Rule 42 Discussion

The simple fact is that the huge amount of public money used to refurbish the stadium should mean the GAA shouldn't get to solely dictate what should or shouldn't be played there. The idea that a stadium that big should be used just for gaelic and hurling alone is nonsense, and that goes for every other GAA stadium in the country too, considering how much in grants they get. I'm not suggesting CCFC should move-in, but once-off events like the proposed testimonial, maybe European games, even an Ireland friendly, should be facilitated, as a matter of common and financial sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

It all depends on the demand I suppose, and to a certain extent, that depends on the number of tickets available, which depends on the venue.

I would have thought that 12-15,000 would be enough, but as there isn't any venue with that capacity, the need to look for a bigger one.

---

Hard to know, they sold 7,000 tickets in less than ten minutes I believe so I'd assume the attendance will be upwards on 20,000 anyway. Even if it's not, I don't think this very specific event is a reason to give our about the FAI not having a bigger football stadium located in Cork. In the main, they simply don't need one, and neither do the IRFU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

The simple fact is that the huge amount of public money used to refurbish the stadium should mean the GAA shouldn't get to solely dictate what should or shouldn't be played there.

---

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

Hard to know, they sold 7,000 tickets in less than ten minutes I believe so I'd assume the attendance will be upwards on 20,000 anyway. Even if it's not, I don't think this very specific event is a reason to give our about the FAI not having a bigger football stadium located in Cork. In the main, they simply don't need one, and neither do the IRFU.

---

Clearly the people who hand out Rubgy World Cup hosting rights didn't agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

To those who say the demand isn't there to justify soccer teams building stadiums like that, ask yourself how often Croke Park is full. As a random example i googled the for a game held there recently and came up with the Leinster Hurling final. The attendance was 40,703, less than half the capacity of the place. They can only ever guarantee to fill it for the 2 finals. They might fill it for a particularly interesting clash at the latter stages of the championship, or a big game for the Dubs. But it's still the jewel in their crown.

---

Croke Park is more comparable to Lansdowne Road, as the main stadium for its association(s). Lansdowne Road isn't full very often either, only guaranteed for a few rugby internationals. I accept they still require a certain capacity to facilitate their biggest occasions, if that's the point you're making. These may be infrequent but hardly comparable the very rare occasions Cork City would require a larger capacity, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

Clearly the people who hand out Rubgy World Cup hosting rights didn't agree with you.

---

I'm not sure what you mean, wasn't PUC put forward as the Cork venue and the main reason the Government pumped so much into it in the first place?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

There is a simple solution to all this - politicians show some backbone and say to the GAA - no more public money until your facilities are open to use by the public.

---

This just isn't going to happen folks. Until football is as well organised as GAA It's going to be a case of crumbs from the GAA table.

There is no point blaming politicians. It's always been the way, and It's the same in every democracy in the world.

No point blaming the GAA either. They are doing the best they can for their sport. The negative implications about the grant money they get is nothing but begrudgery. The money is there and football would get it's fair share if politicians were as afraid of football as they are of GAA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

There is no point blaming politicians. It's always been the way, and It's the same in every democracy in the world.

---

Absolute and utter rubbish. To say " its always been the way" without any justification whatsoever is exactly the reason why politics is so parish pump messed up in the first place.

Again to re-iterate - I don't agree with with Duff's comments on the issue as they are unhelpful, but I sure as hell understand them. The GAA do what they like and the rest of the people can go scratch - that's just wrong. To justify it with "thats just the way it is" compounds the problem further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

I don't think any of us a really qualified to say if the GAA are breaking EU state aid rules here.

---

Agreed. But equally, nobody here is qualified to say that GAA have sole discretion on who uses that pitch or not, considering the funding received and conditions that came with the funding.

Anyway, regardless of whether it would get them in hot water or not, I think that this charity match would, from a publicity perspective, be an absolutely terrible choice of event for the GAA to make a stand on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Absolute and utter rubbish. To say " its always been the way" without any justification whatsoever is exactly the reason why politics is so parish pump messed up in the first place.

