Shamrock Rovers Tallaght

[Erstwhile Bóz]

The leopard didn't change its spots.

Its saw that there was an opportunity to make a ****load of money so it temporarily covered its spots with stripes. Still spots underneath though.

You haven't addressed the point re rule 42, its an inherently anti-soccer and rugby rule, as it when rule 27 sat beside it.

BTW other sports were played in Croker (boxing and American football) without any kerfuffle.
The IRFU and the FAI have made inquiries about playing in Croker a total of once. They were told that they couldn't play in Croker a total of no times. They have a 100% success rate. Kerfuffle, how are you! ;)

Boxing and American football matches were presumably organized on a similar "ask the GAA" basis. As provided for in Rule 42, which as far as I know actually predated Rule 27.

Speaking of which: did the leopard not change its spots with the scrapping of Rule 27? And Rule 21?

Spots aside, is it reasonable to demand that a rule that has been gone for almost forty years inform our modern interpretation of the current Rule 42 (44)? If it is inherently anti-soccer/rugby then surely it should stand up for itself to this very day. It doesn't, though; the explanatory note it currently sports explicitly details Central Council's sanctioning of Lansdowne-Road games in Croke Park. After that temporary period (:rolleyes: ), GAA grounds will go back to being for GAA games and whatever other events or games Central Council might see fit to hosting. And rather than a forty-year-old ex-rule to colour our reading of the wherefores of today's Rule 42, we will have the hard fact of x number of rugby matches and y number of football matches having been played at GAA HQ.

Is it reasonable to regard a group's status as "bigots" to be non-negotiable, no grounds for appeal, no chance of parole, no action deemed worthy? Or is it just handy? Is the glass still on them pitches?

[Student Mullet]

Is the glass still on them pitches?No but there's a pitch in Tallaght sitting needlessly idle for other reasons.

[Calcio Jack]

I thought this thread was supposed to be about what TD (as a front for the GAA as clearly demonstrated in Court yesterday ) are attempting to do.

What summed up for me the 'kill them at birth' attitude of the GAA was very clearly outlined in Court yesterday by the Rovers barrister. He outlined in detail how that the Minister had advised the SDCC that if they intended revamping the stadium site to cater for GAA games then no money would be available from the Dept of Sport because such a change would ratchet up the overall cost of the developement and because the Minister felt that eventually the stadium would be home to 2 LOI clubs.

So thus the GAA/TD being aware that if they are sucessful in having the decision overturned to allow for GAA games, they are also aware that such a change would mean that no staduim would be built.... and whilst the barrister didn't say it in an explicit manner , what was very clear to all in the courtroom yesterday is the fact that the GAA/TD case is nothing but a vindictive attempt by the GAA/TD to stop Rovers and indeed any other LOI club from becoming part of the community in Tallaght...

That is what this case is really about...and yes it can be couched as due process and the right (which I support) of the GAA/TD to avail of the law..... however IMO the GAA/TD are using the democratic process in a perverse way to support their own dubious agenda.....

[Erstwhile Bóz]

So thus the GAA/TD being aware that if they are sucessful in having the decision overturned to allow for GAA games, they are also aware that such a change would mean that no staduim would be built.... and whilst the barrister didn't say it in an explicit manner , what was very clear to all in the courtroom yesterday is the fact that the GAA/TD case is nothing but a vindictive attempt by the GAA/TD to stop Rovers and indeed any other LOI club from becoming part of the community in Tallaght...

That is what this case is really about...and yes it can be couched as due process and the right (which I support) of the GAA/TD to avail of the law..... however IMO the GAA/TD are using the democratic process in a perverse way to support their own dubious agenda.....
The Rovers legal team are reported as saying (not implying) on the first day that they believed Thomas Davis and the other clubs are being used by the GAA to try and secure a kind of a Southside Parnell Park.

If it's such fact, why did they not just attack the GAA's "bigotry" in court and get it all out in the open? I would have thought that a competent legal team would be well able to prove something as blindingly obvious as "pure bigotry", or at least state directly that it was the reason for the GAA's case. If an assault is racially motivated, for example, the prosecution tend to bring it up in court.

