played on for Northern Ireland after this at home and away, and recieeved a rapturous welcome at the next home game. These days it isn't really an issue, from where I am sitting at games at any rate. As for the death threat on Lennon, I have no idea who made it or how serious it was. While no code word was given, the police made enough of the issue to approach Neil himself. He made the right decision walking away as he was becoming a much bigger story than the team. It was sad to see him go as although I didn't really rate him that much at times, at other times he was a very useful player for us and the manner of his retirement was tragic. It did hurt to see an Ulsterman at a UEFA Cup final who felt he could no longer play for his country. As for the often quoted on this site "20p" gambit I have no idea who made the telephone threat. There may have been one person involved or there may have been more but one thing is for sure, there wasn't 14,000 people in that phone-box on that day. I don't therefore see why the rest of us should be blamed for that one.
As for these events taking place less than a decade ago that is true, but there hjas been a lot of change in less than a decade none of us saw coming.
Quote from: Yes I Would on April 20, 2008, 12:20:25 PM
Solomon, it is less than a deacde since Neil Lennon received disgusting sectarian/rascist (butter it up how you like)abuse from a section of N.I supporters, while representing the team.
Could you tell us about this sectarian/racist abuse, as I'd be very intrerested to hear about it?
A tiny number of people booed Lennon because he played for Celtic, nothing to do with his relegion (totally wrong and the c***ts were drowned out by the vast majority singing One Neil Lennon). But I'm sure you know different.
Not on the TV, on TV the boos were the overwhelming winner.
I remember watching that first half in total shock at what was going down.
http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1859991,00.html (http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,1859991,00.html)
"From the moment I went on to that pitch to play against Norway I was the target of an unremitting chorus of boos, jeers, catcalls and insults. In a half-empty stadium, the noise seemed to amplify and at times it seemed as though it was the only sound to be heard. Deep down, it was the sheer scale of things which upset me. Later, people would try to play down what happened, saying it was only a minority in the crowd who had hurled abuse. There wasn't a massive crowd at the game, maybe 7,000 or so, and the minority might only have been 500 or 600, but to me the proportion booing me didn't matter - one per cent would have been too much.
Not only could I hear the jeering, but I could also see people in the stands arguing and gesticulating at each other. Sections of the home crowd were having a go at their fellow supporters who were abusing me and nobody was paying much attention to proceedings on the pitch".
"Now I have been booed and jeered many times - just about every time I play for Celtic away from home. I had heard anti-Catholic songs being sung at Windsor Park internationals before but, like most Catholic players, played on and ignored them. The fact is you do not mind being booed by the opposition fans or even your own supporters if you are having a stinker. But this was something else again and was, I believe, completely premeditated. I had played 35 times for my country before that night and had a good relationship with most fans, who knew I gave my all for Northern Ireland. So what had happened to make things so different? Answer: I now played for Celtic".
Quote from: stew on April 19, 2008, 11:49:26 PM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on April 19, 2008, 11:34:55 PM
Jezuz, OWC boys, can none of you not admit that you have a problem with some idiots, who would be loyalist and/or racist/sectarian?
Not all but some?
They live in la la land where everything is wonderful, ach shure arent they the self professed 'best fans in the world'! :-[
The OWC contingent havent got it in them to admit they have issues, shure wasnt the Lennon incident just one idiot with a 20p piece.
Sammyg etc will do whatever it takes and say whatever it takes to deflect damaging PR away from the norths team, just look at the effort they put into following Fearon waround the newspapers/radio/tv etc. They are obsessed with ridding themselves of bad PR and shure I had them searching the Jim Rome show that airs in the states because I told them i went on the air and slammed them after they went after holly aged 8 from Kent.
'They'?
::)
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 20, 2008, 11:53:21 AM
Quote from: Chrisowc on April 18, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 18, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
The personal stuff on this thread is unbelievably childish.
"play the ball, not the man" obviously only counts when certain men are being played.
The hypocracy is unreal.
Indeed, His Holiness. None more spectacular than this tirade....
a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC
but I somehow doubt that was what you were getting at ;)
Whatever about agreeing with the arguments, I was having a go at the personal abuse coming from both sides.
Re the hypocracy, well yes, that was referring to a particular poster who harps on about playing the ball not the man, but is happy to dish it out as well.
But while I was commenting on personal abuse from both "sides" its interesting that you higlighted an example of this from one particular side. :)
It's can't be that surprising that I highlighted a comment that I took as personally directed at me.
If you were commenting on personal abuse from 'both sides' then, fair do's.
I reckon you're getting soft. The pittar patter of tiny feet must be iminent or something ;)
Meanwhile, back at the debate....
To recap, Donagh starts a thread on Long Kesh Park [sic]. After sixty five pages, he is trawling through OWC, as he is wont to do, and he spots a Report by the Amalgamation of NI Supporters Clubs which analyses in detail the original PWC Report recommending the Maze Stadium.
Having spotted a contentious reference to the GAA and Croke Park, he couldn't wait to post this on here, as evidence of how weak the Amalgamation's Analysis was (as well as demonstrate how clever he is).
In fact, Donagh's intervention prompted me to reproduce the complete Amalgamation Report, since I thought it a useful and relevant contribution to this thread. As for the GAA/CP reference, it is obvious that it was only a minor matter, which in no way undermined the main substance of the Amalgamation's Report, which successfully demolished PWC's efforts as baseless and misleading on several critical aspects.
At which point, Donagh was invited to share with us his grounds for concluding the Amalgamation Report is "irrelevant", "rubbish" and "full of lies" etc. Which was where his discomfort was revealed. First of all, he asserted that he hadn't read it, merely glanced at it. When challenged as to how he could therefore conclude that it was all "rubbish" etc, he claims that a quick look* is all it takes for him.
When it was conceded that the offending CP/GAA reference was misleading (though ultimately unimportant), he was asked to tell us what was wrong with the rest of it. At which point, he was forced to stick to his line that he hadn't read it, nor wouldn't. Personally, I don't believe him, simple as that. I have no doubt that he has read the Amalgamation Report, but cannot find anything wrong with it, otherwise he would have rushed to tell us.
Thereafter, he has resorted to a combination of abuse (often of a personal nature), distortion, distraction and (I suspect) outright lies about OWC, the NI support, individuals, etc (see Posts # 948, #958, #972, #976) - anything to divert attention from the fact that he has scored a gigantic own goal on this whole topic and it is bugging the f**k out of him! :D
So at this point, I would like to offer a sincere "Thank You" to Donagh, for his assistance in helping NI football fans publicise our campaign to reject the Maze Stadium! And I would further like to assure him that his efforts to rile us with his insults and vituperation have failed miserably, not least because it is impossible to get angered by someone who is making you nearly piss yourself with laughter.
* - One welcome byproduct of Donagh's ludicrous claim about only needing to glance at a long and detailed Report in order to be able to digest it, was that it reminded me of one my all-time favourite Woody Alllen lines. In trying to impress some woman, Allen casually mentioned that he had done a speed-reading course. "Last week I read 'War and Peace' in an hour and a half. [Pause] It's about Russia..." :D
Donagh - nearly as funny as Woody Allen, without even trying! ;)
Yes the fact he played for Celtic, a catholic club, with a deep Irish history!! Surely this could be categorised as sectarian/rasicist.
Wasnt being hounded for the style of football that Celtic were playing at the time.
It was religious/cultural. abuse!!
Solomon, I have never been to a N.I game at Windosr so do take your points in good faith. I appreciate that alot of effort has been made since this incident amongst the many decent NI fans that there are out there. The death threat was the work of possibly a few mindless bigots with absoloutley no interest or knowledge in football, but shows ahow a situation within a football ground can progress to something much sinister and dangerous!!
If the Burnley lad, Lafferty had have signed for Celtic would have been a good acid test as to how mindisghts have been changed!!
There have been quite a few ignorant contributions from the OWC on this thread, a nauseating dribble with absolute refusal to shift out of the OWC prejudiced box.
20 pages on the GAA shrine to terrorism.
'strange that they (Sinn Fein) were able to coax/co-erce the GAA into backing them in backing a memorial to their hunger strikers'
"I deliberately used the phrase coaxed/co-erced. I don't know which it was but it was certainly one or the other. There is no business or sporting reason for the GAA to support the Maze, so it must be for political reasons".
"I'll withdraw it (that remark) when somebody produces some evidence to contradict it"
Is Sammy's prowess as an intellectual giant held in high regard in the OWC ? ;D
Then the 20 pages on the (invisible) GAA veto
the proof of that was supposed to be in the DCAL minutes. Finally after another 10 pages we are given the DCAL link,
only to discover that the Minster states that it was the IFA who exercised a veto over Belfast location.
That OWC report doesn't look into the value of the infrastructure to the future of that area.
In the light of other infrastructure plans going ahead in NI costing 100's of millions without any public debate, indeed could we not find flaws in any plan?
The report doesn't recognize that the GAA members are represented by the GAA council but offers the pretense that fans are not consulted.
In the GAA, most are club members, clubs are represented by delegates chosen on a county level to represented the members at Congress.
The GAA members are represented by the Ulster GAA council who have sat down with the other Sports and come to a consensus about the plans.
I don't know how the IFA is constituted.
The IFA have offered as evidence to Poots that 13 of 15 senior clubs are supportive.
In general it is regarded that members run clubs, of course they need fans but its the members who take the decisions and who take responsibility for them..
The report doesn't recognise that the finance, ringfenced for a muti stadium project, is coming from the wider British exchequer. Added on top of the Subvention.
That as long as the diff aspects of the plan (like economics) are acceptable to the British Gov, they will approve.
The Stadium plan must satisfy the 3 sports, then it must satisfy the Assembly, then the Brit Gov. approves.
If the 3 sports are at loggerheads the Brit Gov will not approve.
If the Assembly is split then the Brit Gov will not approve.
The days of Stormont Unionist veto are long gone. Unionists are not trusted, even though they are in a majority, to rule with the the interests of NI as a whole.
The Assembly constitution has it in writing. The NI Assembly will not in the next decade or so agree to any other location.
In the event of the Turkeys voting for Christmas, the British Gov will not release funds.
That leaves the IFA who did not have to spend a penny for the Maze looking for finance to build a stadium.
One source is DCAL whose budget cannot cater for anything substantial.
How many of the soccer club across NI will be happy with their Association, when the representative teams are already a drain on resources.
A multi stadium involves compromise and involves working for the common good.
Since this debate started the OWC have been bitterly sniping at the intentions and position of the GAA in this matter.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 20, 2008, 06:44:13 PM
Meanwhile, back at the debate....
To recap, Donagh starts a thread on Long Kesh Park [sic]. After sixty five pages, he is trawling through OWC, as he is wont to do, and he spots a Report by the Amalgamation of NI Supporters Clubs which analyses in detail the original PWC Report recommending the Maze Stadium.
Having spotted a contentious reference to the GAA and Croke Park, he couldn't wait to post this on here, as evidence of how weak the Amalgamation's Analysis was (as well as demonstrate how clever he is).
In fact, Donagh's intervention prompted me to reproduce the complete Amalgamation Report, since I thought it a useful and relevant contribution to this thread. As for the GAA/CP reference, it is obvious that it was only a minor matter, which in no way undermined the main substance of the Amalgamation's Report, which successfully demolished PWC's efforts as baseless and misleading on several critical aspects.
At which point, Donagh was invited to share with us his grounds for concluding the Amalgamation Report is "irrelevant", "rubbish" and "full of lies" etc. Which was where his discomfort was revealed. First of all, he asserted that he hadn't read it, merely glanced at it. When challenged as to how he could therefore conclude that it was all "rubbish" etc, he claims that a quick look* is all it takes for him.
When it was conceded that the offending CP/GAA reference was misleading (though ultimately unimportant), he was asked to tell us what was wrong with the rest of it. At which point, he was forced to stick to his line that he hadn't read it, nor wouldn't. Personally, I don't believe him, simple as that. I have no doubt that he has read the Amalgamation Report, but cannot find anything wrong with it, otherwise he would have rushed to tell us.
Thereafter, he has resorted to a combination of abuse (often of a personal nature), distortion, distraction and (I suspect) outright lies about OWC, the NI support, individuals, etc (see Posts # 948, #958, #972, #976) - anything to divert attention from the fact that he has scored a gigantic own goal on this whole topic and it is bugging the f**k out of him! :D
So at this point, I would like to offer a sincere "Thank You" to Donagh, for his assistance in helping NI football fans publicise our campaign to reject the Maze Stadium! And I would further like to assure him that his efforts to rile us with his insults and vituperation have failed miserably, not least because it is impossible to get angered by someone who is making you nearly piss yourself with laughter.
* - One welcome byproduct of Donagh's ludicrous claim about only needing to glance at a long and detailed Report in order to be able to digest it, was that it reminded me of one my all-time favourite Woody Alllen lines. In trying to impress some woman, Allen casually mentioned that he had done a speed-reading course. "Last week I read 'War and Peace' in an hour and a half. [Pause] It's about Russia..." :D
Donagh - nearly as funny as Woody Allen, without even trying! ;)
Half a page devoted to attacking me? :D
That is the saddest thing I've witnessed in a long time. Do you honestly think anyone could care less about the opinions of some windbag with no interest in the GAA who spends half his sad life posting ill-informed rubbish on a GAA forum? Unlike you little man, I'm proud to have a life outside a makey-up cyber world which for the rest of us is a small distraction during work break, but obviously seems to form the bedrock of your social interaction. Keep it up though, my estimation of the average OWC supporter falls with every post you make.
I can not wait to hear a new agreed Anthem at all GAA. Rugby and N.Ireland games.
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
There have been quite a few ignorant contributions from the OWC on this thread, a nauseating dribble with absolute refusal to shift out of the OWC prejudiced box.
20 pages on the GAA shrine to terrorism.
'strange that they (Sinn Fein) were able to coax/co-erce the GAA into backing them in backing a memorial to their hunger strikers'
"I deliberately used the phrase coaxed/co-erced. I don't know which it was but it was certainly one or the other. There is no business or sporting reason for the GAA to support the Maze, so it must be for political reasons".
"I'll withdraw it (that remark) when somebody produces some evidence to contradict it"
Is Sammy's prowess as an intellectual giant held in high regard in the OWC ? ;D
Then the 20 pages on the (invisible) GAA veto
the proof of that was supposed to be in the DCAL minutes. Finally after another 10 pages we are given the DCAL link,
only to discover that the Minster states that it was the IFA who exercised a veto over Belfast location.
That OWC report doesn't look into the value of the infrastructure to the future of that area.
In the light of other infrastructure plans going ahead in NI costing 100's of millions without any public debate, indeed could we not find flaws in any plan?
The report doesn't recognize that the GAA members are represented by the GAA council but offers the pretense that fans are not consulted.
In the GAA, most are club members, clubs are represented by delegates chosen on a county level to represented the members at Congress.
The GAA members are represented by the Ulster GAA council who have sat down with the other Sports and come to a consensus about the plans.
I don't know how the IFA is constituted.
The IFA have offered as evidence to Poots that 13 of 15 senior clubs are supportive.
In general it is regarded that members run clubs, of course they need fans but its the members who take the decisions and who take responsibility for them..
The report doesn't recognise that the finance, ringfenced for a muti stadium project, is coming from the wider British exchequer. Added on top of the Subvention.
That as long as the diff aspects of the plan (like economics) are acceptable to the British Gov, they will approve.
The Stadium plan must satisfy the 3 sports, then it must satisfy the Assembly, then the Brit Gov. approves.
If the 3 sports are at loggerheads the Brit Gov will not approve.
If the Assembly is split then the Brit Gov will not approve.
The days of Stormont Unionist veto are long gone. Unionists are not trusted, even though they are in a majority, to rule with the the interests of NI as a whole.
The Assembly constitution has it in writing. The NI Assembly will not in the next decade or so agree to any other location.
In the event of the Turkeys voting for Christmas, the British Gov will not release funds.
That leaves the IFA who did not have to spend a penny for the Maze looking for finance to build a stadium.
One source is DCAL whose budget cannot cater for anything substantial.
How many of the soccer club across NI will be happy with their Association, when the representative teams are already a drain on resources.
A multi stadium involves compromise and involves working for the common good.
Since this debate started the OWC have been bitterly sniping at the intentions and position of the GAA in this matter.
Excellent post MS. Are you trying to take the annual 'Who has the most lies in a single post' award away from Donagh? He'll be really disappointed if he doesn't get to win it for the 5th consecutive year. ::)
Quote from: SammyG on April 21, 2008, 08:14:47 AM
Excellent post MS. Are you trying to take the annual 'Who has the most lies in a single post' award away from Donagh? He'll be really disappointed if he doesn't get to win it for the 5th consecutive year. ::)
Coming from you Sammy, that is funny.