Again to re-iterate - I don't agree with with Duff's comments on the issue as they are unhelpful, but I sure as hell understand them. The GAA do what they like and the rest of the people can go scratch - that's just wrong. To justify it with "thats just the way it is" compounds the problem further.

---

I just don't have the time today to reply to everyone so I picked out this one.

The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas in 2020. Their new 65,000 capacity stadium is being built at a cost of $1.8bn, which will be paid in its entirety by the city. The Raiders originally selected the location and will pay rent of $1, for which they will control the naming rights for both the stadium and the road outside.

The British government paid a huge amount of money towards rebuilding Wembley, which the English FA are on the verge of selling at a huge profit.

Man City pay a laughable rent towards the Etihad, which they also control the naming rights to.

The funding the GAA receive has nothing to do with parish pump politics. It is completely normal, and rather modest compared to what goes on in the US. What is abnormal in Ireland is the lack of funding football receives. Going back to the St. Pats decision, if that happened to the local football club this close to an election the local elected reps would be brushing up their CV in most other countries.

Apologies if mentioned before but has anyone else thought that the organisers seemed a bit disorganised about this?
I'm only outside looking in and, coming from a GAA background perhaps I have GAA-tinted glasses, but it seemed as if the organisers didn't give the GAA much time (I know the game is in September) and just barrelled ahead and then gave out that they didn't get Páirc Uí Chaoimh.
Like they didn't include the GAA in the planning of it and then assumed it would be available.

Am I wrong?

Now, don't get me wrong, the game should definitely be allowed go ahead in PUC. But it just smacked of the GAA saying 'incompetence from the soccer crowd again' for me.

As if they assumed it would be fine to use the stadium.

I am open to correction on everything here.

But the GAA is very well organised. And they have their rules and regulations because of that and vice versa.
in this case, of course, the rule needs to be broken and looked at more intensely for the future.

I think sense will prevail as every sportsperson on the island wants the match played in PUC.

From what I can tell, they did approach the GAA, and were turned down, and when the details of the match were announced everyone asked, "why not Pairc Ui Chaoimh", and that's when the outrage started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

I just don't have the time today to reply to everyone so I picked out this one.

The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas in 2020. Their new 65,000 capacity stadium is being built at a cost of $1.8bn, which will be paid in its entirety by the city. The Raiders originally selected the location and will pay rent of $1, for which they will control the naming rights for both the stadium and the road outside.

The British government paid a huge amount of money towards rebuilding Wembley, which the English FA are on the verge of selling at a huge profit.

Man City pay a laughable rent towards the Etihad, which they also control the naming rights to.

The funding the GAA receive has nothing to do with parish pump politics. It is completely normal, and rather modest compared to what goes on in the US. What is abnormal in Ireland is the lack of funding football receives. Going back to the St. Pats decision, if that happened to the local football club this close to an election the local elected reps would be brushing up their CV in most other countries.

---

Las Vegas is a bad example. The NFL used the threat of moving various franchises to Las Vegas to bully municipal governments into building taxpayer-funded stadia all over the USA. There's nobody left to bully as voters in San Diego and St. Louis decided against funding new buildings so both teams moved to the Stan Kroenke-funded stadium under construction in Los Angeles.

Oakland moved to Las Vegas because the stadium in Oakland is the oldest in the NFL (Green Bay and Chicago have older buildings but they have both been completely rebuilt). Voters there didn't want to pay for a new stadium and Las Vegas made an incredible offer that no owner would refuse. They will make the money back because there will be a massive increase in hotel tax revenue due to people coming to Vegas to see their favourite team play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixer82

Apologies if mentioned before but has anyone else thought that the organisers seemed a bit disorganised about this?
I'm only outside looking in and, coming from a GAA background perhaps I have GAA-tinted glasses, but it seemed as if the organisers didn't give the GAA much time (I know the game is in September) and just barrelled ahead and then gave out that they didn't get Páirc Uí Chaoimh.
Like they didn't include the GAA in the planning of it and then assumed it would be available.

Am I wrong?

Now, don't get me wrong, the game should definitely be allowed go ahead in PUC. But it just smacked of the GAA saying 'incompetence from the soccer crowd again' for me.

