Shamrock Rovers Tallaght

[green-blood]

But if there is no Shels...

Why should our hard-earned taxes fund a stadium for a Leinster Senior League team...?

why not - are LSL teams not worthy of support

[WeAreRovers]

as i've said earlier i'm not as up to date on this issue as some on here. however, in my opinion i think that TD want to prevent SRFC from locating in Tallaght as they feel it may attract all of the youngsters away from the GAA. do i agree with this stance - absolutely not. i think it is a narrow minded view and that there is sufficient population for both codes and clubs to flurish.

my main gripe on here is the attitude toward the GAA in general where a big brush has covered all and sundry involved with the association and painted them as bigots.

Your first paragraph renders your second redundant. You can't say on the one hand that TD (and by extension, the Dublin County Board, Central Council, Danny Lynch etc etc) are wrong re. Tallaght but that it's not fair to tar all of the GAA with tha same brush.

No other sporting organisation practises (state-sponsored) sporting apartheid. It's about sport, we're all in this together. We need to provide decent sports facilities and let the kids decide for themselves which they want to play. Only one sporting organisation is against this fundamental principal.

KOH

[Jerry The Saint]

why not - are LSL teams not worthy of support

Well, not one that's €12m in debt anyway...

[galwayhoop]

Your first paragraph renders your second redundant. You can't say on the one hand that TD (and by extension, the Dublin County Board, Central Council, Danny Lynch etc etc) are wrong re. Tallaght but that it's not fair to tar all of the GAA with tha same brush.
KOH

not true. are the connaght council bigots because TD want a slice of the tallaght stadium?

as i said i disagree with the stance taken in relation to the tallaght situation. it is a wrong stance by the GAA but as i said before while not agreeing with their reasoning i understand where it comes from. they are trying to protect their game. yes in this instance going about it the wrong way but thats what they are doing.

the sad fact is that if rovers (or those in charge of rovers) had been capable of completing the stadium on time and by themselves a few years ago this situation would never have risen. your club (or more accurately those who ran it a few years ago prior to fans rescue of it) has to accept their share of liability in this situation. the fact that the local authority was called in to rescue the project meant it was a fully state funded project and opened the pandora's box we have now. had the project been completed by rovers in the first place the stadium would have been the 'shamrock rovers football ground' instead of the 'tallaght municiple stadium'. your club would have had total owerniship as opposed to the being tenants in a local authority stadium.

[Rasher]

Even the Honey Monster Agrees

RICHARD DUNNE has revealed that he would love to end his career with Shamrock Rovers.


The Manchester City star says many Irish players would be better off returning home to the Eircom League than seeing out their playing days in England’s lower divisions.

Interviewed in the new issue of Hot Press, the defender says: “You hear Irish lads saying, ‘Oh, we’ll probably end up playing in League Two’ but I’d definitely consider ending my career at Rovers.





“Getting players to come back is definitely something the FAI should look at because it might add 200 or 300 to attendances and start helping the club out a bit more.”

Dunne, from Tallaght, also says he would love to see the Hoops complete their long-delayed move to the stadium in the area.

“Potentially it’s such a great thing for the area,” he says

[bigmac]

Your first paragraph renders your second redundant. You can't say on the one hand that TD (and by extension, the Dublin County Board, Central Council, Danny Lynch etc etc) are wrong re. Tallaght but that it's not fair to tar all of the GAA with tha same brush.

Yeah you can - how would you feel if all of Irish soccer was tarred with the same brush applied to Delaney and the FAI? Remember, the EL is now run by an organisation that actively suppresses free speech and opinions that run contrary to the centralised propoganda.

There are lots of decent GAA supporters, players and volunteers, same as every sport and Galwayhoop clearly feels that it would be more beneficial if we were not to be dragged down to the level of the bigots that frequently seem to be in more powerful positions.

On another note, this is a phenomenon that happens in every sport. The people who really care about the sport are out there playing, coaching and fund-raising, yet it's the people who are just in it for a power trip that end up on the committees. These are the ones who take great delight in removing things off the "clár" due to the minutiae of the rulebook and stuff like that.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

Will this alter Government policy, especially if a new sports minister and possibly a new party is in charge?

This bit is quite salient, in a different direction.

I find it the suggestion ludicrous that if Thomas Davis win their case (which I hope they won't) and SDCC are told to revert to the GAA-inclusive stadium expansion plan, that the Minister for Sport of the time -- and whether it's a directly pre-General Election John O'Donoghue or somebody else months down the road, it'll still be an elected politician -- will not take a blind bit of notice of the legal ruling and just stubbornly let that poxy grey stand sit in the wind for eternity for the sake of a few shekels.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

No other sporting organisation practises (state-sponsored) sporting apartheid.

Merciful hour.

[WeAreRovers]

Merciful hour.

What the hell is Rule 42 then?

KOH

[Philly]

Yeah you can - how would you feel if all of Irish soccer was tarred with the same brush applied to Delaney and the FAI? Remember, the EL is now run by an organisation that actively suppresses free speech and opinions that run contrary to the centralised propoganda.

There are lots of decent GAA supporters, players and volunteers, same as every sport and Galwayhoop clearly feels that it would be more beneficial if we were not to be dragged down to the level of the bigots that frequently seem to be in more powerful positions.

On another note, this is a phenomenon that happens in every sport. The people who really care about the sport are out there playing, coaching and fund-raising, yet it's the people who are just in it for a power trip that end up on the committees. These are the ones who take great delight in removing things off the "clár" due to the minutiae of the rulebook and stuff like that.

There is a culture of "us and only us" in the GAA that is there at all levels.

The FAI, even Delaney, aren't against GAA. As a matter of facts are they not building five sports pitches in disadvantaged areas of Westmeath that are going to be used to play GAA, Soccer and other sports on.

