Fans sue hotel over GAA final.

Gillo · 06-10-2008 9:16pm

It's a hotel based in the UK and they're showing the UK's most popular sport- what's the problem?

Get my coat now?

Surely having a premiership match would have got the hotel more clients into the bar, it's a business decision. I'm sure there were plenty of other bars showing the bogball.

Guy:Incognito · 06-10-2008 9:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

. However the reality of the situation is vastly different and you must see that. You can be as intransigent in your opinion as you like but just ignoring the reality of a situation doesn't make it any less real.

When you own the hotel, the reality is whatever way you want it to be.

Conbro wrote: »

lol

A very concise, well made point. Kudos to you. I especially like the way you didnt need to make any sense.

06-10-2008 9:30pm

Stekelly wrote: »

When you own the hotel, the reality is whatever way you want it to be.

I have to assume you are trying to be funny because if this is serious then I have made that classic mistake of trying to argue with a fool.

Conbro · 06-10-2008 9:35pm

Surely having a premiership match would have got the hotel more clients into the bar, it's a business decision

Its a business decision? Hardly. If it was a decision to show one soccer match over a football match on one particular afternoon then yes, perhaps. However to adopt a blanket policy that covers all GAA matches would be taken while alknowledging the fact that it would reduce the nuber of customers attending the bar, rather than increasng it.

Guy:Incognito · 06-10-2008 9:36pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to assume you are trying to be funny because if this is serious then I have made that classic mistake of trying to argue with a fool.

No im not, I cant believe you are argueing with the logic of a hotel being allowed to decide what sports it chooses to show or no as they case may be.

stovelid · 06-10-2008 9:40pm

It's right up there with Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela and Stephen Biko on the human rights abuse scale really.

Maybe we should start calling them the Hilton 2.

06-10-2008 9:49pm

Stekelly wrote: »

No im not, I cant believe you are argueing with the logic of a hotel being allowed to decide what sports it chooses to show or no as they case may be.

I am not arguing that a hotel should be stopped from choosing what they show. I am arguing that the rationale they gave for their decision (a blanket ban on GAA games being shown) constitutes, in the context of where the hotel is situated, a very real case for discrimination.

I am not saying they will win. I am simply stating that ignoring the reality of the context within which this episode played out is naive and ignores the only reason this would ever even constitute a case.

The Mighty Ken · 06-10-2008 10:03pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not arguing that a hotel should be stopped from choosing what they show. I am arguing that the rationale they gave for their decision (a blanket ban on GAA games being shown) constitutes, in the context of where the hotel is situated, a very real case for discrimination.

A very real case for discrimination? How do you figure that? All the hotel has to do is say that it's policy to show soccer over GAA as it brings in more crowds and is thus better for business. Most pubs generally have that policy. If the hotel advertised that it was going to be showing the football then this idiot should have gone and found somewhere else to watch the GAA. Just like I have to go to certain pubs to watch rugby when there's a big football game on. Should I start suing pubs in Dublin because they won't switch over to rugby when I tell them to on the grounds of discrimination?

Conbro · 06-10-2008 10:04pm

I am not arguing that a hotel should be stopped from choosing what they show. I am arguing that the rationale they gave for their decision (a blanket ban on GAA games being shown) constitutes, in the context of where the hotel is situated, a very real case for discrimination.
I am not saying they will win. I am simply stating that ignoring the reality of the context within which this episode played out is naive and ignores the only reason this would ever even constitute a case.

Thats my angle on the stuation too. It must be looked at in the context of its location and the politcal and cultural sensetivities.

Conbro · 06-10-2008 10:06pm

I especially like the way you didnt need to make any sense.

Said without a hint of irony

stovelid · 06-10-2008 10:11pm

06-10-2008 10:11pm

The Mighty Ken wrote: »

A very real case for discrimination? How do you figure that?

You could read everything I said or just one post and decide that constitutes my opinion.

I believe the hotel did not discriminate against them. I believe they showed the Premier League game as it was what most people wished to watch. I believe most pubs not associated with either community would choose to avoid GAA and SPL games and I doubt anyone would blame them.

However, to simply state that GAA is not shown when requested and to state it is hotel policy to do so then, in the context of the location of the hotel, it is not unlikely that where a full explanation of the hotel's policy is not forthcoming that a person may feel discriminated against.