I want to say again that I think Rovers should win the current case, but where would the bigotry be if O'Donoghue had have sanctioned the extra cash for Tallaght/SDCC's proposed new stadium? Would that not have been the opposite of bigotry?

[Calcio Jack]

The Rovers legal team are reported as saying (not implying) on the first day that they believed Thomas Davis and the other clubs are being used by the GAA to try and secure a kind of a Southside Parnell Park.

If it's such fact, why did they not just attack the GAA's "bigotry" in court and get it all out in the open? I would have thought that a competent legal team would be well able to prove something as blindingly obvious as "pure bigotry", or at least state directly that it was the reason for the GAA's case. If an assault is racially motivated, for example, the prosecution tend to bring it up in court.

I want to say again that I think Rovers should win the current case, but where would the bigotry be if O'Donoghue had have sanctioned the extra cash for Tallaght/SDCC's proposed new stadium? Would that not have been the opposite of bigotry?

The reason it was not said is because the case will be decided on a very narrow technical issue... thus it would of being wrong of our legal team to of gone on the record and accusing the GAA of bigotry etc ... that wouldn't of cut the mustard with the judge as that is not the issue he is being asked to ajudicate on... however that point was clearly demostrated in a more subtle manner as outlined earlier..... so on one hand we got accross what I'd describe as the "heart and minds " argiement but more importantly our barrister also demonstrated in a very clear manner the very good reasons as to why TD are not entitled to a Judicial Review .... the judge will now mull over the arguements from both sides and come back with a his decision sometime before Easter.

[Jerry The Saint]

the Minister felt that eventually the stadium would be home to 2 LOI clubs.


Probably not strictly relevant to the case in hand, but will the recent investment in Pats have any effect on the building of the stadium? Now that the Minister/FAI can't bully Pats into leaving Richmond, their plans need to change anyway. If Shels lose their D1 license, there won't be any soccer club left to share with, making Tallaght an exclusive SRFC stadium again. Will this alter Government policy, especially if a new sports minister and possibly a new party is in charge?

[wws]

Its Shels.....

[Jerry The Saint]

Its Shels.....

But if there is no Shels...

Why should our hard-earned taxes fund a stadium for a Leinster Senior League team...?

[wws]

There Will Always Be A Shels

[galwayhoop]

Let me ask you one question Galwayhoop, what do you think the GAA's agenda in Tallaght is?


as i've said earlier i'm not as up to date on this issue as some on here. however, in my opinion i think that TD want to prevent SRFC from locating in Tallaght as they feel it may attract all of the youngsters away from the GAA. do i agree with this stance - absolutely not. i think it is a narrow minded view and that there is sufficient population for both codes and clubs to flurish.

my main gripe on here is the attitude toward the GAA in general where a big brush has covered all and sundry involved with the association and painted them as bigots. granted the association has not been the most progressive through it's history but this has to be put in context with the times and and in fairness it has made massive strides in recent years. the abolition of the security forces ban, ban on players playing foreign codes and opening of croker are big strides when put in front of the historical backdrop of the organisation. you have to remember what the organisation was origanally formed to do and stood for since it's inception. to retain and promote uniquely irish sports. it is battling with itself on these more liberal issues and thankfully, in the main, common sense has prevailed. it is a bit like the republican movement where progressive thinking has replaced the hardline of the older members.

also i feel that the GAA is as important an organisation as any on this island. we are in total danger of losing of national idenity. we are rapidily becoming as british as the brits themselves. our media, choice of TV programmes, favourite football teams, attitude of our youth, places we shop....etc. the GAA provides something that is uniquely irish and for that we should be grateful.

[green-blood]

But if there is no Shels...

Why should our hard-earned taxes fund a stadium for a Leinster Senior League team...?

why not - are LSL teams not worthy of support

[WeAreRovers]

as i've said earlier i'm not as up to date on this issue as some on here. however, in my opinion i think that TD want to prevent SRFC from locating in Tallaght as they feel it may attract all of the youngsters away from the GAA. do i agree with this stance - absolutely not. i think it is a narrow minded view and that there is sufficient population for both codes and clubs to flurish.

my main gripe on here is the attitude toward the GAA in general where a big brush has covered all and sundry involved with the association and painted them as bigots.

