Croke Farse

Right, think (almost) enough has been said here but wanted to address the last few postings.

I have checked repeatedly in the national press and have read umpteen articles on the Eircom Park/Stadium Ireland fiasco - the FAI was not blocked from developing its own ground but instead was offered a deal, worth €45m in funding, by the Government to row in behind the Stadium Ireland project. After meeting with the Government a number of times in late February/early March 2001 the FAI decided to go with the Government's plans. I can quote various reports in the national media to support this and as I'm not privy to the private discussions at the meetings held, I don't see any other grounds for not going ahead with their plans.

The FAI & IRFU have both said that the Government will be 'stakeholders' in the redeveloped stadium, but in the same way as the general public will be. They have not said that the Government will profit directly from attendances at the ground, no more so than the State has a share in the revenue from crowds that attend GAA fixtures at Croke Park.

The IRFU and FAI are minor players in the financing of the redevelopment of Lansdowne Road, the GAA financed their own redevelopment and then received grant aid from the Government. Proportionally speaking, the GAA would be entitled to a further €190m if they were to receive the same financial support as the other organisations.

I have read a few comments regarding the GAA's supposed 'sectarian agenda.' Could someone give me examples of this in action?



Any further arguments can be made in person - I'll be available for discussions in Paris this weekend! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roboyle

Right, think (almost) enough has been said here but wanted to address the last few postings.

I don't see any other grounds for not going ahead with their plans.

I have read a few comments regarding the GAA's supposed 'sectarian agenda.' Could someone give me examples of this in action?
:p

---

I repeat it was clear at the time that the government was not going to allow eircom park go ahead, Bernard O' Byrne was forced to resign subsequently as he was the main force behind eircom park.

All you need do is look at the GAA's rule book on "foreign" games to see what the agenda is. I have great admiration for Sean Kelly who is trying to chnage this while hampered by intrangagent older men , boothman et al.

Enjoy the weekend in paris Rob

Eddie Moroney

I bet regardless of what sport was played in whichever stadium, still this type of critic-in-the-stand nonsense would be heard

Feel free to move this, mods

Personally I dont have anything against the GAA getting funding from the government to help build Croke Park. They government gets a lot of it back in some form of tax anyway. Since the re development of landsdowne road is going ahead (although with a crappy 50,000 seats) it makes the whole thing fair.

My only problem is the complete lack of other stadia around the country. The Eircom League needs funding for stadia and the government should be putting up cash for a 30,000 IRFU/GAA/FAI stadium down in Munster. It should put some decent sized grants to help build 10,000 to 15,000 seater stadia for the Eircom League Clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magoo

Eddie Moroney

---

Brilliant, i have a pain laughing
:)

Speaking of GAA sectarianism, how about this little bit from yesterday's Indo ( http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=11503 )

Quote:

---

"Look, a mhac, are you that simple that you think the government would throw out €40 million to the GAA with nothing in return? Mark my words there are no flies on that O'Donoghue fellah. If the GAA don't agree to open up Croke Park at the next Congress don't bet on them ever seeing the second €20 million.

"Isn't it gas to think that a few years ago the government gave the GAA €38 million to keep Croke Park closed and now they are giving them even more to open it up? And these are the lads who are supposed to be running the country!

"They should let Liam Mulvihill and Seán Kelly run the country and let the politicians take over the GAA.

"Anyway the GAA Congress will not agree to let soccer and rugby into the hallowed ground of Croke Park. We might be gone all modern in the GAA and even international but surely there's enough people with backbone still to stop this happening.

"I can tell you that I will never set foot in Croke Park again if they let the soccer crowd play there. My own father and two of my uncles were there on Bloody Sunday, November 1, 1920 when the Black and Tans shot dead Michael Hogan and several others. How could we ever forget that?"

---

At the end of the day, you can't really blame the GAA. After all, they got a nice shiny new stadium with a lot of money coming from the government. It's the government who is at fault, for throwing money at different sporting organizations for 2 large stadiums when 1 would have been enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ???

"I can tell you that I will never set foot in Croke Park again if they let the soccer crowd play there. My own father and two of my uncles were there on Bloody Sunday, November 1, 1920 when the Black and Tans shot dead Michael Hogan and several others. How could we ever forget that?" ( http://www.unison.ie/irish_independe...issue_id=11503 )

---

Because of what the British did at a GAA match in the 1920s, Irish football supporters (and to a lesser extent Irish football players) should be punished 90 or so years later. Whats his arguement ? That football is a british game ? - theres evidence to suggest that either the Italians or the anchient Japanese invented it - either way its the global game now. Even if its a british game, how is it (the game of football) responsible for what happened in 1920?

Quote:

---

That football is a british game ?

---

China actually invented it

Quote:

---

At the end of the day, you can't really blame the GAA. After all, they got a nice shiny new stadium........

---

Whatever progressive ideals Sean Kelly has, it is obvious the GAA neanderthals dont want rugby or soccer in their 'nice shiny new stadium'.

The Lansdowne redevelopment should go ahead even if this means having to play home rugby and soccer internationals away for two years. It is a small price to pay to get rid of any dependency on the GAA.

By the time the Lansdowne Road project is completed, Croke Park won't be needed for rugby or soccer. By then many of those shortsighted pr**ks like Boothman and McDonagh will have gone to that great GAA pitch in the sky and when the stark ecomonics of running a vast stadium that is filled only three or four times a year (if they are lucky) finally hit home and the Government hansdouts stop, no doubt the olive branch will be offered.

When that day comes every rugby and soccer should get great pleasure when the begrudgers are told to stick their olive branch and Croke Park up their a**es.

