Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Private profiles - please note that profiles marked as private will soon be public. This will facilitate moderation so mods can view users' warning histories. All of your posts across the site will appear on your profile page (including PI, RI). Groups posts will remain private except to users who have access to the same Groups as you. Thread here
Some important site news, please read here. Thanks!

Croke Park Capacity

  • 23-08-2010 5:05pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 433 ✭✭ heffomike54
    Registered User


    Hi everyone, not sure if this is in the right section or not but hear goes. I was in Croke Park yesterday and it was pretty much a full house. But I was looking at the Hill 16 end and I was wondering what the capacity of the stadium if the Hill was built up to match the rest of the ground. According to the official website, link here, http://www.crokepark.ie/about/facts---figures , the current capacity is 82,300.

    Now I know that this will probably never happen due to the amount of houses behind the hill end but it would be amazing if it could be done. So folks answers on a postcard :D
    Tagged:


«13

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 liammur


    There is a few threads over on the GAA section about the capacity. But from the games I've seen in CP over the summer which often involved 4 teams, there was only about 40,000 at them so probably no need for an increase in capacity.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,445 ✭✭✭ Pete_Cavan
    Registered User


    If the Hill 16 was to be rebuilt to match the rest of the ground it would probably have the same capacity of the Davin Stand which is 21,000. Of course you would lose the 8,800 the Hill currently holds. So the new capacity of the stadium would be;

    (82,300 - 8,800) + 21,000 = 94,500

    The main difficulty with doing this would be the rail line currently running behind the Hill, not the houses. They dont fill Croker often enough to justify the cost of doing this. Plus I think as an amateur association they should retain the cheaper high density terrace.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,476 ✭✭✭ ardmacha
    Registered User




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 DWCommuter


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    If the Hill 16 was to be rebuilt to match the rest of the ground it would probably have the same capacity of the Davin Stand which is 21,000. Of course you would lose the 8,800 the Hill currently holds. So the new capacity of the stadium would be;

    (82,300 - 8,800) + 21,000 = 94,500

    The main difficulty with doing this would be the rail line currently running behind the Hill, not the houses. They dont fill Croker often enough to justify the cost of doing this. Plus I think as an amateur association they should retain the cheaper high density terrace.

    I hate to disagree Pete, but the railway behind the Hill wouldn't be much of a problem and could've been factored into converting the Hill end. The real problem is actually the houses on Clonliffe road. To complete the stadium these houses would have to give up a section of their back gardens and then accept a view of a towering concrete structure. It may also be the case that some houses on Jones road would have to very accomodating as well.

    I believe that engineering is far more advanced than human nature.;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭ limklad
    Registered User


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    If the Hill 16 was to be rebuilt to match the rest of the ground it would probably have the same capacity of the Davin Stand which is 21,000. Of course you would lose the 8,800 the Hill currently holds. So the new capacity of the stadium would be;

    (82,300 - 8,800) + 21,000 = 94,500

    The main difficulty with doing this would be the rail line currently running behind the Hill, not the houses. They dont fill Croker often enough to justify the cost of doing this. Plus I think as an amateur association they should retain the cheaper high density terrace.
    The Rail line would not be a major problem, as they can lower it and then built over it just like Lansdowne Road. I don;t understand why they have two set of Railways lines at both ends of Croke park when they can easily join them father down the line.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,883 ✭✭✭ markpb
    Registered User


    limklad wrote: »
    The Rail line would not be a major problem, as they can lower it and then built over it just like Lansdowne Road.

    The tens of thousands of people who use that line every day might have a problem with you cancelling their train service! :) It wouldn't be possible to divert them onto the other line without a) missing Drumcondra station and b) spending thousands upgrading Glasnevin junction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭ Son of Stupido
    Registered User


    I have thought 95,000 for a long time based on the canal end capacity but 98,000 seems right when you add in the half curve that is not present at the Hill 16 ends. Both main stands curved around a few segments to the canal end, so a Hill 16 end would be a few thousand more than the canal end (21,000) as it would have the full corners.