Your first paragraph renders your second redundant. You can't say on the one hand that TD (and by extension, the Dublin County Board, Central Council, Danny Lynch etc etc) are wrong re. Tallaght but that it's not fair to tar all of the GAA with tha same brush.

No other sporting organisation practises (state-sponsored) sporting apartheid. It's about sport, we're all in this together. We need to provide decent sports facilities and let the kids decide for themselves which they want to play. Only one sporting organisation is against this fundamental principal.

KOH

[Jerry The Saint]

why not - are LSL teams not worthy of support


Well, not one that's €12m in debt anyway...:p

[galwayhoop]

Your first paragraph renders your second redundant. You can't say on the one hand that TD (and by extension, the Dublin County Board, Central Council, Danny Lynch etc etc) are wrong re. Tallaght but that it's not fair to tar all of the GAA with tha same brush.
KOH

not true. are the connaght council bigots because TD want a slice of the tallaght stadium?

as i said i disagree with the stance taken in relation to the tallaght situation. it is a wrong stance by the GAA but as i said before while not agreeing with their reasoning i understand where it comes from. they are trying to protect their game. yes in this instance going about it the wrong way but thats what they are doing.

the sad fact is that if rovers (or those in charge of rovers) had been capable of completing the stadium on time and by themselves a few years ago this situation would never have risen. your club (or more accurately those who ran it a few years ago prior to fans rescue of it) has to accept their share of liability in this situation. the fact that the local authority was called in to rescue the project meant it was a fully state funded project and opened the pandora's box we have now. had the project been completed by rovers in the first place the stadium would have been the 'shamrock rovers football ground' instead of the 'tallaght municiple stadium'. your club would have had total owerniship as opposed to the being tenants in a local authority stadium.

[Rasher]

Even the Honey Monster Agrees

RICHARD DUNNE has revealed that he would love to end his career with Shamrock Rovers.


The Manchester City star says many Irish players would be better off returning home to the Eircom League than seeing out their playing days in England’s lower divisions.

Interviewed in the new issue of Hot Press, the defender says: “You hear Irish lads saying, ‘Oh, we’ll probably end up playing in League Two’ but I’d definitely consider ending my career at Rovers.





“Getting players to come back is definitely something the FAI should look at because it might add 200 or 300 to attendances and start helping the club out a bit more.”

Dunne, from Tallaght, also says he would love to see the Hoops complete their long-delayed move to the stadium in the area.

“Potentially it’s such a great thing for the area,” he says

[bigmac]

Your first paragraph renders your second redundant. You can't say on the one hand that TD (and by extension, the Dublin County Board, Central Council, Danny Lynch etc etc) are wrong re. Tallaght but that it's not fair to tar all of the GAA with tha same brush.


Yeah you can - how would you feel if all of Irish soccer was tarred with the same brush applied to Delaney and the FAI? Remember, the EL is now run by an organisation that actively suppresses free speech and opinions that run contrary to the centralised propoganda.

There are lots of decent GAA supporters, players and volunteers, same as every sport and Galwayhoop clearly feels that it would be more beneficial if we were not to be dragged down to the level of the bigots that frequently seem to be in more powerful positions.

On another note, this is a phenomenon that happens in every sport. The people who really care about the sport are out there playing, coaching and fund-raising, yet it's the people who are just in it for a power trip that end up on the committees. These are the ones who take great delight in removing things off the "clár" due to the minutiae of the rulebook and stuff like that.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

Will this alter Government policy, especially if a new sports minister and possibly a new party is in charge?
This bit is quite salient, in a different direction.

I find it the suggestion ludicrous that if Thomas Davis win their case (which I hope they won't) and SDCC are told to revert to the GAA-inclusive stadium expansion plan, that the Minister for Sport of the time -- and whether it's a directly pre-General Election John O'Donoghue or somebody else months down the road, it'll still be an elected politician -- will not take a blind bit of notice of the legal ruling and just stubbornly let that poxy grey stand sit in the wind for eternity for the sake of a few shekels.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

No other sporting organisation practises (state-sponsored) sporting apartheid.
Merciful hour.