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 12:01:20 AM
Half a page devoted to attacking me? :D
That is the saddest thing I've witnessed in a long time. Do you honestly think anyone could care less about the opinions of some windbag with no interest in the GAA who spends half his sad life posting ill-informed rubbish on a GAA forum? Unlike you little man, I'm proud to have a life outside a makey-up cyber world which for the rest of us is a small distraction during work break, but obviously seems to form the bedrock of your social interaction. Keep it up though, my estimation of the average OWC supporter falls with every post you make.
You were the one who introduced the Amalgamation Report to a thread which
you had started.
You were the one who dismissed the Report as "rubbish", "lies", "irrelevant", despite maintaining that
you hadn't actually read it :o.
If you don't want this to get personalised, why not stick to the
issues? That is, simply tell us why you think the Report is so deficient, rather than merely lashing out abuse.
After all, at least Main Street has had a go at analysing it, poor though it was.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 11:00:20 AM
You were the one who introduced the Amalgamation Report to a thread which you had started. You were the one who dismissed the Report as "rubbish", "lies", "irrelevant", despite maintaining that you hadn't actually read it :o.
If you don't want this to get personalised, why not stick to the issues? That is, simply tell us why you think the Report is so deficient, rather than merely lashing out abuse.
After all, at least Main Street has had a go at analysing it, poor though it was.
See my previous posts.
my take on the response to the response on pwc report (and I found the response to the pwc report a collage of excuses and not decent analysis overall - though some decent points and logic that is useless on the question of this stadium)
Response to the RESPONSE TO PwC REPORT: 'PROPOSED MULTI-SPORTS STADIUM FOR NORTHERN IRELAND'
1. INTRODUCTION: IN-BUILT BIAS
-in response to the question of why bother build a stadium for three codes when the GAA obv dont need it , soccer want it in belfast and Rugby are transient at best on what they want - its down to the
GFA, the governments etc shoving 'peace' down everyones thoat, and that the stadium in a 'neutral' green field area - is what they want
to signify starting from scratch and will fall over themselves to implement a 'shared' staduim for the purpose of signalling
future intent of sharing and collaboration (leading to eventual convergence).
It will not matter about the cost, if its a white elephant, built in the 'wrong' location or that it may not be needed at all - the
powers that be (brit and Irish gov) will want to build this for the sheer symbolism, common sense and finances will go out the window.
the only way this will be shelved is the emergence of an economic downturn.
Belfast cannot be considered as the location has to be seen to be a new location, ruling out Belfast city and its pro unionist connotations for GAA folk.
2. COSTS
&
3. REVENUE
These will not matter as the symbolism overtakes the financial aspects of this.
If I read the gov objectives correctly.
Also it will be an easier green field site (literally) to build on and more preferential to gov – though I would guess that GAA folk would prefer a stadium further west and into cheaper land (eg around dungannon).
4. ACCESS AND TRANSPORT
I think this is also a vehicle that the Brit Gov will use to regenerate the lisburn/long kesh etc area.
Also by building a stadium, it will allow this to gloss over the old Long kesh / prison/war / violence/link with the past scenario.
Infrastruture will be easily built and the benefits to local area immense. Another green field site effectively. Large initial cost, but beneficial long term to the 'new area' its tertiary industries and people.
5. CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE AND OPINION
Studies have shown that the best places for stadiums are in downtown areas, eg American football stadia.
However the driving force behind this stadium is not logic. Therefore logic will not dictate or be brought in here.
Plus a shared stadium would not see a GAA audience want to go into Belfast city for Obv reasons for the near future at least.
6. THE ENVIRONMENT
Will be the same for all locations. Spectators will have to travel. A new site would give the oppotrunity to utilise a greener approach.
Either way it wont make a difference. Prob better not to use up any more of Belfasts' green' area either.
7. ECONOMICS
The new 'town' and local industry will be the long term winner. It would prob create more industry and local economy with the infrastructure creation development and help negate a currently lean time ahead of folk in NI due to the slackening off of industry currently.
Long term economics don't really apply as mentioned prev, the motivation for this project is the perception of inclusivity and new beginnings etc – they are preparted to take a financial hit. I suppose its miniscule in comparison to the billions haemorrhaged annually on the defence spend.
I haven't had time to read the full response from the ANISC, but I did get this far.
Quote1.1 The process that has led to the current proposal to build a stadium at the site of the former Maze prison at a stated cost of £240m(!) to the taxpayer is conceptually biased. The proposal seeks to provide an answer to the question "What should we do with the Maze?" ... but the question that should have been asked is "Where is the best location for a stadium?"
1.2 The Government has spent over £9m on consultants to develop the Maze proposal, and spent nothing on proposals for any other locations, yet cites the absence of worked-up proposals for Belfast as a reason for favouring the Maze! This is disingenuous.
1.3 The assessment that PwC has carried out is biased in favour of the Maze:
Belfast options other than North Foreshore are excluded completely from the assessment, despite the fact that no proper consideration has yet been given to Titanic Quarter, Ormeau Park, Maysfield, or any other Belfast location.
The two-sport stadium at North Foreshore which is included is assessed at a more expensive 30,000 capacity, even though a lower-cost 25,000 would be sufficient for football and rugby.
Non-financial criteria are emphasised, resulting in bias towards the most expensive option (Maze):
o The Maze is credited for its apparent compliance with the "shared future" policy, but this is almost wholly spurious: a stadium, by its nature, can never be shared, since events will take place on different days! The supporters of each sport will no more mix at the Maze than they currently do at their separate venues.
o The presumed requirement for three sports to be involved in the same stadium means that an apparent veto exercised by the GAA in favour of the Maze has ruled out potentially cheaper and more value-for-money options in Belfast.
I have a couple of points.
1. I understand that each body is out to achieve what is best for their particular sport, but is the ANISC in favour of one stadium for all three sporting bodies?
- If yes, then there is no need to refer to "Two sport" stadiums.
- If no, do they accept the premise that any money given towards a new stadium for soccer / rugby will have to be matched (for want of a better word) with similar funding for the GAA. To launch into "two-sport" solutions as early as 1.3 shows a lack of realistic thinking on the part of the ANISC.
2. Whilst likely that the proposal is indeed about "What should we do with the Maze?" rather than "Where is the best location for a stadium?", it can't be proven that this is the basis for the proposal and is hence a weak start to the document.
3. What would the ANISC's definition of a stadium within a "shared future"? To me, it is one that is available for use by the whole community. Some sections will use it more than others, hopefully all sections will use it at some stage. IMHO, there is no logic in the document's assertion that that stadium will not be a "shared space", becuase not everyone will use it together. Furthermore, it is more likely that people will attend sporting events here that they would not attend at either Windsor or Casement. I could point to the Press Officer of the ANISC and highlight his commitment to a "shared future", but I won't because that is not technically drectly related to the stadium issue.
I would also suggest that it was a good idea to put the whole proposal on the board and allow those, like ourselves who have an interest, to comment on it, before it becomes the definitive document.
Quote from: SammyG on April 18, 2008, 08:25:05 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 18, 2008, 07:52:08 PM
Quote from: Chrisowc on April 18, 2008, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: his holiness nb on April 18, 2008, 05:38:28 PM
The personal stuff on this thread is unbelievably childish.
"play the ball, not the man" obviously only counts when certain men are being played.
The hypocracy is unreal.
Indeed, His Holiness. None more spectacular than this tirade....
a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC
but I somehow doubt that was what you were getting at ;)
So which bit of that 'tirade' is untrue Chris and which 'man' is it personally directed at?
Let's see
It isn't a foreign team, it's based in the country it represents and always has been
It doesn't attract loyalists (happily or otherwise) who prefer to support Engerlund
It has no connections or attendancve by any neo-Nazi groups and you need to withdraw this allegation.
You keep wittering about people being 'ill-informed' yet you continue to read the board and are able to comment on a lengthy response (to dismiss it as irrelevant) without having read it. Ill-informed indeed.
Some fish in a barrel there for anyone who can be bothered getting the gun out.
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
There have been quite a few ignorant contributions from the OWC on this thread, a nauseating dribble with absolute refusal to shift out of the OWC prejudiced box.
20 pages on the GAA shrine to terrorism.
'strange that they (Sinn Fein) were able to coax/co-erce the GAA into backing them in backing a memorial to their hunger strikers'
"I deliberately used the phrase coaxed/co-erced. I don't know which it was but it was certainly one or the other. There is no business or sporting reason for the GAA to support the Maze, so it must be for political reasons".
"I'll withdraw it (that remark) when somebody produces some evidence to contradict it"
Is Sammy's prowess as an intellectual giant held in high regard in the OWC ? ;D
Nonsense. Some posters on this thread referred to it, but to list it as 20 pages(!), with the character you ascribe (drawn from a couple of carefully selected, out-of-context quotations), simply doesn't stand up. As for the wider OWC view, Some posters on OWC are agitated about it, but the overwhelming majority don't actually care that much. Our priority is to secure our future in a suitably designed stadium somewhere in Belfast. Indeed, if you need proof of the Museum's place in soccer supporters' priorities, you need only look to the Amalgamation Report - it doesn't mention the proposed Museum anywhere!
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
Then the 20 pages on the (invisible) GAA veto
the proof of that was supposed to be in the DCAL minutes. Finally after another 10 pages we are given the DCAL link,
only to discover that the Minster states that it was the IFA who exercised a veto over Belfast location.
Why on earth would the IFA exercise a veto over Belfast? Such a claim beggars belief. Whereas, with a stadium already in Belfast (Casement) and a the GAA "heartland" in Ulster being predominantly rural, western (including Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal), it is obvious why the GAA should reject Belfast in favour of the Maze.
At which point, since the Government was insisting that a stadium would only be built if all three sports agreed to share it, the IFA was in no position to object to anything and Ulster Rugby doesn't care (once it has got its Government grant for Ravenhill), this was handing the GAA a
de facto veto, which they chose to exercise.
On which latter point, afaiaa, neither I nor any other OWC poster on this thread has blamed the GAA for preserving their own interests; quite the contrary, they are to be admired for the astute way they have played their hand. Rather, our gripe is with the Government, for dealing the cards from a loaded deck.
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
That OWC report doesn't look into the value of the infrastructure to the future of that area.
The Amalgamation Report (
not an OWC Report) states quite clearly that "The economic multiplier effect for city locations is estimated at around 2.5, as opposed to 1.4 for out-of-town locations." Therefore, if the proposed Maze stadium is also more expensive than other, more practical alternatives; and if it is not going to produce the revenues claimed; and since it will have considerably greater infrastructure costs (since these will need to be built from a much lower base), then it is clear that the infrastructure benefits for the Lisburn area represent a huge waste of money. Quite simply, the money could be much better spent elsewhere in NI, on other infrastructure projects. After all, it's hardly as if everything else has been built, and we're scratching around to find other trains, roads and transport links and amenities etc...
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
In the light of other infrastructure plans going ahead in NI costing 100's of millions without any public debate, indeed could we not find flaws in any plan?
Leaving to one side your clear implication that we shouldn't worry about obvious flaws in the Maze proposal, since other plans are/were similarly flawed(!), the Amalgamation does not concern itself with other plans. Indeed, the Amalgamation is not even concerned with the various other uses to which the Maze site might be put. Rather, as the largest organisation representing soccer supporters in NI, it is addressing the proposed new stadium for international soccer in NI. As you might expect. ::)
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
The report doesn't recognize that the GAA members are represented by the GAA council but offers the pretense that fans are not consulted.
In the GAA, most are club members, clubs are represented by delegates chosen on a county level to represented the members at Congress.
The GAA members are represented by the Ulster GAA council who have sat down with the other Sports and come to a consensus about the plans.
The Amalgamation Report doesn't really
address (not "recognise") how the GAA is constituted since that is no business of the Amalgamation's. Consequently, their Report does not dispute why the GAA preferred the Maze site of the three presented to it, never mind whether that preference represents the consensus of GAA Members' views. None of that is any of the Amalgamation's business. Rather, the Amalgamation has addressed PWC's Report primarily from the viewpoint of how it impacts upon NI soccer. As such, one of their main concerns is that PWC made no effort to ascertain directly the views of any of the anticipated users of the Stadium. At best, this is negligent, considering how many "assunptions" they are forced to make. At worst it is sinister, since it suggests they don't want to hear any opposition. (But whilst on the subject of GAA fans' views, which the Amalgamation only referred to obliquely, one might have thought that if GAA members were strongly in favour of the Maze, it would have helped PWC's case to canvass them. It would also have "helped" the GAA in reassuring everyone that the Council continues to act democratically and in accordance with the views of its membership)
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
I don't know how the IFA is constituted.
The IFA have offered as evidence to Poots that 13 of 15 senior clubs are supportive.
In general it is regarded that members run clubs, of course they need fans but its the members who take the decisions and who take responsibility for them.
Clearly! Quite honestly, the IFA is nowhere nearly so democratic or accountable an organisation as e.g. the GAA. Moreover, its Chief Executive (Wells) is currently being paid by the Government (DCAL), which explains why he personally is so keen on the Government plan for the Maze, contrary to the great majority of NI soccer fans. As for the "13 of 15" clubs (there are actually 16 senior clubs in the Premier Division, out of 40 senior clubs in all), their view are not especially relevant, since of the 5 or 6 contracted soccer matches for the Maze, only one (Irish Cup Final) actually involves those clubs, with another (Setanta Cup) occasionally possibly involving one. And both of these matches will be by far the least attended soccer matches. The majority of soccer matches, including all of the best attended, will be internationals. And the Amalgamation represents thousands of supporters of the NI international team.
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
The report doesn't recognise that the finance, ringfenced for a muti stadium project, is coming from the wider British exchequer. Added on top of the Subvention.
That as long as the diff aspects of the plan (like economics) are acceptable to the British Gov, they will approve.
The Stadium plan must satisfy the 3 sports, then it must satisfy the Assembly, then the Brit Gov. approves.
If the 3 sports are at loggerheads the Brit Gov will not approve.
If the Assembly is split then the Brit Gov will not approve.
The days of Stormont Unionist veto are long gone. Unionists are not trusted, even though they are in a majority, to rule with the the interests of NI as a whole.
The Assembly constitution has it in writing. The NI Assembly will not in the next decade or so agree to any other location.
In the event of the Turkeys voting for Christmas, the British Gov will not release funds.
That leaves the IFA who did not have to spend a penny for the Maze looking for finance to build a stadium.
One source is DCAL whose budget cannot cater for anything substantial.
Now you're just beginning to rant. Frankly, I am not sure anyone is certain exactly on what grounds responsibility for the Maze project has been devolved to Stormont. However, it is abundantly clear that Peter Robinson, soon to be First Minister, believes that he has the power to "pull the plug" on the Maze stadium, and I have no doubt he is correct in that. Of course, his powers to replace the Maze with something else are not so clear, but as a reasonably astute politician, I have little doubt that he has a "Plan B" up his sleeve. Of course, this "Plan B" could be just to "pocket" any central funding he can foir the NI Budget and to do nothing to replace the Maze. However, since his new-found reluctance to proceed with the Maze appears to derive from pressure from his party grassroots and his electorate generally, and those grassroots/electorate will also likely not want to see the NI team left in the lurch, I am reasonably confident that should he definitely bin the Maze stadium, he will come up with some sort of replacement for NI soccer (in Belfast).
And, of course, since the way Stormont is set up, when one side gets some sweeties, the other side always has to get its equal share, I imagine there will also be provision to compensate GAA and Ulster Rugby.
In which case, the only question will be how many sweeties everyone will get.
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
How many of the soccer club across NI will be happy with their Association, when the representative teams are already a drain on resources.
Frankly, if you were to ask any of the hundreds of soccer clubs across NI whether they want to see hundreds of millions of pounds spent on a stadium in which they will never actually play and which will only host half a dozen soccer internationals a year, or whether they would prefer a fraction of that money spend on providing grassroots facilities and a more modest international stadium, the overwhelming answer would be for the latter.
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
A multi stadium involves compromise and involves working for the common good.
A nice idea in theory and not one which has encountered significant opposition
per se from NI soccer fans. However, we just feel that the requirements of the three codes are each so different, and the Maze scheme so outrageously wasteful, that rather than pursuing a politically-driven White Elephant which doesn't truly satisfy anyone, it would be more practical to spend less money in allowing each sport to determine its own priorities.
Quote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
Since this debate started the OWC have been bitterly sniping at the intentions and position of the GAA in this matter.
I don't know whether you are referring to the Amalgamation Report, or this thread, or OWC, but either way, that is a gross distortion of the true character of the debate. Then again, if you are determined only to see what you want to see, then what can the rest of us do?
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 11:27:32 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 11:00:20 AM
You were the one who introduced the Amalgamation Report to a thread which you had started. You were the one who dismissed the Report as "rubbish", "lies", "irrelevant", despite maintaining that you hadn't actually read it :o.
If you don't want this to get personalised, why not stick to the issues? That is, simply tell us why you think the Report is so deficient, rather than merely lashing out abuse.
After all, at least Main Street has had a go at analysing it, poor though it was.
See my previous posts.
"See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh.
Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 12:54:26 PMQuote from: Main Street on April 20, 2008, 10:22:36 PM
I don't know how the IFA is constituted.