    If they need more they can create a terrace on the canal end by taking up the seats.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭ limklad
    Registered User


    markpb wrote: »
    The tens of thousands of people who use that line every day might have a problem with you cancelling their train service! :) It wouldn't be possible to divert them onto the other line without a) missing Drumcondra station and b) spending thousands upgrading Glasnevin junction.
    There is always upgrade of Railways lines that manage properly and always reduce problems.
    There is always going to be distruption on any rail work upgrade. We should be used to them by now and much more is badly needed. The Canal end railways is rarely used and it is a double line railway just like the Hill 16 line.

    1/. The Glasnevin Junction ( 53°21'57.16"N 6°16'34.01"W) is far easier than other they have replace and upgraded. That junction can be upgraded first. If it going to be Thousand, I for it rather than Millions in the future.
    At Glasnevin Junction, There is a cross over sections here where one Route head west and the other head under the Phoenix Park to Heuston Station. They are going to upgrade this Junction sooner or later one they have their Dart underground started as part of their Railways lines link between Connelly and Heuston Station for Railways passenger Traffic or freight/moving Train between the north South Lines to Heuston. So there is going to be a disruption so it better to do 2 jobs in one and create more options in future for railways traffic and routes. They also do no need this upgrade for West ward traffic as they can divert traffic to the Canal end line right now.
    I forgot about Connolly Junction needs upgrade, Edit: I just look at Google Earth it is already there. They can use the the Spencer Dock/Docklands station since it already build and nearby Connolly station.

    2/. Build a station at Croke Park. It badly need one at the Canal End for Matches. There is plenty of space there. It an easy one to build

    3/. They can also build one (Temporary or otherwise) at the canal (east of N1 road at the canal ) two blocks down from the current Drumcondra station while works are continuing.

    One that done, they can divert all railway traffic on the Canal line and continue to work on the Hill16 end of the stadium. While they are at it build a station for match days. Two Platforms at either end will do,

    Moving fans away from the Stadium as quickly as possible using trains to Connelly and Heuston stations will reduce the chaos on the Streets/housing estates nearby on Match days. The other thing they need to do is to reduce the price of Tickets to generate traffic for the railways, that another day and another topic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 liammur


    I would imagine C Park is too big as it is, and unfortunately the aviva too small.
    That's the 1 they should be trying to do something with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭ limklad
    Registered User


    liammur wrote: »
    I would imagine C Park is too big as it is, and unfortunately the aviva too small.
    That's the 1 they should be trying to do something with.
    Too Late with Lansdowne Road venue,It just been polished.
    At Least we have Croke Park to change venues for larger Capacity, now that Croke park is open to all sports. The only Problem with Croke park is lack of Public Transport on match days :mad: to get you close to the Statidum, unlike Lansdowne road.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 KevR
    Registered User


    Pete_Cavan wrote: »
    If the Hill 16 was to be rebuilt to match the rest of the ground it would probably have the same capacity of the Davin Stand which is 21,000. Of course you would lose the 8,800 the Hill currently holds. So the new capacity of the stadium would be;

    (82,300 - 8,800) + 21,000 = 94,500

    The main difficulty with doing this would be the rail line currently running behind the Hill, not the houses. They dont fill Croker often enough to justify the cost of doing this. Plus I think as an amateur association they should retain the cheaper high density terrace.

    They could leave the standing section of the Hill as it is and build a second/upper tier of seating above it.

    I really hope Croke Park never becomes all seater - not everyone likes to sit; the atmosphere would be worse; not everyone can or wants to pay €60 for a ticket.

    Terraces are more high density so if you retained the Hill 16 standing section and built an upper tier of seating over it you would probably have a bigger capacity than 94,500.
    If they need more they can create a terrace on the canal end by taking up the seats.
    It's often not that straight forward. The Canal End might not be engineered to support the weight of all those extra people (you would effectively be doubling the capacity of it if you converted it to a standing section). Also, there would be crowd control issues with access and evacuations/emergencies.