[WeAreRovers]

Merciful hour.

What the hell is Rule 42 then? :confused:

KOH

[Philly]

Yeah you can - how would you feel if all of Irish soccer was tarred with the same brush applied to Delaney and the FAI? Remember, the EL is now run by an organisation that actively suppresses free speech and opinions that run contrary to the centralised propoganda.

There are lots of decent GAA supporters, players and volunteers, same as every sport and Galwayhoop clearly feels that it would be more beneficial if we were not to be dragged down to the level of the bigots that frequently seem to be in more powerful positions.

On another note, this is a phenomenon that happens in every sport. The people who really care about the sport are out there playing, coaching and fund-raising, yet it's the people who are just in it for a power trip that end up on the committees. These are the ones who take great delight in removing things off the "clár" due to the minutiae of the rulebook and stuff like that.

There is a culture of "us and only us" in the GAA that is there at all levels.

The FAI, even Delaney, aren't against GAA. As a matter of facts are they not building five sports pitches in disadvantaged areas of Westmeath that are going to be used to play GAA, Soccer and other sports on.

Fat chance you'll ever see any County board build a multiple use sports facility for the better of the community.

The Kildare County Board recently launched it's plans to build a superb new ground in "City Gate", Newbridge. Needless to say, public money and county council help is being used heavily in the project. They are getting the land for free from the council I think.

Perhaps KCFC should bring them to court to ensure that it is our ground as well as theirs? Somehow I doubt Tom Humphries would be backing us all the way....

[galwayhoop]

What the hell is Rule 42 then? :confused:

KOH

taken from the GAA offical guide 2003. NB this is prior to the change in rule 42:


Uses of Property
42.
(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.

this is how rule 42 was prior to the change in it. its hardly South Africa in the 80's!! Arphetied (sp?) is a bit on the strong side don't you think!

[Philly]

It reads more like the friggin Catechism of the Catholic Church than anything else!

Do 18th Birthday Parties constitute events directly linked to the GAA? Or does one have to make a proposal to the GAA Central Council to have a party in a clubs halls?

[galwayhoop]

just found it in GAA offical guide 2007 (part 1):
it's rule 44 now:



Uses of Property
44.
(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.
(Note: Central Council shall have the power to authorise
the use of Croke Park for games, other than those
controlled by the Association, during a temporary period
when Lansdowne Road Football Ground is closed for the
proposed development.
Congress has approved that Rules 3, 4, 5, 44, 46, 47, 76(f)
and 144(g) shall allow for this for a temporary period, at
the end of which all these Rules stated shall revert to their
pre-Congress 2005 position.)

[Philly]

Ah the revised rule - money can do anything today...

[OneRedArmy]

taken from the GAA offical guide 2003. NB this is prior to the change in rule 42:



this is how rule 42 was prior to the change in it. its hardly South Africa in the 80's!! Arphetied (sp?) is a bit on the strong side don't you think!Seems clear to me. Soccer and rugby are therefore contrary to the aims of the organisation, ergo supressing these sports are a de facto objective of the GAA.

Meanwhile supporting boxing and American football would appear to be, based on history, consistant with the aims of the organisation.

[galwayhoop]

It reads more like the friggin Catechism of the Catholic Church than anything else!

Do 18th Birthday Parties constitute events directly linked to the GAA? Or does one have to make a proposal to the GAA Central Council to have a party in a clubs halls?

granted it's not storytelling stuff. but like all documents which outline rules and objectives of sporting (or indeed any) organisations e is pretty grey stuff. try reading the FAI technical development plan :eek:

point being that it isn't a racist / bigoted rule from where i stand but merely says that the associations games are only to be played in the associations property. does this not make sense to people?

i mean i will be going to croker on sat and be delighted to be there cheering on ireland at soccer. but i think we (soccer) are there by invitation as opposed to by right.