The IFA have offered as evidence to Poots that 13 of 15 senior clubs are supportive.
In general it is regarded that members run clubs, of course they need fans but its the members who take the decisions and who take responsibility for them.
Clearly! Quite honestly, the IFA is nowhere nearly so democratic or accountable an organisation as e.g. the GAA. Moreover, its Chief Executive (Wells) is currently being paid by the Government (DCAL), which explains why he personally is so keen on the Government plan for the Maze, contrary to the great majority of NI soccer fans. As for the "13 of 15" clubs (there are actually 16 senior clubs in the Premier Division, out of 40 senior clubs in all), their view are not especially relevant, since of the 5 or 6 contracted soccer matches for the Maze, only one (Irish Cup Final) actually involves those clubs, with another (Setanta Cup) occasionally possibly involving one. And both of these matches will be by far the least attended soccer matches. The majority of soccer matches, including all of the best attended, will be internationals. And the Amalgamation represents thousands of supporters of the NI international team.
Excellent response EG. Just a quick note on this specific point, the clubs were asked something along the lines of, 'If it can be shown to be in the best interests of NI football and no other option is available, will you support the Maze?' (I can't find the actual wording as I'm in work). Obviously the only sensible answer to that question is yes. This was then spun by Poots and co as 'clubs support the Maze', when in fact nobody had ever even asked that question.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
["See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh. Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
See my previous posts for response to the latest windbaggery.
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
["See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh. Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
See my previous posts for response to the latest windbaggery.
Indulge me. Give me the Post #'s. Then we can all see whether they justify your cursory dismissal of the Report as "full" of "lies", distortions" and "irrelevance" etc
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 12:54:26 PM
Why on earth would the IFA exercise a veto over Belfast? Such a claim beggars belief. Whereas, with a stadium already in Belfast (Casement) and a the GAA "heartland" in Ulster being predominantly rural, western (including Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal), it is obvious why the GAA should reject Belfast in favour of the Maze.
At which point, since the Government was insisting that a stadium would only be built if all three sports agreed to share it, the IFA was in no position to object to anything and Ulster Rugby doesn't care (once it has got its Government grant for Ravenhill), this was handing the GAA a de facto veto, which they chose to exercise.
On which latter point, afaiaa, neither I nor any other OWC poster on this thread has blamed the GAA for preserving their own interests; quite the contrary, they are to be admired for the astute way they have played their hand. Rather, our gripe is with the Government, for dealing the cards from a loaded deck.
Creative writing based on what source?
The IFA are reported as saying in the PWC report 08/2005 that Belfast would be acceptable but exercised it's preference for the Maze site.
If according to OWC standards on this thread that exercising a preference for a location is the same as exercising a veto then the IFA exercised a veto
QuoteAnd, of course, since the way Stormont is set up, when one side gets some sweeties, the other side always has to get its equal share, I imagine there will also be provision to compensate GAA and Ulster Rugby.
In which case, the only question will be how many sweeties everyone will get.
No multi stadium = no sweeties.
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 02:33:47 PMThe IFA are reported as saying in the PWC report 08/2005 that Belfast would be acceptable but exercised it's preference for the Maze site.
If according to OWC standards on this thread that exercising a preference for a location is the same as exercising a veto then the IFA exercised a veto
Do you never get tired making up nonsense? The IFA and Ulster Rugby both said they were happy with any of the 3 proposed sites. The GAA said they would not support ANY Belfast site. How can anybody twist this to be the IFA exercising a veto?
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
["See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh. Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
See my previous posts for response to the latest windbaggery.
Indulge me. Give me the Post #'s. Then we can all see whether they justify your cursory dismissal of the Report as "full" of "lies", distortions" and "irrelevance" etc
Here, I'll reproduce it for you:
"What part of 'I don't give a fcuk about your sport, your stadium and your report' do you not understand? If I was to take more than my passing interest in soccer it certainly wouldn't be in a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC who are spinning lies about the GAA to sink the Long Kesh stadium – the GAA-Long Kesh stadium connection is as far as my interest goes – apart from laughing at the GAWA wannabe little Englanders."
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 12:54:26 PM
Why on earth would the IFA exercise a veto over Belfast? Such a claim beggars belief. Whereas, with a stadium already in Belfast (Casement) and a the GAA "heartland" in Ulster being predominantly rural, western (including Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal), it is obvious why the GAA should reject Belfast in favour of the Maze.
At which point, since the Government was insisting that a stadium would only be built if all three sports agreed to share it, the IFA was in no position to object to anything and Ulster Rugby doesn't care (once it has got its Government grant for Ravenhill), this was handing the GAA a de facto veto, which they chose to exercise.
On which latter point, afaiaa, neither I nor any other OWC poster on this thread has blamed the GAA for preserving their own interests; quite the contrary, they are to be admired for the astute way they have played their hand. Rather, our gripe is with the Government, for dealing the cards from a loaded deck.
Creative writing based on what source?
The IFA are reported as saying in the PWC report 08/2005 that Belfast would be acceptable but exercised it's preference for the Maze site.
If according to OWC standards on this thread that exercising a preference for a location is the same as exercising a veto then the IFA exercised a veto
Let's get this entirely clear. Are you seriously claiming that all other things being equal, the IFA would prefer a stadium out in the country over the city where they have played all of their internationals for 128 years (bar a few staged in Dublin prior to 1921)? The city where they have had their headquarters for those 128 years. Where their leading clubs are located? Where the bulk of the population, including the soccer-supporting population resides? The city which already has much of the necessary infrastructure to attract and accommodate fans (inc. away fans), over the site of a former airfiield and prison, on farmland nearly three miles from the nearest town? And most importantly, the city which the overwhelming majority of their fans, on whom they depend for revenue, have declared to be their No.1 choice?
Please furnish me with the extract from the PWC Report where they claimed that.
As for the GAA, are you seriously suggesting that all other things being equal, they would not prefer a stadium nearer the geographical heartland of their support, over a stadium in a city which already has a medium-sized stadium in the West, moreover a city where GAA fans themselves have said many parts of which would not be attractive to them?
As for the difference between a "preference" and a "veto", I for one have never confused the two. It seems quite clear to me that the GAA was always going to prefer the Maze over a Belfast site, and were also in a position to hold out when neither soccer or rugby was. Consequently, in insisting any stadium be shared, the Government was effectively handing the GAA a veto, which they exercised. And fair play to them (GAA) for that.
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 12:54:26 PM
QuoteAnd, of course, since the way Stormont is set up, when one side gets some sweeties, the other side always has to get its equal share, I imagine there will also be provision to compensate GAA and Ulster Rugby.
In which case, the only question will be how many sweeties everyone will get.
No multi stadium = no sweeties.
We'll see. But I would point out that by hypothesising what might happen should the Maze not get built, you've come quite some way from your previously confident prediction that the Maze would get built, despite the opposition form NI soccer fans. As I said earlier, I'm still not taking anything for granted until it's officially confirmed, but the tide seems to be turning!
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 02:46:41 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
["See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh. Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
See my previous posts for response to the latest windbaggery.
Indulge me. Give me the Post #'s. Then we can all see whether they justify your cursory dismissal of the Report as "full" of "lies", distortions" and "irrelevance" etc
Here, I'll reproduce it for you:
"What part of 'I don't give a fcuk about your sport, your stadium and your report' do you not understand? If I was to take more than my passing interest in soccer it certainly wouldn't be in a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC who are spinning lies about the GAA to sink the Long Kesh stadium – the GAA-Long Kesh stadium connection is as far as my interest goes – apart from laughing at the GAWA wannabe little Englanders."
How is that little rant in any way a rebuttal of the Amalgamation Report as being "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances", as you previously claimed? That is, the Amalgamation of NI Soccer Supporters Report which you, despite not "giving a fcuk" about soccer, spotted whilst browsing an NI soccer supporters' site, and posted an extract on here for the rest of us to see?
You know, you seem determined to insult me with personal abuse, but sticks and stones and all that. In the meantime, I shall continue to enjoy the spectacle of you wriggling and squriming, ranting and raving, until it all ends with your head stuck firmly up your own rear! :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 02:46:41 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
["See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh. Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
See my previous posts for response to the latest windbaggery.
Indulge me. Give me the Post #'s. Then we can all see whether they justify your cursory dismissal of the Report as "full" of "lies", distortions" and "irrelevance" etc
Here, I'll reproduce it for you:
"What part of 'I don't give a fcuk about your sport, your stadium and your report' do you not understand? If I was to take more than my passing interest in soccer it certainly wouldn't be in a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC who are spinning lies about the GAA to sink the Long Kesh stadium – the GAA-Long Kesh stadium connection is as far as my interest goes – apart from laughing at the GAWA wannabe little Englanders."
How is that little rant in any way a rebuttal of the Amalgamation Report as being "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances", as you previously claimed? That is, the Amalgamation of NI Soccer Supporters Report which you, despite not "giving a fcuk" about soccer, spotted whilst browsing an NI soccer supporters' site, and posted an extract on here for the rest of us to see?
You know, you seem determined to insult me with personal abuse, but sticks and stones and all that. In the meantime, I shall continue to enjoy the spectacle of you wriggling and squriming, ranting and raving, until it all ends with your head stuck firmly up your own rear! :D
I didn't say it was or is meant to be a rebuttal of anything. Simply my explanation of why I posted the point and why I have no interest in debating with windbags who still haven't gained the ability to pause for consideration before they spew all the muck that arrives in their little heads all over the keyboard. I've much better things to do.
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 03:16:18 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 02:46:41 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
["See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh. Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
See my previous posts for response to the latest windbaggery.
Indulge me. Give me the Post #'s. Then we can all see whether they justify your cursory dismissal of the Report as "full" of "lies", distortions" and "irrelevance" etc
Here, I'll reproduce it for you:
"What part of 'I don't give a fcuk about your sport, your stadium and your report' do you not understand? If I was to take more than my passing interest in soccer it certainly wouldn't be in a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC who are spinning lies about the GAA to sink the Long Kesh stadium – the GAA-Long Kesh stadium connection is as far as my interest goes – apart from laughing at the GAWA wannabe little Englanders."
How is that little rant in any way a rebuttal of the Amalgamation Report as being "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances", as you previously claimed? That is, the Amalgamation of NI Soccer Supporters Report which you, despite not "giving a fcuk" about soccer, spotted whilst browsing an NI soccer supporters' site, and posted an extract on here for the rest of us to see?
You know, you seem determined to insult me with personal abuse, but sticks and stones and all that. In the meantime, I shall continue to enjoy the spectacle of you wriggling and squriming, ranting and raving, until it all ends with your head stuck firmly up your own rear! :D
I didn't say it was or is meant to be a rebuttal of anything. Simply my explanation of why I posted the point and why I have no interest in debating with windbags who still haven't gained the ability to pause for consideration before they spew all the muck that arrives in their little heads all over the keyboard. I've much better things to do.
You claimed the Report was "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances" etc, yet when asked several times to back up your claims, you have been utterly unable to do so. What's the problem, eh? Has the Fax link from Connolly House broken down? No access to the Party Line? Nothing in this week's "An Phoblacht" on the subject, for you to cut and paste?
I must say, I didn't think you'd have quite such difficulty when required to think for yourself... ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 03:26:27 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 03:16:18 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 02:46:41 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:07:52 PM
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 01:54:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 01:07:07 PM
["See your previous posts"? Now you surely are having a laugh. Nowhere have you made any attempt to analyse the Amalgamation Report, never mind justify your assertion that it is "full" of "lies", "distortions", "irrelevances" etc. Instead, all you have done was initially to refer to one minor, passing reference by the Amalgamation to concerts at Croke in 2007, which has already been conceded by me as being misleading of them, before launching a tirade of abusive and diversionary posts.
At least Main Street, Saffron Sam and Lynchboy have made an effort to address the Report which you introduced. Then again, perhaps they did more than merely "glance through it"...
See my previous posts for response to the latest windbaggery.
Indulge me. Give me the Post #'s. Then we can all see whether they justify your cursory dismissal of the Report as "full" of "lies", distortions" and "irrelevance" etc
Here, I'll reproduce it for you:
"What part of 'I don't give a fcuk about your sport, your stadium and your report' do you not understand? If I was to take more than my passing interest in soccer it certainly wouldn't be in a foreign team such as Northern Ireland which happily attracts all manner of neo-Nazi and loyalist scumbags to its games. I made a point about that bunch of ill-informed morons on OWC who are spinning lies about the GAA to sink the Long Kesh stadium – the GAA-Long Kesh stadium connection is as far as my interest goes – apart from laughing at the GAWA wannabe little Englanders."
How is that little rant in any way a rebuttal of the Amalgamation Report as being "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances", as you previously claimed? That is, the Amalgamation of NI Soccer Supporters Report which you, despite not "giving a fcuk" about soccer, spotted whilst browsing an NI soccer supporters' site, and posted an extract on here for the rest of us to see?
You know, you seem determined to insult me with personal abuse, but sticks and stones and all that. In the meantime, I shall continue to enjoy the spectacle of you wriggling and squriming, ranting and raving, until it all ends with your head stuck firmly up your own rear! :D
I didn't say it was or is meant to be a rebuttal of anything. Simply my explanation of why I posted the point and why I have no interest in debating with windbags who still haven't gained the ability to pause for consideration before they spew all the muck that arrives in their little heads all over the keyboard. I've much better things to do.
You claimed the Report was "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances" etc, yet when asked several times to back up your claims, you have been utterly unable to do so. What's the problem, eh? Has the Fax link from Connolly House broken down? No access to the Party Line? Nothing in this week's "An Phoblacht" on the subject, for you to cut and paste?
I must say, I didn't think you'd have quite such difficulty when required to think for yourself... ;)
Is this you making me squirm? Go get a job, windbag. Oh look I can use smileys as well ;D Sadly they don't really enhance the meaning of anything.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 03:26:27 PM
the Report was "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances" etc,
if the report you are referring to above is the response to the PWC report - then you have to say that its almost too easy to dismiss all sections as lets face it, its hardly an unbiased article. It is a subjective piece that is written to outline potential failings of pwc's report , yet minimise the same failures/inadequecies of the counter arguments preferred choice.
if I was in their shoes, I'd do the same, but as it contains suggestion and hypothetical theory, there is no conclusive evidence to say either report is correct. You cannot fully predict an economic climate 5 - 10 years from now, just as you cannot predict how successful a soccer/gaa/rugby team will be in the same future period.
While you also cannot rubbish either report,you cannot say either is going to be correct.
for every piece of 'scientifically' garnered fact on economics , ergonomics and eco-ssytem - you will get a group to create as compelling a counter argument and series of stats.
Dismissing both reports or parts of - is quite easy.
I dont see any purpose in arguing over doing or not doing so.
a new stadium is in the lap of the Gov, if all parties are being catered for , they will push through funding - but it will be in lisburn, otherwise it will be nothing at all until NI IFA get a sugar daddy to build one for them - which could be a while..
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 21, 2008, 04:01:23 PMbut it will be in lisburn
Interesting, is this a new option that hasn't been discussed before?
All the same, you'd have to wonder why Howard Smells, the Englishman entrusted with the running of th IFA, felt confident enough at the weekend to go on tv and confirm that all of North Eastern Ireland's home World Cup qualifiers will definitely be played at Windsor Park.
Does he know (or has he been told) something we don't? Is the Stadium of Hate to be simply upgraded along with similar amounts of money given to the GAA and Rugby, meaning no new shared space stadium?
Quote from: SammyG on April 21, 2008, 04:06:43 PM
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 21, 2008, 04:01:23 PMbut it will be in lisburn
Interesting, is this a new option that hasn't been discussed before?
ok be pedantic
long kesh area (which is what I meant by lisburn)
the rest of what I said still stands
if the stadium there is not what the ifa are after, then you would be better pulling out and trying to raise the funding your own way, but I'd say you will be lcuky to get this done - rem how the Irish gov blocked the building of the FAI's 'eircom park' in tallaght...
this is along the same lines..adhere to the gov wishes , or be homeless ...not a great choice really.
the gov dont really give a fcuk (british or Irish)
Quote from: Donagh on April 21, 2008, 03:49:40 PM
Is this you making me squirm? Go get a job, windbag. Oh look I can use smileys as well ;D Sadly they don't really enhance the meaning of anything.
Nor do they answer a question, either, even a simple, direct one. Bit like you, really....
Quote from: lynchbhoy on April 21, 2008, 04:01:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 03:26:27 PM
the Report was "full" of "lies", "distortions" and "irrelevances" etc,
if the report you are referring to above is the response to the PWC report - then you have to say that its almost too easy to dismiss all sections as lets face it, its hardly an unbiased article. It is a subjective piece that is written to outline potential failings of pwc's report , yet minimise the same failures/inadequecies of the counter arguments preferred choice.
if I was in their shoes, I'd do the same, but as it contains suggestion and hypothetical theory, there is no conclusive evidence to say either report is correct. You cannot fully predict an economic climate 5 - 10 years from now, just as you cannot predict how successful a soccer/gaa/rugby team will be in the same future period.
