The GAA’s Croke of Gold

A forum to air your views on Offaly GAA matters and beyond.
User avatar
The Biff
All Star
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:23 pm
Location: Kildare (ex Daingean)

Mise

Post by The Biff » Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:18 pm

Believe me Mise, I have no "vested outside interests" in either Rugby or Soccer. When I said I liked to watch them, I actually meant on the TV, and only if it's free and I'm not doing something else. I've only ever been to Landsdowne Road 3 times in my life; once for one of those American Football College games (similar to one that graced the Croke Park pitch on another occasion) and twice for Ireland Soccer friendlies, and those were only because I got free tickets through work. I do like most sports as a spectator, but Gaelic Games are the only ones that I frequent and have any real passion for.

Having cleared that up (I hope), I note your own admission, on the subject of floodlighting, that you are "a resident". I presume you mean that you live near Croke Park. Does this mean that you might come under the category of "vested outside interests" yourself?

Anyway, I reckon that Croke Park has been in situ since before you lived where you do. You've always known it is a prime Sporting venue, and thus is always likely to become more utilized over time. Many of us have "neighbours" we might prefer to not be so close to. But we've chosen to live there. And we choose to stay living there.

I have posted many other arguments in favour of changing Rule 42 over the past few years, admittedly on other GAA forums. I've been part of the GAAboard.com community (and it's previous incarnations) for about 8 or 9 years now. Apologies if I resist posting many of them again. Suffice to say that Lone Shark has covered all of what I would like to say.

One final point - Just because I would like to see Rule 42 changed does not mean that I expect it to be changed. I can understand the views of the "no change" side. I admit that it would almost stick in my throat to do anything that helps the likes of the FAI in particular, as they must be the most incompetent Irish sports administration body in living memory. But we don't need another "state-of-the-art" sports stadium, paid for mainly by the Govt. We need Hospitals, Schools, Infrastructure, etc.

The GAA has an asset that is not fully utilized. I am satisfied that there is room in our schedules to fit in outside fixtures without compromising our own games. We have other good stadia of our own that are also under-utilized. It would be no harm to move some of our own Croke Park fixtures (thinking mainly of Qualifier games here) back to rural venues.

We have little to fear by giving those codes a bigger stage. They will never be more popular than our own games, because our own games are just plain better sports.

Croke Park will stay as the GAA's stadium. "We" own it, decide who can use it, and for how much. That's the bottom line.

User avatar
turk
All Star
Posts: 715
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:50 am

Post by turk » Wed Dec 01, 2004 10:23 am

Great post there mise.

My stance on this rule lately has changed a little.

I used to be in favour of not changing rule 42.
Now I would be in favour of changing it. But after it's changed I wouldn't let any of them in. They wouldn't be able to use it as a stick to beat the gaa with then.

You made some excellent points there mise, people are just bandying cash figures about and pulling them out of a pot. I wouldn't even use the traditional arguments for this that you brought up at the end. Backwoodsman was the other term you were looking for.

Mise
Junior A
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:47 pm

Post by Mise » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:04 am

Dont have time to answer all your points now biff but just to point out about my being a resident - i only mentioned it to prove that i know the feelings against issues such as floodlighting in the area - im not a member of any resident association because like you say i knew exactly where i chose to live and i dont have any problem myself with floodlighting, sat games etc and in fact think that too many of the residents are whingers. having said that, my point is that "we can make the residents accept anything we want if we open up" is not an attitude i think the gaa would like to foster

User avatar
Bord na Mona man
All Star
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:34 am
Club: Clara

Post by Bord na Mona man » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:14 am

Mulcair destroyed everybody!

Article

User avatar
Lone Shark
All Star
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:21 pm
Club: Ferbane
Location: Back Home!
Contact:

RE:

Post by Lone Shark » Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:58 pm

Mise, I can't help but feeling you're arguing for or against giving Croke Park over for whatever rent is announced, as opposed to for or against rule 42.

