Greens helped scupper Drogs' stadium

SectionF

Frank Connolly has a piece in Village Magazine telling how a Green Party councillor played a key role in frustrating the development that included a new stadium for Drogheda Utd.

Anto McC

So thats the Green party the Drogs are now trying to blame, as well as Meath County Council, National Roads Associationa and everyone else. Everyone else that is, bar Vincent Hoey, who had them in the sh*te in the first place with a pie in the sky dream that was NEVER going to get off the ground, which he was told but still insisited on pressing ahead with everything.

Fact is, Drogheda have no one to blame but themselves.

SectionF

Anto McC wrote: »

So thats the Green party the Drogs are now trying to blame, as well as Meath County Council, National Roads Associationa and everyone else. Everyone else that is, bar Vincent Hoey, who had them in the sh*te in the first place with a pie in the sky dream that was NEVER going to get off the ground, which he was told but still insisited on pressing ahead with everything.

Fact is, Drogheda have no one to blame but themselves.

Thank you Cllr McC.

Anto McC

Good point well made. I'm no more a councillor than you are a Rovers fan. I've heard a host of excuses and people blamed for what happened Drogheda but to anyone with a brain, it is evidently clear that they have themselves to blame. Just as Shels did, just as Cork did and just as Rovers did.

They chased a dream that was never going to become reality and when it predictably didn't pan out they found themselves up the proverbial sh*t creek without a paddle.

CiaranC

Drogheda gambled their club and lost. No excuse for it.

invincibleirish

Lets try and get this straight and non political.

Drogs new stadium was to be built in an 'out of town' development which also included i believe housing and retail as part of the development.

To get it built the council would have to have to contravene their own areas' local plan as it was being built on land not zoned appropriately. To do this requires local Cllrs to propose a material contravention of the local dev. plan.

I'm not sure how exactly the local Green pols were involved but the plan would have come under the scrutiny of the Min of the Environment if passed by the councillors(similar schemes without the stadium have been turned down in Monaghan and Kerry recently).

Suffice to say it seems the whole scheme suggests it was a developer led wheeze piggybacking on the idea of a stadium as means to build more houses/retail units in out of town locations. This is bad planning and though i see the usual FF local pols having 'interests' in the development it seems clear the scheme is ill thought out.

The Greens have sustainable planning policies as part of their policy, to have a stadium only easily accessed by the Motorway is not an example of sustainable planning.

CiaranC

wtf happened to the thread?

therecklessone

CiaranC wrote: »

wtf happened to the thread?

The off-topic discussion has been deleted [as Lloyd promised would happen] so that the thread topic can continue without distraction. Any problems, PM me to discuss.

SectionF

invincibleirish wrote: »

Lets try and get this straight and non political.

Why do you want it non-political? How can it be such when there's a politician directly involved?

An Citeog

SectionF wrote: »

Why do you want it non-political? How can it be such when there's a politician directly involved?

What's your personal opinion on the Drogheda United stadium issue and on how this councillor acted?

invincibleirish

SectionF wrote: »

Why do you want it non-political? How can it be such when there's a politician directly involved?

Oh i can get down and dirty with the politics if you like, but i am conscious this is a not a pol forum, why do you want politics explicitly involved? what axe have you to grind? and with whom?

Xavi6

Next person to post OT in this thread will be infracted for ignoring previous mod warnings.

If you don't like something then PM a mod. If you still want to complain then you know where Help Desk is.

Cheers

K-9

SectionF wrote: »

Frank Connolly has a piece in Village Magazine telling how a Green Party councillor played a key role in frustrating the development that included a new stadium for Drogheda Utd.

The Greens played a key role in stopping the complete destruction of Drogheda.

Fair play!

Anybody see the property market lately?

SectionF

K-9 wrote: »

The Greens played a key role in stopping the complete destruction of Drogheda.

Fair play!

Anybody see the property market lately?

Do you mean the destruction of Drogheda town or club? If the latter, it's a fair point, though if the project was up and contracts agreed then they may have been insulated from the fallout.

eagle eye

I read what was used as evidence for posting this thread in the link in the op. The article is not complete and it does not give us the opportunity to make up our own minds. It just has small excerpts from what was said in another article.

The link in the op contains the name of a publication only available in print and not available online to anybody who would wish to make certain of the claims made here.

There seems to be claims made also that this councillor makes his way to Britain to games every weekend.

The article linked to this thread does not have any clear proof of anything and the claims are not backed up fully.

It says that there were two local councillors involved but only names one.

There are articles printed in national newspapers regarding the planning for this venture.

So I've added two relevant articles regarding the planning of this development.

Link here for below article

Seventeen developers and landowners in Meath will lodge a joint submission tomorrow urging the local council to revise a controversial area development plan.

All members of the group - who own an estimated 300 acres in the area - have an interest in what are known as the Bryanstown lands.

Those lands had been earmarked for possible development in a major regional planning strategy.

The recent plan, however, reversed that earlier decision. The new plan has also earmarked lands for fast-track development which were previously designated for long-term development.

A number of serious allegations regarding the way in which the planning authority has operated were made to the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, and minister of state Dick Roche.

Dublin developer Bill Doyle has threatened to take a High Court action over the affair, and Roche wrote to environment minister John Gormley urging him to instigate a probe.