As if they assumed it would be fine to use the stadium.

I am open to correction on everything here.

But the GAA is very well organised. And they have their rules and regulations because of that and vice versa.
in this case, of course, the rule needs to be broken and looked at more intensely for the future.

I think sense will prevail as every sportsperson on the island wants the match played in PUC.

---

In fairness, the organisers were ploughing on with Turner's Cross without any fuss. It was just mentioned that seeing as there was a very high demand for tickets they had explored the possibility of using PUC but the Cork County Board, despite being open to the idea themselves, informed them that their hands were tied by Croke Park and Rule 42.

The organisers stressed that the CCB were very receptive and even offered the use of their other catering facilities for the event. I don't think anybody knows when they actually made the approach so I don't think it's fair to suggest that they didn't give the GAA much time, this may or may not be true. Either way, I don't think they ever just 'assumed' PUC would be made available.

Once it became public that PUC had been discussed and subsequently ruled out, as Tets says, that's when the outrage began.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

The funding the GAA receive has nothing to do with parish pump politics. It is completely normal, and rather modest compared to what goes on in the US. What is abnormal in Ireland is the lack of funding football receives. Going back to the St. Pats decision, if that happened to the local football club this close to an election the local elected reps would be brushing up their CV in most other countries.

---

Of course it is! Did you even read my initial post? What relevance the US is to here is beyond me. The US is a basketcase in any case - some cities build new facilities every 20 years. In most European countries - publicly funded facilities are available for the public to use. They are not siphoned off by a sectarian organisation for a closed shop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

I just don't have the time today to reply to everyone so I picked out this one.

The Oakland Raiders are moving to Las Vegas in 2020. Their new 65,000 capacity stadium is being built at a cost of $1.8bn, which will be paid in its entirety by the city. The Raiders originally selected the location and will pay rent of $1, for which they will control the naming rights for both the stadium and the road outside.

The British government paid a huge amount of money towards rebuilding Wembley, which the English FA are on the verge of selling at a huge profit.

Man City pay a laughable rent towards the Etihad, which they also control the naming rights to.

The funding the GAA receive has nothing to do with parish pump politics. It is completely normal, and rather modest compared to what goes on in the US. What is abnormal in Ireland is the lack of funding football receives. Going back to the St. Pats decision, if that happened to the local football club this close to an election the local elected reps would be brushing up their CV in most other countries.

---

They pay 3million a year, according to wikipedia, not exactly laughable

I’ve a bit of time tonight for a proper reply to all this.

Tets. This might be the one where these posts all get moved. I ended up quoting Roman poetry!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colbert Report

Las Vegas is a bad example. The NFL used the threat of moving various franchises to Las Vegas to bully municipal governments into building taxpayer-funded stadia all over the USA. There's nobody left to bully as voters in San Diego and St. Louis decided against funding new buildings so both teams moved to the Stan Kroenke-funded stadium under construction in Los Angeles.

Oakland moved to Las Vegas because the stadium in Oakland is the oldest in the NFL (Green Bay and Chicago have older buildings but they have both been completely rebuilt). Voters there didn't want to pay for a new stadium and Las Vegas made an incredible offer that no owner would refuse. They will make the money back because there will be a massive increase in hotel tax revenue due to people coming to Vegas to see their favourite team play.

---

It was an extreme example all right, but it was chosen deliberately. The only reasonable definition of "Parish-pump politics" is that it refers to a uniquely Irish form of political parochialism, the usually cited example being the deals the Healy-Rae brothers have done for Kerry down through the years. I chose that example to demonstrate that this sort of thing certainly isn't unique to Ireland or the GAA. If anything the funding the GAA have received has been small potatoes in international terms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

Of course it is! Did you even read my initial post? What relevance the US is to here is beyond me. The US is a basketcase in any case - some cities build new facilities every 20 years. In most European countries - publicly funded facilities are available for the public to use. They are not siphoned off by a sectarian organisation for a closed shop.

---

Yes. I did read it. You then made the point that in your opinion the funding the GAA receive represents parish pump politics.