[galwayhoop]

Seems clear to me. Soccer and rugby are therefore contrary to the aims of the organisation, ergo supressing these sports are a de facto objective of the GAA.

the promotion of soccer and rugby are obviously contary to the aims and objectives of the GAA. the aims and objectives of the GAA is to promote their own games.

the aims and objectives of the IRFU and FAI are to promote their own respective games. is this not obvious? why would one sporting body choose to promote another sport? your point is moot.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

What the hell is Rule 42 then? :confused:

KOH
You appear to think it is the old ban on playing foreign games that was deleted over three decades ago, or some rule enshrining apartheid.

Rule 42 (now Rule 44) deals with GAA grounds and property, saying that they are basically for GAA events and games but other shindigs can be hosted as and when sanctioned by Central Council, and (in an addendum) that Central Council can allow Lansdowne-Road games to be played in Croke Park on a temporary basis.

It doesn't ban its members from playing "foreign sports", it doesn't say that soccer people are inferior Irishmen, it doesn't say that the FAI and the IRFU should be beaten into submission with the GAA being the last man standing, and it doesn't say that the GAA shall "practise state-sponsored sporting apartheid".

If it is apartheid when an organization states as one of its aims the preservation and promotion of its own games then I would suggest that either the world has gone mad or that Biko was making a mountain out of a molehill.

[John83]

this is how rule 42 was prior to the change in it. its hardly South Africa in the 80's!! Arphetied (sp?) is a bit on the strong side don't you think!
Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

Seems clear to me. Soccer and rugby are therefore contrary to the aims of the organisation, ergo supressing these sports are a de facto objective of the GAA.

Meanwhile supporting boxing and American football would appear to be, based on history, consistant with the aims of the organisation.
That's preposterous twisting and is a charge which could be levied against any organization with any stated aim.

Allowing boxing and American football in Croker was entirely consistent with Rule 42 (44), as is the forthcoming football internationals.

[GavinZac]

Rule 42 (now Rule 44) deals with GAA grounds and property, saying that they are basically for GAA events and games but other shindigs can be hosted as and when sanctioned by Central Council, and (in an addendum) that Central Council can allow Lansdowne-Road games to be played in Croke Park on a temporary basis.
no, it specifically forbids "competiting codes" from using the pitches. it is a negative, rather than a positive, rule as such.


That's preposterous twisting and is a charge which could be levied against any organization with any stated aim.
its not. read it. the GAA's "consitution" specifically aims (and were specifically set up to) to turn ireland into the fantasised "green glens and fair maids" rubbish of literature.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Explain how any sense of the word is correct in the post-foreign-game-ban context.

[Tis-smeee]

Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

What is the facination with spellin on this website?

[WeAreRovers]

the promotion of soccer and rugby are obviously contary to the aims and objectives of the GAA.

I think this proves my point. How can promoting any sport be contrary to the aims and objectives of the GAA if the GAA don't practise sporting apartness (to use an Anglicised and less emotive word)?

KOH

[Erstwhile Bóz]

no, it specifically forbids "competiting codes" from using the pitches. it is a negative, rather than a positive, rule as such.
The only specific mention is in the addendum, quite a remarkable one to find in an apartheid document and something everybody's quite happy to overlook (in bold here from the current Guide):

(Note: Central Council shall have the power to authorise
the use of Croke Park for games, other than those
controlled by the Association, during a temporary period
when Lansdowne Road Football Ground is closed for the
proposed development.Congress has approved that Rules 3, 4, 5, 44, 46, 47, 76(f)
and 144(g) shall allow for this for a temporary period, at
the end of which all these Rules stated shall revert to their
pre-Congress 2005 position.)

[galwayhoop]

Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0360100.html


n.
1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
apartheid synonyms

and the above is an accurate description of rule 44 (formally rule 42) which i posted above?

BTW how did you get on in the last round of the spelling bee :rolleyes:

[John83]

Explain how any sense of the word is correct in the post-foreign-game-ban context.
The rule explicitly segregates sports into GAA-sanctioned and others. The other aren't to be played in GAA pitches (except with centralised permission). Defining Apartheid as "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups" (thank you American Heritage Dictionary), I'm satisfied that it's reasonable to use it here, though I can see why the South African influenced connotations might cause you some concern.

