Croke Park and Rule 42

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

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.

I will wait until the motion has been passed or defeated before I make my decision on whether they want to or not. But whatever way it goes I am prepared to accept it. And I wont mention it, until the issue arises again.

What Im arguing is that one of the reasons claimed as to why they shouldnt amend the rule (other sports taking over their facilities), will be irrelevant if the ruling is amended correctly.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

I will wait until the motion has been passed or defeated before I make my decision on whether they want to or not. But whatever way it goes I am prepared to accept it. And I wont mention it, until the issue arises again.


What Im arguing is that one of the reasons claimed as to why they shouldnt amend the rule (other sports taking over their facilities), will be irrelevant if the ruling is amended correctly.

I just don't understand what your argument is. You said in a previous post the GAA should only have to make their facilities available if it suits them and if they want to . Well that was certainly my position on page one of this thread and Roosters and Imposters and others too if my memory serves me right.

Imposter

First of all lmfao @ PHB. I wish I could say that his opinion is unique on this issue but unfortunately there are other soccer supporters who hold just as much contempt for the GAA. They'll hardly be helping soccer's case imo. I'm sure he wouldn't mind a CPO on his house (if he has one) either.

Jivin Turkey wrote:

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.

I'd be pretty sure that whoever would be running Lansdowne would have a huge say in how it is used and could veto certain events if they wished. Pretty much like the GAA should be allowed to do in Croker.

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

It is treating others the way it's rules state it should treat others. You might not agree with it but if you're not a member then you have no say in their rules. If this comes down to government money moan about the government not the GAA.

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.

The redevelopment of Lansdowne wasn't on the agenda when the GAA were starting Croker. This wasn't an issue. The only people I heard that had problems with the initial grant were people who were totally anti-sport. They were using the "my tax shouldn't be paying for this" argument. Never once was playing soccer there mentioned. Then the GAA finish the project and what do you know, suddenly people see the marvellous job they've done and the ****ty state of Lansdowne (in comparision) and they think that everyone should use it. So why was nobody complaining about this when the project was started?

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.

Or if the media whinge loud enough that they are being "unequitable" as they've done with Croker. Have a look at this (careful though it's in the GAA forum!) where I think i've sort of answered what you're asking.

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.
No, they are not of the appropriate standard.
No issue.

More or less the first answer I expected. So for the other questions there you are saying that you cannot see any time or reason why either soccer or rugby clubs or provinces might see the need to share a ground with the GAA. Is this what you are saying?

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.

/ cough.
Euro 2008
/ cough - I know I should see a doctor about that cough

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

It facilitates the aims of the GAA but it in itself is not an aim of the GAA.

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.

Sure the want to promote themselves. They also want to protect themselves from any perceived threats they might face. This is why we're having this conversation remember! Can you explain this clique mentality? How does it differ from soccer and rugby?

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.

Shock horror but i'm agreeing with you so far.
[/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE]Wrong!! It should be amended as and how the majority of GAA members see fit.
What 1 or 2 games a year might you be talking about (assuming lansdowne is reopened)?

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

I just don't understand what your argument is. You said in a previous post the GAA should only have to make their facilities available if it suits them and if they want to . Well that was certainly my position on page one of this thread and Roosters and Imposters and others too if my memory serves me right.

And well done.

Ive stated my arguement two post previously. But Im also picking at others opinions as people are at mine, to try and learn and understand where they are coming from and also in hope that they understand where I am coming from. Its what the board is for, and if we all just stated opinions without further scrutiny to them and others it would be a very boring place.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

And well done.

Ive stated my arguement two post previously. But Im also picking at others opinions as people are at mine, to try and learn and understand where they are coming from and also in hope that they understand where I am coming from. Its what the board is for, and if we all just stated opinions without further scrutiny to them and others it would be a very boring place.

I,m genuinely confused now. So you are arguing for no reason as you already share the same opinion as those you are arguing against. IE It's up to the GAA to decide if and when other sporting organisations can use their facilities.

Jivin Turkey

Imposter wrote:

I'd be pretty sure that whoever would be running Lansdowne would have a huge say in how it is used and could veto certain events if they wished. Pretty much like the GAA should be allowed to do in Croker.

Im sure they do. But Ive yet to hear of them veto anything. To my knowledge they have never been unequitable such as veto one sport but not another.

Imposter wrote:

It is treating others the way it's rules state it should treat others. You might not agree with it but if you're not a member then you have no say in their rules. If this comes down to government money moan about the government not the GAA.

I do moan about the government. Having said that the power is out of their hands now. So Ill do a little bit about the GAA in the hope that they open the doors. If I (or anyone else) dont I cant really see much change. If they dont, another solution will have to be found.

Imposter wrote:

The redevelopment of Lansdowne wasn't on the agenda when the GAA were starting Croker. This wasn't an issue. The only people I heard that had problems with the initial grant were people who were totally anti-sport. They were using the "my tax shouldn't be paying for this" argument. Never once was playing soccer there mentioned. Then the GAA finish the project and what do you know, suddenly people see the marvellous job they've done and the ****ty state of Lansdowne (in comparision) and they think that everyone should use it. So why was nobody complaining about this when the project was started?

The FAI are relatively happy in Landsdowne, they would love to use Croker for the good of the team. After rental payments and overheads they would not make any money out of it. They are only compaigning for its use now as its useful for the team now. It wasnt previously.

Imposter wrote:

Or if the media whinge loud enough that they are being "unequitable" as they've done with Croker. Have a look at this (careful though it's in the GAA forum!) where I think i've sort of answered what you're asking.

But it wouldnt nearly have the same effect on lower clubs. I understand what you are saying about once you let Croker go that there could be a knockon effect for other clubs, BUT, this Croker thing has been going on for years, and it still hasnt budged.