    And it might not have the correct gradient to give standing spectators a proper view - it was designed as a seating section after all.



    Just a side note but I read in the paper a few days ago that they are putting a fence up in front on Hill 16. Caged in like animals, it will be like living in the 80s. It really annoys me that it's just the Hill that's being fenced: you would swear that nobody from the seated areas ever invaded the pitch!! I do see where the GAA are coming from though - if you ask people to stay off the pitch 5,000,000 times you are not going to ask them again a 5,000,001st time. But, in my opinion, fences pose safety risk and there are other options for keeping people off the pitch.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 liammur


    limklad wrote: »
    Too Late with Lansdowne Road venue,It just been polished.
    At Least we have Croke Park to change venues for larger Capacity, now that Croke park is open to all sports. .

    Unfortunately you are incorrect.

    No more rugby/soccer games are scheduled for C Park, hence the high prices we are already seeing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 DWCommuter


    KevR wrote: »
    They could leave the standing section of the Hill as it is and build a second/upper tier of seating above it.

    I really hope Croke Park never becomes all seater - not everyone likes to sit; the atmosphere would be worse; not everyone can or wants to pay €60 for a ticket.

    Terraces are more high density so if you retained the Hill 16 standing section and built an upper tier of seating over it you would probably have a bigger capacity than 94,500.


    It's often not that straight forward. The Canal End might not be engineered to support the weight of all those extra people (you would effectively be doubling the capacity of it if you converted it to a standing section). Also, there would be crowd control issues with access and evacuations/emergencies.

    And it might not have the correct gradient to give standing spectators a proper view - it was designed as a seating section after all.



    Just a side note but I read in the paper a few days ago that they are putting a fence up in front on Hill 16. Caged in like animals, it will be like living in the 80s. It really annoys me that it's just the Hill that's being fenced: you would swear that nobody from the seated areas ever invaded the pitch!! I do see where the GAA are coming from though - if you ask people to stay off the pitch 5,000,000 times you are not going to ask them again a 5,000,001st time. But, in my opinion, fences pose safety risk and there are other options for keeping people off the pitch.

    The GAA have stated that if the fence in front of the Hill doesn't work they will convert it to seating. It wasn't that long ago that the entire pitch was fenced off, but people just climbed over it anyway. The answer probably lies in a culture change. Easier said than done though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 KevR
    Registered User


    DWCommuter wrote: »
    The GAA have stated that if the fence in front of the Hill doesn't work they will convert it to seating. It wasn't that long ago that the entire pitch was fenced off, but people just climbed over it anyway. The answer probably lies in a culture change. Easier said than done though.

    I don't think it will work. People from the seated areas will invade the pitch like they have been doing and, as you said, some people on the Hill will just climb the fence if they are really determined.

    I don't even know why people insist on invading the pitch. Celebrations in the stands are every bit as good if everyone stays there instead of going onto the pitch.

    They should cut allocations for any sets of fans who invade the pitch. (e.g. - if Cork fans had invaded the pitch after beating Dublin then Cork get less tickets for the Final and the front few rows of seats + the front section of the Hill should be meshed off/left empty for that game). If you invade the pitch of a football ground in the UK you will be hauled before the courts and could get a banning order of up to 3 years - harsh but you don't see people on the pitch after every single game and there are no fences.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,883 ✭✭✭ markpb
    Registered User


    KevR wrote: »
    I don't think it will work. People from the seated areas will invade the pitch like they have been doing and, as you said, some people on the Hill will just climb the fence if they are really determined.

    They also have plans for the seated part of the stadium too. One of them is to try to sell tickets for the front five rows to 'neutral' fans, assuming that they're less likely to invade and make it harder/slower for people behind them to get to the pitch.


  • Registered Users Posts: 639 ✭✭✭ Jayuu
    Registered User


    In fairness to the GAA they've pointed out that the evidence shows that most of the pitch invasions in recent times have started from Hill 16 encouraging people from all other areas to then follow suit. It is all too easy for people who are standing on the Hill to suddenly decided to surge forward onto the pitch. By putting up the fencing at this point they are hoping to nip the problem in the bud.