In his letter, Roche said that the proposals which the council came up with clearly disadvantaged some land owners in the area.

Roche, a former environment minister, accused the council of behaving in an ‘‘inexplicable’’ fashion.

And link here for the following.

A NEW 10,000-seater soccer stadium plan has been branded "premature" by the National Roads Authority (NRA) because the motorway junction beside it is expected to be the starting point of a huge new ring road.

Earlier this year, Meath County Council agreed to contravene its development plan so permission could be granted for the €65m Drogheda United stadium, leisure centre, retail units and a motorway service station. The 25-hectare site is on the southside of Drogheda within the Co Meath boundary. It is on the Drogheda to Duleek road and beside the Duleek road junction with the M1.

An Bord Pleanala is not expected to make a decision until later this year.

The NRA appeal is the only one against permission and its submission says the proposed €2bn Dublin Outer Orbital Road linking Drogheda to Naas "is likely to begin at the M1/R152 Duleek road junction".

The route is a key objective of the regional planning guidelines for the greater Dublin area and the planning application "is premature pending determination of this route", argues the NRA.

Traffic

The NRA says the junction would have to be upgraded to support the traffic flow described in the application. Because the junction is part of the motorway public private partnership (PPP) contract, it "will be much more difficult complex and expensive" to upgrade.

Meanwhile, Councillor Tommy Byrne (FF) called on Drogheda borough council to "write to the NRA and ask them to withdraw their objection".

Mr Byrne did not get the support of his fellow councillors but they did agree to put their support for planning permission in writing. At Drogheda United's current ground, United Park, planning permission was secured for 110 residential units, but that too is under appeal.

therecklessone

eagle eye wrote: »

There seems to be claims made also that this councillor makes his way to Britain to games every weekend.

I don't think the sentence reads that way:

Maybe Kelly and his fellow champions of doing things locally are happier seeing Irish fans rack up their carbon footprint as they jet off to Britain for their football each weekend.

eagle eye wrote: »

It says that there were two local councillors involved but only names one.

That is incorrect, the quote from the article in the Village begins with:

the persistence of Councillors Kelly and Cudden

Cllr Cudden is an Independent I believe.

eagle eye

Yes Cudden is mentioned in one of the quotes from the article which is not available online, but the person responsible for this online article only mentions the Green Party councillor.

And my mistake on the bit regarding them going to Britain.

SectionF

eagle eye wrote: »

I read what was used as evidence for posting this thread in the link in the op. The article is not complete and it does not give us the opportunity to make up our own minds. It just has small excerpts from what was said in another article.

The link in the op contains the name of a publication only available in print and not available online to anybody who would wish to make certain of the claims made here.

Since two of your assertions in relation to my post have been shown to be false, I'll just address this one.
The article referred to is in the public domain, carried in a nationally published news magazine. I'm afraid I cannot be responsible for Village Magazine's online policies, nor am I prepared to breach copyright and transcribe or scan the article, but if you really want the full story then it shouldn't trouble you too much to find it.
It remains a matter of record, according to Village, that the insistence of Cllr Kelly on the inclusion of other lands in the area plan meant that the Drogs development was unviable.

eagle eye

SectionF wrote: »

Since two of your assertions in relation to my post have been shown to be false, I'll just address this one.
The article referred to is in the public domain, carried in a nationally published news magazine. I'm afraid I cannot be responsible for Village Magazine's online policies, nor am I prepared to breach copyright and transcribe or scan the article, but if you really want the full story then it shouldn't trouble you too much to find it.
It remains a matter of record, according to Village, that the insistence of Cllr Kelly on the inclusion of other lands in the area plan meant that the Drogs development was unviable.

Its quite clear that two councillors were together on this, so why are we only concentrating on one name.
I find it startling that it was a Green Party member and an independent, but there was no objection from what you are saying from any of the major parties' councillors.
I'd like to see a full copy of this publication, as the excerpts taken from it and used in the online article might not tell the whole story as has often been the case with partial excerpts all over the world.

It does not say in that article what the exact reasons for those objections were.
Could they have possibly been environmental?

And more questions for you.

Had this planning received the thumbs up from the NRA and/or An Bord Pleanala?

At what stage of the planning had these objections arisen?

LuckyLloyd

SectionF wrote: »

It remains a matter of record, according to Village, that the insistence of Cllr Kelly on the inclusion of other lands in the area plan meant that the Drogs development was unviable.

You have not responded to this post:

invincibleirish wrote: »

Lets try and get this straight and non political.

Drogs new stadium was to be built in an 'out of town' development which also included i believe housing and retail as part of the development.

To get it built the council would have to have to contravene their own areas' local plan as it was being built on land not zoned appropriately. To do this requires local Cllrs to propose a material contravention of the local dev. plan.

I'm not sure how exactly the local Green pols were involved but the plan would have come under the scrutiny of the Min of the Environment if passed by the councillors(similar schemes without the stadium have been turned down in Monaghan and Kerry recently).

Suffice to say it seems the whole scheme suggests it was a developer led wheeze piggybacking on the idea of a stadium as means to build more houses/retail units in out of town locations. This is bad planning and though i see the usual FF local pols having 'interests' in the development it seems clear the scheme is ill thought out.

