Croker open for business in 2007

**Jerry The Saint** · 19/01/2006, 1:16 PM

Originally Posted by londonred

Does this mean we are paying top whack for 3/4 of a stadium, assuming the hill holds 25000 we are getting a 55,000 seater stadium, the atmosphere will be crap if one sid eof the ground is completely empty, with croke park was it the inttention to buikd the worlds first horseshoe stadium or were they going to finish it off at some stage i didn't realise that there was no planning permission for a roof on hill 16.

There are just under 70,000 seats in Croker, i.e. more than double the soccer capacity of Lansdowne. The GAA always intended to leave Hill 16 as a safe standing area, despite certain people trying to impose UK-style all-seater restrictions on them, and they should be applauded for this. If having a roof and a seat are that important there are plenty of bars to watch the game in.

Anyway, several grounds have 3 larger sides - Twickenham and Millenium Stadium for example. The new Lansdowne design will have a single-tier stand at the North Terrace end.

**Tired&Emotional** · 19/01/2006, 1:26 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry The Saint

The GAA always intended to leave Hill 16 as a safe standing area, despite certain people trying to impose UK-style all-seater restrictions on them, and they should be applauded for this.

Not sure about that. There was very good reason for the "UK-style all-seater restrictions" and I would consider that a lesson to be learnt from rather than adopting an attitude of "we not doing that because the UK did it"

**NeilMcD** · 19/01/2006, 1:30 PM

The point is that there has never been trouble on the terrace at Croke park as there was in the UK. Therefore Hill 16 should be kept as a terrace as it is a special place to see and hear when the Dubs are playing. If bucket seats can be installed fair enough. But the GAA are not going to build a roof or install seats just for the soccer and rugby crowd. At the end of the day they are the landlords and the FAI and IRFU are the tenants.

**Tired&Emotional** · 19/01/2006, 1:38 PM

Hillsborough was the reason - who's to say the same would happen on Hill 16 someday in some way or another.....accidents aren't planned and there is no escape in a panicing mass of people no matter what the intention was...
At least seated areas minimise this risk.

I am saying this in the context of what I have said above - nothing to do with Rule 42 amendment - but has come to the fore for this reason. Safety first...

**paul_oshea** · 19/01/2006, 1:46 PM

As far as I know the Hill holds 16,000 with the total capacity of Croke Park is 84,000 which leaves 68,000 without the Hill

wrong wrong, we have had this before.

82,500 (thought there has been more than this in croke park since its been redone)

without hill its about 68,000 - i actually think its slightly more but anyhow.

the hill was kept for three reasons, the railway lines ( were too close to the hill thats why its so steep), residents (are facing right into it) and the sentimental value im sure was a contributor.

**NeilMcD** · 19/01/2006, 1:53 PM

So where am I wrong then. U have said that it holds 68,000 without the Hill and so did I. U have said the capcity is 82,500 but there has been more since it was re-done so how much more. I reckon it brought it up to 84,000. If you are going to correct somebody please put up specifics.

**OwlsFan** · 19/01/2006, 2:28 PM

Originally Posted by geysir

The FAI are responsible for their own lack of unity, ambition and political infighting on the national stadium issue over the last 3 decades. The GAA went ahead regardless of whether tax money was forthcoming. The FAI had that choice as well.

This is one of the great misconceptions that many soccer fans have in this country. "The FAI had that choice". To build a stadium that even this cash rich government baulks at

With what funds exactly were there to build a stadium ? Prior to Big Jack the FAI was verging on bankruptcy but people believe they should have been capable of builing stadiums to house non-existent crowds of 50,000. I was at soccer internationals 30 years ago where 14k people would show up for games. The odd game would attract a sell out crowd at Dalymount but Lansdowne, when we moved there, was seldom if ever full. After the Big Jack era that changed but there was never anywhere near the amount of money required to purchase a site and build a stadium. Bernard O'Beirne tried to do it with Eircom Park but the funding just wasn't around and the plan died a painful and expensive death.

You cannot compare the FAI to the GAA which for historical reasons has a club in every community in this country, unlike soccer which for many years was confined to the working class and so-called garrision towns. The GAA can host any number of big matches at Croke Park to fund the stadium. The FAI is limited to a few soccer internationals a year.

I don't see the IFA up north (a similar type organisation) with a national stadium holding 40k. If you are going to make comparisions, try and make them fair ones.

Ouch!

Just fell off my soap box (again).

**pete** · 19/01/2006, 2:29 PM

Can the FAI sell 68k seats in Croke Park?

Taking the first team in each pool we'd have games against... Once novelty has worn off how many seats at �50 will they sell for bottom 3 seeds?

Greece
Germany
Serbia & Montenegro
Hungary
Georgia
Liechtenstein

Will the IRFU sell 80k seats for all the 6 Nations games? Italy games struggle to fill Lansdowne so will be hard.

