The Kilcoynes - failed dreamers or villains?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

31/10/2007, 8:18 AM
Billy Lord

Quote:

Originally Posted by geysir

It wasn't in that programmes sphere to do a job on the Kilcoynes.
It was more a Reeling in the Years approach not a Panorama investigation.
It provided a balanced enough report between Kilcoyne and Kram.
It's just that the extra suspects, Byrne and Dunphy, didn't help to clarify.
On that core issue you mention, the KRAM guy made it clear that the Kilcoynes refused point blank to negotiate. The program did not ignore that point.

On purchase from the nuns the ground should have been placed in trust. No club should be without it's constitution to protect it's assets.

You haven't got a clue. It certainly wasn't in the programme's 'sphere' to tell lies. How was it 'balanced' when 90% of it was pro-Kilcoynes, they told blatant lies about attendances, their acquisition and selling of the ground wasn't explained (Dunphy - a personal friend of Louis', so hardly an 'extra suspect' - lied about it 'always being an option' to sell), the dodgy planning process that saw democracy thwarted, and the club's subsequent history was completely ignored? Dunphy's poisonous anti-Rovers' fans articles in the papers were also ignored, and of course the gob****es behind the programme swallowed every word those ******* said.
But the Kilcoynes and Dunphy know that if you say something often enough it becomes the truth. But that's only because stupid and ignorant people accept it as the truth.
31/10/2007, 8:24 AM
ifk101

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Still a bit torn TBH. I like both but wouldn't claim to support either, certainly not by the standards set out by the fan police here!

If I was still in Ireland I'd hope that I'd bring the kids to either when they're old enough. I listened to a lot of the Longford match on Sunday on the radio and was disappointed my local Irish pub with RTE didn't show it on any of their numerous screens (in fairness there was a private party in one of the two main rooms, it did clash with Arsenal vs Liverpool and I do live in North London).

What disappointed me was that I was at a 40th in Dublin recently with a lot of my old college mates, all UCD and some footballers, and none knew UCD was in the semi and frankly none cared.

You could have watched the match on rte.ie. I did :)
31/10/2007, 9:01 AM
Ash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

... and was disappointed my local Irish pub with RTE didn't show it on any of their numerous screens

Dont worry, you can catch Finn Harps v Athlone Town live on RTE on Friday :D
31/10/2007, 9:13 AM
btid1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

What disappointed me was that I was at a 40th in Dublin recently with a lot of my old college mates, all UCD and some footballers, and none knew UCD was in the semi and frankly none cared.

And therin lies the problem - the Irish public's apathy.

Stuggart88 - it's not a matter of being the fan police.To me supporting Bohs is a decision for life not just a thing to do while it is fashionable or convenient.I live in Kildare but support Bohs and get to as many games as possible.To me having to get a bus across the city is not a reason to give up on following a club.Your heart clearly was never in it and you simply did it either because it was fashionable or it killed a bit of time.To me thats not being a fan it is simply being an interested on looker.
31/10/2007, 10:06 AM
dcfcsteve

Quote:

Originally Posted by geysir

It wasn't in that programmes sphere to do a job on the Kilcoynes.
It was more a Reeling in the Years approach not a Panorama investigation.
It provided a balanced enough report between Kilcoyne and Kram.
It's just that the extra suspects, Byrne and Dunphy, didn't help to clarify.
On that core issue you mention, the KRAM guy made it clear that the Kilcoynes refused point blank to negotiate. The program did not ignore that point.

On purchase from the nuns the ground should have been placed in trust. No club should be without it's constitution to protect it's assets.

Couldn't disagree more.

It WAS within the programme's sphere to tell the story of what happened - i.e. Rovers being made homeless by a property deal. Instead, they chose to focus on only part of the story - Rovers being made homeless due to dwindling crowds and sellers who claim they had 'no choice'.

Had they done their job properly they would've pointed out the full story - not focusing on the bit their favourite interviewees (Dunphy et al) wanted to highlight.
31/10/2007, 11:00 AM
The Man Himself

i was at milltown at least a dozen times for rovers v waterford matches and there was never under 10,000 at any of them.
the 2 best supported clubs in the country at the time and by far the biggest supported clubs.
31/10/2007, 11:16 AM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Man Himself

i was at milltown at least a dozen times for rovers v waterford matches and there was never under 10,000 at any of them.
the 2 best supported clubs in the country at the time and by far the biggest supported clubs.