The Greens have sustainable planning policies as part of their policy, to have a stadium only easily accessed by the Motorway is not an example of sustainable planning.

SectionF

eagle eye wrote: »

Its quite clear that two councillors were together on this, so why are we only concentrating on one name.

Because one is an independent and only of local relevance.

I find it startling that it was a Green Party member and an independent, but there was no objection from what you are saying from any of the major parties' councillors.

I was surprised also at the Green involvement. That's why I blogged it.

I'd like to see a full copy of this publication, as the excerpts taken from it and used in the online article might not tell the whole story as has often been the case with partial excerpts all over the world.

I think you should get a copy. I have excerpted what I think is relevant to the point of the post.

It does not say in that article what the exact reasons for those objections were.
Could they have possibly been environmental?

Probably. Though Connolly says he has played a part in opening up 332 acres for housing development, against the wishes of the council planners. As I say, if you're interested, get yourself a copy of the article.

SantryRed

Drogs got their fcuking licence. Absolutely rediculous.

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

Because one is an independent and only of local relevance.

That I have a problem with. Cllr Kelly is a Green Party rep, but there is nothing presented here to suggest that he was/is acting on his party's national policy in relation to the planning process for Drogs stadium. Both Cllrs may have been acting based on local concerns, as such I think it is misleading to say the Greens helped scupper Drogs plans without providing more info re. the entire planning process.

I tried four separate shops yesterday to find a copy of Village, none had copies in stock. I hope to get a copy tomorrow.

SectionF

I must say, this desire to see each politician in any given situation accorded equal attention is an innovation in political debate.

I don't know whether Kelly was acting according to his party's nationally determined policy, and I haven't represented him as doing so. But he belongs to a national organization and presumably its policies and values are part of what got him elected. I have no idea who the independent is or what he purports to stand for, if anything.

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

I must say, this desire to see each politician in any given situation accorded equal attention is an innovation in political debate.

It's not a political debate, it's a football debate that's dealing with related political actions, I think that might explain the lack of partisanship (certainly on my behalf)

SectionF wrote: »

I don't know whether Kelly was acting according to his party's nationally determined policy, and I haven't represented him as doing so.

Does the thread title misrepresent the party itself? That would appear to be the crux of the issue.

SectionF

therecklessone wrote: »

It's not a political debate, it's a football debate that's dealing with related political actions, I think that might explain the lack of partisanship (certainly on my behalf)

I'm sorry. I'm not clear what you mean by that.

Does the thread title misrepresent the party itself? That would appear to be the crux of the issue.

Assuming that the Village account is accurate, the only way in which the thread title would misrepresent the party would be as a consequence of its elected councillor having misrepresented it. Which is something one could apply to any discussion, on boards.ie or anywhere else, about any headline about any elected politician, belonging to any party, doing anything, or saying anything, anywhere. So I'm not sure it's the crux of anything.

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

I'm sorry. I'm not clear what you mean by that.

I thought it was clear enough.

this desire to see each politician in any given situation accorded equal attention is an innovation in political debate

This isn't a political debate, it's a debate about a sporting issue, but one that has obvious political implications. I don't see why one needs to concentrate on the role of one individual over another, from the limited information available on your link it appears two Cllrs were involved in the process. Why is the Green Party Cllr singled out for attention, and why does your blog state that the "Greens helped compost Drogs’ dream"?

As it is, we have only the link you provided (which is a blog which you are involved in?) which provides two small paragraphs from Connolly's article in a larger editorial piece, to support that claim.

SectionF wrote: »

Assuming that the Village account is accurate, the only way in which the thread title would misrepresent the party would be as a consequence of its elected councillor having misrepresented it.

I think a more accurate representation of the events would be "Green Party Cllr helped scupper Drogs stadium" based on what's been presented to date, unless there's anything to suggest that the planning objections were a policy of the Green Party and the Cllr was acting on Party instructions. Anyone who thinks that local Cllrs slavishly follow diktats from Part headquarters needs their head examined IMO.

The Cllr in question is a resident of Laytown and is a representative in the Slane area, would you say that Slane residents helped scupper Drogs plans? They did elect him after all.

Interestingly, this article deals with some of the fall out from the decision, and shows how Finna Fails' Dick Roche (TD) and Fine Gaels' Shane McEntee (TD) both called for enquiries into planning decisions in Meath CC, Roche called on his govt colleague (and Green Party TD) John Gormley as his successor at the Dept of Environment to initiate an inquiry, and McEntee objected on the grounds that the Drogs development would have addressed key infrastructure concerns in re. to population growth.

Councillors, however, took umbrage at the report that Deputy McEntee had sought an examination of planning decisions over 10 years in Meath.

Laytown Slane Area councillor Tom Kelly said that if the development could not now start, it was out of Meath County Council’s control. The council, he said, had materially contravened the Meath County Development Plan to grant permission for this project.

Slane area councillor Jimmy Cudden added that the council had tried to help “fast-track” the development.

Councillors, including Slane area member, Ann Dillon Gallagher, were upset over the report in the Sunday Business Post on the basis that the council had helped Drogheda Utd at all times.

Councillor Brian Fitzgerald wanted an investigation by the council into the entire matter, focusing on events leading up to the time when the members took their decision on the material contravention proposal. He said: “We want to retain our integrity and protect it.”

