Long Kesh Park takes another step forward

[SammyG]

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.

[snatter]

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.

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.

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

8.4.3  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.

[snatter]

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 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

[SammyG]

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.

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?

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.

[Main Street]

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".
   

"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"

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

[SammyG]

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.

[Main Street]

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 

[snatter]

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)

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.

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:

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

[SammyG]

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 

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.

[Evil Genius]

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?

[Main Street]

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"

[snatter]

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.

[SammyG]

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.

[Evil Genius]

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...

[behind the wire]

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...

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.