While you also cannot rubbish either report,you cannot say either is going to be correct.
for every piece of 'scientifically' garnered fact on economics , ergonomics and eco-ssytem - you will get a group to create as compelling a counter argument and series of stats.
Dismissing both reports or parts of - is quite easy.
I dont see any purpose in arguing over doing or not doing so.
a new stadium is in the lap of the Gov, if all parties are being catered for , they will push through funding - but it will be in lisburn, otherwise it will be nothing at all until NI IFA get a sugar daddy to build one for them - which could be a while..
Of course the Amalgamation Report is "subjective" - they could hardly be expected to be entirely independent about something which so directly relates to their interests.
That said, when presented with what, on the face of it, would appear to be a "free" stadium, with such powerful backers, the Amalgamation would have to have good reasons to reject it out of hand. Which is where their Report comes in. They have carefully studied the original PWC Report which recommended the Maze, and have identified what they see to be a series of fallacies, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, fabrications and outright "spin" and told it as they see it.
And this demolition of the PWC Report seems to be gaining some credence amongst certain local NI politicians, who are right (imo) to be suspicious of a report commissioned by the Government, so as to produce exactly the Recommendations which the Government appears to have wanted all along.
Which is why, when prompted by Donagh(!), I was happy to post the Amalgamation Report on this Board for the scrutiny of GAA fans. And so far, I must say I haven't yet seen any effective rebuttal by any of them (yourself included) of the main substance of the Amalgamation's case.
Of course, none of that is the same as saying what should replace a stadium at the Maze. But in the end, as a former local NI politician was wont to say, "If you start off from the wrong point, you shouldn't be surprised when you arrive at the wrong destination". As far as soccer fans see it, this whole Maze proposal has been flawed from the start, since the political requirements of its backers were allowed to override the sporting requirements of its main users (Or two of them, at any rate).
Better in the long run to scrap it, and start again from the basis that Westminster will determine how much money and resources are available for the three sports in NI, local representatives will be required to allocate them fairly between the sports and then the individual sports will spend their share as they see fit. Simple, really.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 21, 2008, 04:06:55 PM
All the same, you'd have to wonder why Howard Smells, the Englishman entrusted with the running of th IFA, felt confident enough at the weekend to go on tv and confirm that all of North Eastern Ireland's home World Cup qualifiers will definitely be played at Windsor Park.
Does he know (or has he been told) something we don't? Is the Stadium of Hate to be simply upgraded along with similar amounts of money given to the GAA and Rugby, meaning no new shared space stadium?
Coming hot on the heels of the resignation of Tony Whitehead, the Civil Servant charged with pushing through the Maze on behalf of HMG, which itself followed soon after Peter Robinson being annointed as First Minister-elect, it would certainly appear that something is happening. Whatever it is, it isn't looking too good for those people who want to see the Maze Stadium built! ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Creative writing based on what source?
The IFA are reported as saying in the PWC report 08/2005 that Belfast would be acceptable but exercised it's preference for the Maze site.
If according to OWC standards on this thread that exercising a preference for a location is the same as exercising a veto then the IFA exercised a veto
Let's get this entirely clear. Are you seriously claiming that all other things being equal, the IFA would prefer a stadium out in the country over the city where they have played all of their internationals for 128 years (bar a few staged in Dublin prior to 1921)? The city where they have had their headquarters for those 128 years. Where their leading clubs are located? Where the bulk of the population, including the soccer-supporting population resides? The city which already has much of the necessary infrastructure to attract and accommodate fans (inc. away fans), over the site of a former airfiield and prison, on farmland nearly three miles from the nearest town? And most importantly, the city which the overwhelming majority of their fans, on whom they depend for revenue, have declared to be their No.1 choice? Please furnish me with the extract from the PWC Report where they claimed that.
Look EG I don't waste my time or anybody elses time by posting my selective subjective interpretations.
Unlike Sammy or yourself, I read the sourced reports and base my statements on the evidence.
I said prefer. The IFA preferred the Maze site
http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/a_major_multi_sport_stadium_-_economic_appraisal__final_report_aug_2005.pdf (http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/a_major_multi_sport_stadium_-_economic_appraisal__final_report_aug_2005.pdf)
5. Identification of Options: Assessment of Shortlisted Sites
(a) Acceptability
Following discussions with the three governing bodies, the following conclusions can be made:
• IFA – the three proposed sites are acceptable but the Chief Executive has identified that his
preference is for the Ex Maze/ Long Kesh Prison Site.
• Ulster Rugby – the Ulster Branch preference is for a Belfast site but the three proposed sites
are acceptable .
• GAA – would not contemplate participation in a stadium located on one of the two Belfast sites.
Their reasons are based on the grounds of security/ safety, in particular they expressed their
concern about large numbers of their supporters travelling to a Belfast stadium and their safety
both at the site itself and travelling to and from the stadium.Please note the GAA would not contemplate
one of the 2 Belfast sites
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:59:32 PM
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 02:33:47 PM
Creative writing based on what source?
The IFA are reported as saying in the PWC report 08/2005 that Belfast would be acceptable but exercised it's preference for the Maze site.
If according to OWC standards on this thread that exercising a preference for a location is the same as exercising a veto then the IFA exercised a veto
Let's get this entirely clear. Are you seriously claiming that all other things being equal, the IFA would prefer a stadium out in the country over the city where they have played all of their internationals for 128 years (bar a few staged in Dublin prior to 1921)? The city where they have had their headquarters for those 128 years. Where their leading clubs are located? Where the bulk of the population, including the soccer-supporting population resides? The city which already has much of the necessary infrastructure to attract and accommodate fans (inc. away fans), over the site of a former airfiield and prison, on farmland nearly three miles from the nearest town? And most importantly, the city which the overwhelming majority of their fans, on whom they depend for revenue, have declared to be their No.1 choice? Please furnish me with the extract from the PWC Report where they claimed that.
Look EG I don't waste my time or anybody elses time by posting my selective subjective interpretations.
Unlike Sammy or yourself, I read the sourced reports and base my statements on the evidence.
I said prefer. The IFA preferred the Maze site
http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/a_major_multi_sport_stadium_-_economic_appraisal__final_report_aug_2005.pdf (http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/a_major_multi_sport_stadium_-_economic_appraisal__final_report_aug_2005.pdf)
5. Identification of Options: Assessment of Shortlisted Sites
(a) Acceptability
Following discussions with the three governing bodies, the following conclusions can be made:
• IFA – the three proposed sites are acceptable but the Chief Executive has identified that his
preference is for the Ex Maze/ Long Kesh Prison Site.
• Ulster Rugby – the Ulster Branch preference is for a Belfast site but the three proposed sites
are acceptable .
• GAA – would not contemplate participation in a stadium located on one of the two Belfast sites.
Their reasons are based on the grounds of security/ safety, in particular they expressed their
concern about large numbers of their supporters travelling to a Belfast stadium and their safety
both at the site itself and travelling to and from the stadium.
Please note the GAA would not contemplate one of the 2 Belfast sites
So you've just quoted against yourself yet again.
Your quote shows that
The IFA didn't exercise any veto and was open to all options (even though Hard Wells who's employed by DCAL voiced his personal preference, that doesn't change this fact).
The Ulster Branch preferred Belfast but were open to all options
The GAA vetoed Belfast
Which is
exactly what everybody from Poots downwards (or should that be upwards as I'm not sure you can get lower than Poots) have been saying all along and you have been disputing.
Quote from: SammyG on April 21, 2008, 05:29:11 PM
So you've just quoted against yourself yet again.
Your quote shows that
The IFA didn't exercise any veto and was open to all options (even though Hard Wells who's employed by DCAL voiced his personal preference, that doesn't change this fact).
The Ulster Branch preferred Belfast but were open to all options
The GAA vetoed Belfast
Which is exactly what everybody from Poots downwards (or should that be upwards as I'm not sure you can get lower than Poots) have been saying all along and you have been disputing.
FCKwit post of the year
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 05:32:53 PM
Quote from: SammyG on April 21, 2008, 05:29:11 PM
So you've just quoted against yourself yet again.
Your quote shows that
The IFA didn't exercise any veto and was open to all options (even though Hard Wells who's employed by DCAL voiced his personal preference, that doesn't change this fact).
The Ulster Branch preferred Belfast but were open to all options
The GAA vetoed Belfast
Which is exactly what everybody from Poots downwards (or should that be upwards as I'm not sure you can get lower than Poots) have been saying all along and you have been disputing.
FCKwit post of the year
Fantastic response. ::)
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 05:16:22 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 02:59:32 PM
Please furnish me with the extract from the PWC Report where they claimed that.
Look EG I don't waste my time or anybody elses time by posting my selective subjective interpretations.
Unlike Sammy or yourself, I read the sourced reports and base my statements on the evidence.
I said prefer. The IFA preferred the Maze site
http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/a_major_multi_sport_stadium_-_economic_appraisal__final_report_aug_2005.pdf (http://www.dcalni.gov.uk/a_major_multi_sport_stadium_-_economic_appraisal__final_report_aug_2005.pdf)
5. Identification of Options: Assessment of Shortlisted Sites
(a) Acceptability
Following discussions with the three governing bodies, the following conclusions can be made:
• IFA – the three proposed sites are acceptable but the Chief Executive has identified that his
preference is for the Ex Maze/ Long Kesh Prison Site.
• Ulster Rugby – the Ulster Branch preference is for a Belfast site but the three proposed sites
are acceptable .
• GAA – would not contemplate participation in a stadium located on one of the two Belfast sites.
Their reasons are based on the grounds of security/ safety, in particular they expressed their
concern about large numbers of their supporters travelling to a Belfast stadium and their safety
both at the site itself and travelling to and from the stadium.
Please note the GAA would not contemplate one of the 2 Belfast sites
Sorry, Mainstreet, but you are contradicting yourself royally, here.
Re the IFA, the Report explicitly states all three sites were acceptable, but the IFA
Chief Executive expressed a personal preference for the Maze. I can tell you, he was not authorised by the IFA to be doing any such thing, nor does such an opinion reflect the overall view of the IFA. Remember that Wells is the Government's "place man", paid via DCAL, and therefore willing to say whatever the Government wants him to say. Not only that, but having spoofed about what a good job he did for his previous employer in Hong Kong (including praising a new Sports Stadium which in fact turned out to be a complete White Elephant, and will likely be demolished!), it is clear he already has his eyes on his next job (his IFA contract expired last year, and he is continuing on a non-contractual basis). General opinion is that he is looking for a job with London 2012, for which the delivery of a shiny new Stadium in NI would adorn his CV and which explains his enthusiastic championing of a UK Olympic soccer team for 2012, even though the Scots and Welsh won't touch it with a bargepole!
Re Ulster Rugby - probably safer to say they don't give a shite either way, since they will hardly ever use it, wherever it is located. In the meantime, they have been careful not to antagonise the Government until they have received Planning Permission and Govt.funding to refurbish Ravenhill (to a slightly
reduced capacity of around 12k, btw)
Re. GAA, you are surely mistaken in deducing that the GAA were prepared to consider a given Belfast site, from the phrase
"would not contemplate participation in a stadium located on one of the two Belfast sites". Replace "one" in that phrase with "either" and it is obvious that they don't want any site in Belfast (and why would they?). Confirmation of this comes from the subsequent phrase "
in particular they expressed their concern about large numbers of their supporters travelling to a Belfast stadium". If you replace "a Belfast stadium" with "a stadium in Belfast", it is obvious that the GAA was not being definitive in rejecting a specific site, but general in rejecting any site in Belfast.
Or to turn this question round, why would the GAA consider either Belfast site as being
acceptable to them? Why would one site out of North Foreshore or Titanic Quarter be "safe", but the other "unsafe", for GAA fans travelling in from the country?
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 06:13:35 PM
Sorry, Mainstreet, but you are contradicting yourself royally, here.
Re the IFA, the Report explicitly states all three sites were acceptable, but the IFA Chief Executive expressed a personal preference for the Maze. I can tell you, he was not authorised by the IFA to be doing any such thing, nor does such an opinion reflect the overall view of the IFA. Remember that Wells is the Government's "place man", paid via DCAL, and therefore willing to say whatever the Government wants him to say. Not only that, but having spoofed about what a good job he did for his previous employer in Hong Kong (including praising a new Sports Stadium which in fact turned out to be a complete White Elephant, and will likely be demolished!), it is clear he already has his eyes on his next job (his IFA contract expired last year, and he is continuing on a non-contractual basis). General opinion is that he is looking for a job with London 2012, for which the delivery of a shiny new Stadium in NI would adorn his CV and which explains his enthusiastic championing of a UK Olympic soccer team for 2012, even though the Scots and Welsh won't touch it with a bargepole!
Re Ulster Rugby - probably safer to say they don't give a shite either way, since they will hardly ever use it, wherever it is located. In the meantime, they have been careful not to antagonise the Government until they have received Planning Permission and Govt.funding to refurbish Ravenhill (to a slightly reduced capacity of around 12k, btw)
Re. GAA, you are surely mistaken in deducing that the GAA were prepared to consider a given Belfast site, from the phrase "would not contemplate participation in a stadium located on one of the two Belfast sites". Replace "one" in that phrase with "either" and it is obvious that they don't want any site in Belfast (and why would they?). Confirmation of this comes from the subsequent phrase "in particular they expressed their concern about large numbers of their supporters travelling to a Belfast stadium". If you replace "a Belfast stadium" with "a stadium in Belfast", it is obvious that the GAA was not being definitive in rejecting a specific site, but general in rejecting any site in Belfast.
Or to turn this question round, why would the GAA consider either Belfast site as being acceptable to them? Why would one site out of North Foreshore or Titanic Quarter be "safe", but the other "unsafe", for GAA fans travelling in from the country?
Lenghty subjective interpretation again.
DEAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE REPORT WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION
Howard Wells is the IFA in the negotiations, he is directed by the IFA Board to negotiate on their behalf.
He is the Chief Executive of the IFA.
If you have a problem with Howard Wells, that is another issue entirely.
In these negotiations he was acting on behalf of the IFA and I have not seen one utterance from the IFA Board disowning Howard Wells or stating that Howard Wells was not representing the IFA.
The PWC report says in Black and White, Belfast locations were ok, but Wells prefers the Maze.
In the DCAL minutes this was also interpreted by McCausland? as the
the IFA preferring the Maze location and Poots agreed
PWC report says the GAA did not want one of two Belfast sites. Thats all.
One of two, means one of two.
In the English language one of two does not mean two of two.
SIXTY NINE pages arguing the same points over and over again.
Have ye Nordies nothin' else to do all day or is it some ingrained intransigence that whoever can stick to their guns (sorry ! :-[) the longest wins the day.
Main st, i believe it means it wouldnt want a stadium on either of the two sites (any stadium will only be on 1 site)
Have to say that that would have been my interpretation too. i.e. neither site was acceptable. Which is true - neither site is acceptable to the GAA.
Then it is very poor misleading use of the English language
"would not contemplate participation in a stadium located on one of the two Belfast sites".
Were they in too much of a hurry to write
"would not contemplate participation in a stadium located on any one of the two Belfast sites"
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 06:59:02 PMDEAL WITH THE FACTS OF THE REPORT WHICH IS THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION
Howard Wells is the IFA in the negotiations, he is directed by the IFA Board to negotiate on their behalf.
He is the Chief Executive of the IFA.
If you have a problem with Howard Wells, that is another issue entirely.
In these negotiations he was acting on behalf of the IFA and I have not seen one utterance from the IFA Board disowning Howard Wells or stating that Howard Wells was not representing the IFA.
The PWC report says in Black and White, Belfast locations were ok, but Wells prefers the Maze.
In the DCAL minutes this was also interpreted by McCausland? as the
the IFA preferring the Maze location and Poots agreed
Wells when representing the IFA said any option was available, which was and remains the IFAs position. He then expressed his
personal preference (as a DCAL employee) for the Maze. How can you not see the difference between those two things?
Quote from: Main Street on April 21, 2008, 06:59:02 PM
PWC report says the GAA did not want one of two Belfast sites. Thats all.
One of two, means one of two.
In the English language one of two does not mean two of two.
Only you could come up with that interpretation. The stadium can only be built in one location, so the GAA clearly didn't want either Belfast location.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 21, 2008, 05:04:00 PM
Of course the Amalgamation Report is "subjective" - they could hardly be expected to be entirely independent about something which so directly relates to their interests.
That said, when presented with what, on the face of it, would appear to be a "free" stadium, with such powerful backers, the Amalgamation would have to have good reasons to reject it out of hand. Which is where their Report comes in. They have carefully studied the original PWC Report which recommended the Maze, and have identified what they see to be a series of fallacies, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, fabrications and outright "spin" and told it as they see it.
And this demolition of the PWC Report seems to be gaining some credence amongst certain local NI politicians, who are right (imo) to be suspicious of a report commissioned by the Government, so as to produce exactly the Recommendations which the Government appears to have wanted all along.