Councillor Tommy Reilly said he detected a slur against the members, staff and officials of the council and supported Cllr Fitzgerald in his call for an investigation.

Gallagher is FG, Fitzgerald is an Independent, and Reilly is FF. It would seem there's more to this than a solitary Green Party Cllr.

therecklessone

Another article:

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/sport/soccer/councillors-furious-over-claims-1469605.html

Onlookers at Monday’s meeting were treated to the rare sight of Fianna Fail councillors criticising the actions of a Fianna Fail Minister while Fine Gael councillors were equally critical of their TD colleague.

The meeting unanimously decided that the council’s legal representatives should write to the people quoted in the Sunday Business Post ‘requesting that they outline their concerns in detail and specifically identify those matters which they claim require investigation.’

A spokesman said ‘Meath County Council is fully satisfied that all issues in relation to the Drogheda Environs LAP have been dealt with in a transparent manner and in full compliance with the law.’

I am very interested in securing a copy of Frank Connolly's article in Village magazine, and hope to pick that up tomorrow morning. Until then I'll remain absent from the thread.

invincibleirish

A few points on the proposed development.

1. the NRA and what it wants carries a lot of weight. The development stands at beginning of proposed DOOR project. The NRA frequently get what they want(witness Dunkettle debacle in Cork).

2. ABP & The Minister of Env. have recently begun get strict on developments contrary to sound plannning principles. If the NRA hadn't stopped this development then either/or of ABP or the Minister would have imo.

3.The economy andcountry is in a state. Out of town developments like this, even with funding in place previously, would struggle to begin construction now. I understand the substantial element is the housing part of this proposal. Development is about 18 months too late.

I can see, i think, what SectionF is alleging. Go to politics.ie to elaborate further but remember this is Ireland. dodgy planning and Councillors go hand in hand. This isn't a generalisation or crass stereotype, a quick scan across regional papers from the past few years show there have been numerous examples of iffy housing development related decisions. We have a certain political culture in this country. In time things will change.

SectionF

therecklessone wrote: »

I thought it was clear enough.

This isn't a political debate, it's a debate about a sporting issue, but one that has obvious political implications. I don't see why one needs to concentrate on the role of one individual over another, from the limited information available on your link it appears two Cllrs were involved in the process. Why is the Green Party Cllr singled out for attention, and why does your blog state that the "Greens helped compost Drogs’ dream"?

As it is, we have only the link you provided (which is a blog which you are involved in?) which provides two small paragraphs from Connolly's article in a larger editorial piece, to support that claim.

Of course it's a political debate. And it's a football debate. Why is there a problem with that? Do we have to get councillors to do keepy-uppies to talk about them? I really don't get your fascination with this semantic distinction.

You can choose not to accept my interpretation of the import of the article, but to do so without having read it doesn't make sense. Other politicians from other parties are mentioned (and this is clearly stated in the blog post) but that's hardly unusual and therefore is of less interest. The blog article makes it clear that this is part of a wider picture, as you and Invincible Irish have shown with your interesting contributions fleshing out the story. Perhaps I am too inured to FF planning affairs to see anything out of the ordinary in them.

I think a more accurate representation of the events would be "Green Party Cllr helped scupper Drogs stadium" based on what's been presented to date, unless there's anything to suggest that the planning objections were a policy of the Green Party and the Cllr was acting on Party instructions. Anyone who thinks that local Cllrs slavishly follow diktats from Part headquarters needs their head examined IMO.

The Cllr in question is a resident of Laytown and is a representative in the Slane area, would you say that Slane residents helped scupper Drogs plans? They did elect him after all.

I'm comfortable with the headline, since most reasonable people associate political parties with the actions of their elected members, but don't hold everyone who ever voted for them collectively responsible.

I doubt if your headline would fit in the space available, and I prefer the composting metaphor to scuppering. If the Greens are unhappy with it, they have a bigger megaphone than I do and can comment here or on the blog.

Any attempt to discuss the policy rather than the much less important issue of my post would be refreshing. Why does no one want to deal with it head on?

SectionF

invincibleirish wrote: »

I can see, i think, what SectionF is alleging. Go to politics.ie to elaborate further but remember this is Ireland. dodgy planning and Councillors go hand in hand. This isn't a generalisation or crass stereotype, a quick scan across regional papers from the past few years show there have been numerous examples of iffy housing development related decisions. We have a certain political culture in this country. In time things will change.

I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not alleging anything relating to 'a certain political culture in this country'. I don't know how that has arisen, other than that is what people have come to expect generally (which is indeed something for politics.ie).

I am simply raising the point that the Greens' priorities in this matter did not coincide with Drogheda United's interests. They talk local, and they are part of a government that (hypocritally, in my opinion) likes to invoke patriotism in economic matters, yet they have played a part in frustrating one element of the economic and cultural life of the area, as represented by the football club.

eagle eye

From reading your last two posts its clear that you have an issue with the Green Party. Thats political and not soccer.

I personally don't want to discuss this any further until I have read the whole article you mention and done some more research myself.

I don't have any political connections nor do I support any particular party for that matter, but I do object to reading a headline about the Green Party in the Soccer forum. And having it thrown in my face that the Green Party did something wrong when it might not be the case.

