Bertie Commits to National Stadium

**The Money Man** · 11/12/2002, 10:32 AM

It is purely coincidental that 10 mins after Oddboy's new thread relating to Bertie's dealings appeared in this site, I hear on RTE radio that Bertie, last night, gave UEFA a signed undertaking on behalf of the government to complete the National Stadium by 2008. The committment is similar to that given by the Portugese government some years ago to secure Euro 2004. The move was agreed by cabinet yesterday afternoon.

You are entitled to question the man's motives but if we have an all seater stadium for 2008, I for one wont care what the motivation is.

**patsh** · 11/12/2002, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by The Money Man
It is purely coincidental that 10 mins after Oddboy's new thread relating to Bertie's dealings appeared in this site, I hear on RTE radio that Bertie, last night, gave UEFA a signed undertaking on behalf of the government to complete the National Stadium by 2008. The committment is similar to that given by the Portugese government some years ago to secure Euro 2004. The move was agreed by cabinet yesterday afternoon.

You are entitled to question the man's motives but if we have an all seater stadium for 2008, I for one wont care what the motivation is.

I don't give a sh*t about his motives, but the fact is that a 50K seater stadium could have been built long ago in the docklands area for around �200 - �250 million if he was really interested in a stadium and not a monument.

**The Money Man** · 11/12/2002, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by oddboy
I don't give a sh*t about his motives, but the fact is that a 50K seater stadium could have been built long ago in the docklands area for around �200 - �250 million if he was really interested in a stadium and not a monument.

Debate is what makes this site interesting and differing opinion is what makes debate possible. Therefore Oddboy I welcome your comments but kindly suggest that they were conceived somewhere in la-la land.

Firstly, the majority of the docklands land bank has only very recently become adequately serviced for development. Part of the area is still undergoing decontamination work.

Secondly, even if the government had in 1997 commenced design work on a stadium, it would probably only be complete this or next year, not "long ago". Typical example...

1997 Included in programme for government, funding allocated.
Project advertised in European Journal.
1998 Submissions from interested parties. Design team selected. Fees agreed. Architectural plan finalised.
1999 Consultant engineer's preliminary report complete, surveyors costing estimates submitted. Contractors tenders sought. Contractor selected. Site work commences.
2000 Construction commences
2002-2003 Construction complete.

I would thus suggest that the comment "a 50K seater stadium could have been built long ago in the docklands area" is fundamentally flawed.

**pete** · 11/12/2002, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by The Money Man
I would thus suggest that the comment "a 50K seater stadium could have been built long ago in the docklands area" is fundamentally flawed.

That may or may not be the case but there is no reason Abbotstown could not have been abandoned in the last couple of years & a city centre type location sought for a realistic National stadium.

Fact is maybe as much as 250m (might include 60m on swimming pool) has already been spent on Abbotstown - most of this on moving state laboratories & paying consultants & not a sod turned on the Bertie Bowl site.

**Xlex** · 11/12/2002, 12:10 PM

From Unison.ie

The race to host the European Championships in 2008 enters the final stages in Geneva today. UEFA's national executive committee will listen to final presentations from the 7 groups competiting to stage the finals. The joint Ireland-Scotland bid has been given a lift with the news that Taoiseach Bertie has lodged legal documents with UEFA promising that Stadium Ireland nicknamed the Bertie Bowl will be ready in time for the Championships in 2008. The uncertainty over the West Dublin venue was seen as a weakness to the bid but the promise of Irelands new stadium will be a major boost to the Celtic bid

Legal Documents, eh...

Well given all is not well in our public finances, better hope a private builder backs up bertie... The most I would like Bertie to do is give the contract Tax free... and for a fixed contract...

**Shed End John** · 11/12/2002, 12:11 PM

Originally posted by The Money Man
You are entitled to question the man's motives but if we have an all seater stadium for 2008, I for one wont care what the motivation is.

Exactly, but, would it be enough to secure the Euros in 2008. Much as I'd like to think so, the answer must be no. Btw, is the Euro Championship of 2008 the only reson for building the stadium? Let's build it regardless of the success of the bid simply because it's needed and fans and players alike deserve it.

Murphy Out Now!!!

**The Money Man** · 11/12/2002, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by pete

Fact is maybe as much as 250m (might include 60m on swimming pool) has already been spent on Abbotstown - most of this on moving state laboratories & paying consultants & not a sod turned on the Bertie Bowl site.

The figure does include the swimming pool. It also includes various infrastructural works that would have had to be completed in the Abbottstown area regardless. Some of the consultancy fees paid will effectively have been wasted if the project is transferred to a different site. However, a significant portion of the design and costing work can be applied to the Docklands site as well as the Abbottstown site.

**patsh** · 11/12/2002, 7:16 PM

Originally posted by The Money Man
It is purely coincidental that 10 mins after Oddboy's new thread relating to Bertie's dealings appeared in this site, I hear on RTE radio that Bertie, last night, gave UEFA a signed undertaking on behalf of the government to complete the National Stadium by 2008. The committment is similar to that given by the Portugese government some years ago to secure Euro 2004.