The debate should stop now, I say 'F**k them', lets gets on with it. :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ???

"I can tell you that I will never set foot in Croke Park again if they let the soccer crowd play there. My own father and two of my uncles were there on Bloody Sunday, November 1, 1920 when the Black and Tans shot dead Michael Hogan and several others. How could we ever forget that?" ( http://www.unison.ie/irish_independ...&issue_id=11503 )

---

The GAA were banning 'garison' games long before this event happened and football clubs were not immune to sectarian violence during this period. While I have every sympathy for the victims of the Croke Park Massacre, I can't see the connection between a bunch of foreign criminals in a mix of police and army uniforms shooting people, with either rugby and football, both of which were played by many prominent Irish politicians, (Eg: DeValera, Oscar Traynor) the former especially with those that went through Jesuit schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thejollyrodger

China actually invented it

---

the GAME was played in Rome with decapitated heads. But the word Soccer came from England to avoid confussion between "UPPER CLASS" rugby and "LOWER CLASS" rugby.

though in its current incarnation 'tis chinese

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ccfcman

the GAME was played in Rome with decapitated heads. But the word Soccer came from England to avoid confussion between "UPPER CLASS" rugby and "LOWER CLASS" rugby.

though in its current incarnation 'tis chinese

---

Lots of claims to have invented football incl the Scots.

Football is a world game. It is the beautiful game there are no imitations that come even close

As for the origin of the term Soccer welll.......

Garry Archer who was well known on the net long before the web existed eg back in the 80's researched the origin of the term "soccer" - explanation is below.


SOCCER
------
From: Garry Archer (archer@hsi.com)
Date: May 1991

I am an Englishman that has taken on himself a personal crusade
to respond to comments regarding the use of the "American" word for
football. I have seen them over and over again on the worldwide
computer news network, USENET, in its rec.sport.soccer newsgroup
where I have been an active contributor for several years.

To love the game of football is to love it's rich history also.
It particularly disturbs me when modern fans of the game less conversed
in this history do not fully understand that the word "soccer" is an
English, _not_ American word derived from the second syllable of the
word "association".

"Soccer" was originally called "association football" during the
formation of the Football Association in England in the 1860s. This
was to maintain a distinction from the other football game being
organised in England at the same time based on the handling codes,
whilst Association Football conformed to the dribbling codes. The
other football came to be known as "rugby" football, named after the
Rugby School in England, where it is said that a certain young student,
William Webb Ellis, picked up the ball in his hands during an
association football match and ran with it over the goal line. Master
Ellis asked his teacher, who was refereeing, if that was a goal. The
reply was, "No, but it was a jolly good 'try'", which is where one of
the rugby scoring terms comes from. Rugby Union was formally organised
by 1871, but suffered another split by 1893 when Rugby League was
formed. I digress.

Near the end of 1863, Charles Wreford-Brown, who later became a
notable official of the Football Association, was asked by some friends
at Oxford whether he cared to join them for a game of "rugger" (rugby).
He is said to have refused, preferring instead to go for a game of
"soccer" - a play on the word "association". The name caught on.

English public schoolboys love to nickname things, then as much as
now. The tendency is to add "er" to the end of many words. Rugby [Union]
Football became "rugby", and then "rugger". Association Football was
better know as "assoccer" and naturally evolved into "soccer" which is
much easier for a schoolboy to say...

Therefore, the word "soccer" has been used in the mother country
of all football-type games since at least the mid-19th century. The
word "football", however, was more descriptive of the game (i.e.
kicking a ball with the feet!) and was the term more frequently used.
The British exported the game, so naturally the word "football" was the
name mostly used all over the world. In recent decades it has been
noted that the word "soccer" is apparently increasing in usage. The
word "football" still appears in formal designations, however, in for
example, Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). The
word "soccer" is more commonly used in several countries around the
world that play other forms of football. When Australians say
"football", they mean Australian Rules football instead [Well in southern
states they do, in the north they mean Rugby League -Ed]. The Irish
have Gaelic football. In the USA and Canada, of course, there is
Gridiron football. Rugby Union, Rugby League, Australian Rules,
Gaelic, American and Canadian football all owe their roots to
Association football. With the exception of Gaelic Football, they all
use an ovoid shaped ball. None is as popular around the world as
Association football.

"Football" is the world standard name for "soccer". I always used
the word "football" (and still do, wherever I can). The word "soccer",
however, is engrained into the origins of the modern game of
association football as much as any other aspect of The Game much of
the world enjoys today.

Finally, it must be remembered that British football, both
association and rugby, had been organised in the 19th century by
people in the upper echelons of the English educational system, from
"exotic" schools, colleges and universities as Harrow, Eton, Oxford
and Cambridge, just for starters. As I stated earler, students of
the Victorian era, as much as now, loved nicknames and "soccer" and
"rugger" were the accepted everyday names for those people. These
were sports for gentlemen.

When the games were taken up by those less fortunate enough to
have received the higher (and more expensive) levels of education
the game of soccer became very popular with the masses. Rugger, less
so. As the rules became increasingly divergent between the two sports,
soccer became the people's sport and rugger remained more of a
"gentleman's" game.

Ever heard the phrase, "Soccer is a gentleman's game played by
ruffians and Rugby is a ruffian's game played by gentlemen"?

So "soccer" was a fanciful, gentleman's name for the sport. The
mere, common man started to call it "football" for the obvious reason
that it's a game about a ball kicked with the foot. The game, and the
word, was exported by British workers, students and merchant and naval
seamen all over the world in the latter 19th and early 20th century...
and the name, and the game, blossomed.

I prefer to call it "footy" myself!

Yours in football,
Garry Archer