I don't think the Green Party should be mentioned in your thread title nor any other party for that matter. For me something like Councillors helped scupper Drogs plans would be more appropriate as its clear that there was not just one man involved.

I just really feel there is a hidden political agenda behind this.

SectionF

eagle eye wrote: »

From reading your last two posts its clear that you have an issue with the Green Party. Thats political and not soccer.

I personally don't want to discuss this any further until I have read the whole article you mention and done some more research myself.

I don't have any political connections nor do I support any particular party for that matter, but I do object to reading a headline about the Green Party in the Soccer forum. And having it thrown in my face that the Green Party did something wrong when it might not be the case.

I don't think the Green Party should be mentioned in your thread title nor any other party for that matter. For me something like Councillors helped scupper Drogs plans would be more appropriate as its clear that there was not just one man involved.

I just really feel there is a hidden political agenda behind this.

Right. It's a conspiracy, and that's a UFO that just went past my window.
Look, I haven't said that the Greens have done anything wrong. Stop reading nonsense into posts in order to fuel your righteous indignation. And please do read the article if you doubt my interpretation of it, and if you doubt Village Magazine's version then write them a letter.
The fact is that their man in Laytown played a significant role in stopping the stadium development. I know that doesn't fit with the friendly local Green image, and that's why it is worth noting!

eagle eye

SectionF wrote: »

Right. It's a conspiracy, and that's a UFO that just went past my window.
Look, I haven't said that the Greens have done anything wrong. Stop reading nonsense into posts in order to fuel your righteous indignation. And please do read the article if you doubt my interpretation of it, and if you doubt Village Magazine's version then write them a letter.
The fact is that their man in Laytown played a significant role in stopping the stadium development. I know that doesn't fit with the friendly local Green image, and that's why it is worth noting!

Well then why this thread title?

Greens helped scupper Drogs' stadium

SectionF

Because they did.
I'm not suggesting that they were morally wrong to do so. Or even wrong in terms of Meath's overall planning needs. But help to scupper it they did.

invincibleirish

SectionF wrote: »

I am simply raising the point that the Greens' priorities in this matter did not coincide with Drogheda United's interests. They talk local, and they are part of a government that (hypocritally, in my opinion) likes to invoke patriotism in economic matters, yet they have played a part in frustrating one element of the economic and cultural life of the area, as represented by the football club.

I think you are talking out of your hole when you talk about the Greens talking local but not acting upon it. You clearly do not understand that the stadium was only part of a plan which was primarily focused on housing and retail? a stadium that has more in common with American and PL type stadia plonked on the outskirts of town accessible by car only?.

On top of that you obviously fail to realise that the NRA/ABP and the Min. of Env. would also have issues with the development? you come on here making allegations about the greens when its clear you focused on the stadium idea above all else, you didn't acknowledge the issues involved outside football.

Which in turn makes your attack on the 'hypocritical' greens for not backing this all the more amusing because you are in essence arguing for the Greens to ignore any sort of planning guidelines to advance your own narrow interest, which is to see a stadium built no matter what the repercussions are (i call that celtic tiger thinking). Take off the LoI blinkers and acknowledge the bigger picture.

SectionF

invincibleirish wrote: »

I think you are talking out of your hole when you talk about the Greens talking local but not acting upon it. You clearly do not understand that the stadium was only part of a plan which was primarily focused on housing and retail? a stadium that has more in common with American and PL type stadia plonked on the outskirts of town accessible by car only?.

On top of that you obviously fail to realise that the NRA/ABP and the Min. of Env. would also have issues with the development? you come on here making allegations about the greens when its clear you focused on the stadium idea above all else, you didn't acknowledge the issues involved outside football.

Which in turn makes your attack on the 'hypocritical' greens for not backing this all the more amusing because you are in essence arguing for the Greens to ignore any sort of planning guidelines to advance your own narrow interest, which is to see a stadium built no matter what the repercussions are (i call that celtic tiger thinking). Take off the LoI blinkers and acknowledge the bigger picture.

NRA is already covered, and the wider context is also referenced, as you would see if you read the thread rather than focussing your attention on orifices.
You seem to have difficulty with the fact that the post is made from a LoI perspective. The bigger picture has never been denied, but the inescapable reality that is the subject of this thread, and the only part of the affair relevant to football, is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

eagle eye

SectionF wrote: »

NRA is already covered, and the wider context is also referenced, as you would see if you read the thread rather than focussing your attention on orifices.
You seem to have difficulty with the fact that the post is made from a LoI perspective. The bigger picture has never been denied, but the inescapable reality that is the subject of this thread, and the only part of the affair relevant to football, is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

Green Party played a key role in the demise of the club.

You are twisting words to try and make it sound like the above without ever stating it because you know thats a false statement.

What comes through everytime you post is an inherent dislike for the Green Party. There is nothing sporting about it.

As far as I'm concerned this is a planning argument at best, and maybe has some political element to it also.

Drogheda United made a mess of Drogheda United. They attempted to rush through planning that was certainly not going to get by the NRA and then An Bord Pleanala.

Basically this whole thread is a plie of garbage using the English language to its full extent to make a mountain out of a molehill.