    People sitting down are probably less likely to do so if they don't see others doing it first. And they have said that if people invade from the stands they will consider fencing there as well. As for those who will try to climb the fence, hopefully they will be few and far between and can be dealt with by the stewards and police in the ground.

    It is going to take a culture change for the average GAA fan but clearly safety has to be a priority. The GAA have been more of less told that they don't have a choice in this matter. Pitch invasions are creating the potential for a disaster in the Hogan Stand/Jones Road side of the pitch. If something did happen like this then they would be condemned for not doing anything about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭ limklad
    Registered User


    liammur wrote: »
    Unfortunately you are incorrect.

    No more rugby/soccer games are scheduled for C Park, hence the high prices we are already seeing.
    They open it open at the discretion of the GAA's Central Council. They are Largely in favour of using it to generate more revenue. More revenue from Croke Park benefits the GAA 1/. to pay off Croke park and 2/. pay for development of grass roots of the GAA.

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/croke-park-to-remain-an-option-for-international-matches-454272.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 liammur


    Even if they did, I'm not sure the IRFU/FAI would move now though as they seek to pay off the Aviva?


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭ Bluetonic
    Registered User


    limklad wrote: »
    The Rail line would not be a major problem, as they can lower it and then built over it just like Lansdowne Road.
    I image the fall in height coupled with the proximity and height of the platforms at Connolly station would be an issue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭ Bluetonic
    Registered User


    liammur wrote: »
    Even if they did, I'm not sure the IRFU/FAI would move now though as they seek to pay off the Aviva?
    Exactly it's been covered in depth already. The money to pay off Aviva on a game by game basis coupled with the rent payable to the GAA would be less than what they'd make from a 50,000 capacity Lansdowne.

    It's not financially viable to play in Croker. Unfortunately the fans interests don't figure, the IRFU and FAI are businesses.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,280 ✭✭✭ dowlingm
    Registered User


    Pitch invasions: they could look at the sort of tempered glass surrounds that are around National Hockey League ice rinks. It is a visual intrusion for the first 8-10 rows but not overly so in the context of a massive stadium.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭ limklad
    Registered User


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    I image the fall in height coupled with the proximity and height of the platforms at Connolly station would be an issue.
    Connolly station is approx 1 mile away by rail. To Drop the height of the rail in comparison to Connolly is not the problem.
    The Problem is Jones Road and the Train is Too high to build a stand over it now at present height and it would be the issue in the height requirements unless they go underground which seem to be the only choice with near Elizabeth st on the west side to go under and back up after Clonliffe Avenue on the east side of Croke Park.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭ Bluetonic
    Registered User


    dowlingm wrote: »
    Pitch invasions: they could look at the sort of tempered glass surrounds that are around National Hockey League ice rinks. It is a visual intrusion for the first 8-10 rows but not overly so in the context of a massive stadium.
    Is it collapsible in the case of emergency?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 KevR
    Registered User


    Jayuu wrote: »
    In fairness to the GAA they've pointed out that the evidence shows that most of the pitch invasions in recent times have started from Hill 16 encouraging people from all other areas to then follow suit. It is all too easy for people who are standing on the Hill to suddenly decided to surge forward onto the pitch. By putting up the fencing at this point they are hoping to nip the problem in the bud.

    People sitting down are probably less likely to do so if they don't see others doing it first. And they have said that if people invade from the stands they will consider fencing there as well. As for those who will try to climb the fence, hopefully they will be few and far between and can be dealt with by the stewards and police in the ground.

    It is going to take a culture change for the average GAA fan but clearly safety has to be a priority. The GAA have been more of less told that they don't have a choice in this matter. Pitch invasions are creating the potential for a disaster in the Hogan Stand/Jones Road side of the pitch. If something did happen like this then they would be condemned for not doing anything about it.