Gillo · 06-10-2008 10:14pm

Conbro wrote: »

However to adopt a blanket policy that covers all GAA matches would be taken while alknowledging the fact that it would reduce the nuber of customers attending the bar, rather than increasng it.

I'd gladly drink in a bar which has a policy of not showing a load of farm boys releasing their repressed sexual tension GAA.

06-10-2008 10:17pm

Gillo wrote: »

I'd gladly drink in a bar which has a policy of not showing a load of farm boys releasing their repressed sexual tension GAA.

I love it when I read posts by bigots who think they are metropolitan but are really just displaying an immaturity that makes me wonder how many idiots live in this country people who think they are funny.

K-9 · 06-10-2008 11:25pm

stovelid wrote:

As somebody is from Tallaght (and from a family locally involved with GAA) I have every right to say I'm turning my back on the organization for their behaviour during the court case without being called retarded or irrational.

It is irrational. The FAI have as many, if not more Muppets at the top as the GAA, doesn't stop me going to Lansdowne/Croker etc. Shamrock Rovers had many Muppets and still people go to their matches.

Sorry for going off topic but you did mention Rovers on a thread to do with GAA being watched in a pub!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 06-10-2008 11:49pm

Gillo wrote: »

I'd gladly drink in a bar which has a policy of not showing a load of farm boys releasing their repressed sexual tension GAA.

True. At least college quarterbacks have cheerleaders.

L1011 · 06-10-2008 11:58pm

sam34 wrote: »

thats because its not an international sport, its a national one. its uniquely irish.

Its a specific of the generic game of 'football', codified some years after soccer was, at that It is no way "uniquely Irish". We had an FA before the GAA had even been imagined.

Hurling on the other hand is "uniquely Irish", and was played here centuries ago.

Orizio · 07-10-2008 12:08am

stovelid wrote: »

As somebody is from Tallaght (and from a family locally involved with GAA) I have every right to say I'm turning my back on the organization for their behaviour during the court case without being called retarded or irrational.

Basically, you turning your back on a huge, and important, organisation because of the actions of a few morons. Thats retarded and deeply irrational which ever way you wish to look at it. Its no different, if more pedantic, then myself hating all English people because I'm at odds with Maggie Thatcher. Its the same fallacious line of thinking. Punish the many because of the actions of the few.

L1011 · 07-10-2008 12:09am

Orizio wrote: »

Basically, you turning your back on a huge, and impotant, organisation because of the actions of a few morons. Thats retarded and deeply irrational which ever way you wish to look at it. Its no different, if more pedantic, then myself hating all English people because I'm at odds with Maggie Thatcher. Its the same fallacious line of thinking.

Thats suggesting that most of England supported Maggie Thatcher, and still do - as it appears that most of the senior ranks of the GAA (as well as much of the rank & file) supported Thomas Davis - and still would, if they had ever had any chance of appeal.

Orizio · 07-10-2008 12:12am

Gillo wrote: »

I'd gladly drink in a bar which has a policy of not showing a load of farm boys releasing their repressed sexual tension GAA.

So you believe that sport is simply an act of sexual expression?

Or are you just an elitist dickhead?

Orizio · 07-10-2008 12:17am

MYOB wrote: »

Thats suggesting that most of England supported Maggie Thatcher, and still do - as it appears that most of the senior ranks of the GAA (as well as much of the rank & file) supported Thomas Davis - and still would, if they had ever had any chance of appeal.

And you are basing that on what exactly? I doubt the 800,000 or something strong GAA members in this country give a damn about some silly feud between the Dublin County Board and Shamrock Rovers. Lets not forget that the GAA elites voted to allow Croker to be used by the FAI - how exactly does one square that with the supposed bigotry assumed by you?

L1011 · 07-10-2008 12:22am

Orizio wrote: »

And you are basing that on what exactly? I doubt the 800,000 or something strong GAA members in this country give a damn about some silly feud between the Dublin County Board and Shamrock Rovers. Lets not forget that the GAA elites voted to allow Croker to be used by the FAI - how exactly does one square that with the supposed bigotry assumed by you?

Allowing Croker to be used by the FAI and the IRFU was a financial decision more than anything else.

The last time I dared to raise the issue of Tallaght Stadium with GAA members - after the final decision - there was just as much bile and vitriol about "foreign games getting government money" and so on as ever before. This was with members of Dungloe GAA in Donegal - nowhere close to the Dublin County Board.