SectionF

Green Party played a key role in the demise of the club.

Is that a quote from me? Who is twisting what? Please do not put words in my mouth.

LuckyLloyd

SectionF wrote: »

Is that a quote from me? Who is twisting what? Please do not put words in my mouth.

No, you've said:

SectionF wrote:

Greens helped scupper Drogs' stadium

SectionF wrote:

is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

Which is awfully close to:

Green Party played a key role in the demise of the club.

In any case, you have failed to demonstrate in this thread that there is any real issue here.

SectionF wrote:

You seem to have difficulty with the fact that the post is made from a LoI perspective. The bigger picture has never been denied, but the inescapable reality that is the subject of this thread, and the only part of the affair relevant to football, is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

So what? If the stadium was part of a bad development plan and the greater area as a whole would be better off with its rejection then it represents good work by the councilors involved, irrespective of party political affiliations or policies. And if the stadium was not the majority element of the plan, then it is unfair to contend or imply that the decision could be motivated out of a desire to inhibit the growth of professional football in this country.

It seems to me that you would be happy if a decision had been taken which aimed to trump the interests of Drogheda FC at the expense of wider social and economic development concerns for the surrounding area. And that isn't a position I find terribly compelling.

SectionF

They are not awfully close. They have radically different meanings, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

I never said that the Greens contributed to the demise of the club. Why would anyone say that when the club is still with us?

Your disingenuous interpretation of what I have said in perfectly plain English flies in the face of reality and logic.

Edit: It is also quite seriously dishonest to quote me in this way and to change the form of words to provide a different meaning.

eagle eye

SectionF wrote: »

They are not awfully close. They have radically different meanings, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

I never said that the Greens contributed to the demise of the club. Why would anyone say that when the club is still with us?

Your disingenuous interpretation of what I have said in perfectly plain English flies in the face of reality and logic.

Edit: It is also quite seriously dishonest to quote me in this way and to change the form of words to provide a different meaning.

I never quoted you as saying that, and its quite clear from the first line of my post below the quotation. I simply used the quotation marks to make a point.

SectionF

eagle eye wrote: »

I never quoted you as saying that, and its quite clear from the first line of my post below the quotation. I simply used the quotation marks to make a point.

You put it in a quote box.
Then you accused me of twisting words!
Now you are saying it wasn't a quote.
And we have another contributor saying it means the same thing, when clearly it has a completely different meaning. Farce.

SectionF

Actually, here's what you said. You accused me of lying, when you were lying.

eagle eye wrote: »

You are twisting words to try and make it sound like the above without ever stating it because you know thats a false statement.

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

I must say, this desire to see each politician in any given situation accorded equal attention is an innovation in political debate.

SectionF wrote: »

Of course it's a political debate. And it's a football debate. Why is there a problem with that? Do we have to get councillors to do keepy-uppies to talk about them? I really don't get your fascination with this semantic distinction.

You were the person who initiated this, not me. It is not a political discussion, if it was it would not belong here. It is a discussion on a political decision that has implications for a sporting organisation, namely Drogheda United. That is the sole reason for us debating the issue, there is not much more I can do to help you see that distinction.

The importance of the distinction is to allow me to address the former of those two quotes: I'm interested in the background and context to this planning issue, and so would like a complete account of the proceedings, not just an editorialised account of the proceedings. That is why I question why you downplay the contribution of Cllr Cuddy in your thread title, and why I question the headline of the blog article.

SectionF wrote: »

You can choose not to accept my interpretation of the import of the article, but to do so without having read it doesn't make sense. Other politicians from other parties are mentioned (and this is clearly stated in the blog post) but that's hardly unusual and therefore is of less interest. The blog article makes it clear that this is part of a wider picture, as you and Invincible Irish have shown with your interesting contributions fleshing out the story. Perhaps I am too inured to FF planning affairs to see anything out of the ordinary in them.

I have now read the article, for any interested party it is on page 29 of Issue 2 of Village Magazine (February/March edition). The headline? Meath Planning. The tagline? Conflicting views on good planning scupper Drogheda United. That paints a different picture from the blog and your thread on this forum.

Cllr Kelly is mentioned on two occasions in the Village article, one of which is quoted directly in your linked blog:

… the persistence of Councillors Kelly and Cudden and the lobbying by the landowners… have had the effect of removing this obstacle to the development of the Mill Road and the alteration of the zoning on the Bryanstown lands which, according to Doyle (promoter of the Bryanstown development), have made his proposal unviable financially.

The other paragraph reads as follows:

Frank Connolly, Village Magazine wrote:

Instead of promoting the development of the Bryanstown lands the new plan included a recommendation for the re-zoning, to residential use, of lands on the Mill Road closer to Drogheda. These lands were included in the latest area plan at the insistence of two east Meath councillors, Jimmy Cudden (Ind) and Tommy Kelly (Green Party) supported by Pat Boshell(FF) who have claimed that they are ideally suited for development as they are closer to the town

Kelly is one of three Cllrs mentioned, why did you not highlight that? In my opinion that calls into question even more the basis for your claim in the thread title. You have attempted to explain away your unwillingness to highlight the contribution of Cllr Cudden, when the article itself provides reason enough to pay attention:

Frank Connolly, Village Magazine wrote:

The lands are owned by developer Philip Reilly...Mr Reilly already owns a retail centre near the Mill Road lands...in recent weeks, permission was sought for an extension to the retail centre, against the advice of senior planners and council management, following a motion to the Council by Councillor Cudden

How that escaped your notice I will never know.