"the most you can hope for is 500,000 3 to four times a year for the few years that landsdowne is being redeveloped"

If that's all they have to offer, then as I've said in other arguments, you can have Gracefield, or Mullingar. If our family agree to sell our house for €250,000, that doesn't mean that if the only bid is €100,000 we have to take it. I wouldn't dream of giving out Croke Park for that kind of money. I've gone into careful explanation in my above article as to why I think that kind of rent could be asked.

"3) Extra exposure for Croker as a grounds. Big deal, this extra exposure will be in the form of as a rugby/soccer grounds - not as the centre of gaelic games. We're not trying to make croke park into a tourism hotspot - we trying to make it a suitable venue for our great sportsmen to play our great national games."

Why not turn it into a tourism hotspot? Just because it's not a big factor doesn't mean it's not a factor. Think of all the Americans/Europeans who come here for Paddy's Day - if they've heard of Croke Park through whatever means, and look it up on google and find out there's a game there that day, they'll go. Equally summer tourists will try to fit it into their schedule somewhere. As I said, this isn't a big factor, but it's still a positive as far as I can see.

As for the floodlights, I hate that we have a conniving cheating political system as much as anyone. However the truth is that we do. Planning will be easier got if the will of all the people of the country plus the government is behind it as opposed to one organisation against the people of Drumcondra. It would be better for all of us if this were not the case, but it is the case, so we have to play the cards we're dealt. (If McDowell ends up having to knock his house in Roscommon I'll change my view on this - can't see it happening though)

As for losing the "Theoretical argument" for other grounds, I've gone into that in my original argument. I think it's adequately covered under the measures proposed.

"- Think of all the people you know who openly sneer at the gaa, look on it as backward, knock it when they get a chance - moslty those involved in rugby and soccer. admit it, theyd never do anything for us and once in they'd think they owned the place. "

Let them think what they want, as long as they pay us rent, and finance our games as such.

"soccer and rugby are our competition. simple fact. you wouldnt see coca cola helping out pepsi with the loan fo their premises for a while. the gaas job and sean kellys job is to look after gaelic games in ireland. dont get distracted from that. "

No. But you would see them selling a premises to each other for an economic price. For the last time, we're charging for this , remember....?!!

Mise
Junior A
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:47 pm

Post by Mise » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:26 pm

no LS, i would be against changing rule 42 no matter how much was offered, i'll make no bones about that. but you are the one who seems to be wavering on hte basis of how much we get. i havent seen u mention any other reason for changing it.- thats why im arguing the financial point, because i dont think you are being realistic. you keep talking about safeguards - when will you get it, rule 42 IS our safeguard.
you want change cos you think we'll make a killing out of it - im telling you fat bloody chance. all these figures are complete pie in the sky, if its changed, by the time it gets down to the nitty gritty of figures what safeguards do we have left?? sure look at the motion we have going to the convention - straight up hand responsibilty for it to central council,. not even asking for the slightest guarantee or safety net...today's budget is droppin our 40m grant from govt straight into gaa;s account (was supposed to be over no of years) to sean kelly's complete "surprise". yeah right, i dont trust him plain & simple, hes been harpin on about this since he got in and i am fearful of the kind of deals hes already made. change rule 42 in april and you'll quickly find your hands are washed of any more say in the matter

User avatar
Lone Shark
All Star
Posts: 5200
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 5:21 pm
Club: Ferbane
Location: Back Home!
Contact:

Rule 42

Post by Lone Shark » Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:35 pm

What it seems to be boiling down to is that I trust Central Council to act in the best interests of the Cumann - and you don't seem to. You are correct in saying that I waver based on how much we get. The money is a huge factor - if we gain substantially while the FAI and IRFU gain somewhat, I do see that as a good deal. If the balance switches, I waver, if we only barely get compensated for our stadium, I don't want it happening. I do consider that reational, and I believe Central Council will think the same way.

Sean Kelly's position on this is long made clear, and I do agree that he has been very outspoken on a matter where in theory he should be encouraging debate and discussion but no more. However his open-ness and willingness to consider mutual back scratching has led to considerable financial windfalls from the government, so on those grounds I wouldn't criticise him too much.

Post Reply