Croke Park and Rule 42

jonny68 · 16-02-2005 8:49pm

Its time for the neanderthals in the GAA to get with it and see sense and allow Football and Rugby be played in Croker,without wanting to go into a long dsiscussion as quite a lot of people here have done so already but it has to happen and it will be a farce if it doesnt.......

eirebhoy · 16-02-2005 9:12pm

seansouth wrote:

The current stadium that the Ireland Soccer Team uses for it's home international matches in the IRFU's Stadium at Landsdowne Road, as we all know. This stadium is due for re-development, and as such will be unavailable for use. This redevelopment will be taking place at the time of the Irish Soccer Teams World Cup 2006 Home Qualification Matches against both France and Switzerland. There is not another stadium in this country capable to meet the requirements to host such games, apart from Croke Park.

The redovelopment will start after the qualifiers so the France, Swiss match and possible playoff aren't a problem.

Smemon wrote:

the most frustrating thing is, for a while it looked like we'd have 2 state of the art stadiums being built, now we've none. the bertie bowl imo was always too far fetched, there wasnt even a real need for it. however a compact 40,000 seater or so would do nicely for the fai.

a few concerts, hosting irish cup finals and perhaps even sharing with irfu would keep things afloat and eventually, eventually it WOULD pay for itself. portugal pulled it off by building a few top notch compact stadiums very cheaply and on time. all ireland need is 1.

Maybe you missed the main reason this topic keeps rearrising, Lansdowne Road is being redeveloped...

Imposter · 16-02-2005 9:27pm

seansouth wrote:

All I am doing here is highlighting the fact that anyone can take the rule and twist it to help their own argument.

I see what you are trying to do but you just picked phrases and not a logical sentence and put them together. The first half of that rule clearly states that the grounds are for GAA use. The second part says AND whatever else we agree on that doesn't harm the GAA. Picking random words out of sentences loses all context.

_blank_ · 16-02-2005 9:31pm

Fair enough!

So basically what the GAA have to decide upon, if the issue comes to a vote, is wheter or not any other sports being played on GAA owned grounds will

Rule 42 wrote:

...conflict with the Aims and Objects of the Association...

edit: clicked Submit instead of preview
Actually, I went to www.gaa.ie looking for a copy of this "Book of Rules" or whatever you want to call it. Constitution? And it doesn't seem to be there.

Would you have a link.

Only as a matter of interest, I would like to see what the Aims and Objectives of the Association are, and what impact, if any, the playing of Soccer in specifically in Croke Park would have.

I envisage an amendment to the rule, worded something like this might be acceptable.

Rule 42: Uses of Property - Amended
(a) All property including grounds, Club Houses, Halls, Dressing Rooms and Handball Alleys owned or controlled by units of the Association shall be used only for the purpose of or in connection with the playing of the Games controlled by the Association, and for such other purposes not in conflict with the Aims and Objects of the Association, that may be sanctioned from time to time by the Central Council.

(b) Grounds controlled by Association units shall not be used or permitted to be used, for Horse Racing, Greyhound Racing, or for Field Games other than those sanctioned by Central Council.

(c) Croke Park may be used for any special purpose that may be sanctioned from time to time by the Central Council.

KdjaCL · 16-02-2005 9:41pm

Lots of odd replies about this but the simple fact is:

PAYE 27/01/05 €102.35 , i paid for that stadium as everyone else here who has ever worked and paid tax has.

The GAA did build up 120 years of excellence in one stadium , we paid for it. The GAA financial situation is just as bad as the FAIs , they were afterall 70 or 20 million in debt until quite recently, me looks at my payslip again and wonders who got them out of that hole.

I go to Croker for GAA (when i can get a ticket) and feel it should be opened up for other sports, i would agree with the pov that its the GAAs to do with what they want if they paid for it , but they didnt we(taxpayers) did. Therefore we not them should decide whats played in it.

GAA are just as bad as the FAI when comes to gross incompetence, so blaming others for this and the other really is pointless.

Sadly we will probably never see ireland play there, as the wooly jumper brigade which runs both dont like change , change is bad umm K.

And a general LOL to the people who live nearby , always find that hilarious about them complaining, did they not notice the frikkin huge stadium next door when they bought the house?

kdjac

The Muppet · 16-02-2005 10:04pm

Chucky the tree wrote:

Give me two ways the FAI can raise the adequate funds for a stadium, if you can even give me one good one i will be amazed.
.

How did the GAA do it?

KdjaC wrote:

Lots of odd replies about this but the simple fact is:

PAYE 27/01/05 €102.35 , i paid for that stadium as everyone else here who has ever worked and paid tax has.

kdjac

And everyone over in the GAA forum are taxpayers too. The GAA are not some external body that has just landed here , they are Irish tax paying citizens as well. The tax argument is a non starter IMO every Community club in this country have recieved taxpayers/lottery money. That does not give us the right to use their facilities without their permission.

Heres another slant on the topic,

I have heard it said that the turf in croke park is of a semi synthetic nature which is outlawed by EUFA. Is this factual what's the argument about as if this is true it would mean Croke Park could not be used for the big games.

KdjaCL · 16-02-2005 10:06pm

The Muppet wrote:

And everyone over in the GAA forum too. The GAA are not some external body that has just landed here , they are Irish tax paying citizens as well. The tax argument is a non starter IMO every Community club in this country has recieved taxpayers/Lotter money. That does not give us the right to use their facilities without their permission.

.

Quite a difference between 1.5 milion to the FAI and junior football and 70 odd million (its far more than that, god doesnt even know but just for arguments sake like 70 million! ) to the GAA.

ps about the turf its the same as the Amsterdam Arena , some bright spark decided to put an underground car park under the pitch and block natural sunlight to the pitch , for 2 years grass was in bits till they used that plasticy stuff, UEFA allowed it.

kdjac

Slash/ED · 16-02-2005 10:09pm

KdjaC wrote:

And a general LOL to the people who live nearby , always find that hilarious about them complaining, did they not notice the frikkin huge stadium next door when they bought the house?