    Hill 16 fence will create other barriers
    By Paddy Heaney
    Thursday, August 19, 2010

    STUDY the GAA for long enough and you will realise that the fuel which runs the organisation is trust.

    While the sophisticates in the media often like to mock county board men for their pioneer pins and their penchant for a ham sandwich, it’s also true that GAA officialdom is synonymous with high moral standards and probity in all affairs.

    The significant latitude afforded to GAA leaders allows them to go about their business without being delayed by the democratic processes which afflict other institutions. It’s the huge levels of trust invested in leaders which underpins the GAA’s entire operating procedure. Unfortunately, the current debate about pitch invasions (or pitch celebrations as I prefer to call them) has raised some concerns about how the GAA is conducting its business.

    Old-fashioned values like consistency and openness appear to have been replaced by the spin doctoring of modern politics. At this year’s Annual Congress, the clamour to end pitch celebrations started with a presentation from Con Hogan who told delegates: "They cannot all be wrong, and the 96 people who died at Hillsborough, the 66 who died at Ibrox, and the 39 people who died at Heysel Stadium are proof that when pitch invasions occur, when people are crushed against barriers, when exits are blocked, when people move against each other in counter-flows then we have lost control, people’s lives are put at risk and sooner or later we will have fatalities."

    Understandably alarmed by these distressing examples, there was no dissent in the Slieve Donard Hotel. The GAA continued to seize the moral high ground when Christy Cooney explained why a 2.8m fence was going to be erected on Hill 16.

    At the press briefing, Christy asked reporters: "What if a child gets trampled on? Or if someone gets killed?" However, it appears the GAA’s hierarchy is only prepared to raise the question of children getting injured as long as the solution involves ending so-called pitch invasions.
    The major problem with the GAA’s brilliant idea of caging 9,000 spectators on Hill 16 is that the barrier presents a greater threat to the safety of supporters than pitch celebrations.

    And don’t just take my word for it. After his investigation into the Hillsborough Disaster, Lord Chief Justice Taylor was unequivocal in his recommendation that supporters should have ready access to the pitch.
    Paragraph 181 of The Taylor Report states: "So far, no fatality has resulted from a pitch invasion, whereas 95 people died against a fence installed to prevent such invasion."

    GAA officials have been at pains to reveal that there will be emergency gates in their lovely new fence, conveniently ignoring the fact that there were emergency gates in the fencing at Hillsborough.

    Interestingly, now that a counter-argument has been raised against the GAA, and they have been warned about the hazards, they have tried to shift the debate.

    All of a sudden, after months of raising the spectre of supporters being killed in stampedes, the GAA doesn’t want to talk about major tragedies anymore. Stadium chief Peter McKenna said: "I think it’s dangerous to bring in the example of Hillsborough." Erm? But the GAA has repeatedly supplied mixed messages about its motives for ending pitch invasions and putting a barrier on Hill 16. First it was the cost of re-laying the pitch; then it was the threat of court cases; then the germs on people’s shoes were ruining the grass; then it was the hypothetical trampling of infants.

    Most recently, the press statement that confirmed the building of the barrier made reference to the events which took place at this year’s Leinster final.

    This meant that in response to supporters racing onto the pitch from the Hogan Stand, the GAA decided to erect a wall at the other end of the ground. That makes sense, doesn’t it? Christy Cooney was quick to spot the incongruity. A few days later, Christy was asked if the Leinster final was a factor. He said it wasn’t. But when Peter McKenna was interviewed on radio, he said it was.

    So, there you have it. The example of Hillsborough can be employed as long as we are putting forward an argument to end pitch celebrations.
    But we can’t talk about Hillsborough if we’re pointing out that our new fence might actually replicate the conditions which led to 95 people being crushed to death (a 96th died later due to his injuries).

    But the reason we are putting up this wall is because of shameful incidents that took place during the Leinster final. Sorry. That’s wrong. That has nothing to do with it.