SectionF wrote: »

I'm comfortable with the headline, since most reasonable people associate political parties with the actions of their elected members, but don't hold everyone who ever voted for them collectively responsible.

Really? How would you express that association given the internal party differences on show as outlined in my links?

Onlookers at Monday’s meeting were treated to the rare sight of Fianna Fail councillors criticising the actions of a Fianna Fail Minister while Fine Gael councillors were equally critical of their TD colleague.

I know the electorate are confused at the best of times, but that must have heads spinning. There are multiple examples of political representatives acting contrary to party policy in this country, particulalrly at local level. You appear fixated on the role of the Green Party in this regard, in my opinion to advance an agenda of your own, as expressed towards the end of your link's editorial:

A familiar tale when it comes to some other political parties, but not the sort of scenario that one associates readily with the Greens. Perhaps, as in so many other aspects of Irish life, football is the exception.

Maybe Kelly and his fellow champions of doing things locally are happier seeing Irish fans rack up their carbon footprint as they jet off to Britain for their football each weekend.

SectionF wrote: »

Any attempt to discuss the policy rather than the much less important issue of my post would be refreshing. Why does no one want to deal with it head on?

Any chance you'll address the valid points raised by invincibleirish, rather than brushing them off? I think he makes some very good points that are pertinent to the debate.

My issue is with how you have chosen to frame this debate, which is in itself pertinent.

SectionF

I think you really do need to get the ball out from under your feet on this. You seem to be caught up with it on the one hand/foot and distinctly unable to grapple with its duality on the other. Perhaps in your other life you are a single-issue independent councillor.

The affair raised has at the very least two dimensions. I have chosen to raise the football-relevant part of it in a football forum. That's why I framed it this way. There is no means to discuss anything, anywhere, other than to do so within a selected frame, or perhaps to write a very large book, though even then someone will, rightly, say your version in incomplete.

Every issue under the sun, big and small, from climate change, to the collapse of the global free market, to British football, to the Israeli assault on Gaza, to the holocaust, to traffic calming on my street, inevitably is framed once it is raised for discussion. Every single thread on boards.ie is framed. Whoever wrote the headline and blurb for the Village piece framed it, as did the article author, as did the sub-editors and authors of all the other articles.

I choose to frame Meath Co. Council/Drogheda planning in relation to entities and issues in which I am interested and which are relevant to the forum in which I am posting, though I am from neither Meath nor Drogheda, nor am I a Drogs supporter.

Perhaps you find this unusual because, as a supporter of a club in another political jurisdiction, you most likely do not have to grapple with planning, environment and other local issues in Tottenham, London, and can frame your take on the sport according, mostly, to television schedules. This is a good example generally of LoI fans living in the actual world, where real issues are found, sometimes, to impinge.

But back to Meath. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in Irish planning issues as, like so many who have not been living under a rock in recent decades, I have already arrived at an analysis of it that presents a rather unedifying vista. It's predictably complex, depressing and futile to discuss, IMO, as I think the blog post makes clear, and it's also off-topic for this forum. (I'd actually be interested in a piece claiming that the planning system works well, or claiming to have found a way to make it work at all, though I would read it critically.)

I happily acknowledge focussing on that which interests me, and doing so honestly from an LoI perspective. You may or may not have noticed that that is what the blog does, with a deliberately niche agenda.

I have not made any statement that is not factual or that is not attributable to another source, and I have never denied that the councillor's stance is part of a wider narrative. My opening post remains valid. Regardless of the roles of the NRA or an Bord Pleanala, or of the Minister, if the Village piece is accurate, then the councillor who is the focus of my post undeniably has played his part in frustrating Drogs in their failed quest for a new stadium.

Despite my quite straightforward setting out of the issue, I have been seriously and dishonestly misrepresented, for whatever motivation, to the point of so-called 'quotes' being artificially set up containing false and absurd positions for me to defend. Perhaps that's just politics.

If for some reason you want to frame the saga in another way, there is no shortage of space on boards.ie or on the internet generally for you to do so. But don't expect me or anyone else to feel compelled to comment.

K-9

Still wondering why the Greens are specifically mentioned in the Thread title?

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

Perhaps you find this unusual because, as a supporter of a club in another political jurisdiction, you most likely do not have to grapple with planning, environment and other local issues in Tottenham, London, and can frame your take on the sport according, mostly, to television schedules. This is a good example generally of LoI fans living in the actual world, where real issues are found, sometimes, to impinge.

Perhaps you should stop assuming you know me based on some preconceived notion you hold due to the club (and the league in which they play) I support. I travel 25+ times a season, home and away with Tottenham. I am acutely aware of the planning and environmental issues affecting the north London area, I am aware of the transport problems Spurs fans have on matchdays, the availability of car parking, the operation of the CPZ (controlled parking zone) in the area and all that entails for my fellow fans, the paucity of public transport options, the changing face of Tottenham, both ethnically/culturally and economically. I am also aware of the impact that 36k supporters arriving in N17 on matchday has on the lives of its residents, and am paying close attention to the planning issues associated with the development of the new stadium. I drink in a north London pub more often than any in this country, and count its Irish owner and the landlady who oversees his operation there among my friends. I travel away from home regularly with a friend who lives in Edmonton, which adjoins Tottenham, and visit him and his family regularly.