Which is why, when prompted by Donagh(!), I was happy to post the Amalgamation Report on this Board for the scrutiny of GAA fans. And so far, I must say I haven't yet seen any effective rebuttal by any of them (yourself included) of the main substance of the Amalgamation's case.
Of course, none of that is the same as saying what should replace a stadium at the Maze. But in the end, as a former local NI politician was wont to say, "If you start off from the wrong point, you shouldn't be surprised when you arrive at the wrong destination". As far as soccer fans see it, this whole Maze proposal has been flawed from the start, since the political requirements of its backers were allowed to override the sporting requirements of its main users (Or two of them, at any rate).
Better in the long run to scrap it, and start again from the basis that Westminster will determine how much money and resources are available for the three sports in NI, local representatives will be required to allocate them fairly between the sports and then the individual sports will spend their share as they see fit. Simple, really.
I actually dont really care much about the stadium, which is why my responses dont include any 're-buttals'.
However, should I want to (and I dont)
the rebuttal would go along the lines of how the stadium in lisburn area (long kesh) would benefit the economy, re-generation of the area, increase employment etc - as I do not agree with the stats mentioned by your colleagues and anti-pwc report guys.
All stats can be made up and the proof being in the pudding and all that- the reality can only ever be seen afterwards.
Stats and projections can be made up with equal accuracy for both sides of the argument - economy, cost, jobs, infrastructure.
So you see I just see this as hot air and posture from both sides.
whatever happens, I dont really care as it wont matter to me, but as thisis close to your heart, youd be better off getting private backing for your own stadia wherever it is , which would kill of the gov initiative.
Maze money could be redirected
Around £70m earmarked for the Maze stadium could be redirected if the plan falls through, the sports minister warned today.
Edwin Poots said the cash would be devoted to other sporting initiatives if the Executive fails to give the multi-sports venue near Lisburn the go-ahead.
Finance Minister Peter Robinson is considering an outline business case for the ground, which would host football, rugby and GAA fixtures.
Click Here
A written response from Mr Poots in the Assembly said: "In the event of a decision not to proceed with the stadium proposal, the Department will seek approval from the Executive to reassign this funding.
"The Department will look to other priorities, initially within sport, and then within its other programmes to utilise this money."
The site for a national stadium in Northern Ireland has divided political opinion.
Sinn Fein has said the party will not support the idea unless it is on the site of the former Maze Prison.
However, some unionists oppose the Maze site because of plans for a conflict transformation centre at the stadium.
The £70m has been set aside during the next three years for the project, Mr Poots told Sinn Fein Lagan Valley MLA Paul Butler.
The business case for the £240m multi-sports stadium at the Maze is currently with Finance Minister Peter Robinson.
QuoteSinn Fein has said the party will not support the idea unless it is on the site of the former Maze Prison.
However, some unionists oppose the Maze site because of plans for a conflict transformation centre at the stadium.
One of the least important points in the argument is yet again made the largest - the conflict transformation centre can surely be done with or without the stadium, and is not really a priority for any pro or anti maze people I personally know.
"Another step forward"? Not if Henry McDonald (today's Guardian) is to be believed....
"A plan to build a £140m national sports stadium on the site of the Maze prison in Northern Ireland is to be abandoned amid opposition from unionists.
The province's finance minister, Peter Robinson, will announce that the project is effectively dead in one of his last acts before succeeding Ian Paisley as first minister at the end of the month, according to unionist sources.
The plan to build a 40,000 all-seater stadium on the site where some of the world's most dangerous paramilitaries were once imprisoned has been one of the most controversial issues to dog the power-sharing executive in recent years.
The project would have transformed part of the 54 hectare (133 acre) site just outside Lisburn, south-west of Belfast, into a shared national stadium for the province's three main sports - football, rugby, and gaelic football.
Sinn Féin - which also wants a permanent museum on the site, commemorating the Maze's role in the history of the Troubles - and the SDLP have been in favour of building the ground. The plan also had the backing of the Gaelic Athletic Association, which promotes gaelic sports.
But the two main unionist parties - with some individual exceptions - were opposed to the project. Some soccer supporters' clubs have also campaigned against it.
Senior sources inside Robinson's Democratic Unionist party said the Maze stadium was "dead in the water". The DUP has refused officially to comment, but one DUP source said: "It will come within the next four weeks, probably before Peter moves from finance to the office of first minister. It will be a popular move within the party, the majority of whom hate the idea of building a national stadium anywhere near a shrine to terrorists.
"The party has also been listening to the majority of Northern Ireland football fans, who are resolutely opposed to moving to the Maze."
The concept of a multi-sports stadium has also been dropped along with the Maze project. Instead, the soccer authorities are looking at a number of projects in Belfast for a 25,000 capacity football-only ground to replace Windsor Park as the home of the national team. Rugby will remain at a refurbished, larger capacity Ravenhill, while the Gaelic Athletic Association will receive millions to improve facilities at Casement Park in West Belfast.
The decision to ditch the Maze project will be seen as a blow to Northern Ireland's sports minister and DUP assembly member Edwin Poots.
Robinson is understood to be planning to offer the site as the new home of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society's annual show.
A leisure and retail complex will also be proposed at the former prison, including an all-purpose motorcycle racetrack, DUP sources said.
Sinn Féin has suggested that a museum and centre for the study of conflict, similar to the one on Robben Island in South Africa where Nelson Mandela was jailed, be built on the site.
The political squabbling over the Maze cost Northern Ireland a lucrative slice of the London Olympics, according to the Irish Football Association's chief executive, Howard Wells. He said that the delays in building a new stadium meant there was now "not a cat's chance in hell" of having a ground ready to host some of the Olympic football qualifying rounds in 2012."
Even of Gordon Brown does give the land to the Assembly (very doubtful), it will go to OFDFM. What makes you think it will be sold to build you a new stadium? The DUP can do nothing without SF and they have already said you are not getting a stadium in Belfast. Should suit you NI supporting English okay as you won't have to leave your island to watch the games live.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 11:26:23 AM
"Another step forward"? Not if Henry McDonald (today's Guardian) is to be believed....
"A plan to build a £140m national sports stadium on the site of the Maze prison in Northern Ireland is to be abandoned amid opposition from unionists.
The province's finance minister, Peter Robinson, will announce that the project is effectively dead in one of his last acts before succeeding Ian Paisley as first minister at the end of the month, according to unionist sources.
The plan to build a 40,000 all-seater stadium on the site where some of the world's most dangerous paramilitaries were once imprisoned has been one of the most controversial issues to dog the power-sharing executive in recent years.
The project would have transformed part of the 54 hectare (133 acre) site just outside Lisburn, south-west of Belfast, into a shared national stadium for the province's three main sports - football, rugby, and gaelic football.
Sinn Féin - which also wants a permanent museum on the site, commemorating the Maze's role in the history of the Troubles - and the SDLP have been in favour of building the ground. The plan also had the backing of the Gaelic Athletic Association, which promotes gaelic sports.
But the two main unionist parties - with some individual exceptions - were opposed to the project. Some soccer supporters' clubs have also campaigned against it.
Senior sources inside Robinson's Democratic Unionist party said the Maze stadium was "dead in the water". The DUP has refused officially to comment, but one DUP source said: "It will come within the next four weeks, probably before Peter moves from finance to the office of first minister. It will be a popular move within the party, the majority of whom hate the idea of building a national stadium anywhere near a shrine to terrorists.
"The party has also been listening to the majority of Northern Ireland football fans, who are resolutely opposed to moving to the Maze."
The concept of a multi-sports stadium has also been dropped along with the Maze project. Instead, the soccer authorities are looking at a number of projects in Belfast for a 25,000 capacity football-only ground to replace Windsor Park as the home of the national team. Rugby will remain at a refurbished, larger capacity Ravenhill, while the Gaelic Athletic Association will receive millions to improve facilities at Casement Park in West Belfast.
The decision to ditch the Maze project will be seen as a blow to Northern Ireland's sports minister and DUP assembly member Edwin Poots.
Robinson is understood to be planning to offer the site as the new home of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society's annual show.
A leisure and retail complex will also be proposed at the former prison, including an all-purpose motorcycle racetrack, DUP sources said.
Sinn Féin has suggested that a museum and centre for the study of conflict, similar to the one on Robben Island in South Africa where Nelson Mandela was jailed, be built on the site.
The political squabbling over the Maze cost Northern Ireland a lucrative slice of the London Olympics, according to the Irish Football Association's chief executive, Howard Wells. He said that the delays in building a new stadium meant there was now "not a cat's chance in hell" of having a ground ready to host some of the Olympic football qualifying rounds in 2012."
It's all just a rehash of the original Ormeau Park proposals.
Unionists are hoping for the following
1. that they can get BCC to gift them a prime site for free.
2. a developer will come onboard to give the veneer that this is strictly all about making money, and not about keeping the fenians out.
3. a soccer and rugby only stadium will be proposed.
4. no consultation or engagement will be made with the GAA, ie they'll be effectively frozen / cold shouldered from the project. No mention will be made of why NI's most atteneded sport should be excluded.
5. It will be falsely spun that somehow, the GAA aren't interested in getting a stadium substantively paid for by the public purse.
6. They may pick a site in hostile east Belfast.
7. thye may pick a site that is just big enough for an orangedome, but sorry old chaps, is just a little too small for gaelic games.
8. they will hope that the GAA is too stupid and too slow moving to realise that any funding they are offered is vastly disproprtionate to the much bigger atetndances that it attracts.
One phrase you won't hear is that funding for stadia should be in line with need.
9. they hope that Nationalist politicians, especially Befast ones, don't make too much noise.
10. they hope that Alliance councillors in Belfast (especially those who support NI and ulster rugby) drop their party's principled objection to building sparate stadia, break ranks, and sell the GAA down the river.
In short, unless the GAA and Nationalist parties (especially the SDLP who haven't muttered a word about this) wake up, this bunch of habitual spongers will get away with it again.
Just like 1983 when they got a shiny new stand for free when we got shag all.
Yes folks, while all 40k of us will still be standing (or at best sitting) in the f**king rain, the chosen few will be sitting on dry seats in a state of the art stadium that is substanially funded by local and Central Govt.
Time for the GAA (that's top brass and ordinary members) to wake up and either
1. come up with an alternative stadium proposal of our own - say in Armagh or Dungannon.
Demand a massive free site from either council, or govt to match other stadium.
Demand funding directly in proportion to what soccer gets, ie if they get say 20M for a 20k stadium, we get 40M for a 40k one.
OR
2. play a spoiler card, and insist on coming onboard their stadium development, regardless of where it is.
Out of sheer spite and a dogged insistence on equal treatment, insist that any Belfast stadium that receives any substantive public funding (direct or otherwise) must be built to accommodate gaelic games, and the crowds that attend them.
On what groundd can they possibly say no, when public money is involved and our needs (150k pa projected dwarf soccer's (80k pa) and rugby (40k pa).
GAA top brass seriously need to move fast on this one, and get talking with SF, SDLP and Alliance.
My confidence levels are low, however that they've got the wit to do it.
They were shafted re Lansdowne, Tallaght and Athlone when soccer got much better funding than we've ever got.
Oh and forget about any upgrade to Casement - it simply hasn't got the room to ever be a 40k, minimum 2/3rds seated stadium.
------------------
Oh, and while they're at it, they should kick up a fuss about Derry City looking to tget
1. effectively a free site
2. then looking for 10M out of a further 15M development costs.
Time to ask for the same level of funding, or else time to muscle in, and insist that gaelic games be played there as well.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 11:26:23 AM
"Another step forward"? Not if Henry McDonald (today's Guardian) is to be believed....
With a record like Henry has, it would be (turkey like) foolish to believe him.
Who can forget Henry´s classic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/04/northernireland.ireland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/04/northernireland.ireland)
'Republic loses northern footballers
Fifa rules that the south must stop recruiting young players from nationalist communities'[/i]
Henry usually writes a load of nonsense from his prejudiced heart, not an article based on facts supported by evidence.
Quote from: Main Street on May 02, 2008, 01:06:44 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 11:26:23 AM
"Another step forward"? Not if Henry McDonald (today's Guardian) is to be believed....
With a record like Henry has, it would be (turkey like) foolish to believe him.
Who can forget Henry´s classic
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/04/northernireland.ireland (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/04/northernireland.ireland)
'Republic loses northern footballers
Fifa rules that the south must stop recruiting young players from nationalist communities'[/i]
Henry usually writes a load of nonsense from his prejudiced heart, not an article based on facts supported by evidence.
Main Street,
you're spot on about Henry McDonald.
He's nothing more than a cheerleader for NI fans who want a Belfast stadium.
A bit of a disgrace that his biased crusade gets an airing in a respected liberal paper like the Guardian.
----------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/sep/11/northernireland.football
In this article he admits that the Maze is the cheapest option, yet remakably goes on to advocate a Belfast stadium.
He talks about Belfast's "established social and cultural scene to entertain the expected thousands pouring into the stadium for rugby, European ties, Northern Ireland internationals and key club and county GAA clashes."
Yet he doesn't acknowledge the legitimate safety concerns of 40k of the said GAA fans trying to make their way through Belfast.
He voices concerns about travelling fans journeying to the Maze, yet refuses to acknowledge that the vast majority of fans will actually be GAA ones, travelling from South and West Ulster.
For these fans, any journey into an already congested Belfast will add a massive inconvenience.
--------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/oct/30/northernireland.football
In this article, he reports on the rants of poor oppressed NI soccer fans, who whinge about how they can't possibly fill a 40k stadium, yet conveniently forgets to report on just why this 40k capacity is needed, ie for the much better attended sport of gaelic football.
A visitor from Mars could read his report and have no idea that it is gaelic football fans who need this capacity because NI fans are almost an irrelevant rump in the economics of any shared stadium.
-------------
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/20/northernireland.football
Similarly, this article is nothing more than cheerleading for NI soccer fans.
No attempt at balancing NI soccer fans opinions with the voices of the more numerous gaa fans who would prefer not to have to travel into Belfast.
-------------
All in all, on this topic at least, Mr McDonald is a grave discredit to an otherwise respected paper.
Its the likes of those biased, one sided articles being allowed into mainstream newspapers which confirms buying newspapers is a waste of time. Its no longer news, its one side of an argument. No balance.
There lots of other mediums out there who give a more balanced fact based view on things. Newspapers cannot be trusted.
Whilst "the usual suspects" are (predictably) rushing to shoot the messenger, McDonald's article appears to be corroborated by Robinson himself by this latest pronouncement on the (decidely pro-Maze) BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7380217.stm
Page last updated at 12:15 GMT, Friday, 2 May 2008 13:15 UK
Maze decision due 'within weeks'
A decision on whether to build a stadium at the Maze should be taken by the end of this month, according to Finance Minister Peter Robinson.
Mr Robinson said that even if the stadium did not go ahead, something would be built on the site.
He said he had promised his executive colleagues he would present his appraisal within three weeks.
He also said that if the Maze stadium was not given the go-ahead, stadia across NI would be improved.
"I don't think it is sufficient to say that if the Maze was not to proceed that we would walk away and do nothing with it," he said.
"No more is it sensible to say that if the Maze was not to go ahead that we would do nothing with football, rugby and GAA facilities elsewhere."
The site for a national stadium in Northern Ireland has divided political opinion.
Sinn Féin has said the party will not support the idea unless it is on the site of the former Maze Prison.
However, some unionists oppose the Maze site because of plans for a conflict transformation centre at the stadium.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have all confirmed they would play games at the Maze venue.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 02, 2008, 01:55:27 PM
Its the likes of those biased, one sided articles being allowed into mainstream newspapers which confirms buying newspapers is a waste of time. Its no longer news, its one side of an argument. No balance.
There lots of other mediums out there who give a more balanced fact based view on things. Newspapers cannot be trusted.
Yeah, but the problem with articles like Mc Donalds is that the less clued-in accept them without twigging what the underlying motive is about.
In this stadium charade, the goal from the very outset (way back in the early 1990's) was to get a new stadium for soccer and rugby only.
We had Don somebody or other from the NI sports council going to Westminster, looking for funding for a new stadium (now that Wales had theirs).
He was rebuffed by the Govt when it was clear that the GAA hadn't even been consulted.
His delegation came out with some unfounded dribble along the lines that GAA is a county based sport, and they would be more interested in upgrading county grounds, would have no need for a higher quality stadium, pitch sizes were different, etc, etc.
But when he was asked if he had asked them, he was forced to admit he hadn't.
The Govt told him it was politically unacceptable to exclude gaelic games as it was symbolically representative of the exclusion of the nationalist community.
They were forced to engage with the GAA, only to find that we were actually up for a free stadium (quel surprise!).
Ever since then, there has been concerted canvassing to try and scupper the shared stadium and get a new improved Windsor MKII instead, with no quid pro quo funding of GAA's greater needs.
