A different view on the Stadium issue

**John83** · 13/01/2004, 9:52 AM

Originally posted by gspain
Jim McDaid still favours the 80,000 option at Abbotstown.

...McDaid was very pessimistic re getting planning permission through for Lansdowne without years of delay - he does have a point here.

...3 options still o nthe table - 50,000 at Lansdowne, 65,000 or 80,000 at Abbotstown.

While a finished stadium in Lansdowne would be the bette rprospect the more I think about it Abbotstown makes sense - no planning issues, no need to move abroad while being built. However I still don't trust this government to make a decision.

How many times would we sellout the Brazil friendly at an 80,000 seater Abbottstown next month????

The planning permission issue is a point I hadn't thought of, but I think an 80,000 seater at Abottstown would be a financial disaster. There's no way we'd fill it for a friendly against anyone but France, Brazil, Argentina, England, Italy, Germany, Holland, Portugal or Spain, and maybe not even for all of them.

Even competitive matches would be half-full a lot of the time. It would end up a white elephant for the government, and not economically viable for the FAI or the IRFU to open it for most matches.

**patsh** · 13/01/2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by gspain
1) Jim McDaid still favours the 80,000 option at Abbotstown.

He also claimed this would be best because they were basing it on "the Olympic Stadium in Munich" model. There the local community used the stadium a lot, so therefore that made it profitable.
Would somebody in FF, maybe you might help him out Conor, point out to McDaid the following facts:
Munich is a city of almost 2 million people, with fantastic transport infrastructure and an underground system which stops at the Olympic park. The Olympic park where the stadium is situated, has a residential area, shops, restaurants, cinemas, clubs, in fact it is a medium sized town, almost in the city centre of Munich.
There is a population of roughly 12 million people within 1 and a half hours drive/train journey time.
Abbotstown is a place with a road passing by. There is no local community, there is no transport infrastructure, there are roughly 4 million people who might possibly use the facilities, but for most of them getting there is a days journey virtually.

So 1 place has a vibrant, large local population, infrastructure and economy.
The other place is a muddy field.
Remarkably similar, aren't they?...

**gspain** · 13/01/2004, 11:20 AM

there is a big tradition here of attending sporting events.

I believe we would sell out 80,000 block bookings for this campaign.

You can also design a stadium so that you don't open the full ground for lesser games. The GAA's issue with Croke Park is that the premium seats which are guaranteed for every event are in the middle tiers so it is not possible to just open the lower tier hence they need a 35,000 min attendance to justify using Croke Park.

Every 6 nations home rugby game v Wales, Scotland and england would sellout - 15,000+ away fans now for these and most have no hope of getting in. France will probably sellout and Italy would still attract a decent crowd (a block booking system would sell that out too).

How many times would the GAA sellout their All Ireland finals and big Dublin games?

There are economies of scale once you go above a certain attendance figure but even with 65,000 tickets there would still be huge demand for tickets.

**pete** · 13/01/2004, 1:26 PM

The fault continues to lie with the govt!

Govt ask FAI/IRFU to submitt their perferred option. Got right or wrong they submitt their preferred option as Lansdowne.

Govt continue to dither. No time scale given for decision. FAI/IRFU can't even try to come up alternatives til the govt makes a decision!

btw 60k would be plenty big enough in either location!

I think its fairly bad that elcted Ministers can't make a decision on a football stadium. How can anyone trust them to make decisions that actually affect the daily lives of the population.

**gspain** · 13/01/2004, 1:52 PM

Originally posted by pete
The fault continues to lie with the govt!

I think its fairly bad that elcted Ministers can't make a decision on a football stadium. How can anyone trust them to make decisions that actually affect the daily lives of the population.

That's the worry. They can't and they don't. Hence I think they'll dither again here.

**republic** · 15/01/2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by gspain
Fran Rooney was on RTE's Questions & Answers last night.

Some interesting points.

1) Jim McDaid still favours the 80,000 option at Abbotstown.

3) Alan Hunter has a mate - anothe rmember of the IFSA there.

4) Enda Kenny made a significant statement backing the stadium

How many times would we sellout the Brazil friendly at an 80,000 seater Abbottstown next month????

1) It is obvious that McDaid and Bertie still favour Abbotstown. The more I think about it the more I favour this too. McDaid said that he examined all the planning issues around Lansdowne. It is a minefield. Redevelopment of Lansdowne will also mean that the DART will have to be stopped or, at least, seriously curtailed. Can anyone realistically see this happening? There will be an *extremely* powerful residents lobby who will do everything possible to stop the redevelopment.

2) Allan Hunter's mate (Sean Reid?) in the ISFA surprisingly came across as being quite reasonable.

4) Enda Kenny making a "significant' statement". That's a first! Despite all Bertie's obvious failings we are fortunate that Enda is not in charge

. (Apologies to any Blueshirts)

Also seen in the audience was the esteemed Niall Ginty who asked a question about the possibility of a retractable roof. Ain't gonna happen Niall.