Fully agree with that, I've no sympathy for them. They can't buy a house beside a massive 80,000+ capacity stadium and then whinge when people show up to watch games in it ffs! They knew what they were getting into from the start.

The Muppet · 16-02-2005 10:25pm

KdjaC wrote:

Quite a difference between 1.5 milion to the FAI and junior football and 70 odd million (its far more than that, god doesnt even know but just for arguments sake like 70 million! ) to the GAA.
kdjac

How much did the FAI apply for ? I appreciate that the Bertie Bowl messed up theiy plans but thast not the GAA's fault either.

The GAA had the foresight to see The bertie bowl as the White Elephant it was.

KdjaC wrote:

ps about the turf its the same as the Amsterdam Arena , some bright spark decided to put an underground car park under the pitch and block natural sunlight to the pitch , for 2 years grass was in bits till they used that plasticy stuff, UEFA allowed it.
kdjac

Cheers for that , some punter on a phone in made the claim today I was wondering how true it was.

KdjaCL · 16-02-2005 10:38pm

GAA been getting free money for years long before Eircom park was thought of , but soccer wasnt getting anything ffs Sky Sports paid for the EL flood lights.

GAA got a lot of money over 15 years which we paid.

Sadly this matters nowt we call say yes or no but the wooly jumper brigade have final say.

kdjac

The Muppet · 16-02-2005 10:48pm

KdjaC wrote:

GAA been getting free money for years long before Eircom park was thought of , but soccer wasnt getting anything ffs Sky Sports paid for the EL flood lights.

GAA got a lot of money over 15 years which we paid.

Thats a given but did the FAI get their speak in for whatever cash was available. The point I,m making is that the GAA put the groundwork into getting the money ,Did the FAI do the same?

KdjaC wrote:

Sadly this matters nowt we call say yes or no but the wooly jumper brigade have final say.

kdjac

Agreed

Imposter · 16-02-2005 11:07pm

KdjaC,
You need to read the bit written specifically about the taxes that went to pay for croker either in this or the thread in the GAA forum. The taxes that went to for Croker are more or less the same as the amount of VAT paid by the construction. So if Croker was rebuilt then the governemnt would have been no better or worse off and there would be no stadium.

Every sport gets funding. To start comparing GAA's funding compared to Soccer is ridiculous. The GAa has invested in facilities for it's teams for years. Almost all GAA teams have their own pitches. The same cannot be said for a lot of soccer teams who rely on Corporation/council pitches or rent or get permission to play in some farmers field.

If the Lansdowne redevelopment gets the go ahead then they will get tax monies. Is this ok with you?

KdjaC wrote:

i would agree with the pov that its the GAAs to do with what they want if they paid for it , but they didnt we(taxpayers) did. Therefore we not them should decide whats played in it.

That's utter rubbish. Go look at the VAT comment earlier, and the comparison with any and all tax breaks that anyone in Ireland can get. Should a portion of the country moan and whinge about them when they don't get their way?

KdjaCL · 16-02-2005 11:15pm

Imposter wrote:

That's utter rubbish. Go look at the VAT comment earlier, and the comparison with any and all tax breaks that anyone in Ireland can get. Should a portion of the country moan and whinge about them when they don't get their way?

LOL like those in the higher tax bracket? God forbid they would moan and get their way....oh they do.

Tax is what we pay when 70 + million is spent on a stadia it should be used as a national stadia, and about VAT how does that work when the stadium has been refurbihsed over time ? Would obviously have been cheaper to knock it down and re build it.

GAA has their own grounds? Go back further in time and see how they got their own grounds.
Soccer has long been left out of the government cashcow and will be for much longer until the FAI can get FF more votes.

kdjac

Jivin Turkey · 16-02-2005 11:22pm

Imposter wrote:

KdjaC,
The taxes that went to for Croker are more or less the same as the amount of VAT paid by the construction. So if Croker was rebuilt then the governemnt would have been no better or worse off and there would be no stadium.

That is ridiculous. Any sources?

According to http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:cljP_sn6IasJ:www.arts-sport-tourism.gov.ie/Pressroom/pr_detail.asp%3FID%3D659+croke+park+funding&hl=en taxes amounted to 110/265 of the total construction. About 42%. Now Im no expert on VAT, but I know the standard rate of VAT is 21%, and I have a feeling that VAT on construction is lower.

A Dub in Glasgo · 16-02-2005 11:28pm

I find 'the tax payers of Ireland paid for Croke Park therfore the taxpayers should decide its use' argument a bit immature.

Is this line of thought valid only for Croke Park or can any of the companies/groups/associations/organisations that recieve public funding be dictated to change their use of their facilities. What happens if the taxpayers went into the Intel factories and demanded that Intel should allow AMD use of their manufacturing facilities? The people making the demands would be laughed at and thrown into the padded cell.

If no stings have been attached to the funding, how can people now justify imposing strings?

I would love to see soccer being played at CP but what I want and what I get are 2 totally different things. The GAA will decide.

It is funny how we can get away with slagging off the people who will make this decision as the wooly jumper brigade or the bigots or the people full of sectarianism.

Dewey · 16-02-2005 11:29pm

Croke Park would be open now if it hadnt been for Bertie and his bowl :mad: back in 2001. Its up to the GAA but it would be devestating for the country if Ireland have to play there matches in England. But the FAI have no one to blame but them selves. they are a total joke, just like the EURO 2008 bid.

FAI suits to UEFA suits in 2002 "Hi UEFA......look at this great stadium 80,000 seater. look, dont touch. its not ours so we have to wait and see if a 120 year old rule changes for the first time EVER, but fingers crossed. but dont look at Lansdowne, that is crap."

I cant belive its so hard to build 1 stadium for all. it really is amazing. Countrys all over the world can it.....even Iran. But not Ireland, one of the riches country in europe i read somewhere the other day.lol.