K-9 · 07-10-2008 1:57am

MYOB wrote: »

Allowing Croker to be used by the FAI and the IRFU was a financial decision more than anything else.

The last time I dared to raise the issue of Tallaght Stadium with GAA members - after the final decision - there was just as much bile and vitriol about "foreign games getting government money" and so on as ever before. This was with members of Dungloe GAA in Donegal - nowhere close to the Dublin County Board.

Goes to show you there's muppets everywhere!

Many Soccer Muppets hate seeing the GAA getting money and if they had been listened to previously, there would be no world class stadium for the FAI or IRFU to loan!

Overheal · 07-10-2008 2:18am

you know, for an organisation like GAA that tells foreigners and their games to **** off, they get real pissy when foreigners tell them to **** off.

I just think thats silly. Silly pants GAAy.

AlmightyCushion · 07-10-2008 2:22am

Orizio wrote: »

Or are you just an elitist dickhead?

Watch it.

Overheal · 07-10-2008 3:52am

Whats wrong with the elite anyway? the Army Rangers are Elite. The French Foreign Legion is Elite. Elite cars are good. Gamer clans are 1337. I really don't see the problem here.

brendansmith · 07-10-2008 4:44am

Orizio wrote: »

Or are you just an elitist dickhead?

1 rule for the rich ay?

Gotta love this site sometimes!:mad:

Gillo · 07-10-2008 8:20am

MYOB wrote: »

Allowing Croker to be used by the FAI and the IRFU was a financial decision more than anything else.

+1
Westlife, U2 or the FAI, it's all money lining the GAA's pockets; not too mention all a part of Irish culture. The GAA's problem is they need to get out of bed with Dev and move with the times..

Orizio wrote:

Or are you just an elitist dickhead?

No, I wouldn't say I am, obviously you have a right to your opinion, I just find that the GAA tend to know they are right and the rest of the country can go fu*k themselves.

dodgyme · 07-10-2008 9:04am

stovelid wrote: »

In fairness, you may as well have been asking for Fair City. It's their T.V, they can put on what they like. It doesn't make them less Irish.

I never said it wasnt there TV or it makes them less irish. Is this the standard of your argument, put words into people mouth. The same technique dsiplayed by the massive chip on your shoulder which clouds your thinking. I am not a big GAA man as I said but I didnt think that after watching rugby highlights (which was the match I was at), a premiership game on full audible screens in a super pub it was too much to see a GAA game on a portable with the sound down in the corner of the pub after spending the whole day drinking there. And as for your previous statements they say it all.

stovelid wrote: »

The hotel is in the U.K, so they probably don't give a sh*t about Bog-Ball or Schtick-Ball. .

stovelid wrote: »

As somebody is from Tallaght (and from a family locally involved with GAA) I have every right to say I'm turning my back on the organization for their behaviour during the court case without being called retarded or irrational.
.

???????????????????????? The GAA can do without supporteres like you I think,:cool:

stovelid · 07-10-2008 9:08am

Orizio wrote: »

Basically, you turning your back on a huge, and important, organisation because of the actions of a few morons. Thats retarded and deeply irrational which ever way you wish to look at it. Its no different, if more pedantic, then myself hating all English people because I'm at odds with Maggie Thatcher. Its the same fallacious line of thinking. Punish the many because of the actions of the few.

Firstly, it's an important organization to you, not to me. I would always pick soccer, but before this, I was agnostic to well-disposed to the GAA. I detect that your issue is with an Irish person rejecting the GAA. This kind of feeling makes me even more disposed to having nothing to do with it.

TD and DCB were not a few isolated morons. They were following a policy of opposing foreign sports in their catchment areas. They also had broad support. A support that only started to wither when the sh?t hit the fan, and O' Donoghue came out batting for Rovers.

I could overlook this policy before, but this time they spent nearly half a million quid trying to put another club out of business. And they stymied the opening of a badly-needed municipal facility in a deprived area because they wanted a inter-county ground on their turf.

More power to them for the good things they do. But, I won't be told that I have to support the organization on patriotic grounds.

I have every right to decide not to contribute any money to the Dublin G.A.A if I don't want to. Just like I have every right to support a foreign sport like 'Sacair', and most importantly, I have the right to call fool on twats with a persecution complex (like the Hilton 2) who think that sport is some kind of extension of their nationality.