If the GAA / SF / SDLP / Alliance don't stop this, they'll get their way.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 01:59:23 PM
Whilst "the usual suspects" are (predictably) rushing to shoot the messenger, McDonald's article appears to be corroborated by Robinson himself by this latest pronouncement on the (decidely pro-Maze) BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7380217.stm
Page last updated at 12:15 GMT, Friday, 2 May 2008 13:15 UK
Maze decision due 'within weeks'
A decision on whether to build a stadium at the Maze should be taken by the end of this month, according to Finance Minister Peter Robinson.
Mr Robinson said that even if the stadium did not go ahead, something would be built on the site.
He said he had promised his executive colleagues he would present his appraisal within three weeks.
He also said that if the Maze stadium was not given the go-ahead, stadia across NI would be improved.
"I don't think it is sufficient to say that if the Maze was not to proceed that we would walk away and do nothing with it," he said.
"No more is it sensible to say that if the Maze was not to go ahead that we would do nothing with football, rugby and GAA facilities elsewhere."
The site for a national stadium in Northern Ireland has divided political opinion.
Sinn Féin has said the party will not support the idea unless it is on the site of the former Maze Prison.
However, some unionists oppose the Maze site because of plans for a conflict transformation centre at the stadium.
The Gaelic Athletic Association, Irish Football Association and Ulster Rugby have all confirmed they would play games at the Maze venue.
Nobody's doubting that the DUP will try and get an Orangedome built instead of building a stadium that accommodates the much better attended sport of gaelic football.
The big square they have yet to circle is how they can do this without having to pick up the tab for the GAA building a new stadium of adequate capacity for themselves.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 01:59:23 PM
Whilst "the usual suspects" are (predictably) rushing to shoot the messenger
Usual suspects indeed ::)
I couldnt give a f**k about the stadium, was just commentating on the poor and unbalanced reporting in todays papers. This is a prime example.
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 02, 2008, 02:11:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 01:59:23 PM
Whilst "the usual suspects" are (predictably) rushing to shoot the messenger
Usual suspects indeed ::)
I couldnt give a f**k about the stadium, was just commentating on the poor and unbalanced reporting in todays papers. This is a prime example.
Yeah, but would you give a fcuk about the OWC crowd getting a free stadium while our crowds, twice as big, are still getting soaked in some dump like Clones.
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 02:05:23 PM
Yeah, but the problem with articles like Mc Donalds is that the less clued-in accept them without twigging what the underlying motive is about.
In this stadium charade, the goal from the very outset (way back in the early 1990's) was to get a new stadium for soccer and rugby only.
We had Don somebody or other from the NI sports council going to Westminster, looking for funding for a new stadium (now that Wales had theirs).
He was rebuffed by the Govt when it was clear that the GAA hadn't even been consulted.
His delegation came out with some unfounded dribble along the lines that GAA is a county based sport, and they would be more interested in upgrading county grounds, would have no need for a higher quality stadium, pitch sizes were different, etc, etc.
But when he was asked if he had asked them, he was forced to admit he hadn't.
The Govt told him it was politically unacceptable to exclude gaelic games as it was symbolically representative of the exclusion of the nationalist community.
They were forced to engage with the GAA, only to find that we were actually up for a free stadium (quel surprise!).
Ever since then, there has been concerted canvassing to try and scupper the shared stadium and get a new improved Windsor MKII instead, with no quid pro quo funding of GAA's greater needs.
If the GAA / SF / SDLP / Alliance don't stop this, they'll get their way.
That would be Don Allen OBE. I knew the family very well at one time.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 01:59:23 PM
Whilst "the usual suspects" are (predictably) rushing to shoot the messenger, McDonald's article appears to be corroborated by Robinson himself by this latest pronouncement on the (decidely pro-Maze) BBC:
Where is it "corroborated"? I think it's obvious there that Robinson knows he can't do anything. Nowhere does it say that anything will happen to the Maze/Long Kesh site because he knows that (i) the Assembly does not own the site and (ii) he needs SF support to do anything with the site.
He says existing stadiums will be improved but does not mention to what extent or where the money comes from because of (i) the Assembly does not own the site and (ii) he needs SF support to do anything with the site. Any improvements will have to come from the existing budget, which is all accounted for in the foreseeable future.
Time to hit the road lads. :D
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 02:08:16 PM
Nobody's doubting that the DUP will try and get an Orangedome built instead of building a stadium that accommodates the much better attended sport of gaelic football.
Wrong. Formerly, in so far as the DUP was ever interested in sport (they weren't, and still aren't, btw, unless you count marching up and down ;)), they would no doubt have tried to get an "Orangedome", as you charmingly put it, built, at the same time as neglecting the GAA. But times have changed and under the present dispensation, they understand full well that unless they promise to "divide the sweeties up" evenly, then the "Teacher" (Westminster) won't allow them to be in charge of the tuck shop (Stormont).
Or did you fail to notice Robinson's acknowledgement that: "No more is it sensible to say that if the Maze was not to go ahead that we would do nothing with football, rugby
and GAA facilities elsewhere."
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 02:08:16 PM
The big square they have yet to circle is how they can do this without having to pick up the tab for the GAA building a new stadium of adequate capacity for themselves.
Wrong. The square which couldn't be circled (actually, don't you mean "circle that couldn't be squared"?) is that the differing requirements of the three codes as regards ideal location, capacity and design could not all be facilitated on the one site. GAA require rural, mixed standing/seating, 40k and a huge pitch, whereas soccer requires city, all seated, 25k and a smaller pitch. (In so far as rugby is bothered - and it isn't - its requirements are much closer to soccer's).
In the end, the only way this could be resolved by a single venue such as the Maze, would have been by throwing unconscionable amounts of money at building it and then sustaining potentially huge losses in the running of it: a "White Elephant", if ever there was one.
Much better to recognise, as is done in other places where they have sports with similarly conflicting needs (e.g. Australia with RL/Soccer and Rules/Cricket, or USA with American Football/Soccer and Baseball), that separate, purpose-built stadia are not only "better" for all, but also work out economically more viable in the long run.
Quote from: Donagh on May 02, 2008, 02:26:33 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 01:59:23 PM
Whilst "the usual suspects" are (predictably) rushing to shoot the messenger, McDonald's article appears to be corroborated by Robinson himself by this latest pronouncement on the (decidely pro-Maze) BBC:
Where is it "corroborated"? I think it's obvious there that Robinson knows he can't do anything. Nowhere does it say that anything will happen to the Maze/Long Kesh site because he knows that (i) the Assembly does not own the site and (ii) he needs SF support to do anything with the site.
He says existing stadiums will be improved but does not mention to what extent or where the money comes from because of (i) the Assembly does not own the site and (ii) he needs SF support to do anything with the site. Any improvements will have to come from the existing budget, which is all accounted for in the foreseeable future.
Time to hit the road lads. :D
"Where is it corroborated?" If you read McDonald's report, the key points are all alluded to by Robinson, albeit that the latter is rather more circumspect (presumably due to political considerations).
McD: "The concept of a multi-sports stadium has also been dropped along with the Maze project. Instead, the soccer authorities are looking at a number of projects in Belfast for a 25,000 capacity football-only ground to replace Windsor Park as the home of the national team. Rugby will remain at a refurbished, larger capacity Ravenhill, while the Gaelic Athletic Association will receive millions to improve facilities at Casement Park in West Belfast"
PR: "No more is it sensible to say that if the Maze was not to go ahead that we would do nothing with football, rugby and GAA facilities elsewhere."
AND
McD: "Robinson is understood to be planning to offer the site as the new home of the Royal Ulster Agricultural Society's annual show.
A leisure and retail complex will also be proposed at the former prison, including an all-purpose motorcycle racetrack, DUP sources said"
PR: "I don't think it is sufficient to say that if the Maze was not to proceed that we would walk away and do nothing with it," he said.
Unless something major arises to cause him to think again (and Robinson is normally too cute to speak before getting all "his ducks in a row"), it seems clear that Robinson has decided to pull the plug on the Maze Stadium.
Which means the only question is whether he has the political nous to replace it with alternative arrangements suitbale to all parties. On which point, I suspect he will hope to satisfy them all as follows.
For the three sports, soccer will get a Belfast stadium of around 25k- either new, or a refurbished Windsor. The GAA will get "millions" (per McDonald) for themselves - possibly to upgrade Casement (also as per McD). Rugby will get a token, since they've already done OK out of public money to satisfy their needs (and besides, it actually doesn't have that many supporters, either terrace or armchair)
As for the political parties, SF will end up getting their Museum and Conflict Transformation Centre at the Maze, which in truth, is all they're really worried about. As an "attraction", this will be "enhanced" by relocating the RUAS and building a motor sports track etc. Meanwhile, the DUP will seek to get the "credit" amongst their own support-base, of serving the needs of soccer (and rugby), as well as saving millions of taxpayers' hard-earned. And if the DUP and SF are sorted, the UUP, SDLP and Alliance etc will just have to fall into line.
As for the Governments, Stormont will be happy to have saved millions - whether it is all reallocated elsewhere in NI, or not. And Westminster has long since lost interest, but no dobt will be relieved to have avoided another Millennium Dome fiasco. Meanwhile, Dublin has much better concerns of its own to wrry about, without getting tied down here.
It's called "Politics", memorably defined by Harold Wilson as "The Art of the Possible", and it's looking as though Robinson considers he can bring this one off, somewhere along the lines in McDonald's report.
If so, whilst I've never liked the man (and still don't), then I'll take my hat off to him over this one. :)
Quote from: Evil Genius link=topic=2483.msg286224#msg286224unless they promise to "divide the sweeties up" evenly, then the "Teacher" (Westminster) won't allow them to be in charge of the tuck shop (Stormont).
Quote from: Evil Genius link=topic=2483.msg286224#msg286224
GAA require rural, mixed standing/seating, 40k and a huge pitch, whereas soccer requires city, all seated, 25k and a smaller pitch. (In so far as rugby is bothered - and it isn't - its requirements are much closer to soccer's).
No way - an equal carving of the pie isn't on.
Our need, as you only half correctly describe below, is for a 40k stadium.
You conceed that the GAA need a 40k capacity, but then falsely claim that we NEED to have a mixed seating/standing capacity.
The latter claim is a bald lie - we have no such NEED to force fans to stand.
There is no GAA rule, or biological predisposition that requires GAA fans to stand.
If separate stadia are to be publicy funded, I would expect all fans to have the same level of compfort, namely
1. a seat
2. a roof
3. uninterruptted sightlines to the pitch.
To achieve this, it is clear that the GAA stadium will require funding well in excess of the smaller capacity Orangedome.
And before you come up with your whatabouttery, the mixed seating/standing element of the Maze was merely a compromise on our part to give us our required capacity, whilst at the same time giving you a maximum seated capacity that you had some chance of filling.
Oh, and the Robinson / McDonald spin doctors obviously haven't looked at google maps recently.
If they had, they would see that Casement is not a big enough site to accommodate a 40k stadium that, by your own admission, the GAA require.
Its hemmed in by housing on three sides, and a road on the other.
Have a gander if you like:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=owenvarragh+park&sll=54.573169,-5.984652&sspn=0.005834,0.014591&ie=UTF8&ll=54.573256,-5.983665&spn=0.002917,0.007296&t=h&z=17
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 03:26:21 PMYou conceed that the GAA need a 40k capacity, but then falsely claim that we NEED to have a mixed seating/standing capacity.
Ignoring all your usual sectarian rantings, just a quick one on that specific point. There are no plans for a 40K stadium, the Maze is planned at 35K and the Belfast options range from 20-30K. So if you're adamant that the GAA need 40K then they'll have to build their own.
Quote from: SammyG on May 02, 2008, 03:51:48 PM
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 03:26:21 PMYou conceed that the GAA need a 40k capacity, but then falsely claim that we NEED to have a mixed seating/standing capacity.
Ignoring all your usual sectarian rantings, just a quick one on that specific point. There are no plans for a 40K stadium, the Maze is planned at 35K and the Belfast options range from 20-30K. So if you're adamant that the GAA need 40K then they'll have to build their own.
Hi Sammy.
POINT 1:
RE The Maze Stadium:
In the interests of correctness, you are most welcome to refer to the following link:
See http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=maze+stadium+42000+capacity&btnG=Search&meta=
and then pick out any link you like.
If you disagree, you can contact all the publisheres concerned.
You'll be a long time writing.
POINT 2:
Even in the unlikley event of the whole world being wrong and you being correct about a non existent 42k/35k capacity at the Maze, as Evil Genius has already conceeded, the GAA still have a need for a 40k capacity in any new publicly funded stadium.
That was the discussion myself and EG were having - we didn't even mention what the capacity of the MAze was.
We were discussing the capacity the GAA requires for any new publicly funded stadium.
Comprendez?
I have no idea why you made teh interjection you did - its not remotely relevant.
Maybe you don't understand the debate, or maybe you are just trying to obfuscate?
Moving on, I stand by my points that, in any carve up of funding for separate stadia, it is vitally important that allocation is by need, and that all fans get treated equitably.
My metrics for all fans being treated tot he same level of compfort would be
1. a seat
2. a roof
3. uninterruptted sightlines to the pitch.
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 03:26:21 PM
You conceed that the GAA need a 40k capacity, but then falsely claim that we NEED to have a mixed seating/standing capacity.
The latter claim is a bald lie - we have no such NEED to force fans to stand.
There is no GAA rule, or biological predisposition that requires GAA fans to stand.
If separate stadia are to be publicy funded, I would expect all fans to have the same level of compfort, namely
1. a seat
2. a roof
3. uninterruptted sightlines to the pitch.
To achieve this, it is clear that the GAA stadium will require funding well in excess of the smaller capacity Orangedome.
And before you come up with your whatabouttery, the mixed seating/standing element of the Maze was merely a compromise on our part to give us our required capacity, whilst at the same time giving you a maximum seated capacity that you had some chance of filling.
The original Maze Stadium proposal, after the GAA had declined to consider any Belfast location, was for 28,000. The GAA declined to accept this, and demanded a bigger capacity, even though this inevitably was going to cost tens of millions of extra to build and severely affect the financial viability of the project.
Fair enough, the Government acquiesced, stumped up the extra cash and proposed a 42k capacity - 35k seated and 7k standing, all with perfect sightlines and under cover. And despite all your protests and cries of "foul", "discrimination" etc, this compromise was acceptyed by your own organisation, the GAA.
Which doesn't surprise me at all, since a mix of seating and standing allows for a mix of ticket pricing i.e. children, students, unemployed etc can easier afford one of the (cheaper) 7k standing places than the (dearer) 3.5k seats, which is the maximum could be fitted into the same space. Further, though perhaps it doesn't apply to GAA the same as it does soccer(?), a standing section can contribute to a better atmosphere, if for no other reason that mates etc can choose to stand together in a way not usually feasible in all-seater stadia. Indeed, this is why a significant section of soccer fans wish that (safe) standing was now allowed for big matches, except that FIFA/UEFA will not allow it.
Anyhow, isn't there still a standing section on Croke Park? Or don't you find that "offensive"? ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 04:26:18 PM
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 03:26:21 PM
You conceed that the GAA need a 40k capacity, but then falsely claim that we NEED to have a mixed seating/standing capacity.
The latter claim is a bald lie - we have no such NEED to force fans to stand.
There is no GAA rule, or biological predisposition that requires GAA fans to stand.
If separate stadia are to be publicy funded, I would expect all fans to have the same level of compfort, namely
1. a seat
2. a roof
3. uninterruptted sightlines to the pitch.
To achieve this, it is clear that the GAA stadium will require funding well in excess of the smaller capacity Orangedome.
And before you come up with your whatabouttery, the mixed seating/standing element of the Maze was merely a compromise on our part to give us our required capacity, whilst at the same time giving you a maximum seated capacity that you had some chance of filling.
The original Maze Stadium proposal, after the GAA had declined to consider any Belfast location, was for 28,000. The GAA declined to accept this, and demanded a bigger capacity, even though this inevitably was going to cost tens of millions of extra to build and severely affect the financial viability of the project.
Fair enough, the Government acquiesced, stumped up the extra cash and proposed a 42k capacity - 35k seated and 7k standing, all with perfect sightlines and under cover. And despite all your protests and cries of "foul", "discrimination" etc, this compromise was acceptyed by your own organisation, the GAA.
Which doesn't surprise me at all, since a mix of seating and standing allows for a mix of ticket pricing i.e. children, students, unemployed etc can easier afford one of the (cheaper) 7k standing places than the (dearer) 3.5k seats, which is the maximum could be fitted into the same space. Further, though perhaps it doesn't apply to GAA the same as it does soccer(?), a standing section can contribute to a better atmosphere, if for no other reason that mates etc can choose to stand together in a way not usually feasible in all-seater stadia. Indeed, this is why a significant section of soccer fans wish that (safe) standing was now allowed for big matches, except that FIFA/UEFA will not allow it.
Anyhow, isn't there still a standing section on Croke Park? Or don't you find that "offensive"? ::)
You're either missing the point I'm making, or doing a Sammy-esque obfuscation attempt.
I'm not on an anti-standing crusade.
I'm merely pointing out that if you guys get an all seated stadium built for your required capacity, it is only fair and equal treatment that we get the same.