But i wouldnt mind if its open just for the lenght Lansdowne is being re-developed.

Chucky the tree · 17-02-2005 12:11am

The Muppet wrote:

How did the GAA do it?

by getting money from the other stadium's they filled with 20 - 30,00 people. Something which the FAI will never get, and not becasue of their incompetence but because irish people would never go to an irish league game.

therecklessone · 17-02-2005 1:37am

Right, sorry if I'm repeating what's already been said but there's quite a bit in this thread...

Croke Park is owned by the GAA, and is theirs to do with as they please. Simple enough really. However, given the circumstances, I believe that the GAA should amend the rule book to allow other sports to use the stadium if required.

Matt Cooper had a discussion on the issue today on The Last Word (I caught a quick snippet). He had a representative on from Cork who was opposed to the proposed rule change. What amazed me was that his argument consisted of "its our stadium, and we'll do what we want with it" and nothing else. He made no attempt to explain why he felt Croker should remain closed to soccer and rugby, and TBH I don't believe he had any reason other than the one I've just mentioned.

From where I'm standing there's mainly pros, and precious little cons involved.

Pros:

The GAA will make a tidy profit from allowing access to Croke Park.
The debate will allow the GAA to decide on terms which suit its own needs first
The stadium will shine on an international stage (and if youd don't think thats a bonus, then why bother renovating the thing in the first place?)...imagine the sight of 80,000 fans for a match on the scale of Ireland-France in soccer, or Ireland-England in rugby.
The GAA will be able to portary itself as a forward thinking confident organisation, and dispel once and for all the charge that it is a bigoted organisation

The cons?

Some say that allowing soccer and rugby in Croke Park poses a threat to the GAA. Balderdash. Preventing the Irish soccer or rugby teams from playing in Croke Park won't prevent them from playing their matches, they'll merely find an alternative. The major impact on soccer/rugby development will come from possible failure on the pitch. Is that what people want to see?

Threat from hooliganism? Give it a rest, if that were the case Hill 16 would be closed on a regular basis.

Damage to the pitch? U2 in the middle of the Summer... :rolleyes:

I'll say in closing that I fervently hope the GAA display common sense on this issue and vote for an amendment on Rule 42. This is their chance to prove themselve bigger than their critics, while benefiting handsomely. Its a win-win situation all round.

therecklessone · 17-02-2005 1:40am

Sorry, meant to add.

The argument that the GAA owes the people of Ireland because they took taxpayers money holds no water.

I take it folk will be happy to receive a bill from the GAA for the time and resources spent providing leisure facilities to the youth of this country for years? Thought not...

The Rooster · 17-02-2005 9:30am

Kdjac, it is helpful to everyone if you read the thread before replying to it. It will also help you prevent writing pure nonesense again in the future.

The way to win this argument is to be clever and sensible, and try and look at it from the GAA's perspective. Seansouth and The Muppet have the perfect attitude. Thankfully there are soccer supporters with that attitude, as I (wrongly) thought most would be like jonnycool and Kdjac. Ridiculous accusations and namecalling will push most GAA members most certainly into the No camp.

I'm going to do my very best to keep away from this thread from now on. Yesterday was a small victory for the open-up camp. 8 weeks until the vote. 2/3rds majority will be difficult, but not impossible.

Imposter · 17-02-2005 10:11am

KdjaC, Go have a read of post 36 for some figures reagarding the governemtns contribution.

Here's the pros and cons for the GAA of Abolishing Rule 42 (amending is an option but this would cause other problems) as I see it:
Pros:
1. Economics - would generate money for the GAA.
2. PR - Would possibly be good PR for the GAA, depending on the media and whether or not they find something else to maon about, such as the high rents charged!
Cons:
1. Probable residents issues - Mainly at Croker but possible at other grounds also.
2. Threat to clubs from other sports. This is not an issue at the elite level but is a very big issue at club level.
3. Reaching agreement on how or who should decide on club/county/provincial pitches being opened up.

While the GAA may just amend the rule to consider Croker, I don't think that would be sensible as I think they should deal with the whole issue at once. So how do soccer supporters propose the GAA deal with the cons i've mentioned? (And no I don't think ignoring these and only talking about Croker is a valid answer, what with Munster rugby being occasionally mentioned in this debate)

cournioni · 17-02-2005 10:26am

Imposter wrote:

Threat to clubs from other sports. This is not an issue at the elite level but is a very big issue at club level.

That is the point I was trying to get across, but some people here obviously have no clue of what an effect it would have on clubs around the country.

pickarooney · 17-02-2005 11:11am

PORNAPSTER wrote:

That is the point I was trying to get across, but some people here obviously have no clue of what an effect it would have on clubs around the country.

I certainly don't. Can you enlighten me?

Imposter · 17-02-2005 11:55am

pickarooney wrote:

I certainly don't. Can you enlighten me?

I don't think too many would dissagree with me when I say that GAA clubs around the country generally have better facilities than soccer clubs. Part of this is due to the explosion in the number of relatively new soccer clubs in the last 15 years or so and also partly due to the underinvestment by soccer clubs in facilities down the years. In comparision the GAA have invested heavily (often with the help of lotto and/or government aid) in facilities for their members and supporters. (This aid is irrelevent imo, as soccer can apply for the same aid too if they want ot build such facilities)

So like it or not GAA clubs have better facilities that they can use to attract and keep members. So if they were to share such facilities with soccer clubs they will lose this advantage in attracting layers/members and that will weaken GAA on the whole due to them have a smaller base of members and/or players.

That is not to say this is the case in all instances. There may be cases where both clubs could easily coexist while sharing facilities but it would be very naive to assume this could happen in all instances.

That is why abolishing Rule 42 and not implementing the proper provisions for dealing with this is a big problem.

LizardKing · 17-02-2005 12:01pm

I Think a lot of people including me would prefer that the rule be amended to allow JUST the use of Croke Park for use by soccer/rugby .. then that would solve the problem with the little clubs ...