I respectfully disagree. I feel that the state support received by the GAA is actually fairly modest in international terms. As evidence in support of my point i've referenced an international example of a stadium being subsidised by the government to the tune of billions of dollars. Those are figures wildly in excess of any funding the GAA ever received for one of their projects.

You talk about Europe being different, but I also provided 2 examples from our nearest neighbours in the same post. Perhaps you should fully read other peoples posts before playing the man in that regard. People in glass houses and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tetsujin1979

They pay 3million a year, according to wikipedia, not exactly laughable

---

The going rate for the naming rights alone on that stadium are easily in excess of £10m per annum. Manchester City Council are in effect paying them £7m a year to play their games there. It’s laughable all right. City are laughing all the way to the bank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juvenal, circa 100CE

... iam pridem, ex quo suffragia nulli,
uendimus, effudit curas; nam qui dabat olim,
imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se,
continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat,
panem et circenses.

… Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man,
the People have abdicated our duties;
for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything,
now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things:
bread and circuses.

---

When i said above that this has always been this way, I don't mean that old Grandfather Backstothewall says this sort of thing was going on under the Lemass government, and sure nothing has really changed when you think about it. I mean it much more literally than that. The phrase "bread and circuses" finds it origin in the quote above, the circuses in question being tracks for chariot racing rather than anything to do with jugglers. Juvenal was looking back nostalgically to a Rome that never existed, like a mad Brexiter dreaming of a time when Britain didn’t need an EU because it the could trade with a global empire who were all delighted just to be part of the club. Long before Juvenal in the days of the Roman Republic there were few better ways to win high office than making sure everyone knew you would improve the amphitheatre or the circus once you were elected.

The Colosseum wasn’t built by a co-operative of gladiator owners. It wasn’t the Iron age equivalents of Frank Warren and Eddie Hearn who paid the bill. It was the state. In that case it was under the emperors Vespasian and Titus, but it is just one example among hundreds or thousands they built in towns and cities everywhere from modern day Iraq to modern day Wales.

And even back then the chariot racing fans wanted a new circus, and the gladiator fans wants a new amphitheatre.

So whatever funding the GAA have received or are getting, it’s nothing particular to Ireland, or to the times we live in. And as a practice that can be traced back as far as recorded history will take us, it seems unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

The only option available to football in this country to get a fair crack of the whip is for the FAI and the League of Ireland to get themselves as well organised as the GAA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

Yes. I did read it. You then made the point that in your opinion the funding the GAA receive represents parish pump politics.

I respectfully disagree. I feel that the state support received by the GAA is actually fairly modest in international terms. As evidence in support of my point i've referenced an international example of a stadium being subsidised by the government to the tune of billions of dollars. Those are figures wildly in excess of any funding the GAA ever received for one of their projects.

You talk about Europe being different, but I also provided 2 examples from our nearest neighbours in the same post. Perhaps you should fully read other peoples posts before playing the man in that regard. People in glass houses and all that.

---

In none of your examples, none, zero - which you have provided either in the USA or Manchester or anywhere - projects that get publicly fund don't have other organisations excluded from using them. If you rock up to Wembly / The Etihad / any NFL ground anywhere and you wish to rent it - as long as you have the rent - you can use it. That is the fundamental point I'm making. It is the very definition of parish pump politics - the GAA can get away with this because they are the type of people who vote. I remember the stories about Thomas Davis years back and politicians who were banned from the club due to a certain stance being made publicly. Now you can go on about funding any stadium in the world you wish, its not the point - it was never the point.

Now there may be cases of dispute everywhere but nowhere else in the world does a sporting organisation get such a large % of public money and close the doors to certain sections of the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real ale Madrid

In none of your examples, none, zero - which you have provided either in the USA or Manchester or anywhere - projects that get publicly fund don't have other organisations excluded from using them. If you rock up to Wembly / The Etihad / any NFL ground anywhere and you wish to rent it - as long as you have the rent - you can use it. That is the fundamental point I'm making.

---

If that is your fundamental point I should address it.

GAA grounds are available to the public at the discretion of the owner. PUC has been used for concerts. Croke Park for all kinds of things.

You are asking me to prove a negative which is awkward. But I can say that I'm not aware of the RFU handing Twickenham over to any other code of football. Ever.