[John83]

BTW how did you get on in the last round of the spelling bee :rolleyes:
I lost, spelling "apart" as "arphet".

[Erstwhile Bóz]

I think this proves my point. How can promoting any sport be contrary to the aims and objectives of the GAA if the GAA don't practise sporting apartness (to use an Anglicised and less emotive word)?
KOH
It's almost as if you're yearning for Rule 27 and the ban or something.

These are the stated aims of the GAA:


2 Basic Aim
The Association is a National Organisation which has as its
basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a
32 County Ireland through the preservation and
promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes.

3 National Games
The Association shall promote and control the National
games of Hurling, Gaelic Football, Handball and
Rounders, and such other games, as may be sanctioned
and approved by Annual Congress.

4 Additional Aims
(a) The Association shall actively support the Irish
language, traditional Irish dancing, music, song, and
other aspects of Irish culture. It shall foster an
awareness and love of the national ideals in the people
of Ireland, and assist in promoting a community spirit
through its clubs.
(b) The Association shall support the promotion of
Camogie and Ladies Gaelic Football.
(c) The Association shall support Irish Industry. All
trophies and playing equipment shall be of Irish
manufacture. Penalty for non-observance €200.
Irish paper shall be used for all official documents and
correspondence. Documents not complying shall be
ruled out of order.

5 Dedication
The Association and its resources shall be used for and
dedicated solely to the above aims.

[galwayhoop]

I think this proves my point. How can promoting any sport be contrary to the aims and objectives of the GAA if the GAA don't practise sporting apartness (to use an Anglicised and less emotive word)?

KOH

not so. why not quote the rest of the post, namely the aims and objective are to promote their (the GAA's) own games. does the promotion of hurling form part of the aims and objectives of the FAI?

[Erstwhile Bóz]

The rule explicitly segregates sports into GAA-sanctioned and others. The other aren't to be played in GAA pitches (except with centralised permission). Defining Apartheid as "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups" (thank you American Heritage Dictionary), I'm satisfied that it's reasonable to use it here, though I can see why the South African influenced connotations might cause you some concern.
Preposterous. The FAI by definition segregates itself from non-FAI sports and concerns itself with association football, for example. Any grouping or organization would be apartheid, by this disingenuous reading of that (single)American Heritage Dictionary definition.

Of course a governing body has a say in what goes on on its pitches. Who the feck do you think the FAI asked if they could use Lansdowne? The Irish Cricket Union?

[wws]

the fai didnt ask could they knock down hill16 and build it closer in to accommodate football though, did they?

[John83]

Preposterous. The FAI by definition segregates itself from non-FAI sports and concerns itself with association football, for example. Any grouping or organization would be apartheid, by this disingenuous reading of that (single)American Heritage Dictionary definition.

Of course a governing body has a say in what goes on on its pitches. Who the feck do you think the FAI asked if they could use Lansdowne? The Irish Cricket Union?
My local soccer club can choose to rent out its pitch. The owners of Lansdowne can choose to rent out their pitch. There are no rules stopping this, or requiring special permission of a Grand Council of Wizards. I would think that the difference is clear.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

the fai didnt ask could they knock down hill16 and build it closer in to accommodate football though, did they?
You spelled "North Stand" wrong. ;)

Dublin City Council don't own Croke Park and therefore never to my knowledge voted that it be altered to accommodate football.

[wws]

Bigot! ;)

[galwayhoop]

Defining Apartheid as "A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups" (thank you American Heritage Dictionary), I'm satisfied that it's reasonable to use it here

seperate mens and womens changing rooms.... APARTHEID
ryanair passengers check in at ryanair check in desks .......APARTHEID
away fans sitting on hill 16 .......... APARTHEID
no supporters allowed onto the pitch ........... APARTHEID
staff only ........... APARTHEID
only those with tickets may go beyond this point ........ APARTHEID
need to have passed 5 leaving cert. subjects to do this course .......... APARTHEID
disabled only parking ............. APARTHEID

PC gone raving mad!