And quit calling my motivations retarded. I'm providing reasons for what is my own choice. If you want to call me a retard, come out and say it.

dodgyme wrote: »

The GAA can do without supporteres like you I think,:cool:

We agree on this, at least, Dodgyme.

mountainyman · 07-10-2008 9:15am

stovelid wrote: »

They have a tenuous connection with the Dublin G.A.A, you know.

TD, with full support all the way up the ranks of Dublin G.A.A tried to put another sports club (with over a hundred years of history) out of business so ,I quote, that the youth of Tallaght (would not be) restricted to a diet of Association football. And squandered well over 400k in doing so. A 400k+ that I seriously doubt TD will be stumping up themselves.

So I won't be putting any money (or support) their way ever again, unless my boy wants to go to a game or play in the future.

I will make sure to support the GAA forever. The corpse of Shamrock rovers should be dug up, then it should be urinated on and then a stake should be put through its heart.
(Not a Rovers fan)

AlmightyCushion · 07-10-2008 12:26pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Watch it.

brendansmith wrote: »

1 rule for the rich ay?

Gotta love this site sometimes!:mad:

Did you not see my post two posts above yours? Action was taken, quit whining.

K-9 · 07-10-2008 6:53pm

stovelid wrote: »

I detect that your issue is with an Irish person rejecting the GAA. This kind of feeling makes me even more disposed to having nothing to do with it.

I think you are a little over sensitive with that feeling!

stovelid wrote:

TD and DCB were not a few isolated morons. They were following a policy of opposing foreign sports in their catchment areas. They also had broad support. A support that only started to wither when the sh?t hit the fan, and O' Donoghue came out batting for Rovers.

And a court case that overturned the previous decision, IIRC! They wanted a shared municipal facility, pretty similar arguments where used to open up Croker!

stovelid wrote:

I could overlook this policy before, but this time they spent nearly half a million quid trying to put another club out of business. And they stymied the opening of a badly-needed municipal facility in a deprived area because they wanted a inter-county ground on their turf.

Nah, Rovers did a good enough job of putting themselves out of business over the years!

stovelid wrote:

More power to them for the good things they do. But, I won't be told that I have to support the organization on patriotic grounds.

That's your over sensitiveness to a small minority again. Just because a few muppets protested outside Croker, doesn't mean the vast majority didn't want it opened. Same as when the vote lost in 02, the majority of the grassroots disagreed.

stovelid wrote:

I have every right to decide not to contribute any money to the Dublin G.A.A if I don't want to. Just like I have every right to support a foreign sport like 'Sacair', and most importantly, I have the right to call fool on twats with a persecution complex (like the Hilton 2) who think that sport is some kind of extension of their nationality.

Agreed, especially on these 2 muppets. I've a right to my opinion that you are blaming the many for the sins of a few.

Guy:Incognito · 07-10-2008 6:57pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

there would be no world class stadium for the FAI or IRFU to loan!

Rent.

K-9 · 07-10-2008 7:41pm

Stekelly wrote: »

Rent.

Still, if some of the begrudgers had their way, we'd have no world class stadium.

Btw, they should have charged more rent.

It's ridiculous that the IRFU and the FAI made more money from Croker than they did from a match in Lansdowne. Profiting from their own ineptitude.

Guy:Incognito · 07-10-2008 7:43pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

It's ridiculous that the IRFU and the FAI made more money from Croker than they did from a match in Lansdowne. Profiting from their own ineptitude.

Maths not your strong point? How is it ridiculous when there are almost twice as many people at the games?

Also how are they profiting from their own ineptitude? What should they do? knock up a prefab stadium down the country somewhere to hold 40,000 people while they build a new stadium?

Where would the GAA fit 80,000 for the all Ireland final if they had to knock Croke park to build a new stadium? Would they be inept because they don't have 2 croke parks in case one is off line?

Keith186 · 07-10-2008 7:50pm

They can't sue them over that ffs, pair of clowns.

K-9 · 07-10-2008 8:57pm

Stekelly wrote: »

Maths not your strong point? How is it ridiculous when there are almost twice as many people at the games?

Actually, I'm not too bad on Maths!

The fact that the stadium is twice the size has zilch, nada to do with the IRFU or FAI. The GAA should have said basically we'll take 1/2 the gate in rent, Thank you very much!