Villain · 17-02-2005 12:19pm

I think the FAI should begin negotiations with Celtic, because I'm not confident that any of the motions will pass. It will be a very sad affair if we have to go to Scotland to play our "HOME" games, but i think the FAI should be prepared for the worst. IMO Celtic park would be the best alternative.

Imposter · 17-02-2005 12:25pm

I reckon a motion will pass but that some group such as the central council will still have final say on the matter. Provided they're asked of course! I just hope they get it right and consider all possible consequences of the rule.

pickarooney · 17-02-2005 12:31pm

Imposter wrote:

I don't think too many would dissagree with me when I say that GAA clubs around the country generally have better facilities than soccer clubs. Part of this is due to the explosion in the number of relatively new soccer clubs in the last 15 years or so and also partly due to the underinvestment by soccer clubs in facilities down the years. In comparision the GAA have invested heavily (often with the help of lotto and/or government aid) in facilities for their members and supporters. (This aid is irrelevent imo, as soccer can apply for the same aid too if they want ot build such facilities)

So like it or not GAA clubs have better facilities that they can use to attract and keep members. So if they were to share such facilities with soccer clubs they will lose this advantage in attracting layers/members and that will weaken GAA on the whole due to them have a smaller base of members and/or players.

That is not to say this is the case in all instances. There may be cases where both clubs could easily coexist while sharing facilities but it would be very naive to assume this could happen in all instances.

That is why abolishing Rule 42 and not implementing the proper provisions for dealing with this is a big problem.

Surely if the kids want to play soccer, then they should be able to, no?
I just don't believe that one sport will take that many players from another one simply because its facilities are equal.
Irish kids do bugger-all in the way of sports, it's all Playstaion this and X-box that. If they were actuall encouraged to do sport, any sport it would be a major improvement.
If there were decent facilities for soccer, you just might get more kids putting down the joypad and strapping on shinpads. When they don't make the grade for the soccer team, do you not think they might have a go for the hurling or football teams?
Look at Australia - there are all manner of sports available for the kids to play, and they manage to produce world class cricket, rugby union and rugby league teams (not to mention swimming, cycling etc.) and Aussie football doesn't seem to suffer any as a result.

cournioni · 17-02-2005 12:37pm

irish1 wrote:

I think the FAI should begin negotiations with Celtic, because I'm not confident that any of the motions will pass. It will be a very sad affair if we have to go to Scotland to play our "HOME" games, but i think the FAI should be prepared for the worst. IMO Celtic park would be the best alternative.

Ireland don't HAVE to go, they could always use Tolka...

cournioni · 17-02-2005 12:39pm

pickarooney wrote:

Look at Australia - there are all manner of sports available for the kids to play, and they manage to produce world class cricket, rugby union and rugby league teams (not to mention swimming, cycling etc.) and Aussie football doesn't seem to suffer any as a result.

They have the population to cope with that though. We don't.

smemon · 17-02-2005 12:40pm

irish1 wrote:

I think the FAI should begin negotiations with Celtic, because I'm not confident that any of the motions will pass. It will be a very sad affair if we have to go to Scotland to play our "HOME" games, but i think the FAI should be prepared for the worst. IMO Celtic park would be the best alternative.

yes, celtic is like a 2nd home anyway. you'd get the celtic scots at it mixed with the irish and we'd probably see the best atmosphere ireland has ever experienced. it would upset rangers and all the anti-celtic irish people here but if the gaa doesnt help, we've no choice.

OT is another alternative but risky with the 60/70,000 irish going over to england's 2nd home. plus i dont think youd get as good an atmosphere. anyhows celtic have already stated theyd welcome ireland to come to celtic park.

Villain · 17-02-2005 12:47pm

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Ireland don't HAVE to go, they could always use Tolka...

Yea right!

I'm just saying we shouldn't keep all our eggs in the one basket, remember a motion needs 66% support before it is passed. Remember presumption is the mother of all f**k ups.

I hope the government comes out and supports the opening up, stating the potential financial losses to the state if the games are played in scotland or england.

The Muppet · 17-02-2005 12:51pm

irish1 wrote:

Yea right!

I hope the government comes out and supports the opening up, stating the potential financial losses to the state if the games are played in scotland or england.

I heard the Minister for sport say on radio yester day that while he would love to see Croker open to all sports the decision was the GAA's. Looks like the Government have leared their lesson from trying to brow beat the GAA the last time.

Imposter · 17-02-2005 1:07pm

pickarooney wrote:

Surely if the kids want to play soccer, then they should be able to, no?

Of course they should. But the GAA shouldn't have to provide the facilities if they don't want to.

I just don't believe that one sport will take that many players from another one simply because its facilities are equal.

Soccer has it's advantages over GAA too. All i'm saying is that each group should leverage their own strengths and do what is best for them.

If there were decent facilities for soccer, you just might get more kids putting down the joypad and strapping on shinpads. When they don't make the grade for the soccer team, do you not think they might have a go for the hurling or football teams?

That's a great argument why the GAA should give soccer their facilities :rolleyes:

Hairy Homer · 17-02-2005 1:11pm

PORNAPSTER wrote:

Where exactly did you get this idea of the GAA refusing Soccer and Rugby simply because of British origin?

Pornapster, either you are completely ignorant of the history of the GAA and this rule, or you are an utter hypocrite.

Did you see the fact that Linfield, yes Linfield the Rangers of Belfast, gave the use of their floodlit training pitch to a kids' camogie team in Belfast? If the roles were reversed, the camogie team would be unable to return the compliment.

When a crowd with the history of Linfield can put you to shame, you know the attitude that underpins your lawbook is indefensible.

So what if we have to go to Glasgow or Cardiff for a couple of years for our home matches? At least we'll be made welcome there.

Jivin Turkey · 17-02-2005 7:49pm

Imposter wrote:

KdjaC, Go have a read of post 36 for some figures reagarding the governemtns contribution.