    But if you don’t want to listen to the GAA then at least listen to the GPA’s anti-pitch celebration bulletins, which are repeated ad nauseam on Croke Park’s big screen.

    We can trust the players, can’t we? The GPA agrees with the GAA, but after receiving a promise for €1.1m, they’re probably going to agree with Croke Park on most things. The GAA’s handling of this affair has been clumsy at best, cynical at worst.

    The decision flies in the face of The Taylor Report and it should be abandoned immediately. Unfortunately, it is now abundantly clear that the key objective is to stop fans coming onto the pitch. This has become such an obsession that the health and safety of supporters is now a secondary consideration.

    In all probability, the GAA’s plan will work. By and large, people are obedient and submissive to authority. If the Hill is caged, then the supporters in the seats will stay seated.

    It will be mission accomplished for the GAA. But at what price? You can’t put 9,000 people behind a nine-foot fence and tell them it’s for their own good, particularly when there is compelling evidence to show that their safety is actually being compromised.

    Furthermore, it’s not just the members who are stuck behind that barrier whose trust in the GAA’s leadership will be fractured. And that’s not good — because without trust, the GAA just doesn’t work.
    http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/hill-16-fence-will-create-other-barriers-128275.html

    First time I've read this article but it's pretty shameful that the GAA used the Hillsborough disaster as an argument in favour of the fence.

    And also the 39 deaths at Heysel were not as a result of a pitch invasion.

    I do think that pitch invasions pose a safety risk but I think that fences also pose one.

    The people who went on the pitch to confront the ref in the Louth-Meath game came from a seated area. The GAA could make an example of these people by prosecuting them specifically for entering the playing area; no doubt the case would get enough media attention for other people to think twice about invading the pitch in future. Also, I think allocation cuts for big games which target certain sets of supporters who insist on invading the pitch would have an effect over time. Of course the GAA would lose out on money so I don't expect that to happen..


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,883 ✭✭✭ markpb
    Registered User


    KevR wrote: »
    The GAA could make an example of these people by prosecuting them specifically for entering the playing area

    I don't see how they could prosecute anyone - entering the pitch isn't against the law.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,280 ✭✭✭ dowlingm
    Registered User


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Is it collapsible in the case of emergency?
    That would be a matter for the designers, but NHL rinks have openable door panels to allow the ice surfacer in and out so in theory you could have a series of those that could either be opened by stewards or be designed to failsafe-open at x MPa of pressure.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,461 liammur


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    Exactly it's been covered in depth already. The money to pay off Aviva on a game by game basis coupled with the rent payable to the GAA would be less than what they'd make from a 50,000 capacity Lansdowne.

    It's not financially viable to play in Croker. Unfortunately the fans interests don't figure, the IRFU and FAI are businesses.


    Did we even need the Aviva? A serious own goal by the GAA in not allowing them to stay there indefinitely.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,032 DWCommuter


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    I image the fall in height coupled with the proximity and height of the platforms at Connolly station would be an issue.

    I don't see why the level of the line would have to be lowered. Build over it. The seating and tier arrangements in an upgraded Hill end dont need to match the rest of the stadium. Once the roof matches, bobs your uncle and away we go.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,280 ✭✭✭ dowlingm
    Registered User


    markpb wrote: »
    I don't see how they could prosecute anyone - entering the pitch isn't against the law.
    Depends on the circumstances - especially if any official is assaulted. See here.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0726/1224275466129.html

    (Obviously the GAA can't prosecute anyone, just request that the on-site guards make arrests)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 KevR
    Registered User


    markpb wrote: »
    I don't see how they could prosecute anyone - entering the pitch isn't against the law.

    Well then it should be!! They say that pitch invasions are dangerous to the point where they are willing to put up a fence (past stadium disasters have shown us that fences pose big safety risks). Surely the GAA should be lobbying for a change in the law so that it is illegal to enter the playing area - if they really do think it's that dangerous.

    I do think that pitch invasions are dangerous but a fence would not be a method that I would use to try and stop them.


Advertisement