You get your normal profit that you get from Lansdowne, now away ye beggars!

Stekelly wrote:

Also how are they profiting from their own ineptitude? What should they do? knock up a prefab stadium down the country somewhere to hold 40,000 people while they build a new stadium?

They should have had a stadium built 10 years ago when building costs where lower and corporate boxes/10 yr tickets etc. easier to sell.

Oh that reminds me, whatever did happen to Eircom Park and wasn't there a little scandal there too?

stekelly wrote:

Where would the GAA fit 80,000 for the all Ireland final if they had to knock Croke park to build a new stadium? Would they be inept because they don't have 2 croke parks in case one is off line?

What are you on about man?

Croke Park is slightly different from the joke that Lansdowne was. One of the achievements of Croker was that it was built with little disruption to the games, similar to Old Trafford.

Croke Park will always be big enough to have phased redevelopment. So your 2 stadium argument will never apply to the GAA!

Guy:Incognito · 07-10-2008 9:05pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

They should have had a stadium built 10 years ago when building costs where lower and corporate boxes/10 yr tickets etc. easier to sell.

What has any of that got to do with them renting Croke park? Did the FAI/IRFU have a 2nd stadium to move in to temporarily 10 years ago?

Seanies32 wrote: »

What are you on about man?

Croke Park is slightly different from the joke that Lansdowne was. One of the achievements of Croker was that it was built with little disruption to the games, similar to Old Trafford.

Croke Park will always be big enough to have phased redevelopment. So your 2 stadium argument will never apply to the GAA!

Silly me, what was I thinking. All the FAI and IRFU had to do was hop in to their Delorean and go back 100 odd years and tell the lads to build the stadium so it could be upgraded in 2007 without having to close it.

My point had nothing to do with Croke Park being able to be upgraded without closing. All I said was that if it was closed would they have another 80,000 seater stadium to move into while they were doing work . I was using it as an example. The AA dont have a similar size backup stadium just as the FAI/IRFU dont.

The likes of England had to move out of their national stadium and only had big stadiums to play in because they have a huge professional league with rich clubs that have big stadia.

stovelid · 07-10-2008 9:36pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

They wanted a shared municipal facility, pretty similar arguments where used to open up Croker!
.

I'm not sure you followed the case closely enough. It is a shared municipal facility. It can accommodate junior grade GAA if required. TD/DCB ostensibly wanted it to accommodate senior grades (which wouldn't have fitted into the available land without drastically reducing capacity), but spun out the case as long as possible hoping Rovers would implode in the interim.

At the end of the day, Rovers had sunk a fair bit of cash into the stadium before the SDCC took over, and the argument that grounds with huge amounts of public funding should be opened up to all sports, well...that would have opened cans of worms all over the country.

By the way, I've no doubt the rank and file GAA wanted to open up Croker. Fair play. They own the place and they made a packet out of it, as well as gaining excellent publicity.

K-9 · 07-10-2008 9:40pm

Stekelly wrote: »

What has any of that got to do with them renting Croke park? Did the FAI/IRFU have a 2nd stadium to move in to temporarily 10 years ago?

10 Years ago the FAI could have had Lansdowne while building Eircom Park.
Unfortunately they also ditched Dalymount in the 80's. They could still have chosen the phased approach, indeed this was an option 10 years ago.

Notice a trend here of bad FAI decision making?

Stekelly wrote:

Silly me, what was I thinking. All the FAI and IRFU had to do was hop in to their Delorean and go back 100 odd years and tell the lads to build the stadium so it could be upgraded in 2007 without having to close it.

Nah, just go back 20 years to Dalymount. They could still build it and upgrade, or maybe that would have affected profits?

stekelly wrote:

My point had nothing to do with Croke Park being able to be upgraded without closing. All I said was that if it was closed would they have another 80,000 seater stadium to move into while they were doing work . I was using it as an example. The AA dont have a similar size backup stadium just as the FAI/IRFU dont.

Huh?

Anyway, Croker never will have to be closed! See, that's good planning there, I know it's a rarity for the FAI to have it.

stekelly wrote:

The likes of England had to move out of their national stadium and only had big stadiums to play in because they have a huge professional league with rich clubs that have big stadia.