[Erstwhile Bóz]

My local soccer club can choose to rent out its pitch. The owners of Lansdowne can choose to rent out their pitch. There are no rules stopping this, or requiring special permission of a Grand Council of Wizards. I would think that the difference is clear.
But the GAA Central Council and in certain situations Congress (both presumably the Grand Council of Wizards :D in question) are the equivalents of "my local soccer club" and "owners of Lansdowne" here. Presumably there are some procedures the owners of Lansdowne/the top bods at your football club follow when deciding on the use of their property.

[OneRedArmy]

Rule 42 was hand in hand with Rule 27. These two rules sought to supress "foreign"games (soccer and rugby) in Ireland by banning their playing on GAA land and banning GAA members from playing them.

Rule 27 was rescinded due to being unforceable as farcical scenes around the country were being played out on a weekly basis with country GAA players turning out as AN Other in soccer matches.

Rule 42 was left in the rulebook, though not adhered strictly to, as evidenced by the subsequent decision to allow boxing and American football (and numerous non-Irish musical acts) to be held at Croke Park.

Therefore its clear to see that Rule 42 had its basis in the anti-English/garrison position of the GAA which has persisted since its foundation.

The only difference is that over time the number of members supporting the anti-English position has dropped.

There is a distinct difference between a sporting organisation promoting its own sport (as all do) and having a stated aim to develop your sport through the supression of other rival sports. This is the zero sum game I referred to above. The GAA bigots hide behind a cloak of competition for hearts and minds of Ireland's sporting public but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what is good for rugby and soccer is automatically bad for the GAA.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

Rule 42 was hand in hand with Rule 27. These two rules sought to supress "foreign"games (soccer and rugby) in Ireland by banning their playing on GAA land and banning GAA members from playing them.

Rule 27 was rescinded due to being unforceable as farcical scenes around the country were being played out on a weekly basis with country GAA players turning out as AN Other in soccer matches.

36 yeeeeeeaaarrs ago.



Rule 42 was left in the rulebook, evidenced by the subsequent decision to allow boxing and American football (and numerous non-Irish musical acts) to be held at Croke Park.

...such other purposes not in conflict with the
Aims and Objects of the Association [see a few posts above], that may be
sanctioned from time to time by the Central Council...



Therefore its clear to see that Rule 42 had its basis in the anti-English/garrison position of the GAA which has persisted since its foundation.

The only difference is that over time the number of members supporting the anti-English position has dropped.

A reasonable reading of its origins. Is the second paragraph not a good thing?



There is a distinct difference between a sporting organisation promoting its own sport (as all do) and having a stated aim to develop your sport through the supression of other rival sports. This is the zero sum game I referred to above. The GAA bigots hide behind a cloak of competition for hearts and minds of Ireland's sporting public but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that what is good for rugby and soccer is automatically bad for the GAA.
...and then they let rugby and soccer into Croker, thus throwing a spanner in the works of the name-callers and implying that they no longer see those sports as detrimental and dangerous to the stated Aims of the organization, whether they remain completely abhorrent to the Aims or not.

Can you not see the new context of Rule 42 (44)?

[OneRedArmy]

...and then they let rugby and soccer into Croker, thus throwing a spanner in the works of the name-callers and implying that they no longer see those sports as detrimental and dangerous to the stated Aims of the organization, whether they remain completely abhorrent to the Aims or not.

Can you not see the new context of Rule 42 (44)?Of course I can, and I disagree that it is anything near an admission that they no longer see soccer and rugby as contrary to the aims of the organisation, otherwise they would have got rid of the rule totally.

Taking this back to Tallaght, the GAA are seeking to leverage opening one ground out of x thousand around the country, for a couple of years, to demand access to a ground that they don't need.

Any public monies given to the GAA for infrastructure goes into GAA only grounds by dint of Rule 42. Therefore the government are required to fund other sports infrastructure separately (a ridiculous and inefficient concept when compared with the municipal stadium ownership which prevails around the world).

The GAA are trying to have their cake and eat it. By all means campaign to get additional funding for GAA grounds, but given they won't let anyone on their patch, what right have they to interfere in someone elses?