OH NO, HE DOESN'T.
Listen to these announcements properly, Money Man

**patsh** · 11/12/2002, 7:24 PM

Originally posted by The Money Man
Debate is what makes this site interesting and differing opinion is what makes debate possible. Therefore Oddboy I welcome your comments but kindly suggest that they were conceived somewhere in la-la land.

I would thus suggest that the comment "a 50K seater stadium could have been built long ago in the docklands area" is fundamentally flawed.

Yet again, at the merest hint of an alternative viewpoint to the liar/ff axis, you jump to the defence, Money Man.
I don't care what politics you hold, but you consistently avoid the point I am making. If Bullsh*itter Ahern really wanted a stadium, it could have been built by now at a significantly lower cost than the proposed monument in Abbottstown

You spew out some goverment figures and so called statistics left, right and centre, which have nothing to do with what I'm saying, all the while ignoring the main point, and you seem to believe that this is somehow the rejoinder to my point??
You simply list out the way FF was going about it, as if this the right or only way to do things.
I mentioned the docklands as one possible alternative, but of course you come up with some Ahernspeak about me being in "la-la land".
You believe what ever sh*te you want, but not everybody is as gullible as you.
Again my point is:
The proposed monument in Abbotstown is not for the good of Irish soccer, and a more suitable and cheaper stadium is what we need.

**pete** · 11/12/2002, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by The Money Man
The figure does include the swimming pool. It also includes various infrastructural works that would have had to be completed in the Abbottstown area regardless. Some of the consultancy fees paid will effectively have been wasted if the project is transferred to a different site. However, a significant portion of the design and costing work can be applied to the Docklands site as well as the Abbottstown site.

I think Money Man you have just started picking at small inaccuracies in posts now withiut addressing the main points.

The government has spent approx 200m (if we explude the pool)moving the stat laboratories so they have land to build Bertie Bowl. No stadium = no need to move labs. might need some refurbishment but we possibly talking 10-20m tops rather than 200m.

There is feck all in Abbotstown already & without a stadium would have absolutely no need for major road improvement or a new metro line out that direction.

**The Money Man** · 11/12/2002, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by oddboy

Yet again, at the merest hint of an alternative viewpoint to the liar/ff axis, you jump to the defence, Money Man.

You spew out some goverment figures and so called statistics left, right and centre, which have nothing to do with what I'm saying. You simply list out the way FF was going about it, as if this the right or only way to do things.

I mentioned the docklands as one possible alternative, but of course you come up with some Ahernspeak about me being in "la-la land".
[/B]

Okay Oddboy, I'm happy to go through this and address everything you raise as an issue.

Firstly and probably most importantly, I'm not a member of FF. I am certainly not a mouthpiece for FF policy. I can be highly critical at many levels of that party, its policies and its members.

But Oddboy, I'm a pragmatist. It is personally important to me that we have a national stadium to host major international events and I don't apologise for that. At a quick estimation, I have watched international sport of various denominations at approaching thirty venues and Lansdowne Road with one exception is the worst I've experienced. So Oddboy, I personally don't care WHO builds the stadium or WHY as long as it gets built. Not one major political party in this State, apart from FF, is advocating the construction of that facility. So whilst you are perfectly entitled to question FF motives (and I would also), please consider the alternative potential leaders of government who are prepared to dismiss the project out of hand.

Secondly, the time-frame that I outlined in a previous post is not the FF way "of going about it". It is simply the standard EU public procurement policy. It may seem protracted to you (and most of the rest of us) but its necessary under european law. So I apologise if you object to my suggestion that you are in la-la land for asserting that the stadium could have been built long ago - but it couldn't.

Oddboy, I am seriously considering contending the 2004 local elections as a member of a party that happens not to be FF. But, I would prefer to do so after the current government have commenced the National Stadium. Why? Because I wont be a hypocrite at a doorstep and pretend that I wouldn't support it.

**patsh** · 12/12/2002, 9:08 AM

Originally posted by The Money Man
Okay Oddboy, I'm happy to go through this and address everything you raise as an issue.

Firstly and probably most importantly, I'm not a member of FF. I am certainly not a mouthpiece for FF policy. I can be highly critical at many levels of that party, its policies and its members.

I did not say you were. I pointed out that you are more than happy to defend the FF party line.

But Oddboy, I'm a pragmatist. It is personally important to me that we have a national stadium to host major international events and I don't apologise for that. At a quick estimation, I have watched international sport of various denominations at approaching thirty venues and Lansdowne Road with one exception is the worst I've experienced. So Oddboy, I personally don't care WHO builds the stadium or WHY as long as it gets built. Not one major political party in this State, apart from FF, is advocating the construction of that facility. So whilst you are perfectly entitled to question FF motives (and I would also), please consider the alternative potential leaders of government who are prepared to dismiss the project out of hand.