**tetsujin1979** · 19/01/2006, 2:39 PM

I'd imagine the FAI will try to organise the 3 games already mentioned against the 3 top seeds in the group, and the othe home games for Lansdowne

**Schumi** · 19/01/2006, 2:42 PM

The FAI will sell the games in groups if they've any sense. You only get a ticket for e.g. Germany if you buy a ticket for e.g. Kazakhstan as well.

**klein4** · 19/01/2006, 3:50 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

So where am I wrong then. U have said that it holds 68,000 without the Hill and so did I. U have said the capcity is 82,500 but there has been more since it was re-done so how much more. I reckon it brought it up to 84,000. If you are going to correct somebody please put up specifics.

you are totally wrong to say there has never been crowd trouble on hill16.
for a start. and if ever there was a potential for a disaster its at GAA grounds with people on the beer for the day and antiquated stadiums with terracing.

**NeilMcD** · 19/01/2006, 3:55 PM

"The point is that there has never been trouble on the terrace at Croke park as there was in the UK. Therefore Hill 16 should be kept as a terrace as it is a special place to see and hear when the Dubs are playing. If bucket seats can be installed fair enough. But the GAA are not going to build a roof or install seats just for the soccer and rugby crowd. At the end of the day they are the landlords and the FAI and IRFU are the tenants."

Well I would like you to read my quote again, I never said there was never trouble on Hill 16, This is what I said which is a different think altogether. Please read most post before you try to attack it.

"The point is that there has never been trouble on the terrace at Croke park as there was in the UK"

**pete** · 19/01/2006, 4:00 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

"The point is that there has never been trouble on the terrace at Croke park as there was in the UK"

Clearly that is true.

However wasn't there some incidents last year with people thrown out of Croke Park for things that happened on Hill16?

The only thing we can say is that officials are not attacked by supporters in irish football?

**NeilMcD** · 19/01/2006, 4:03 PM

I would not be sloppy enough to suggest that there was never trouble on Croke Park or on Hill 16 as that would be leaving myself open and would be both foolish and careless on my part.

**ThatGuy** · 19/01/2006, 4:05 PM

Isn't it funny how the people who accuse the GAA of biggotry seem to be the biggots themselves?

**klein4** · 19/01/2006, 4:28 PM

Originally Posted by NeilMcD

"The point is that there has never been trouble on the terrace at Croke park as there was in the UK"

even taking into account your problems expressing yourself with the english language. there used to be trouble at the dublin matches on an annual basis.and there was fighting at the dublin derry game there a couple of years back. to name just one example. the hooligan/thug culture probably doesnt exist in GAA as much as english soccer because most of the would be hooligans are too busy on the field.

**pete** · 19/01/2006, 4:28 PM

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

Isn't it funny how the people who accuse the GAA of biggotry seem to be the biggots themselves?

Are you a Bohs fan or just a GAA person lurging on this forum? When have you ever commented on the eL positively?

**paul_oshea** · 19/01/2006, 5:02 PM

Isn't it funny how the people who accuse the GAA of biggotry seem to be the biggots themselves?

here here, what sickens me on this forum, those that give out about the gaa or GAHHHHH as they like to call it, yet they are as forceful and hypocritical as those they are talking about in the ranks of the gaa.

**paul_oshea** · 19/01/2006, 5:07 PM

to name just one example.the hooligan/thug culture probably doesnt exist in GAA as much as english soccer because most of the would be hooligans are too busy on the field

klein you are an awful fool to beleive there is a thug/hooligan element to any extent, close to that in soccer in the uk, there is no organisation amongst "thugs" or hooligans in gaa, there may be the odd **** head or fella who is ****ed that gets thrown out for being too ****ed/leary/gives a fella a smack, but doesnt this happen on every saturday night in every town in ireland??? THis has nothing to do with thuggery among gaa fans or followers to suggest so is just pure ignorance.

when you have your facts and know what you are on about come back and discuss in a democratic way, dont just spout dictatorial minure.

When have you ever commented on the eL positively?

what has that got to do with the price of milk??? Nothing, nor has you suggesting him being a gaa fan have anything to do with the current topic.

**Jerry The Saint** · 19/01/2006, 5:12 PM

Originally Posted by klein4

antiquated stadiums with terracing.

Clearly doesn't apply in this case. There has been a pretty vocal campaign in the UK to bring safe, modern terracing. The rush to all-seater stadiums was more influenced by the idea that "something must be done" in the wake of Hillsborough than anything else.

All-ticket matches and increasing the number of entry/exit points have had a much bigger influence in reducing the potential dangers of the old Hill 16 (where a Hillsborough-type incident was, sadly, a genuine possibility for many years, due to overcrowding) than putting in bucket seats would have. Competent stewarding would also be good but don't get me started on that...