I was a Pats Cup semi in 1986 in waterford and there was about 3,000 at the game and it was split 50/50
31/10/2007, 11:25 AM
Calcio Jack

A few posts have mentioned that the Kilcoynes tricked the Jesuits.... that not true. At the time the Kilcoynes had to deal with a firm of accountants who were acting on behalf of the Jesuits.All they were interested in was getting as much as they could for the lease and had no interest in insisting on inserting a clause which would of meant the land could only be used as a soocer stadium. It has always annoyed me as to how the Jesuits put themselves accross as being 'innocent' in the ways of the world... they weren't, they took the money and weren't interested in what happened to the ground... the ironic thing is that the Jesuits if they'd realy been smart could of got a lot more from the Kilcoynes.

In relation to KRAM i've always wondered how much money did they raise...and more importantly what happened to it.
31/10/2007, 11:25 AM
ifk101

Just out of curiousity - would there have been a "sizeable" number of non-paying punters at the matches in Milltown?
31/10/2007, 11:47 AM
Sonic

The only villians are the shower of b@stards that were out protesting against moving from Milltown and didnt bother their asses to get out to the games and support them!!
31/10/2007, 11:49 AM
DvB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic

The only villians are the shower of b@stards that were out protesting against moving from Milltown and didnt bother their asses to get out to the games and support them!!

Talk about not having a clue!! :mad:
31/10/2007, 3:52 PM
khoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonic

The only villians are the shower of b@stards that were out protesting against moving from Milltown and didnt bother their asses to get out to the games and support them!!

Are you taking the p!ss or are you just a really thick gobsh!te???
:confused:
31/10/2007, 4:52 PM
geysir

Quote:

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Couldn't disagree more.

It WAS within the programme's sphere to tell the story of what happened - i.e. Rovers being made homeless by a property deal. Instead, they chose to focus on only part of the story - Rovers being made homeless due to dwindling crowds and sellers who claim they had 'no choice'.

Had they done their job properly they would've pointed out the full story - not focusing on the bit their favourite interviewees (Dunphy et al) wanted to highlight.

Am I the only one who heard the interview with the KRAM member and saw the archive material of the protests and meetings.
Kilcoyne was allowed to speak his story. So what, the same liberty was given to the Kram member. You make your own mind up. I certainly could.

It's not all the truth as you know it. What I get out of it is, how could it happen in the first place and what could have been done different? While Rovers were riding high in better times in earlier years, Sligo's members secured the Showgrounds in the midst of a crisis, despite struggling with severe financial issues over decades, their ground could not be sold by the club's board nor could it be mortgaged.

If all you're interested in is the scandal story of how Kilcoyne sold Milltown, you're missing the point.
31/10/2007, 5:02 PM
khoop

Quote:

Originally Posted by geysir

While Rovers were riding high in better times in earlier years, Sligo's members secured the Showgrounds in the midst of a crisis, despite struggling with severe financial issues over decades, their ground could not be sold by the club's board nor could it be mortgaged.

And that has got WHAT exactly to do with Rovers??? Go on - the details please - and not just meaningless waffle.
31/10/2007, 5:06 PM
OneRedArmy

Quote:

Originally Posted by geysir

It's not all the truth as you know it. What I get out of it is, how could it happen in the first place and what could have been done different? While Rovers were riding high in better times in earlier years, Sligo's members secured the Showgrounds in the midst of a crisis, despite struggling with severe financial issues over decades, their ground could not be sold by the club's board nor could it be mortgaged.

If all you're interested in is the scandal story of how Kilcoyne sold Milltown, you're missing the point.

Large dollop of hindsight bias here.

If you accept that the Kilcoynes were out to make money, rather than the good of Shamrock Rovers (as most LoI fans would), then your point becomes immaterial.

Kilcoyne didn't HAVE to sell the ground, he choose to.
01/11/2007, 6:37 AM
bennocelt

its easy to spot the laissez-faire fans here

Jeez, unless you havent a clue, but watching the show no matter how stupid you are...............if the end result meant selling the ground then surely thats not good for football (no matter what crowds they were getting)

To sell Shamrock rovers ground to property developers and leave the club high and dry was a sin, and then the FAI made him president................jeez its a great country we live in

by the way what happened to the money (profit?) made from the sale?
01/11/2007, 8:04 AM
gspain

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calcio Jack

A few posts have mentioned that the Kilcoynes tricked the Jesuits.... that not true. At the time the Kilcoynes had to deal with a firm of accountants who were acting on behalf of the Jesuits.All they were interested in was getting as much as they could for the lease and had no interest in insisting on inserting a clause which would of meant the land could only be used as a soocer stadium. It has always annoyed me as to how the Jesuits put themselves accross as being 'innocent' in the ways of the world... they weren't, they took the money and weren't interested in what happened to the ground... the ironic thing is that the Jesuits if they'd realy been smart could of got a lot more from the Kilcoynes.