Ah yes post 36, the one where The Rooster plucked some figures out of thin air.

How about looking at post 38 where JTG linked his sources to the Department of Art, Sport, and Tourism? They are very different. Which The Rooster also managed to ignore in a subsequent post.

And how about having a read of your ridiculous post on that Croker paid for itself through VAT? Which you have also managed to ignore.

I dont understand why some of the anti-open up brigade make stuff up to prove their points.

A very good point was also made about why not just open Croker? Why dont they just change one of the "objectives and aims" of the GAA to be to promote Croke Park (the national icon of GAA) worldwide. Problem solved RE local/provincial pitches being used.

I dont understand that argument anyway, if the rule is changed to facilitate soccer and rugby on GAA pitches that is all that will happen, they will be facilitated. They wont have first digs on getting to use the pitch, they will use it whenever it suits the current owners of the pitch. So I cant see how this will harm clubs at a provincial/local level seeing as facilities are pretty much used every day of the week, every week of the year.

KdjaCL · 17-02-2005 8:34pm

The Rooster wrote:
Just to once and for all quosh the taxpayers money argument (are you listening jesus_that_gre??? )

First we need to acnkowlege that there is a big difference between taxpayers moeny and lotto funds. The Lotto is purely optional, and everyone who plays it knows (or should know) that one of its primary beneficiaries is sport - and rightly so.
Cost of Croke Park &#8364;250m
Taxpayers money &#8364;19m = 8%
Lotto money &#8364;91m = 36%
GAA money &#8364;140m = 56%

Est cost of Lansdowne &#8364;300m
Taxpayers money &#8364;127m = 42%
Lotto money &#8364;64m = 21%
IRFU money &#8364;54.5m = 18%
FAI money &#8364;54.5m = 18%
So, in addition to my previous post, I hope this proves to soccer supporters not to use taxpayers money as an argument for opening up Croke Park. There are good arguments to open it up, stick to those please, not to irrelevant ones.

Cough http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/northern_ireland/1270073.stm cough

Nice numbers tho, regardless of who paidf for it, majority of people want it opened up , i feel as we paid for it it should be, and as i said before it matters nowt what anyone here thinks.

We all have opinions some based on fiction others on fact but bottom line is GAA own it , the goverment paid for it.

kdjac

Imposter · 17-02-2005 10:57pm

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Ah yes post 36, the one where The Rooster plucked some figures out of thin air.

How about looking at post 38 where JTG linked his sources to the Department of Art, Sport, and Tourism? They are very different. Which The Rooster also managed to ignore in a subsequent post.

Ok then I had a look at the following links (posted by the soccer fans):
link 1
link 2
Now, the first states that the government is granting 130m while the second states the exchequer is contributing 110m. Now of that 130m, 70m is coming from lottory funds so is not taken out of anyones PAYE taxes. The second article says that the 110 is given out of the total of 265 for the redevelopment. So anyone saying that the government is paying most of it is just wrong. That figure doesn't mention lottery funds at all. Yes it is a significant amount but it is less than half. Which of the figures is correct?

And how about having a read of your ridiculous post on that Croker paid for itself through VAT? Which you have also managed to ignore.

What have I ignored? How much VAT and other taxes would have been paid out of that 265m (assuming that is the correct figure)?

A very good point was also made about why not just open Croker? Why dont they just change one of the "objectives and aims" of the GAA to be to promote Croke Park (the national icon of GAA) worldwide. Problem solved RE local/provincial pitches being used.

No it's not. There has been talk about Munster Rugby using a GAA ground and seeing as all GAA grounds are covered by rule 42 it would be irresponsible not to consider them.
Secondly having the promotion of Croker as an aim of the GAA is ridiculous in the extreme. Do you have a clue about what the aims of the association are at present? If you did you would realise how idiotic that comment was.

I dont understand that argument anyway, if the rule is changed to facilitate soccer and rugby on GAA pitches that is all that will happen, they will be facilitated. They wont have first digs on getting to use the pitch, they will use it whenever it suits the current owners of the pitch. So I cant see how this will harm clubs at a provincial/local level seeing as facilities are pretty much used every day of the week, every week of the year.

Read the argument again. It's not hard to understand if you want to understand it.

Jivin Turkey · 18-02-2005 2:49am

Imposter, I see you are one of these people that answers questions with questions of your own, so Im going to take everything you say with a pinch of salt.

Imposter wrote:

Ok then I had a look at the following links (posted by the soccer fans):
link 1
link 2
Now, the first states that the government is granting 130m while the second states the exchequer is contributing 110m. Now of that 130m, 70m is coming from lottory funds so is not taken out of anyones PAYE taxes. The second article says that the 110 is given out of the total of 265 for the redevelopment.

Ok 2 links were posted, one of them only a matter of hours ago so it has no bearing on previous posts. My point to you was that you directed Kdjac to "post 36" for some information. All that was there was an unlinked source from the Rooster. Why should any of us believe that? Particularly after JTG posted a link to the department of arts, sport and tourism to suggest otherwise. There may be inconsistencies between subsequent accounts, one said 110, the other 130, either way Im not going to believe something that The Rooster put in a quote, over linked souces from government websites.

Imposter wrote:

So anyone saying that the government is paying most of it is just wrong. That figure doesn't mention lottery funds at all. Yes it is a significant amount but it is less than half. Which of the figures is correct?

I (nor anyone here) is saying the government paid for most of it. But they did pay for a considerable amount of it, which is a fact. You can try and dodge that all you want, but we both know thats the case.

Imposter wrote:

What have I ignored? How much VAT and other taxes would have been paid out of that 265m (assuming that is the correct figure)?

You (conveniently) ignored my post on your claim that Croker paid for itself through VAT taxes. It didnt. The government provided (roughly) 40% of the finance for Croker, standard VAT is 21%, VAT on construction is 10%. How exactly did the project pay for itself through VAT? This is one I really want you to answer and not dodge with another question.

