Fans sue hotel over GAA final.

seclachi

Conbro wrote: »

If thats their reason then thats totally fine, it is a business after all. However to declare as hotel policy, a blanket ban on showing all GAA matches while at the same time showing other sports is wrong.

I doubt theres any legal reason they couldnt ban a sport in a hotel though, I mean it is your hotel, your not telling african people to feck off or discriminating against anybody.

Guy:Incognito

Seanies32 wrote: »

It's easier to blame the people that run Dublin GAA, not the people that ran Rovers into this mess!

What has Rovers history got to do with the GAA stickign their noses in repeatedly where both Shamrock Rovers (original owners and anchor tennants) and the council (current owners) told them it wasnt wanted.

Guy:Incognito

Conbro wrote: »

If thats their reason then thats totally fine, it is a business after all. However to declare as hotel policy, a blanket ban on showing all GAA matches while at the same time showing other sports is wrong.

No it's not. You can ban anyhting you like from being shown on your own tv's.

Woul dyou care if it was Wrestling or NFL that was banned?

Conbro

I doubt theres any legal reason they couldnt ban a sport in a hotel though, I mean it is your hotel, your not telling african people to feck off or discriminating against anybody.

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

Guy:Incognito

Conbro wrote: »

Well you are desciminating against Catholics in a way by refusing to show a sport that is inextricably linked with their religion

No you rnot. Doesnt matter what religon it's linked to, it's a sport. A sport they dont /didnt want to show. On their own televisions. Therefore they do what they want.

They probably wont put on a channel showing Mass all day either, is that discrimination?

Stekelly

Stekelly wrote: »

No it's not. You can ban anyhting you like from being shown on your own tv's.

Woul dyou care if it was Wrestling or NFL that was banned?

This is an immensely naive point of view. While in the abstract you may be correct, in reality you surely must concede that the social significance of the sport for a certain section of the community means that, if there was an explicit policy banning the screening of GAA matches then it would not take a very skilled lawyer to make the case that the policy was based on sectarian principles.

I, however, have also heard that it was to do with the food and drinks company but, frankly, had I been the one who asked this and received the answer "it is our policy not to show GAA matches", I would have been equally infuriated by this.

If they simply said they showed the soccer match as the greater number of guests in the bar wished to watch the soccer match then that is fine. It is not their choice to not show the match but rather their reason for doing so that has sparked this law suit.


Also, for those posters who seem so intent on insulting the GAA: please grow up. The GAA brings entertainment, community and a sense of identity to a huge number of people. It, like every other sport, has it's demons but being small-minded about it does nobody any good.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

I would have been equally infuriated by this. .

Good for you. If it was my hotel I'd invite you to go be infuriated in your own home.

I honestly dont care what religion GAA is attached to , in my pub it would be banned for no other reason than I dont like it along with any other sports I dotn like) and I'd have no problem telling people its my policy to not show X sport.

This case is stupid, nothing less. If you go to a pub that doesnt show what you want, go elsewhere. If you start ranting and ravign about discrimination and religion the only bigotted person is you.

stovelid

Orizio wrote: »

And I suppose you don't find it ever so slightly retarded and irrational to hold the actions of some tits on the Dublin County Board against Dublin GAA as a whole?

Seanies32 wrote: »

Tenuous indeed!
It's easier to blame the people that run Dublin GAA, not the people that ran Rovers into this mess!

Rovers put a lot of their own money into the stadium. And we did blame the board who got the club into the mess: the fans kicked them the fcuk out and now run the club themselves. The stadium is now municipally owned, and open to any sport that can fit into it.

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.

Back on topic: refusing to showing GAA is not bigoted. My local is heavily GAA and would never switch on soccer when there was an All-Ireland which is fair enough because of the pub and punters. A lot of places in Belfast won't show GAA or SPL because of the friction it may cause. English football has more cross-community support (even among the so-called Irish fans who ignore their own Irish teams ) and is far less likely to cause grief.

Can you honestly see a 5-star hotel being openly discriminatory to paying customers? The guys will get hammered in court, on the slim chance that it even gets that far.

Conbro

No you rnot. Doesnt matter what religon it's linked to, it's a sport. A sport they dont /didnt want to show. On their own televisions. Therefore they do what they want.

lol

Stekelly

Stekelly wrote: »

I honestly dont care what religion GAA is attached to , in my pub it would be banned for no other reason than I dont like it along with any other sports I dotn like) and I'd have no problem telling people its my policy to not show X sport.

This case is stupid, nothing less. If you go to a pub that doesnt show what you want, go elsewhere. If you start ranting and ravign about discrimination and religion the only bigotted person is you.

Oh ok, your point of view is naive. I didn't realise.

In the abstract your point of view is fine. I agree with it in fact. 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.

Gillo

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

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.

Stekelly

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

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

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

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.

Stekelly

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

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

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

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

Said without a hint of irony

stovelid

The Mighty Ken

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

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.

Gillo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?