Do not try to demean my experience of supporting the team I have for the last 27 years through some misguided sense of superiority. And do not try to dismiss my arguments on this thread based on the same.

SectionF wrote: »

I happily acknowledge focussing on that which interests me, and doing so honestly from an LoI perspective. You may or may not have noticed that that is what the blog does, with a deliberately niche agenda.

I am aware of the agenda.

SectionF wrote: »

I have not made any statement that is not factual or that is not attributable to another source, and I have never denied that the councillor's stance is part of a wider narrative...despite my quite straightforward setting out of the issue...

My point and the point raised by others is that unchallenged, you would have persisted with the notion that this was a Green Party initiative, ignoring the clear role stated by Mr Connolly in his piece played by other councillors. You have deliberately omitted key facts from your own narrative, with a view to framing this discussion in a way that suited your agenda. I do not consider that "a straightforward setting out of the issue"

SectionF wrote: »

I have been seriously and dishonestly misrepresented, for whatever motivation, to the point of so-called 'quotes' being artificially set up containing false and absurd positions for me to defend. Perhaps that's just politics.

I would appreciate it if you address those points to those concerned. I have invented no quote from you.

I note you have still not addressed the questions asked by invincibleirish.

SectionF

therecklessone wrote: »

Perhaps you should stop assuming you know me based on some preconceived notion you hold due to the club (and the league in which they play) I support. I travel 25+ times a season, home and away with Tottenham. I am acutely aware of the planning and environmental issues affecting the north London area, I am aware of the transport problems Spurs fans have on matchdays, the availability of car parking, the operation of the CPZ (controlled parking zone) in the area and all that entails for my fellow fans, the paucity of public transport options, the changing face of Tottenham, both ethnically/culturally and economically. I am also aware of the impact that 36k supporters arriving in N17 on matchday has on the lives of its residents, and am paying close attention to the planning issues associated with the development of the new stadium. I drink in a north London pub more often than any in this country, and count its Irish owner and the landlady who oversees his operation there among my friends. I travel away from home regularly with a friend who lives in Edmonton, which adjoins Tottenham, and visit him and his family regularly.

Do not try to demean my experience of supporting the team I have for the last 27 years through some misguided sense of superiority. And do not try to dismiss my arguments on this thread based on the same.

That's a rare level of engagement, I think you will agree, and not typical of most EPL-only supporters. If I were going to that much trouble it wouldn't be for Spurs. (As an aside, if you are that transported by Spurs and Tottenham, why do you bother with an Irish message board?).

But I'm sorry for your trouble: the point is that, here in Ireland, where at least I and the Cllr are located, and where presumably boards.ie resides, this event, affecting this Irish club, and its Irish supporters who are not so desperate as you are to open up so much distance from the game here (even though most of them probably follow an English club too), is relevant in a real way. And so the actions of a political party at local level are open to analysis and criticism. And I fail to understand why, other than having a need to snipe, you have a problem with that.

PS: what do you think of Village Magazine? Good, innit?

therecklessone

SectionF wrote: »

As an aside, if you are that transported by Spurs and Tottenham, why do you bother with an Irish message board?

I'm Irish, I live and work in this country. I found boards through Phantom FM's hosted forum where I was doing some promotion for a mate's band many years ago, and stuck around because it catered for my many interests. Incidently, you do know GuanYin lives on the west coast of the US? I though you of all people, given our recent philosophical discussions elsewhere, would appreciate that the internet is largely border-less anyway.

SectionF wrote: »

But I'm sorry for your trouble: the point is that, here in Ireland, where at least I and the Cllr are located, and where presumably boards.ie resides, this event, affecting this Irish club, and its Irish supporters who are not so desperate as you are to open up so much distance from the game here (even though most of them probably follow an English club too), is relevant in a real way.

Again, t'is dangerous to jump to conclusions...I will be in Tolka Park on the 6th March for the opening game of the season, and hope to take in as many games as time allows this coming year. I've not been as much as I'd like of late, partly due to family pressures and partly due to me prioritising Spurs over Shels (I won't apologise for putting the club I've supported since the mid 80s over the club I've supported since the mid 90s). There's only 24 hours in the day, and with me working an average of 6 and sleeping for about the same, time tends to be precious.

SectionF wrote: »

PS: what do you think of Village Magazine? Good, innit?

Its a refreshing counterpoint to the mainstream media, I'll give them that.

invincibleirish

SectionF you title the thread in a politically provocative manner.

Then you say you're only focusing on the football part of it when faced with the blatantly obvious reasons the stadium plan was rejected.

Then you attack us by saying "you most likely do not have to grapple with planning, environment and other local issues" because we're fans of PL clubs and we just odon't understand.

Stop flip flopping. If you want to get your digs in at the bar stoolers do it without trying to stir it up by misrepresenting the Drogs Stadium case for your own ends and generate traffic for your poxy blog which you mention in every single thread on here you post on.