Besides, John Paul construction (who I think were the contractors), had they not have been building Croke Park, would have been doing another contract seeing as they wouldnt have had there resources tied up. So the VAT paid on Croker would have been forthcoming either way.

Imposter wrote:

No it's not. There has been talk about Munster Rugby using a GAA ground and seeing as all GAA grounds are covered by rule 42 it would be irresponsible not to consider them.

I dont think you even read what I said. The change would result in GAA clubs facilitating other sports. If the pitch isnt available, for whatever reason, tough for the "other" sports. I dont know any GAA teams that dont maximise their facilities to the full. Only tonight I finished my soccer training at 9 to see the GAA lads going up to training on their pitches (until 11). Hence if there isnt availability on the pitches/facilities, no one but the GAA club will get a look at it.

In actual fact reading what you said again, its totally ridiculous. "There has been talk", in otherwords total speculation, "it would be irresponsible not to consider them", yes it would, but if it interfered in anyway with the GAA team all you have to do is, consider, and then reject. What an awful lot of trouble!

Imposter wrote:

Secondly having the promotion of Croker as an aim of the GAA is ridiculous in the extreme. Do you have a clue about what the aims of the association are at present? If you did you would realise how idiotic that comment was.

No I dont know off hand the "aims and objectives" of the association. So I will ask (the second time someone has on this thread) for you to post them so we can all see. I want to see how "idiotic" this makes me look.

If showing the world, the icon of GAA and what every single player strives to achieve, isnt part of the "aims" of the association, its an even more closed shop for cliques and families than I thought.

Again, please dont dodge this one with a question, I really want to know what the aims of the association are. Maybe it will educate me and I will change my views.

Imposter wrote:

Read the argument again. It's not hard to understand if you want to understand it.

Again, answering with a question. Im actually going to counter this with one of my own. Why wouldnt the solution that I posted work? If rule 42 was blanketed across all pitches, "other sports" would be facilitated. They wouldnt be able to kick GAA off those pitches. They could play if the GAA didnt need them. It seems pretty simple to me.

Imposter · 18-02-2005 10:37am

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Imposter, I see you are one of these people that answers questions with questions of your own, so Im going to take everything you say with a pinch of salt.

Well imo I ask questions of you after I have explained my thinking on a point or when you yourself have conviently ignored something.

Ok 2 links were posted, one of them only a matter of hours ago so it has no bearing on previous posts. My point to you was that you directed Kdjac to "post 36" for some information. All that was there was an unlinked source from the Rooster. Why should any of us believe that? Particularly after JTG posted a link to the department of arts, sport and tourism to suggest otherwise. There may be inconsistencies between subsequent accounts, one said 110, the other 130, either way Im not going to believe something that The Rooster put in a quote, over linked souces from government websites.

Fair enough, lets ignore Rooster's figures unless he can show us a link. Surely the BBC article is relevant? (Yes I know it's a question but I feel it's neccessary) If the BBC article is accurate then 20% of 265 isn't far off the 60m that the government contributed (excluding the lottery funds). Or are you saying that this article is inaccurate and if so can you give me accurate figures? (There I go again another question)

I (nor anyone here) is saying the government paid for most of it. But they did pay for a considerable amount of it, which is a fact. You can try and dodge that all you want, but we both know thats the case.

I'll now refer you to post 18 on this thread along with the point made by Gandalf on post 20 about taxpayers money (and that's just from the forst 40 posts here, there's probably more). All large projects get financial assistance. Croker did, Lansdowne will. If the government doesn't impose conditions on that money the the GAA is not the problem.

You (conveniently) ignored my post on your claim that Croker paid for itself through VAT taxes. It didnt. The government provided (roughly) 40% of the finance for Croker, standard VAT is 21%, VAT on construction is 10%. How exactly did the project pay for itself through VAT? This is one I really want you to answer and not dodge with another question.

Part of this is dealt with above. Is the lotto money really a governemnt contribution? If so then surely all monies given to all sports should be under the spotlight here. Lotto money is given to such preojects. If you don't like how it's spent, don't do the lotto.

Besides, John Paul construction (who I think were the contractors), had they not have been building Croke Park, would have been doing another contract seeing as they wouldnt have had there resources tied up. So the VAT paid on Croker would have been forthcoming either way.

That's not neccessarily true, especially for a project on this scale.

I dont think you even read what I said. The change would result in GAA clubs facilitating other sports. If the pitch isnt available, for whatever reason, tough for the "other" sports. I dont know any GAA teams that dont maximise their facilities to the full. Only tonight I finished my soccer training at 9 to see the GAA lads going up to training on their pitches (until 11). Hence if there isnt availability on the pitches/facilities, no one but the GAA club will get a look at it.

I think you'll find I did read your post. Smaller, rural GAA grounds would definitely not have their facilities maximised to the full. I'm going to be very bold here and ask a few more questions! Why is Croker under the spotlight so much now while it never was before it was redeveloped? Can you see a case where a similar situation could arise with regard to provincial venues? or club pitches? Assuming either of your answers to the last two questions is yes then it is an issue.

In actual fact reading what you said again, its totally ridiculous. "There has been talk", in otherwords total speculation, "it would be irresponsible not to consider them", yes it would, but if it interfered in anyway with the GAA team all you have to do is, consider, and then reject. What an awful lot of trouble!

Well if that's the line you want to take there#s been talk about soccer and rugby playing in Croker but seeing as neither of them have ever bothered to ask to play there then this is all total speculation! Or am I missing something? (Oops, another question)

No I dont know off hand the "aims and objectives" of the association. So I will ask (the second time someone has on this thread) for you to post them so we can all see. I want to see how "idiotic" this makes me look.

Use google, perhaps try the GAA website. In a nutshell the aims of the association are to preserve irish culture and heritage, including but not limited to sport and language. Now, how a brand spanking new modern stadium can be classed as culture or heritage, i'd love to know!

