Long Kesh Park takes another step forward

[snatter]

So Donagh,

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.

[Evil Genius]

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...

[SammyG]

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

Poots 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?

[snatter]

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...

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.

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).

[A Quinn Martin Production]

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

Poots 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

[Evil Genius]

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...

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)

[SammyG]

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.)

[Jim_Murphy_74]

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.

[Evil Genius]

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.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

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.

[stiffler]

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.

[SammyG]

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?

[stiffler]

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?

[A Quinn Martin Production]

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!!!

[Donagh]

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?