Not sure if there was government/council/lottery money there, but i'd be amazed if there wasn't

I don't know the policy of every stadium in the world, or how they were funded, but there is the example you asked for.

I assume from what you are saying that you supported the GAA when they were arguing that Tallaght should have been built to accommodate GAA as well as football?

I thought they were being ridiculous myself, but there you go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

If that is your fundamental point I should address it.

GAA grounds are available to the public at the discretion of the owner. PUC has been used for concerts. Croke Park for all kinds of things.

You are asking me to prove a negative which is awkward. But I can say that I'm not aware of the RFU handing Twickenham over to any other code of football. Ever.

Not sure if there was government/council/lottery money there, but i'd be amazed if there wasn't

I don't know the policy of every stadium in the world, or how they were funded, but there is the example you asked for.

I assume from what you are saying that you supported the GAA when they were arguing that Tallaght should have been built to accommodate GAA as well as football?

I thought they were being ridiculous myself, but there you go.

---

Twickenham has hosted many American football games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Twickenham has hosted many American football games.

---

As has Croke Park

It's sad that an attempt by wonderful people to create a memorable event in honour of a local hero, whose life was so tragically cut short, should descend into such rancour. And it should give pause for everybody to take a step back and look at the rules and their implementation that led to this situation. The GAA needs to have a better system of approval for non-GAA events in its stadia, either by scrapping Rule 42 or whatever it is now, or giving more autonomy to local associations to make these decisions, preferably in advance so that if, for example, Cork City went on a run in Europe that brought them up against a footballing giant, they could feel confident that PUC would be available to them so they wouldn't have to leave the city.

Also, it's about time to talk about groundsharing between the GAA and other sports - while most LOI clubs have stadia that fit their needs and/or don't have the fanbase for the local GAA ground and/or can work something out with the IRFU, there are a couple of situations where it might be best to have public money used to build a stadium for both GAA and soccer - the most glaring example would be Drogheda, where you have a dilapidated soccer stadium and a dilapidated GAA stadium. On the RTE site where the new Drogheda United stadium was being discussed, a GAA supporter, likely stung by the criticism over the Liam Miller situation, queried a little sarcastically if, as a publicly funded stadium, it would be able to accommodate Louth GAA. And there is a point there - this is the level where, as a small country, there should be no need to have two stadia. On the flip side to that argument, there also should be just one shared stadium in Ballybofey, instead of Finn Harps having to play for years in a stadium best suited to the early 20th century while plans to build a new one drag on and on (although I do understand that Sean MacCumhail Park may be a bit big for them and progress is finally being made on the new stadium.)

Posts discussing rule 42 moved from Damien Duff thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

If that is your fundamental point I should address it.

GAA grounds are available to the public at the discretion of the owner. PUC has been used for concerts. Croke Park for all kinds of things.

You are asking me to prove a negative which is awkward. But I can say that I'm not aware of the RFU handing Twickenham over to any other code of football. Ever.

Not sure if there was government/council/lottery money there, but i'd be amazed if there wasn't

I don't know the policy of every stadium in the world, or how they were funded, but there is the example you asked for.

I assume from what you are saying that you supported the GAA when they were arguing that Tallaght should have been built to accommodate GAA as well as football?

I thought they were being ridiculous myself, but there you go.

---

Twickenham has hosted Rugby League.

If anyone wants to rent Twickenham then they can so long as it's free and you can cough up the rent.

Tallaght is regularly used for Gaelic Games, Hurling, ladies football and camogie. Underage level obviously including Feile finals. Again, its a publically funded facility and anyone who wishes to use it can. Anyway it seems the GAA in its own way have finally done the right thing here so I guess it's time to move on.

You could tell from the guy being interviewed today how uncomfortable a time it has been for the GAA the last little whole, between this and the "Newbridge or Nowhere" debacle. They aren't used to being shamed into coffing up usage of their (public funded) grounds, and there was comments made about politicians being "unhelpful" (ie, not towing the GAA line like they usually do).

