Long Kesh Park takes another step forward

[Evil Genius]

Is this you making me squirm? Go get a job, windbag. Oh look I can use smileys as well  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....

[Evil Genius]

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.

[Evil Genius]

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!   

[Main Street]

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

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

[SammyG]

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

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.

[Main Street]

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

[SammyG]

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. 

[Evil Genius]

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

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?

[Main Street]

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.

[Rossfan]

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.

[nifan]

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)

[saffron sam2]

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.

[Main Street]

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"

[SammyG]

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

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?

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.

[lynchbhoy]

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.