They are, quite rightly, prepared to DISMISS THE MONUMENT TO AHERN out of hand. Not one party leader has said "I WILL NOT BUILD A STADIUM".

Secondly, the time-frame that I outlined in a previous post is not the FF way "of going about it". It is simply the standard EU public procurement policy. It may seem protracted to you (and most of the rest of us) but its necessary under european law. So I apologise if you object to my suggestion that you are in la-la land for asserting that the stadium could have been built long ago - but it couldn't.

This is the SIXTH year of FF in government. Procurment procedures or not, if the Liar wanted a stadium built, as he wants to convince us all, it could be built by now.

Oddboy, I am seriously considering contending the 2004 local elections as a member of a party that happens not to be FF. But, I would prefer to do so after the current government have commenced the National Stadium. Why? Because I wont be a hypocrite at a doorstep and pretend that I wouldn't support it.

If you don't want to run against a party because of a policy they have, maybe you should question your reasons for running for the party you have chosen.

**The Money Man** · 12/12/2002, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by oddboy
I did not say you were. I pointed out that you are more than happy to defend the FF party line.

On this particular issue, yes. Generally speaking, no.

Not one party leader has said "I WILL NOT BUILD A STADIUM".

Really? Do you want to check that?

This is the SIXTH year of FF in government. Procurment procedures or not, if the Liar wanted a stadium built, as he wants to convince us all, it could be built by now.

I have already given a detailed explanation as to why this is not the case.

If you don't want to run against a party because of a policy they have, maybe you should question your reasons for running for the party you have chosen.

Nobody would ever agree with every single policy stance of any party.

**patsh** · 12/12/2002, 1:17 PM

Originally posted by The Money Man
On this particular issue, yes. Generally speaking, no.

Really? Do you want to check that?

Well, you give me the time, date and which party leader made a staement saying that they would not build a stadium.

I have already given a detailed explanation as to why this is not the case.

You have given a detailed scenario of why it could take so long. It is not part of any procurement procedure to stretch the said procedure out over a number of years. Your timetable
Project advertised - 1997
construction commences - 2000
i.e between 3 - 5 years
could easily be reduced to a third of the time if the will was there.

Nobody would ever agree with every single policy stance of any party.

This issue seems to be of the utmost importance to you, so why not go with the party you believe will ensure the completion of the project? We do not discuss other topics on this forum, so this is the issue on which I can only deal with and which you are most concerned with.

**fosterdollar** · 12/12/2002, 1:33 PM

Originally posted by pete

There is feck all in Abbotstown already & without a stadium would have absolutely no need for major road improvement or a new metro line out that direction.

actually there is plenty of need for a metro line out there. Developments are sprouting up there like they're going out of fashion

**fosterdollar** · 12/12/2002, 1:36 PM

Originally posted by oddboy

This is the SIXTH year of FF in government. Procurment procedures or not, if the Liar wanted a stadium built, as he wants to convince us all, it could be built by now.

how the hell could they start building a stadium as soon as they come into power. Anyway, the national stadium has been mooted by FF since they took power

**Macy** · 12/12/2002, 1:46 PM

Originally posted by Magoo
how the hell could they start building a stadium as soon as they come into power. Anyway, the national stadium has been mooted by FF since they took power

All they had to do was give the FAI the same money as the bogballers got for croker and we already would have a stadium - eircom park.....

who exactly scuppered eP, hardly Bertie with his lack of funding and (false) promises of riches for coming on board the bertie bowl.....

He's a liar and a conman - the perfect FF leader.....

And while I'm ranting against him, if he hadn't made the same (false) promises to the bogballers re: Funding we would at least have the option of Croker at this stage as a venue (wouldn't agree with it myself, but anything would be better than nothing)

**pete** · 12/12/2002, 3:53 PM

Lets face it Bertie wanted it all & almost lost it.

1. wanted the GAA to have their own pad.
2. did not want FAI to have their own pad but wanted them to agree to rent out his bigger & better pad.

GAA would have serious problems completing Croke Park without government cash.

The GAA vote when Bertie promised the 60m is the pivotal moment in all this. If soccer was allowed in croke Park then there no need for National stadium - gaa needed cash & almost agreed to soccer but Bertie bailed them out with unconditional 60m, even the cabinet at the time was unaware of the promise.

How can anyone think this not Berties fault?

Sure if it came off he'd be a national hero & have legacy of his reign on the outskirts of Dublin but it failed & its his fault primarily.

**patsh** · 13/12/2002, 9:05 AM

Originally posted by Magoo
how the hell could they start building a stadium as soon as they come into power. Anyway, the national stadium has been mooted by FF since they took power

Hello? They are the government?
Ask for tenders, hold a design competiton etc. etc.?
Gee, what was I thinking...
FF actually doing something immediately...