Someone made some joke before about the GAA not wanting Protestants running the place, but we really shouldn't discount that attitude from within the GAA organisation. There is a large proportion of their membership that still treats association football as an enemy, an "English" game that needs to be fought tooth and nail, even when it is as self-defeating as holding senior All-Ireland games against the World Cup Final. But the point stands, that the GAA should not be allowed to draw down so much money in grants and then turn their nose up at other events that don't pass their own outdated criteria.

The GAA coming across as being very insecure in all this . Never a good look . When you appear to lack confidence in your Game / Product it doesn’t inspire confidence in observers .

How often would something as clear and obvious ( of being a very good and deserving case ) actually come up .

The GAA cannot expect to be getting Taxpayers money and not get some pressures that may come with that .

I'd imagine they will now start putting massive pressure on any stadium projects that receive public funding to have a playing surface big enough to accommodate GAA. Probably starting with Drogheda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

I'd imagine they will now start putting massive pressure on any stadium projects that receive public funding to have a playing surface big enough to accommodate GAA. Probably starting with Drogheda.

---

It would not surprise me if they did, although if there are no more requests for access to GAA stadia for other purely sporting events (Cork City for European games for example), the whole thing might just fade away.

Also, I'd guess that the most cost-effective sporting solution would be a shared public stadium not under GAA control, and I'm not sure how happy the GAA would actually be with that.

I haven't been on here much, mainly because of Paul O'Shea, but I've had my own issues with the PUC debacle. I'm that contradiction in Irish sporting terms, I'm as big a fan of Gaelic football as I am football. I'm not happy that the GAA have been forced to circumvent their own constitution, which has many faults, but has one huge plus that football does not have. The GAA constitution is open to amendment by any registered member that has enough backing to do so. I'm not a member of a GAA club, nor do I reckon a lot of people who publically outcry the non-use of PUC for non-Gaelic events. Whats the biggest complaint of the FAI? Zero accountability. The GAA is accountable every week of the year to it's members.

The above should not be considered a criticism of those who want to open up PUC or any other GAA ground. It should be considered a criticism of those within the GAA, either admin or legal, who didn't do enough with the small print to ensure that they weren't put in a position by accepting public money that required the organisation to have to ignore its own constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

I'd imagine they will now start putting massive pressure on any stadium projects that receive public funding to have a playing surface big enough to accommodate GAA. Probably starting with Drogheda.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

It would not surprise me if they did, although if there are no more requests for access to GAA stadia for other purely sporting events (Cork City for European games for example), the whole thing might just fade away.

Also, I'd guess that the most cost-effective sporting solution would be a shared public stadium not under GAA control, and I'm not sure how happy the GAA would actually be with that.

---

Having lived in a town for the guts of a decade that had 4 sets of separate grounds accommodating 4 separate sports in a small provincial town, I am hugely in favour of municipal sports facilities.
Having served for the guts of a decade on administrative bodies at club, county, provincial and lastly at National Governing Body level, in a 32 county minority sport, I can provide example first hand at both the cackhandness of administrators who yield significant power, and also at the absurdity at times of the both the Irish Sports Council and the Sports Grants system that are awarded, and consequently I am hugely in favour of municipal sports facilities.

All that being said, I quoted the above two posts specifically, because they both reference two huge issues I think will now come to the fore following this debacle; and to be perfectly honest, they would have bubbled to the surface had the IRFU been successful in their World Cup bid. Rule 42 will be abolished at some point, probably by the lifetime of the next government.

When we talk about municipal sports facilities here, we should be concentrating on new builds, not remoulding existing GAA grounds. However, rightly or wrongly, the GAA are in possession of the largest and most spacious sports grounds in every city, town, county in the country, and they cannot be ignored. Unfortunately for other sports this means in my eyes that any sporting programs that involve regeneration using public money, it is just going to mean GAA facilities being upgraded and being considered to be open for other sports to use- as Osasuran mentions. Which means that ultimately football clubs around the country (local ones) will still be scabbing around rather than being an equitable partner in any public facility.

In my mind, what this means is that any soccer stadium, as btw references Drogheda above, will need to be big enough to accommodate GAA,. I guarantee this is going to be demanded by the hardcore GAA people around the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kingdom

In my mind, what this means is that any soccer stadium, as btw references Drogheda above, will need to be big enough to accommodate GAA,. I guarantee this is going to be demanded by the hardcore GAA people around the country.