If showing the world, the icon of GAA and what every single player strives to achieve, isnt part of the "aims" of the association, its an even more closed shop for cliques and families than I thought.

Again this just shows your lack of knowledge about what you are discussing.

Again, answering with a question. Im actually going to counter this with one of my own. Why wouldnt the solution that I posted work? If rule 42 was blanketed across all pitches, "other sports" would be facilitated. They wouldnt be able to kick GAA off those pitches. They could play if the GAA didnt need them. It seems pretty simple to me.

You are assuming that if a pitch is not used that anyone will be able to use it. That's not going to be what will happen. I've already posted how it could harm clubs to allow other sports use their facilities, should they have the capacity to do so, so i'm not going to do it again.

The Rooster · 18-02-2005 11:23am

*sigh* - lads, did the first link not back up exactly what I said regarding the figures? I thought they did, thus there was no need to further back them up. I said €110m, the Dept website said €110m. (The BBC link is from 2001, was obviously guesswork, and thus is not relevant).

Here's another one from rte in Sep 2004 confirming the €110m http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0930/gaa

I think we can take that as fact - 110 out of 250.

By the way VAT on construction is mainly 13.5%, not 10%. Some elements will be 21%. Payroll taxes would at least equal that taken in VAT. I'd estimate in the region of €70m additional taxes were generated as a result of Croke Park. To say the exchequer receipts would have been the same had Croker not been rebuilt is just disingenious. (This will also be a good argument in backing up the govt funds that will be given to rebuild Lansdowne when people start ringing up Joe and Marian giving out about it)

The links dont differentiate between lotto funding and exchequer funding. I thought it was common knowledge that the only exchequer funding Croke Park got was the €19m needed to accelerate the rebuilding of the Hogan Stand so that it would be ready for the Special Olympics.

The point of the matter is, which Jivin and others seem to be missing, is that GAA is not treated specially. It undertook a massive capital program and got assistance. When the FAI and IRFU undertake a similar program, they will get at least the equivalent, if not more assistance.

And most importantly, just because you get government assistance to build something doesnt mean you're obliged to open it to everyone.
Intel don't open their factory to let other businesses in.
I don't open my house to let other people in.

Thus taxpayer funding is irrelevant to this debate. QED

Hairy Homer · 18-02-2005 11:53am

Any truth in the rumour that [CRAP]

They might need all that soccer and rugby rental money now.

gandalf · 18-02-2005 2:12pm

Hairy Homer wrote:

Any truth in the rumour that [CRAP]

They might need all that soccer and rugby rental money now.

How about the rumour next time you want to post a troll like post you get your ass banned from soccer - Gandalf.

PHB · 18-02-2005 5:53pm

If I was in government I'd tell teh GAA that if they don't open it up to other sports, I'd put out a coimpulsary purchase order for the stadium at below market price, then see how happy they are.
GAA own it, however its in Ireland, and the state has supremacy. If they dont accept it, and it has a severe detriment to the nation, which it does, than the state can and I feel eventually will, override the preogitive of the GAA

BaZmO* · 18-02-2005 6:05pm

PHB wrote:

...and it has a severe detriment to the nation...

Does it really?

B.

The Muppet · 18-02-2005 6:17pm

PHB wrote:

GAA own it, however its in Ireland, and the state has supremacy. If they dont accept it, and it has a severe detriment to the nation, which it does, than the state can and I feel eventually will, override the preogitive of the GAA

The People have ultimate supremacy. Just who do you think The GAA are? Such a move would be Illegal and political suicide. Keep it real.

PHB · 18-02-2005 6:18pm

Yes it does.
When Rugby and Soccer can't be watched by 80k people for no good reason, it has a severe detriment to the nation.

I dont care about eh GAA, I think the sport is nice and all, but I'd rather see them all play soccer or even rugby.
Why?
Because the benefits of being a good soccer nation or rugby nation are absolutely huge. The more kids can see it, the more people who will take it up.

Firstly there is the benefit of a decent Eircom League. If it slowly but surely became a high quality league, along the likes of the premieship, it woul dhave a huge postive affect on the country.

Secondly, in terms of the national level, not only would it increase knowledge of ireland, and hence tourism and product recognition, it would increase the chances of us holding a world cup or a euro cup, which would have a massive economic boost to Ireland.

GAA has none of this.

----

p.s.

People -> Parl -> State

Some People -> GAA

Which wins?

Jivin Turkey · 18-02-2005 7:28pm

Imposter wrote:

Fair enough, lets ignore Rooster's figures unless he can show us a link. Surely the BBC article is relevant? (Yes I know it's a question but I feel it's neccessary) If the BBC article is accurate then 20% of 265 isn't far off the 60m that the government contributed (excluding the lottery funds). Or are you saying that this article is inaccurate and if so can you give me accurate figures? (There I go again another question)

The accurate figures are the ones given by the department of a/s/t. Unfortunately the link given by JTG which cited a different split between the lotto funds and tax funds is now broken, so I cant cite it, but Im quite certain the split was not 19/91, but closer to lines of 60/50.

Imposter wrote:

I'll now refer you to post 18 on this thread along with the point made by Gandalf on post 20 about taxpayers money (and that's just from the forst 40 posts here, there's probably more). All large projects get financial assistance. Croker did, Lansdowne will. If the government doesn't impose conditions on that money the the GAA is not the problem.

Look, Ive nothing against the GAA here. They did what you would expect them to do. But the government shouldnt have given them the money if they were not going to open up Croke Park. This includes the lotto money. Its purely the governments fault, but I think the GAA should accept that the stadium would not have been built if they werent showered in cash (by our overzealous politicians who were just eager to secure votes for the next election), and "pay it back" to the government by opening it up.

Imposter wrote:

Part of this is dealt with above. Is the lotto money really a governemnt contribution? If so then surely all monies given to all sports should be under the spotlight here. Lotto money is given to such preojects. If you don't like how it's spent, don't do the lotto.

