Long Kesh Park takes another step forward

[nifan]

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.

[Evil Genius]

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"?

[Donagh]

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. 

[Evil Genius]

"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.

[Evil Genius]

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?

[nifan]

I guess you could argue that donagh is in fact calling whitehead a liar - and in fairness hes proven himself to be this already.

[Evil Genius]

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 )

[Donagh]

* - 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.

[snatter]

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 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.

[SammyG]

Snatter

Is there any chance you could answer the question of how the Maze fulfills a shared space agenda?

[Evil Genius]

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... )

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...

[SammyG]

Another excellent opinion piece in today's Irish News.

[Evil Genius]

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?

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

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.

[stiffler]

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.