---

Which will be awful. Huge playing surfaces with fans in the front row at least 15-20m away from the edge of the pitch.

A role that stadiums over a certain capacity, say 10,000, have to be made available for other sports might be the way to go

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

Which will be awful. Huge playing surfaces with fans in the front row at least 15-20m away from the edge of the pitch.

---

Thatwould be awful? Have you seen the state of the two "stadia" in Drogheda. Plus the standard width of of a professional football pitch is 68 metres, while the minimum GAA pitch with is 80m, leaving an extra 6m on either side, which is far less than you said, as well as far less than the gap at the Waterford RSC, the London Stadium and loads of major stadia that have athletics tracks around them - and why not add an extra few metres to the width, to encourage expansive football?

If that 6m gap is still a problem, you could use retractable seating, or align the soccer pitch so that it's close to the main stand (remember we're probably talking about stadia in small or medium sized towns primarily).

If you really want an intimate four-sided stadium, do something similar to the North End at BMO field in Toronto, where the CFL end zone is partially artificial turf, is covered for Toronto FC games to turn it into a standing bar/concourse area with small temporary stands.

That said, we're really only talking about Drogheda here, unless Finn Harps' stadium plans go belly-up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samhaydenjr

Thatwould be awful? Have you seen the state of the two "stadia" in Drogheda. Plus the standard width of of a professional football pitch is 68 metres, while the minimum GAA pitch with is 80m, leaving an extra 6m on either side, which is far less than you said, as well as far less than the gap at the Waterford RSC, the London Stadium and loads of major stadia that have athletics tracks around them - and why not add an extra few metres to the width, to encourage expansive football?

If that 6m gap is still a problem, you could use retractable seating, or align the soccer pitch so that it's close to the main stand (remember we're probably talking about stadia in small or medium sized towns primarily).

If you really want an intimate four-sided stadium, do something similar to the North End at BMO field in Toronto, where the CFL end zone is partially artificial turf, is covered for Toronto FC games to turn it into a standing bar/concourse area with small temporary stands.

That said, we're really only talking about Drogheda here, unless Finn Harps' stadium plans go belly-up

---

The minimum length of a GAA pitch is 130m. A football pitch is typically 105m long. Behind the goals you are talking 15m+.

And that's the minimum. The GAA are likely to want something closer to 145m long.

I know there are stadiums out there with running tracks, dog tracks etc. We even have one up north with a stock car racing circuit around the pitch (Ballymena Showgrounds). I don't think any of them really work though. I haven't heard many complaints from Derry City about losing the dog track at the Brandywell.

Artifical pitches are an interesting point though. Perhaps 3 sided stadiums at the minimum width for GAA could work. Maybe I'm being too negative.

I'm sure there is a creative way to design a stadium specific to the needs of a soccer/GAA shared facility.

On a basic level I can imagine a permanent structure that gives enough space for GAA, with sliding seats underneath that main structure that can come out for soccer matches to ensure a proper atmosphere with supporters closer to the pitch.

This obviously would come with additional costs but I believe there is a way to achieve this if there is a will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backstothewall

The minimum length of a GAA pitch is 130m. A football pitch is typically 105m long. Behind the goals you are talking 15m+.

And that's the minimum. The GAA are likely to want something closer to 145m long.

I know there are stadiums out there with running tracks, dog tracks etc. We even have one up north with a stock car racing circuit around the pitch (Ballymena Showgrounds). I don't think any of them really work though. I haven't heard many complaints from Derry City about losing the dog track at the Brandywell.

Artifical pitches are an interesting point though. Perhaps 3 sided stadiums at the minimum width for GAA could work. Maybe I'm being too negative.