The 12k standing capacity at the Maze was a gracious compromise put forward by the GAA, in a genuine attempt to make it easier for the IRFU and particularly IFA to accept the higher 35/42k capacity.
If the GAA were the sole occupants of any new stadium then we wouldn't have to prersuade other sports bodies.
The key point (and it is very simple) is that if the public are subsidising our new stadium and your new stadium, then it is only right and fair that both sets of fans are accomodated in an equal manner.
If your stadium
is all seater
is fully covered
has uninterrupted views
meets your capacity needs
Then our stadium should
be all seater
be fully covered
have uninterrupted views
meet our capacity needs
After all, we pay our taxes too.
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 04:46:20 PM
You're either missing the point I'm making, or doing a Sammy-esque obfuscation attempt.
I'm not on an anti-standing crusade.
I'm merely pointing out that if you guys get an all seated stadium built for your required capacity, it is only fair and equal treatment that we get the same.
The 12k standing capacity at the Maze was a gracious compromise put forward by the GAA, in a genuine attempt to make it easier for the IRFU and particularly IFA to accept the higher 35/42k capacity.
If the GAA were the sole occupants of any new stadium then we wouldn't have to prersuade other sports bodies.
The key point (and it is very simple) is that if the public are subsidising our new stadium to the same degree as your new stadium, then it is only right and fair that both sets of fans are accomodated in an equal manner.
If your stadium
is all seater
is fully covered
has uninterrupted views
Then our stadium should
be all seater
be fully covered
have uninterrupted views
After all, we pay our taxes too.
Are you saying that all other things being equal, the GAA would prefer all seater stadia to mixed standing/seater stadia? Is it now their stated policy for all major stadium new-buiilds to be all-seater, with a corresponding programme to convert existing major stadia to all-seater as soon as is feasible? And do they ever require any of their matches to be all-seater i.e. close the terraces?
Unless the answer to those questions is "Yes", it seems to me that your "How dare we be required to stand!" pleadings are more a stick with which to beat opponents of the Maze, than a reflection of GAA policy and practice.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 04:26:18 PM
The original Maze Stadium proposal, after the GAA had declined to consider any Belfast location, was for 28,000.
Ah, you almost sneaked that one by me.
You of course, know that the truth is that the GAA would have considered all options put to them.
As Danny Murphy has made clear, the GAA merely chose the Maze because it was the best economic option available.
It was closer to GAA heartlands, and it was reasonable to assume that it would attract more crowds on this basis.
He made it clear that
THE GAA HAD NOT REJECTED THE MAZE, RATHER IT HAD EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR THE MAZE.
The Irish News article is printed in full somewhere in here.
And Howard Wells IFA CEO prefers the Maze.
But some idiot somewhere will say that when he made that declaration that he was doing so in his capacity as volunteer firefighter with the Lisburn Fire Dept.
and not as CEO of the IFA
At least 32,000 seats and 10,000 standing might do for the GAA
But it wont be Casement.
£40m or £50m should bring St. Tiernach's Park up to modern standards.
There is plenty of room there and plenty of scope for improvement.
Armagh Gaelic grounds are being done up now and afair is restricted with housing right on the perimeter.
Healy Park looks neat as it is now.
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 05:13:09 PM
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 04:46:20 PM
You're either missing the point I'm making, or doing a Sammy-esque obfuscation attempt.
I'm not on an anti-standing crusade.
I'm merely pointing out that if you guys get an all seated stadium built for your required capacity, it is only fair and equal treatment that we get the same.
The 12k standing capacity at the Maze was a gracious compromise put forward by the GAA, in a genuine attempt to make it easier for the IRFU and particularly IFA to accept the higher 35/42k capacity.
If the GAA were the sole occupants of any new stadium then we wouldn't have to prersuade other sports bodies.
The key point (and it is very simple) is that if the public are subsidising our new stadium to the same degree as your new stadium, then it is only right and fair that both sets of fans are accomodated in an equal manner.
If your stadium
is all seater
is fully covered
has uninterrupted views
Then our stadium should
be all seater
be fully covered
have uninterrupted views
After all, we pay our taxes too.
Are you saying that all other things being equal, the GAA would prefer all seater stadia to mixed standing/seater stadia? Is it now their stated policy for all major stadium new-buiilds to be all-seater, with a corresponding programme to convert existing major stadia to all-seater as soon as is feasible? And do they ever require any of their matches to be all-seater i.e. close the terraces?
Unless the answer to those questions is "Yes", it seems to me that your "How dare we be required to stand!" pleadings are more a stick with which to beat opponents of the Maze, than a reflection of GAA policy and practice.
You're still not getting it.
There is no GAA policy and practice to either insist on, or prohibit standing areas.
There is no policy on it full stop.
My opinion is simply that
If your substantively public funded stadium
is all seater
is fully covered
has uninterrupted views
meets your capacity needs (25k)
Then our substantively public funded stadium should
be all seater
be fully covered
have uninterrupted views
meet our capacity needs (40k)
The funding percentages whould be the same.
If your 25k costs 25M, then we should get a minimum of 40M for a 40k stadium.
In fact there's an argument that we should get more, because stadia costs increase logarithmically, not linearlly with capacity.
I suppose it is implicit in the above that a seat is better than standing.
I'd say most people would agree - after all, people are prepared to pay more to get a seat.
Its more comfortable, you can see more, and especially for children is much safer.
This is particularly important given that the GAA's fanbase is heavily family orientated.
I'd say that the GAA fans that would stand would do so because they can't get a seat - Casement's seated capacity is 2500 ffs.
Or some might want to avoid the higher costs.
After all there's not much fun being stuck behind some big heifer from Tyrone who refuses to move, or worse put down his umbrella.
The only argument in favour of standing would be that it can increase capacity.
But in a properly planned new stadium, substantively funded by local/central Govt, there would be no excuse for not building the required capacity to the higher standard.
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 03:26:21 PM
Oh, and the Robinson / McDonald spin doctors obviously haven't looked at google maps recently.
If they had, they would see that Casement is not a big enough site to accommodate a 40k stadium that, by your own admission, the GAA require.
Its hemmed in by housing on three sides, and a road on the other.
Have a gander if you like:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=owenvarragh+park&sll=54.573169,-5.984652&sspn=0.005834,0.014591&ie=UTF8&ll=54.573256,-5.983665&spn=0.002917,0.007296&t=h&z=17
If the Maze is binned and Robinson instead offers money to the three Associations to spend as they wish, it is hardly his fault, or the taxpayers, that both Ravenhill and Casement are hemmed in and so restricted in their development potential, or that Windsor is owned by a private club who are "sinking the arm in" over the IFA's attempts to redevelop. Indeed, if he were prescribing where/how the money should be spent, you'd no doubt be complaining about that, too.
In the end, it ought (imo) to be for each Association to decide how and where it spends its money. In which case the GAA could do up Casement to its maximum, and/or do up another stadium or stadia, or even sell Casement and use the proceeds to put with the Government allocation and build a new Stadium in West Belfast/Antrim/Wherever.
Otherwise, if the only way the GAA can achieve their "ideal" stadium is if it is with the pooled contributions of the two other sports's entitlement (i.e. the Maze proposal), then it looks like they are going to be disappointed, since the resulting stadium is going to be a lot less than ideal for them.
Which, in a sense, may be what Robinson is actually saying, albeit that his reasons for considering it less than ideal for two of the sports (proximity to Museum, Conflict Centre etc), plus straight economics, are different to soccer fans' reasons for considering it to be less than ideal (location, size and design).
What if the Dubs play there, where we gonna stand ! ? ;)
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 04:02:49 PM
In the interests of correctness, you are most welcome to refer to the following link:
See http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=maze+stadium+42000+capacity&btnG=Search&meta=
and then pick out any link you like.
If you disagree, you can contact all the publisheres concerned.
You'll be a long time writing.
Make your mind up. You were arguing that the GAA deserve an all seater/all covered/clear sightlines/40K capcity stadium. I point out that this isn't in the plans so you post a link (which agrees with me) and shows a 35K seated capcity with an option for 7K standing.
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 05:22:48 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 04:26:18 PM
The original Maze Stadium proposal, after the GAA had declined to consider any Belfast location, was for 28,000.
Ah, you almost sneaked that one by me.
You of course, know that the truth is that the GAA would have considered all options put to them.
As Danny Murphy has made clear, the GAA merely chose the Maze because it was the best economic option available.
It was closer to GAA heartlands, and it was reasonable to assume that it would attract more crowds on this basis.
He made it clear that
THE GAA HAD NOT REJECTED THE MAZE, RATHER IT HAD EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR THE MAZE.
The Irish News article is printed in full somewhere in here.
We're clearly never going to agree on whether the GAA "vetoed" Belfast or not, so why don't we just leave it at that, then? In the meantime, perhaps you can address the question I put to you in Post #1061 (all seater etc)?
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
We're clearly never going to agree on whether the GAA "vetoed" Belfast or not, so why don't we just leave it at that, then?
Allow me to translate....
"Its 100% clear that the GAA didnt veto Belfast and I know that, but I will never admit that"
;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 05:22:48 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 04:26:18 PM
The original Maze Stadium proposal, after the GAA had declined to consider any Belfast location, was for 28,000.
Ah, you almost sneaked that one by me.
You of course, know that the truth is that the GAA would have considered all options put to them.
As Danny Murphy has made clear, the GAA merely chose the Maze because it was the best economic option available.
It was closer to GAA heartlands, and it was reasonable to assume that it would attract more crowds on this basis.
He made it clear that
THE GAA HAD NOT REJECTED THE MAZE, RATHER IT HAD EXPRESSED A PREFERENCE FOR THE MAZE.
The Irish News article is printed in full somewhere in here.
We're clearly never going to agree on whether the GAA "vetoed" Belfast or not, so why don't we just leave it at that, then? In the meantime, perhaps you can address the question I put to you in Post #1061 (all seater etc)?
On my computer I replied to it in post 1064
Quote from: his holiness nb on May 02, 2008, 05:50:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 05:48:33 PM
We're clearly never going to agree on whether the GAA "vetoed" Belfast or not, so why don't we just leave it at that, then?
Allow me to translate....
"Its 100% clear that the GAA didnt veto Belfast and I know that, but I will never admit that"
;)
Close but the actual translation is
'The GAA vetoed Belfast, everybody knows it but it is largely irrelevant so it's easier to let snatter live in his little dream world.'
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 03:26:21 PM
Oh, and the Robinson / McDonald spin doctors obviously haven't looked at google maps recently.
If they had, they would see that Casement is not a big enough site to accommodate a 40k stadium that, by your own admission, the GAA require.
Its hemmed in by housing on three sides, and a road on the other.
Have a gander if you like:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=owenvarragh+park&sll=54.573169,-5.984652&sspn=0.005834,0.014591&ie=UTF8&ll=54.573256,-5.983665&spn=0.002917,0.007296&t=h&z=17
If the Maze is binned and Robinson instead offers money to the three Associations to spend as they wish, it is hardly his fault, or the taxpayers, that both Ravenhill and Casement are hemmed in and so restricted in their development potential, or that Windsor is owned by a private club who are "sinking the arm in" over the IFA's attempts to redevelop. Indeed, if he were prescribing where/how the money should be spent, you'd no doubt be complaining about that, too.
In the end, it ought (imo) to be for each Association to decide how and where it spends its money. In which case the GAA could do up Casement to its maximum, and/or do up another stadium or stadia, or even sell Casement and use the proceeds to put with the Government allocation and build a new Stadium in West Belfast/Antrim/Wherever.
Otherwise, if the only way the GAA can achieve their "ideal" stadium is if it is with the pooled contributions of the two other sports's entitlement (i.e. the Maze proposal), then it looks like they are going to be disappointed, since the resulting stadium is going to be a lot less than ideal for them.
Which, in a sense, may be what Robinson is actually saying, albeit that his reasons for considering it less than ideal for two of the sports (proximity to Museum, Conflict Centre etc), plus straight economics, are different to soccer fans' reasons for considering it to be less than ideal (location, size and design).
So, are you saying that if
the funding given to soccer is enough to give them 100% of their reasonable requirements, but
the GAA's funding is only enough to give them say 50% of theirs,
then that's tough, that's just the way it is. (Can I hear Bruce Hornsby in the background?)
Doesn't sound like an equitable distribution of funds to me.
Surely funds should be distributed equitably by need, not according to what sport you support.
A bit like seats on a bus perhaps?
Surely they should be distributed fairly amongst all passengers, rather than having a disproportionate majority (at the front perhaps) allocated to a lucky few.
If there aren't enough seats at the back of the bus, then tough, Fenians that's just the way it is. You'll have to stand?
Is that what you meant?
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 06:00:33 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 05:45:25 PM
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 03:26:21 PM
Oh, and the Robinson / McDonald spin doctors obviously haven't looked at google maps recently.
If they had, they would see that Casement is not a big enough site to accommodate a 40k stadium that, by your own admission, the GAA require.
Its hemmed in by housing on three sides, and a road on the other.
Have a gander if you like:
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=owenvarragh+park&sll=54.573169,-5.984652&sspn=0.005834,0.014591&ie=UTF8&ll=54.573256,-5.983665&spn=0.002917,0.007296&t=h&z=17
If the Maze is binned and Robinson instead offers money to the three Associations to spend as they wish, it is hardly his fault, or the taxpayers, that both Ravenhill and Casement are hemmed in and so restricted in their development potential, or that Windsor is owned by a private club who are "sinking the arm in" over the IFA's attempts to redevelop. Indeed, if he were prescribing where/how the money should be spent, you'd no doubt be complaining about that, too.
In the end, it ought (imo) to be for each Association to decide how and where it spends its money. In which case the GAA could do up Casement to its maximum, and/or do up another stadium or stadia, or even sell Casement and use the proceeds to put with the Government allocation and build a new Stadium in West Belfast/Antrim/Wherever.
Otherwise, if the only way the GAA can achieve their "ideal" stadium is if it is with the pooled contributions of the two other sports's entitlement (i.e. the Maze proposal), then it looks like they are going to be disappointed, since the resulting stadium is going to be a lot less than ideal for them.
Which, in a sense, may be what Robinson is actually saying, albeit that his reasons for considering it less than ideal for two of the sports (proximity to Museum, Conflict Centre etc), plus straight economics, are different to soccer fans' reasons for considering it to be less than ideal (location, size and design).
So, are you saying that if
the funding given to soccer is enough to give them 100% of their reasonable requirements, but
the GAA's funding is only enough to give them say 50% of theirs,
then that's tough, that's just the way it is. (Can I hear Bruce Hornsby in the background?)
Doesn't sound like an equitable distribution of funds to me.
Surely funds should be distributed equitably by need, not according to what sport you support.
A bit like seats on a bus perhaps?
Surely they should be distributed fairly amongst all passengers, rather than having a disproportionate majority (at the front perhaps) allocated to a lucky few.
If there aren't enough seats at the back of the bus, then tough, Fenians that's just the way it is. You'll have to stand?
Is that what you meant?
MOPERY ALERT!!! MOPERY ALERT!!! Diive, dive, dive!!! :o
Quote from: Main Street on May 02, 2008, 05:35:42 PM
And Howard Wells IFA CEO prefers the Maze.
But some idiot somewhere will say that when he made that declaration that he was doing so in his capacity as volunteer firefighter with the Lisburn Fire Dept.
and not as CEO of the IFA
Everyone knows that in pushing the Maze so forcefully, Wells is speaking both in his professional capacity as an employee of the
Government, not the IFA (Sports Council pays his wages) and in a personal capacity as someone who wants a shiny big stadium, any stadium, on his CV for his next job. And his next job might not be so far off, since his original fixed contract expired at the end of 2007 and has not been renewed, so that he is presently acting on a non-contract basis.
And I've no doubt Robinson, being the reasonably astute politician he is, recognises this, whether you do or not.
Quote from: Main Street on May 02, 2008, 05:35:42 PM
At least 32,000 seats and 10,000 standing might do for the GAA
But it wont be Casement.
£40m or £50m should bring St. Tiernach's Park up to modern standards.
There is plenty of room there and plenty of scope for improvement.
Armagh Gaelic grounds are being done up now and afair is restricted with housing right on the perimeter.
Healy Park looks neat as it is now.
I have no idea whether Robinson will have £40-50m to allocate to the GAA or not, but even if he does, I can assure you that it won't be spent on St.Tiernach's, that's for sure! If nothing else, it's likely to be a bit too close to Clontibret for Peter's liking :D
Of course, there is probably nothing stopping the GAA from diverting some of their funds allocated to existing schemes in the Occupied Six across the border to Clones, to be replaced by Peter's largesse. I'm sure they have Accountants who would be up to the job.
Anyhow, however much it might be and however it's done, I'm pleased that unlike Snatter, you are not wedded to the idea that it's "The Maze or Nothing"!
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 05:43:19 PM
You're still not getting it.
There is no GAA policy and practice to either insist on, or prohibit standing areas.
There is no policy on it full stop.