All monies given to sports who then go on to use it unequitably should be. I whole heartedly agree with you.

Another example of the unequitable use of funds is if the government were to give the city council some lotto money to build a bridge over the Liffey. The city council then go out and give every resident of the city centre a bridge pass. Only those with bridge passes can cross the bridge. Do you think this is ok? Seeing as its the councils money and they can do what they like with it?

Imposter wrote:

That's not neccessarily true, especially for a project on this scale.

Im afraid it is. Paul construction are in the top 5 building contractors in Ireland. They didnt even tender for contracts that were as lucrative because they were tied up in Croke Park.

Imposter wrote:

I think you'll find I did read your post. Smaller, rural GAA grounds would definitely not have their facilities maximised to the full.

If you read it please respond to what I said. "The change would result in GAA clubs facilitating other sports. If the pitch isnt available, for whatever reason, tough for the "other" sports." Where is the problem for GAA clubs if this was the policy that was adopted. There is no problem. They only have to let other clubs use their facilities IF THEY WANT, AND IF IT SUITS THEM.

Imposter wrote:

I'm going to be very bold here and ask a few more questions! Why is Croker under the spotlight so much now while it never was before it was redeveloped?

Because it is the only other stadium in Ireland up to the UEFA standard (and our capacity needs) to hold international soccer matches. As regards Rugby, Im sure if the IRFU had to be relocated they would head to Thomond Park. Possibly even do it up a bit.

Imposter wrote:

Can you see a case where a similar situation could arise with regard to provincial venues? or club pitches? Assuming either of your answers to the last two questions is yes then it is an issue.

No, they are not of the appropriate standard.

No issue.

Imposter wrote:

Well if that's the line you want to take there#s been talk about soccer and rugby playing in Croker but seeing as neither of them have ever bothered to ask to play there then this is all total speculation! Or am I missing something? (Oops, another question)

They havnt had to ask yet, because Landsdowne is yet to go under the knife. There is also no point in asking until they rule is changed.

Imposter wrote:

Use google, perhaps try the GAA website. In a nutshell the aims of the association are to preserve irish culture and heritage, including but not limited to sport and language. Now, how a brand spanking new modern stadium can be classed as culture or heritage, i'd love to know!

What are you saying? The brand spanking new modern stadium was against the "aims" of the GAA? Why did they build it so?

The stadium is an icon of GAA. Ask the players and coaches what it means to them. It promotes it, and the Irish heritage. If soccer and rugby were to be played their, in every foreign commentry there would be reference to the whole issue of "its actually the GAA stadium", next question, "What is GAA?", answer "the national game of Ireland", hence promoting the game to people who probably wouldnt have a clue about it.

Imposter wrote:

Again this just shows your lack of knowledge about what you are discussing.

I dont claim to be a master of the aims of the GAA. But if promoting themselves isnt one of their aims, Im surprised they have been around as long as they have. As I said in the post you quoted, maybe they dont want to promote it as it will erode the clique mentality there.

Imposter wrote:

You are assuming that if a pitch is not used that anyone will be able to use it. That's not going to be what will happen. I've already posted how it could harm clubs to allow other sports use their facilities, should they have the capacity to do so, so i'm not going to do it again.

Again read what I said. Just because they have the capacity to do so, does not mean they have to. They will do so if they want to, and if it suits them.

To summarise, I think the government made a balls of handing out the cash no strings attached. The rule (as it currently stands) in place is prehistoric and is of no benefit to the GAA. It should be amended to consider each case on a case by case basis. The GAA have all the say. Soccer and rugby is played there during Landsdownes redevelopment, and then probably 1 or 2 games in total a year after that.

Jivin Turkey · 18-02-2005 7:40pm

The Rooster wrote:

By the way VAT on construction is mainly 13.5%, not 10%. Some elements will be 21%.

I only found out the exact rate today. I knew the overall rate was lower than the standard band of 21%.

The Rooster wrote:

Payroll taxes would at least equal that taken in VAT. I'd estimate in the region of €70m additional taxes were generated as a result of Croke Park. To say the exchequer receipts would have been the same had Croker not been rebuilt is just disingenious. (This will also be a good argument in backing up the govt funds that will be given to rebuild Lansdowne when people start ringing up Joe and Marian giving out about it)

The exchequer receipts would not be identical, but you are kidding yourself if you think that the resources that went into Croker would have been standing idle for those 3/4/5(?) years while it was built.

The big difference between the funding given to any Landsdowne redevelopment will be that it wont be solely for the benefit of the IRFU and the FAI. Landsdowne is not a closed shop.

The Rooster wrote:

The point of the matter is, which Jivin and others seem to be missing, is that GAA is not treated specially. It undertook a massive capital program and got assistance. When the FAI and IRFU undertake a similar program, they will get at least the equivalent, if not more assistance.

Im not missing the point, the GAA hasnt been treated specially. Its treats others unequitably.

The Rooster wrote:

And most importantly, just because you get government assistance to build something doesnt mean you're obliged to open it to everyone.
Intel don't open their factory to let other businesses in.
I don't open my house to let other people in.

Your not obliged. Nobody is saying you are. I dont see Croke Park being obliged. Pressure yes, but no obligation.

And to compare it with Intel is ridiculous. Intel werent given money no strings attached. They were given money under a number of conditions regarding levels of employment and a minimum stay period. If the didnt fulfill the requirements the grant was repayable.

The Rooster wrote:

Thus taxpayer funding is irrelevant to this debate. QED

Its not. QED

The Muppet · 18-02-2005 7:56pm

Jivin Turkey wrote:

There is no problem. They only have to let other clubs use their facilities IF THEY WANT, AND IF IT SUITS THEM.
.

Why are you arguing for them to open it if you say "they only have to let clubs use it IF THEY WANT, AND IF IT SUITS THEM." [they being the GAA]? Currently they don't want to and open probably because it doesn't suit them and you're not prepared to accept that situation.

Croke Park and Rule 42

Comments