Fran Rooney's main argument was that a decision is needed now, irrespective of location. I suspect Rooney's preferred option is Lansdowne but that he would gladly support Abbotstown .

**patsh** · 15/01/2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by republic
1) It is obvious that McDaid and Bertie still favour Abbotstown. The more I think about it the more I favour this too. McDaid said that he examined all the planning issues around Lansdowne. It is a minefield. Redevelopment of Lansdowne will also mean that the DART will have to be stopped or, at least, seriously curtailed. Can anyone realistically see this happening?

Well serious curtailment and stoppage of the Dart is already happening, isn't it?
Aren't the stations along the line being upgraded, which means no Dart at the weekends?

The planning issues at Lansdowne would surely be nothing compared to the expenditure on Abbottstown, the upgrading of the roadway, and the issues and objections the PD scum will bring up.

**patsh** · 15/01/2004, 2:36 PM

Originally posted by Conor74
Will mention it to him at the Ard Fhis, during the lull in conversation after the venison and before the brandy and cigars. Jimmy is a good boy, you know, he'll understand...

Will ye be putting on the circus in Kerry again this year?

**pete** · 20/01/2004, 2:25 PM

Strangely enough i think it could be easier to get planning persmission at Lansdowne. The ground already has 2 stands so anything new will meerly be replacing them in height. Lansdowne is already designated as a sports stadium so whereas in Abbotstown they would surtely have to actually apply to get that designation...?

**pete** · 20/01/2004, 2:25 PM

Strangely enough i think it could be easier to get planning persmission at Lansdowne. The ground already has 2 stands so anything new will meerly be replacing them in height. Lansdowne is already designated as a sports stadium so whereas in Abbotstown they would surtely have to actually apply to get that designation...?

**drummerboy** · 21/01/2004, 11:48 AM

To complimate things even more, I have a feeling that the GAA will allow rugby and football into Croke Park, during their convenntion in April. The hierarchy of GAA don't want the other sports to have a modern stadium of their own. It could prove a treat to their own in times to come.

**drummerboy** · 21/01/2004, 11:49 AM

Oops sorry about that, that should read complicate

**soccerc** · 21/01/2004, 12:25 PM

A free stadium

**gspain** · 21/01/2004, 12:48 PM

Re free stadium,

Yes it could - has been discussed quite a bit - is there a catch here?

2 D4 councillors on Newstalk this morning - residents have already met with Philip Browne and battle lines have been drawn - concewrns re houses being overshadowed and pop concerts etc.

Funniest thing was Chris Andrews being worried about the F.A.I. involvement. Said there was too much infighting and incompetence and they'd screw it up. And his father is a football man and patron of the association............................

**Peadar** · 21/01/2004, 1:24 PM

Originally posted by soccerc
Could this be the answer

Without sounding like a total l�nger, what does Nally get out of this?

**tiktok** · 21/01/2004, 1:41 PM

Originally posted by Peadar
Without sounding like a total l�nger, what does Nally get out of this?

In a nutshell, it'd be his stadium.

He'd probably persuade the government to donate the land, but once it was up, his company would own and run it. They would charge the FAI and IRFU a fee for it's use (although still allowing them to make a nice profit). He can run whatever he wants out of it after that, can turn it into a concert venue or whatever he likes.

Basically, while it'd work to our advantage too, Nally would be seeing this as a way to make money through hosting events.

There was a great article in the herald on him a while back, if i can find it I'll post it up.

**drummerboy** · 21/01/2004, 1:52 PM

It sounds too good to be true. What made me sceptical of the article in the Herald was the fact it was written by Mr Sensational himself Paul Hyland. However I hope my misgivings were misplaced, its certainly encouraging to see he met the Govt. It will cost the taxpayers zilch, except for the site at Abbotstown, which should satisfy Mary Harney.

**republic** · 21/01/2004, 2:05 PM

The Nally proposal seems, at first glance, to have a lot of things going for it. There would probably be a lot less planning headaches compared to the Lansdowne redelopment.

Also the fact that it's 'free' to the state should make it extremely attractive to Slim & the PD's and also the Blueshirts.

**gspain** · 21/01/2004, 2:38 PM

Is this the proposal that also required some of the land to build houses,hotel etc?

A stadium on its own is not financially viable now maybe it could be with land donation etc.

The old option years ago was a Casino and a stadium but that got scuppered too as successive governments did nothing.

The PDs are also against state land being donated so still work to be done.

**republic** · 21/01/2004, 2:55 PM

Originally posted by gspain
Is this the proposal that also required some of the land to build houses,hotel etc?

The PDs are also against state land being donated so still work to be done.

Nothing has been indicated so far to suggest that additional land is required to build houses, hotels, casinos, brothels etc.

As regards the PD's nothing is surprising. The old saying that they 'know the cost of everything but the value of nothing' is never more evident when talking about them. Amazing that a parliamentary party which could fit in a taxi can hold an entire sporting community to ransom.