A sob story (in a tabloid no doubt) about a soccer team in Ballygobackwards will not get a microscopic dot of the backing that this issue will.

More or less the first answer I expected. So for the other questions there you are saying that you cannot see any time or reason why either soccer or rugby clubs or provinces might see the need to share a ground with the GAA. Is this what you are saying?

Imposter wrote:

/ cough.
Euro 2008
/ cough - I know I should see a doctor about that cough

True, but you have to admit, the hosting of an international soccer tournament at the venue, and playing a once of qualifier against France at it, is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Imposter wrote:

It facilitates the aims of the GAA but it in itself is not an aim of the GAA.

It facilitates the aim but is yet not an aim itself. We are getting awful technical arent we?

Imposter wrote:

Sure the want to promote themselves. They also want to protect themselves from any perceived threats they might face.

The soccer/rugby games will be played anyway. And will be televised anyway.

American football on the other hand might not be. Facilitating a game is giving exposure to a prespective new entrant to the market.

Soccer and rugby are both established players in that market. Whether the games take place in Croker or Timbucktoo make no odds on the competition.

Imposter wrote:

What 1 or 2 games a year might you be talking about (assuming lansdowne is reopened)?

Who knows, but the only games I could see the extra capacity being required would be a crunch qualifying game against a top seed in soccer or an Ireland England rugby match that only comes around every two years.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

I,m genuinely confused now. So you are arguing for no reason as you already share the same opinion as those you are arguing against. IE It's up to the GAA to decide if and when other sporting organisations can use their facilities.

Well Ill try to unconfuse you.

Anyone who argues thats its up to anyone but the GAA to decide is wrong. I acknowledge thats how it stands. Im arguing over the reason as to why and why not they should.

d22ontour

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Well Ill try to unconfuse you.

Anyone who argues thats its up to anyone but the GAA to decide. I acknowledge thats how it stands. Im arguing over the reason as to why and why not they should.

The Muppet

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Well Ill try to unconfuse you.

Anyone who argues thats its up to anyone but the GAA to decide. I acknowledge thats how it stands. Im arguing over the reason as to why and why not they should.

Who in this thread is arguing the point that the GAA should not share their facilities?

d22ontour

I wouldn't say "they should not share their facilities" but i have no problem with them not allowing other sports in or having rule 42.Its their organisation and why can't they run it as they see fit.People on this thread should be more concerned about how the fai is willing to pay its top executives over €200,000 p.a and what they are doing about getting their own stadium.Its 2005 and Ireland are hovering about the top 10 teams in the world,but yet poorer countries in lower positions in younger associations have their own stadiums

Villain

U2 are great sport aren't they :eek: :rolleyes:

d22ontour

irish1 wrote:

U2 are great sport aren't they :eek: :rolleyes:

Nope i don't like their style of play

Imposter

Jivin Turkey wrote:

The FAI are relatively happy in Landsdowne, they would love to use Croker for the good of the team.

Have they told you this privately or where did you get this info? They've yet to ask for Croker yet you know they want it "for the good of the team". :rolleyes:

But it wouldnt nearly have the same effect on lower clubs. I understand what you are saying about once you let Croker go that there could be a knockon effect for other clubs, BUT, this Croker thing has been going on for years, and it still hasnt budged.

Rule 42 is the issue. As it stands at the moment that affects all GAA facilities.

More or less the first answer I expected. So for the other questions there you are saying that you cannot see any time or reason why either soccer or rugby clubs or provinces might see the need to share a ground with the GAA. Is this what you are saying?

Can you answer this question about answers you gave earlier, please?

True, but you have to admit, the hosting of an international soccer tournament at the venue, and playing a once of qualifier against France at it, is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Neither of them are a kettle of fish and the point was made in response to your thinking that the FAI haven't had to ask for Croker because Landsdowne is still in operation. So they haven't had to ask (or as i'd phrase it "haven't had the manners to ask") for Croker even though it was used as part of a submission to host an international event!

It facilitates the aim but is yet not an aim itself. We are getting awful technical arent we?

I don't think it's on the same level as rocket science.

Who knows, but the only games I could see the extra capacity being required would be a crunch qualifying game against a top seed in soccer or an Ireland England rugby match that only comes around every two years.

So now you think that the FAI and the IRFU will spend a large amount of money rebuilding Lansdowne yet (in the FAI's case at least) when they are to play a match which can more than sell out that stadium they'll move the match to Croker! The mind boggles.

I'll not be replying to you again. You're only dragging me down to your level. Wouldn't want you to beat me with experience.

Hairy Homer

gandalf wrote:

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

Ah come on Gandalf.
Old joke.
And it was originally about Derry City putting in a bid for Ronaldo following a recent fund raiser in Belfast.......

Eek. Thin ice...crack....splash.....

rovingrover

It is the GAA's stadium and they can do what they wish. I would not agree with a CPO. They got their grants and good luck to them. the government should have put caveats in but they didn't. they learned their lesson too and the state will own a chunk of Lansdowne so ther eis a big difference between the money the gAA got and the money given to football and rugby.

Now I do have a problem with their reasons for not opening up Croke Park. This is bigotry pure and simple.

I also have a problem with the money lost to this country if we play home games in Britain.

And finally I would have a huge problem if the government ever gave another penny of public money to those bigots if they insist on keeping the stadium closed. The government are playing it softly in public but they should be playing hardball in private.

cournioni

rovingrover wrote:

Now I do have a problem with their reasons for not opening up Croke Park. This is bigotry pure and simple.

I also have a problem with the money lost to this country if we play home games in Britain.

And finally I would have a huge problem if the government ever gave another penny of public money to those bigots if they insist on keeping the stadium closed. The government are playing it softly in public but they should be playing hardball in private.

Where did you get this idea from?