In relation to KRAM i've always wondered how much money did they raise...and more importantly what happened to it.

I don't recall any public statements from the Jesuits.

They took �50,000 for the lease based on the fact that there would have been uproar if they had sold the ground. They were certainly naive in selling to the Kilcoynes.

The programme was not balanced. It faield to mention the purchase of the ground from the Jesuits. It focussed on the KRAM guy saying he did his best with the protests and then Dunphy and Kilcoyne justifying the sale.

Only 2 clubs voted against LK for FAI president btw - Pats who backed their own candidate and Limerick.
01/11/2007, 8:17 AM
Calcio Jack

Quote:

Originally Posted by gspain

I don't recall any public statements from the Jesuits.

They took �50,000 for the lease based on the fact that there would have been uproar if they had sold the ground. They were certainly naive in selling to the Kilcoynes.

The programme was not balanced. It faield to mention the purchase of the ground from the Jesuits. It focussed on the KRAM guy saying he did his best with the protests and then Dunphy and Kilcoyne justifying the sale.

Only 2 clubs voted against LK for FAI president btw - Pats who backed their own candidate and Limerick.

The Jesuits did in effect sell the ground ie they sold the lease to the Kilcoynes, and to say they were worried about there been uproar if " they sold the ground" is rubbish.

If they felt that way then when they were drawing up the terms of the sale of the lease to Kilcoyne they would of inserted a clause insisting that the land could only be used as a stadium for SRFC, that would of protected Rovers. However they had full knowledge of the fact that the terms of the lease sale granted the Kilcoynes the power to do what they wanted with the land (subject to PP) and they agreed to it...otherwise the Kilcoynes wouldn't of purchased the lease.... now the Jesuits of course did say afterwards that they asumed the Kilcoynes would continue to use the land as a stadium for Rovers and that is what they had expected to happen.... I don't buy that version, so IMO the Jesuits had no qualms about the participating in the demise of Rovers and their feigned shock at what the Kilcoynes did has always sickened me.

Still like to know where did all the money collected by KRAM go ??
01/11/2007, 8:49 AM
Stuttgart88

Quote:

Originally Posted by btid1

Your heart clearly was never in it and you simply did it either because it was fashionable or it killed a bit of time.To me thats not being a fan it is simply being an interested on looker.

Hence my remark about "fan police". It most certainly was not fashionable for me to go to Rovers on a Sunday, or any other eL team. I was a devout Rovers fan for about 10 years, albeit a home fan or Dublin-match fan mainly. I had no money as a teenager or student and away trips were simply unaffordable. Even the few quid it cost to go to Milltown was a stretch.

Not going to Tolka was a point of principle.

My then supporting UCD was an unusual case. As I said, I studied there and was involved there. It's only natural that I'd be interested in them. I used to go to their Budweiser cup games mid-week too, but I suppose that's not that noteworthy as I was on campus anyway and it sure as hell beat pure economics.

There were one or two seasons where it was ideal for me. UCD were chasing promotion and Rovers were chasing the league. They played at home on consecutive Sundays so I watched a game every weekend of the season. others did too - I noted that guy Dr. Bill Tormey (?) at both grounds many weeks of the season. I'm not in the remotest bit embarrassed to admit that once Rovers left Milltown a part of Rovers died for me, but I think that's perfectly justifiable especially in the context of my UCD links. I used to see some Rovers regulars at Shels games during the Boycott years.

Don't you think it'd be far worse if I just dropped supporting the game altogether? Even during the boycott years I'd be at 30+ eL games a season.

In any event I stopped attending eL games religiously during the 90s as I actually played junior football regularly, sometimes twice on a Saturday and again on Sunday mornings., not to mention casual football and training. I think you can overdo it a bit on the football front. Or maybe my "heart just wasn't in it" as you say.
01/11/2007, 9:11 AM
btid1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Not going to Tolka was a point of principle.

But surely with the Kilcoynes not involved there was no longer a principle and the only thing that would have mattered was the survival of Shamrock Rovers FC??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuttgart88

Don't you think it'd be far worse if I just dropped supporting the game altogether? Even during the boycott years I'd be at 30+ eL games a season.

I never questioned the fact that you were hugely interested in and a dedicated follower of football my only question was as to how anyone could stop following a team they are supposed to be a fan of because of a change in home ground but maybe thats just my naivety?

I was only 4 years old when Milltown was sold so one question I would have was whether Stuggart88's thoughts would be representative of a lot of Rovers fans and whether they developed a totally new fanbase post Milltown?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page