---

That would be the most viable solution. Again, currently the only place where permanent groundsharing with an actual stadium could be a solution is between Louth GAA and Drogheda United. All other LOI clubs have stadia/stadia plans that meet their current needs. I know Bohs and Pats are looking to move to new digs but there's no viable GAA partner for them. So for Drogheda/Louth you could have a stadium with 2 stands holding 2-3000 along the length of the ground, with terracing at both ends for 3000 each, giving a total capacity of 10-12,000 which would be suitable for bigger Louth GAA games. For Drogheda games, the last 15-20 metres of one end gets cordoned off, giving a three-sided capacity of 7-9000, which is suitable for Drogheda United's needs in the Premier League and maintains the intimacy that soccer fans like. For bigger Drogheda games (or even just to maintain the feel of a four-sided stadium), small temporary stands could be installed on the empty end, which may require artificial turf only inside the 21m line of the GAA pitch - the rest of the pitch can remain as natural grass.

Of course, groundsharing is a better solution for amateur soccer clubs in smaller towns where sharing with the local GAA team doesn't require an actual stadium so there are few, if any logistical issues, just regulatory ones. There may be the possibility of Cork City getting to play a European giant in a Europa League group stage, but even that is rare and, as Shamrock Rovers showed, may not even require the GAA's help

On the Louth GAA/Drogheda issue, I just found this article about plans for a new home for Louth GAA... from seven years ago: https://www.independent.ie/regionals...-27157359.html - and now the GAA has "closed the door" on developing Drogheda's Gaelic grounds: https://www.thesun.ie/sport/gaa-foot...or-a-new-home/ - seriously, can't everyone just set aside their tribalism and just all pitch in a few million euros to get this done and create a win-win situation.

I don't know that a GAA pitch at the minimum dimensions would be a runner for intercounty games. But for underage teams the smaller pitch could be of great benefit.

The best approach must be to look at the individual needs of towns and cities and build accordingly. In a county that plays both Gaelic football and hurling a GAA stadium will likely be so busy there is little spare capacity to bring in other sports. There is no better example of that than Galway. There it would seem sensible at first glance for Pearce Stadium to be brought up to date as a GAA facility, Connacht Rugby & Galway Utd to share a new stadium at Terryland or elsewhere, and allow the Sportsgrounds to go to the dogs.

The sense of entitlement coming off these statements is unreal: https://www.rte.ie/sport/gaa/2019/01...-felt-bullied/

I said it before but it bears repeating: the GAA higher-ups are very unused to being the subject of political and media pressure in this manner. The idea that the GAA would have allowed their stadium to be used for the match in their own time if everyone had just left them alone seems very disingenuous to me.

He says they were bullied into hosting the game, but really they were shamed into it. Just as they were shamed into caving when (ironically enough) they tried to bully Kildare into relinquishing home advantage for their qualifier against Mayo.

I had some sympathy for the GAA when the whole thing took off initially, as it was nothing to do with them really and all of a sudden they were knee deep in a controversy not directly of their own making. But they handled it appallingly I felt, the original knee-jerk statement refusing to accommodate the match, saying they received legal advice about the funding and all that stuff seemed pretty cold in the circumstances.

And it's absolute nonsense for him to suggest they might have accommodated the match of their own accord if they were "given the chance". They were given the chance, and then another chance, and then another.

It's hard to understand the mentality of him dragging all this up again now after the event was deemed such a success in the end. Do they actively seek bad press?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeLorean

It's hard to understand the mentality of him dragging all this up again now after the event was deemed such a success in the end

---

an attempt to distract from the ticket price increase controversy.

What I read from the GAA chief is that he felt the GAA were bullied into finding a way to circumvent their own rules and to do so in record time, that sets up a bad precedent :)

The central committee allowed the game to happen as a special exception under extreme pressure from outside and inside, now will have to define what a special exception is at annual congress, vote on it and get the clause entered into the rules.
That's a cart before the horse method of rule changing and that definitely rankles the cautious conservatives.

€30m of tax payers money went into the building of the stadium. i fully support public money going to major sports infrastructure but it must come with conditions. two issues annoy me...... 1. the use of the facilities should be more open to other organisations to ensure their highest possible use and 2 a certain amt tickets should be available at reasonable prices to ensure that all sections of the public can afford to attend the facilities. €90 for a stand ticket to the all ireland and €120 for most of the 6n seats prices the events beyond large sections of the public.... this is wrong