Fat chance you'll ever see any County board build a multiple use sports facility for the better of the community.

The Kildare County Board recently launched it's plans to build a superb new ground in "City Gate", Newbridge. Needless to say, public money and county council help is being used heavily in the project. They are getting the land for free from the council I think.

Perhaps KCFC should bring them to court to ensure that it is our ground as well as theirs? Somehow I doubt Tom Humphries would be backing us all the way....

[galwayhoop]

What the hell is Rule 42 then?

KOH

taken from the GAA offical guide 2003. NB this is prior to the change in rule 42:

Uses of Property
42.
(a) All property including grounds, Club
Houses, Halls, Dressing Rooms and
Handball Alleys owned or controlled by
units of the Association shall be used only
for the purpose of or in connection with
the playing of the Games controlled by
the Association, and for such other
purposes not in conflict with the Aims
and Objects of the Association, that may
be sanctioned from time to time by the
Central Council.
(b) Grounds controlled by Association units
shall not be used or permitted to be used,
for Horse Racing, Greyhound Racing, or
for Field Games other than those
sanctioned by Central Council.

this is how rule 42 was prior to the change in it. its hardly South Africa in the 80's!! Arphetied (sp?) is a bit on the strong side don't you think!

[Philly]

It reads more like the friggin Catechism of the Catholic Church than anything else!

Do 18th Birthday Parties constitute events directly linked to the GAA? Or does one have to make a proposal to the GAA Central Council to have a party in a clubs halls?

[galwayhoop]

just found it in GAA offical guide 2007 (part 1):
it's rule 44 now:

Uses of Property
44.
(a) All property including grounds, Club Houses, Halls,
Dressing Rooms and Handball Alleys owned or
controlled by units of the Association shall be used
only for the purpose of or in connection with the
playing of the Games controlled by the Association,
and for such other purposes not in conflict with the
Aims and Objects of the Association, that may be
sanctioned from time to time by the Central Council.
(b) Grounds controlled by Association units shall not be
used or permitted to be used, for Horse Racing,
Greyhound Racing, or for Field Games other than
those sanctioned by Central Council.
(Note: Central Council shall have the power to authorise
the use of Croke Park for games, other than those
controlled by the Association, during a temporary period
when Lansdowne Road Football Ground is closed for the
proposed development.
Congress has approved that Rules 3, 4, 5, 44, 46, 47, 76(f)
and 144(g) shall allow for this for a temporary period, at
the end of which all these Rules stated shall revert to their
pre-Congress 2005 position.)

[Philly]

Ah the revised rule - money can do anything today...

[OneRedArmy]

taken from the GAA offical guide 2003. NB this is prior to the change in rule 42:



this is how rule 42 was prior to the change in it. its hardly South Africa in the 80's!! Arphetied (sp?) is a bit on the strong side don't you think!

Seems clear to me. Soccer and rugby are therefore contrary to the aims of the organisation, ergo supressing these sports are a de facto objective of the GAA.

Meanwhile supporting boxing and American football would appear to be, based on history, consistant with the aims of the organisation.

[galwayhoop]

It reads more like the friggin Catechism of the Catholic Church than anything else!

Do 18th Birthday Parties constitute events directly linked to the GAA? Or does one have to make a proposal to the GAA Central Council to have a party in a clubs halls?

granted it's not storytelling stuff. but like all documents which outline rules and objectives of sporting (or indeed any) organisations e is pretty grey stuff. try reading the FAI technical development plan

point being that it isn't a racist / bigoted rule from where i stand but merely says that the associations games are only to be played in the associations property. does this not make sense to people?

i mean i will be going to croker on sat and be delighted to be there cheering on ireland at soccer. but i think we (soccer) are there by invitation as opposed to by right.

[galwayhoop]

Seems clear to me. Soccer and rugby are therefore contrary to the aims of the organisation, ergo supressing these sports are a de facto objective of the GAA.

the promotion of soccer and rugby are obviously contary to the aims and objectives of the GAA. the aims and objectives of the GAA is to promote their own games.

the aims and objectives of the IRFU and FAI are to promote their own respective games. is this not obvious? why would one sporting body choose to promote another sport? your point is moot.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

What the hell is Rule 42 then?

KOH

You appear to think it is the old ban on playing foreign games that was deleted over three decades ago, or some rule enshrining apartheid.

Rule 42 (now Rule 44) deals with GAA grounds and property, saying that they are basically for GAA events and games but other shindigs can be hosted as and when sanctioned by Central Council, and (in an addendum) that Central Council can allow Lansdowne-Road games to be played in Croke Park on a temporary basis.

It doesn't ban its members from playing "foreign sports", it doesn't say that soccer people are inferior Irishmen, it doesn't say that the FAI and the IRFU should be beaten into submission with the GAA being the last man standing, and it doesn't say that the GAA shall "practise state-sponsored sporting apartheid".

If it is apartheid when an organization states as one of its aims the preservation and promotion of its own games then I would suggest that either the world has gone mad or that Biko was making a mountain out of a molehill.

[John83]

this is how rule 42 was prior to the change in it. its hardly South Africa in the 80's!! Arphetied (sp?) is a bit on the strong side don't you think!

Seeing as you can't spell it (even after WeAreRovers did it for you), I imagine you can't look it up in a dictionary, but that word doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

[Erstwhile Bóz]

Seems clear to me. Soccer and rugby are therefore contrary to the aims of the organisation, ergo supressing these sports are a de facto objective of the GAA.

Meanwhile supporting boxing and American football would appear to be, based on history, consistant with the aims of the organisation.

That's preposterous twisting and is a charge which could be levied against any organization with any stated aim.

Allowing boxing and American football in Croker was entirely consistent with Rule 42 (44), as is the forthcoming football internationals.