No they chose to build a brand new one and look at how expensive it turned out! :eek:

K-9 · 07-10-2008 9:51pm

stovelid wrote: »

I'm not sure you followed the case closely enough. It is a shared municipal facility. It can accommodate junior grade GAA if required. TD/DCB ostensibly wanted it to accommodate senior grades (which wouldn't have fitted into the available land without drastically reducing capacity), but spun out the case as long as possible hoping Rovers would implode in the interim.

I tried to keep up to date on it. GAA is a big sport in Tallaght so they had a right to get senior matches included. I'm not saying they where right and I'm not arguing you are right, I'm saying they had the right to take the case, which one judge did agree with them.

stovelid wrote:

At the end of the day, Rovers had sunk a fair bit of cash into the stadium before the SDCC took over, and the argument that grounds with huge amounts of public funding should be opened up to all sports, well...that would have opened cans of worms all over the country.

Nah, public funding is different, municipal run was the point. You mightn't agree but they had a point. Unfortunately some of the Govt. grant money was alleged to have been used to fund the team and not the stadium, hence the big creditors for the stadium.

Govt. Money that was for building costs was diverted to the running of the team. Not sure if you are familiar with Govt. grants but generally in cases like this you submit vouched invoices to get the grant. Some of that money never went to the suppliers, hence the creditors!

stovelid wrote:

By the way, I've no doubt the rank and file GAA wanted to open up Croker. Fair play. They own the place and they made a packet out of it, as well as gaining excellent publicity.

Unfortunately so did the FAI and IRFU which is my point.

Anyway by the looks of the economy, Lansdowne could prove a very costly investment.

They really should have done something years ago.

stovelid · 07-10-2008 10:02pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Unfortunately some of the Govt. grant money was alleged to have been used to fund the team and not the stadium, hence the big creditors for the stadium. Govt. Money that was for building costs was diverted to the running of the team. Not sure if you are familiar with Govt. grants but generally in cases like this you submit vouched invoices to get the grant. Some of that money never went to the suppliers, hence the creditors!

Not having a go, but this is the first I've heard of this. It's an allegation about a previous board, and purely conjectural. In fairness, everything I've said about TD is based on their own public utterances and the court case.

Seanies32 wrote: »

Unfortunately so did the FAI and IRFU which is my point. Anyway by the looks of the economy, Lansdowne could prove a very costly investment. They really should have done something years ago.

Croker would have been empty for those games. The GAA were still rewarded handsomely. As for the F.A.I, most Irish soccer fans wouldn't defend the clowns anyway.

K-9 · 07-10-2008 10:31pm

stovelid wrote: »

Not having a go, but this is the first I've heard of this. It's an allegation about a previous board, and purely conjectural. In fairness, everything I've said about TD is based on their own public utterances and the court case.

Indeed, that's why I said allegedly. I think the Tribune did a piece on it around the time. When you think about it, it makes sense! If the money was spent correctly, there shouldn't have been any stadium creditors!

stovelid wrote:

Croker would have been empty for those games. The GAA were still rewarded handsomely. As for the F.A.I, most Irish soccer fans wouldn't defend the clowns anyway.

Indeed, as most GAA fans wouldn't defend the GAA Clowns, such as the Dublin County Board, but can differentiate with the county team and go to support them. Still it's amazing that those muppets made a fortune from Croker!

Anyway, way off topic now!

stovelid · 07-10-2008 10:45pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Indeed, that's why I said allegedly. I think the Tribune did a piece on it around the time.!

Ah, the Tribune. That staunch and unflinching friend of the League of Ireland.

K-9 · 07-10-2008 10:52pm

stovelid wrote: »

Ah, the Tribune. That staunch and unflinching friend of the League of Ireland.

Well going on the way the club was run, it doesn't inspire confidence either!

tony1kenobi · 07-10-2008 10:54pm

Conbro wrote: »

Well you are desciminating against Catholics in a way by refusing to show a sport that is inextricably linked with their religion while actively promoting sports in which Protestants are more involved. Whether these sort of policies are legally tolerted or not is a moot point as far as Im concerned, no savvy business people should adopt policies that may be perceived as prejuduced. Its just not smart and creates bad publicity for any company

Come on......how many protestants were involved in that Man U v Chelsea match?...........the hotel were showing the soccer in conjunction with a promotion....had they not shown it,a legal action from those who had been promised the match was showing would be more far more likely to succeed.

Fans sue hotel over GAA final.

Comments