My opinion is simply that
If your substantively public funded stadium
is all seater
is fully covered
has uninterrupted views
meets your capacity needs (25k)
Then our substantively public funded stadium should
be all seater
be fully covered
have uninterrupted views
meet our capacity needs (40k)
Then take it up with the GAA for agreeing to a 35k seated, 7k standing arrangement for the Maze.
In the meantime, even if the GAA has no policy vis a vis seating or standing, how can you say that it has "no practice either to insist on, or prohibit standing areas"? From what I' gather, they've spent the last quarter century or more ploughing millions into all sorts and sizes of stadia, the length and breadth of Ireland. Are these always excusively all-seater, where possible (e.g. green field site, sufficient funding, adequate capacity etc, or are they sometimes a mix of the two?
Because assuming they are not, then that would indicate that the GAA is, in fact, amenable to a certain percentage of standing, rather than wedded to 100% seating in all possible cases. Which kinda tears the arse out of your howls of outrage over GAA fans being "forced to stand", whilst their
bastard oppressor soccer counterparts get to sit.
Quote from: snatter on May 02, 2008, 05:43:19 PM
The funding percentages whould be the same.
If your 25k costs 25M, then we should get a minimum of 40M for a 40k stadium.
In fact there's an argument that we should get more, because stadia costs increase logarithmically, not linearlly with capacity.
I suppose it is implicit in the above that a seat is better than standing.
I'd say most people would agree - after all, people are prepared to pay more to get a seat.
Its more comfortable, you can see more, and especially for children is much safer.
This is particularly important given that the GAA's fanbase is heavily family orientated.
I'd say that the GAA fans that would stand would do so because they can't get a seat - Casement's seated capacity is 2500 ffs.
Or some might want to avoid the higher costs.
After all there's not much fun being stuck behind some big heifer from Tyrone who refuses to move, or worse put down his umbrella.
The only argument in favour of standing would be that it can increase capacity.
But in a properly planned new stadium, substantively funded by local/central Govt, there would be no excuse for not building the required capacity to the higher standard.
Regarding the actual funding, more specifically how it might be divvied out, I daresay each sport can point to its own special circumstances as to why it needs/deserves more than the others. You have expounded why the GAA should get the lion's share. I can see counter reasons why soccer, even rugby, might be entitled to more for them than your somewhat simplistic formula would allow. Anyhow, I have no desire to go down that particular roiad with you, since I can foresee no prospect whatever that you will in any way acknowledge any argument I might put forward on behalf of soccer.
Besides, if this latest speculation that the Maze will be scrapped is correct, then I will be so elated that as Rhett Butler* once put it, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn..." :D
* - I wonder was he any relation to Paul Butler? ;)
Quote from: Evil Genius on May 02, 2008, 06:08:01 PM
Everyone knows that in pushing the Maze so forcefully, Wells is speaking both in his professional capacity as an employee of the Government, not the IFA (Sports Council pays his wages) and in a personal capacity as someone who wants a shiny big stadium, any stadium, on his CV for his next job. And his next job might not be so far off, since his original fixed contract expired at the end of 2007 and has not been renewed, so that he is presently acting on a non-contract basis.
And I've no doubt Robinson, being the reasonably astute politician he is, recognises this, whether you do or not.
If everyone knows this and there is absolutely no doubt about it, then there will be a reference to this in the IFA meetings, the Assembly minutes or DCAL minutes. Anylink anywhere which state that Well was not acting in his capacity as CEO of the IFA when in talks or making statements about the stadium plans?
Surely some little piece of definite source which states that Well was not representing the IFA.
Then of course there will be a statement from the IFA board which conflicts with Wells.
Any hint of an IFA board statement which says Wells is not representing the IFA?
Quote from: Main Street on May 02, 2008, 07:37:31 PMIf everyone knows this and there is absolutely no doubt about it, then there will be a reference to this in the IFA meetings, the Assembly minutes or DCAL minutes. Anylink anywhere which state that Well was not acting in his capacity as CEO of the IFA when in talks or making statements about the stadium plans?
Surely some little piece of definite source which states that Well was not representing the IFA.
Then of course there will be a statement from the IFA board which conflicts with Wells.
Any hint of an IFA board statement which says Wells is not representing the IFA?
Read the minutes (you've had the links several times) it clearly says that the IFA have no opinion eitrher way
BUT Wells personally favours the Maze. Given that Wells is employed by the people pushing the Maze, this is hardly a surprising position.
The return of the troll of the GAAboard, the OWCees finest most brightest star, SammyG.
- No there is nothing in the DCAL minutes
'Mr McCausland: The IFA has identified that it would prefer the Maze site. Apparently, it does not want a Belfast site. I find that interesting given the fact that most football supporters would prefer a Belfast site.'
SUPPLY A LINK to Wells not representing the IFA in his capacity as CEO
and the same goes to that windbag EG who hides inadequacy behind volume,
---------------SUPPLY A LINK to Wells not representing the IFA in his capacity as CEO--------------
KEEP IT SIMPLE
"Another step forward"? Or "Another Nail in the Coffin"?
Hardly the most reliable of sources, but encouraging for the Anti-Maze camp, nonetheless:
http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/article3674066.ece
Civil service rebellion against Maze stadium
£3.3m spent on project that may never be built
Sunday, May 04, 2008
The controversial Maze stadium plan now looks doomed — even though it has emerged that it has already cost taxpayers almost £3.5 million.
Sports Minister Edwin Poots has revealed that his department has spent £3,397,835 so far on the proposals to build a multi-sports stadium on the site of the former high security jail.
In answer to a written question from Lagan Valley MLA Paul Butler, the DUP minister said the majority of the money — £ 2,953,370 — has been incurred on stadium design.
Another £444,465 has been spent by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure on business planning, management and other consultancy costs linked to the stadium project.
But Sunday Life can reveal that senior civil servants have refused to back plans for a 38,500 seater stadium.
It is understood that an assessment from the Department of Culture Arts and Leisure was submitted without the endorsement of the Permanent Secretary.
The absence of support from key civil servants in the departments principally involved in the project to build a national stadium on the former prison site is likely to put the final nail in its coffin.
Reports sent to Finance Minister Peter Robinson are understood to outline the long term financial risks to the taxpayer of building a 'national stadium' at the Maze, which will only utilise its planned 38,500 capacity once a year.
And critics have pointed out that building it would cost more than double the outlay on a 30,000 seater venue.
One senior civil servant said: "To spend at least double the revenue just to insert an extra 8,500 seats in the plan doesn't make financial sense. Even a 30,000 seater stadium raises the essential question of what it is going to be used for and how often it is going to be used.
"Ulster rugby has indicated plans to refurbish Ravenhill. Is it going to do that and then leave it unused to play at the Maze? The 38,500 seater stadium isn't economically viable and there are major financial questions about building a 30,000 stadium there."
Other 'added value' factors have also been dissected by civil servants and found to be less than compelling, informed sources say.
"Overall the Maze Stadium proposal doesn't stack up economically and without it the original business plan for the redevelopment of the site isn't viable either," the civil servant said.
On Friday, Peter Robinson said that the Maze site should be developed for another purpose and fully utilised if the decision was made not to proceed with the stadium proposal. He will make a recommendation to the Executive on the stadium plan before he takes up the reins of First Minister later this month.
The Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister declined to comment.
from todays Belly Telly
my question is that if Windsor is getting substantial public funds instead of the new stadium, will the GAA and Rugby also be getting something to invest in their facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The prospects of a multi-sports stadium being built at the Maze appeared doomed today after a new deal between Sinn Fein and the DUP ruled it out for another four years, The Belfast Telegraph can reveal.
However, the two parties have agreed that a Conflict Resolution Centre will be built on the former prison site near Lisburn.
According to senior Stormont sources, the deal surrounding the Maze blueprint will rule out a stadium for at least another four years, casting serious doubt over whether it will ever be built. Instead, early in the New Year, Sports Minister Gregory Campbell will confirm that a major refurbishment of Windsor Park will go ahead.
The business plan for the stadium will include the building of a new 4,000 seat capacity stand.
There will be a commitment from the minister to re-visit the issue of a national stadium once the overall world and local economic situation improves.
But there will be significant additions to the overall infrastructure of the Maze site to help with the projection of a united political front between the DUP and Sinn Fein.
However, DUP Junior Minister Jeffrey Donaldson today denied that a final agreement about the development at the former Maze Prison had been reached.
"The current situation is that discussions are ongoing between departments about the development of the Maze site and while some progress has been made, no decisions have been made yet in terms of either the Conflict Transformation Centre or the Stadium," he said.
But the Telegraph has learned that final touches to the redrawn Maze master plan were discussed during the visit to the United States earlier this month by Peter Robinson and Martin McGuinness.
The changes were central to talks held with potential investors.
According to the government source, part of the package will include a reappraisal of the needs of the three main sports. It will include individual deals being struck or a link up between two of the sports. The most likely option is that a smaller stadium to cope with the requirements of soccer and rugby will be developed.
As the strongest supporter of the Maze stadium the GAA continues to refuse to speculate publicly on its alternative option choice.
The funding of the controversial Conflict Resolution Centre will come from various sources including the European Community. The prospect of additional funding from the United States is also on the cards.
The agreement between the two main political blocs in relation to the Conflict Resolution Centre was a necessary marriage of convenience in order to break the long running Executive logjam and the funding from outside sources will help protect the DUP's against allegations being directly involved with a "shrine to terrorism."
Despite comments from Junior Minister Gerry Kelly that there would be no political deal unless the Maze Stadium went ahead at the original site, the Telegraph understands that from a Sinn Fein perspective the "building of a sports stadium was always secondary to the Conflict Resolution Centre being a pivotal part of the redevelopment programme".
Mr Campbell will address the Department of Culture, Art and Leisure committee tomorrow morning. His agenda will be the issue of Sports Stadia Safety legislation and its implementation across the province. However, the legislation will be tied-in with a decision to go ahead with the scheme at Windsor Park. The pressing need for spectator safety at the home of international football will be used as justification for the project going ahead.
EU body withdraws Maze Prison peace centre money
A European Union funding programme has withdrawn its offer of financial support for the peace centre at the former Maze Prison.
The Special European Programmes Body said it had done so after consulting with the lead partner -the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister.
They said after the talks they have decided the centre was no longer viable.
The peace money will now be reallocated to other projects.
During the summer, First Minister Peter Robinson halted plans to build the peace centre as part of the development of the site of the former Maze prison, a decision that caused tension between his party, the DUP, and Sinn Féin.
On Monday, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said there could be no development of the wider Maze site unless it was on the basis of previous agreements about the building of a peace centre.
In its statement on Friday, the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) said: "The SEUPB has been in discussions with the Lead Partner in relation to the viability of the Peace Building and Conflict Resolution Centre.
"It has been agreed that the project is no longer viable at this time and the SEUPB has therefore rescinded the letter of offer. The SEUPB will now consider the re-allocation of funding to suitable projects."
First the A5 road, then the bridge at narrow water, the Police College and the redevelopment of the Maze site. Do these politicians just not want to create jobs? Another missed opportunity.
Quote from: Sandino on October 04, 2013, 12:50:25 PM
First the A5 road, then the bridge at narrow water, the Police College and the redevelopment of the Maze site. Do these politicians just not want to create jobs? Another missed opportunity.
Up to 1000 potential jobs lost in all these projects, due to political squabbling apparently.
Pathetic really.
Quote from: Sandino on October 04, 2013, 12:50:25 PM
First the A5 road, then the bridge at narrow water, the Police College and the redevelopment of the Maze site. Do these politicians just want to safeguard their own jobs? Another missed opportunity.
fixed that for you.
Joke. Unionists really are idiots sometimes.
It's like they're fighting it out for the protestant of the year award - 'I'm a bigger protestant than you'. See Robbo v Allister last week.
The DUP's u-turn is just a result of them, UUP and TUV fighting it out to see who can appeal to the fleggers the most. That is where their priorities lie.
A bundle of useless bastards that couldnt agree on the the colour of shite, an £18million investment to try and tidy up the maze and they could agree on what they wanted to do with it,
You will all still vote them in again!!! >:(
Quote from: Count 10 on October 04, 2013, 05:02:10 PM
You will all still vote them in again!!! >:(
Yip because we have no alternative but sectarian pricks to vote for.
Quote from: Onion Bag on October 04, 2013, 03:56:00 PM
A bundle of useless b**tards that couldnt agree on the the colour of shite, an £18million investment to try and tidy up the maze and they could agree on what they wanted to do with it,
+1 Time that shithole at Stormont was bulldozed with the 108 c***ts still in it. Joke of a parliament for a joke of a statelet
Another good decision finally made. Well done to all those who have successfully opposed this abomination and reacted to genuine concern within the unionist community; thereby reflecting the views of those who they are there to represent.
Representative democracy 1, White Elephant 0.
Quote from: Tonto on October 04, 2013, 06:40:26 PM
Another good decision finally made. Well done to all those who have successfully opposed this abomination and reacted to genuine concern within the unionist community; thereby reflecting the views of those who they are there to represent.
Representative democracy 1, White Elephant 0.
If you think there is Representative democracy in the occupied 6, you are deluded.
G Tonto we thought u had went MIA,
Quote[Representative democracy (also indirect democracy) is a variety of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy. All modern Western style democracies are various types of representative democracies, for example the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy and Poland is a parliamentary republic.
Sounds about right.
Quote from: Tonto on October 04, 2013, 06:40:26 PM
Another good decision finally made. Well done to all those who have successfully opposed this abomination and reacted to genuine concern within the unionist community; thereby reflecting the views of those who they are there to represent.
Representative democracy 1, White Elephant 0.
I suppose ye'll have to have 3,000 more parades next year to mark another great victory for ye're "Kolthor" ::)
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 04, 2013, 07:06:10 PM
G Tonto we thought u had went MIA,
Ock, did ye miss me? I'm touched?
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2013, 07:11:50 PM
Quote from: Tonto on October 04, 2013, 06:40:26 PM
Another good decision finally made. Well done to all those who have successfully opposed this abomination and reacted to genuine concern within the unionist community; thereby reflecting the views of those who they are there to represent.
Representative democracy 1, White Elephant 0.
I suppose ye'll have to have 3,000 more parades next year to mark another great victory for ye're "Kolthor" ::)
Actually no idea what you mean by Kolthor. Is that...erm an Gailege?
It's ok. We didn't want jobs or investment anyway. Isn't that right Tonto.
Quote from: qubdub on October 04, 2013, 07:17:55 PM
It's ok. We didn't want jobs or investment anyway. Isn't that right Tonto.
Jobs and investment absolutely. But not at any price. In the right place for the right things.
Whilst this is, on the face of it at least, a bad news story, I have a few questions.
Is there really any point in building a peace centre if (at least a significant proportion of) one side in the conflict is opposed to it? Does that not seem ludicrous to anyone else? I think the history of that site should definitely be preserved, but there's not much point in building a peace centre without some broad consensus.
On what basis were all these jobs going to appear on this site? Were there investors lined up? Or was it all just 'potential'?
Personally I'm with Maguire and Tonto here, not on political or moral grounds, but because it would have been a colossal waste of £18mill.
As for the alleged job creation, it appears to me to be a version of pseudo-Keynsian economics where you pay people to dig a hole and then pay others to fill it in. In fact maybe we should build the Peace Centre and then pay people to knock it down.
Quote from: Tonto on October 04, 2013, 07:14:34 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 04, 2013, 07:11:50 PM
I suppose ye'll have to have 3,000 more parades next year to mark another great victory for ye're "Kolthor" ::)
Actually no idea what you mean by Kolthor. Is that...erm an Gailege?
Aye - like "Fleg" and "Why is he bein arrested for" :)
Quote from: Wildweasel74 on October 04, 2013, 07:06:10 PM
G Tonto we thought u had went MIA,
He skulks in when it suits him, trolls the rest of the time, a sad bastard really!
A peace and reconciliation centre is a sound idea, but the maze isn't the right place. Why? Because it puts the hunger strikers at the centre of the 'story' and thereby puts a republican slant on the narrative of the troubles. Would republicans agree to the centre being built in or around some other notable incident of the recent past - would they agree to it being built on the site of the waste ground in west Belfast, for e.g, where the two army corporals were thrown out of a taxi and shot? The prison hospital and the other buildings should be preserved, as they are of historical significance, but the idea of building a peace and reconciliation centre around them is a nonsense.
The Maze site had been identified as the location for the centre years ago. That Cnut Mike Nesbitt reopened the debate for politician reasons. He should be ashamed of himself. David Trimble made great sacrifices for peace when he was UUP leader Nesbitt is just a smarmy opportunist
The fact is the DUP renegaded on an agreed programme for government for fear of Jim Allister, Willie Frazier and a crowd fleggers. All they are/were worried about is votes from the loyalist working class, and the worst thing is they will probably get them.
The MLK site may well have been the wrong location, but the DUP agreed to it. Personally I think it's prime for development. In any case that's £18 million gone and the Unionists are over the moon. ::)