The Liam Miller memorial match and Rule 42

threeball

alaimacerc wrote: »

It would, if they'd been given €30m of public funds on the strict basis that they would. As otherwise they'd have the arse sued off them.

How much public funding was given to the Aviva or tallaght stadium without a thought given to whether gaa could be played there?

alaimacerc

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And it's depressing that so many people just look at the money given to the GAA and use it as a stick to beat them with,

No, they're being beaten for not honouring the understanding which was the very basis for being given the money in the first place.

The Gaa are entitled to take a "what we have, we hold" attitude. They're entitled to panhandle for money on the basis that they'll sort out other sports.

Just not to do both at the same time.

Fr Tod Umptious

alaimacerc wrote: »

So, there should be no large purpose-build soccer stadia, and there should be no access to large Gaa stadia built with substantial public funds. I think you have that covered!


Absolutely exactly the wrong way round. Rule change was 2005. Lansdowne Road was demolished in 2007. Aviva opened in 2010.

What they did was to (at least notionally) sunset the rule, as it as written only applies "during a temporary period".

No actually.

In 2005 GAA Annual Congress voted to allow soccer and rugby in Croke Park for the duration of the rebuilding of Lansdowne Rd.

Once the building was complete Congress made another change, this time to allow any furure access to Croke Park be decided by Central Council and not Congress.
This in effect made it easier for other sports to access Croke Park.

Why did they wait until Lansdowne (Aviva) was finished before making access to Croke Park easier ?
Because at that point the FAI were committed to Lansdowne (Aviva), if it had happened before then there was the fear that the FAI would not be committed to Lansdowne (Aviva) and it might never get built/finished, and the GAA would be left accommodating the FAI.

grbear

alaimacerc wrote: »

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Would you think it would be sound business sense for Dunnes to allow Tesco or Lidl or Aldi to use Dunnes premises to sell Lidl /Aldi/Tesco goods on fairly regular basis?

It would, if they'd been given €30m of public funds on the strict basis that they would. As otherwise they'd have the arse sued off them.

Do you know if that money was given to the GAA on that basis? I haven't seen any sort of agreement saying that it was. Plenty of speculation with reagrds to EU rules but nothing resembling a contract between the GAA and the government.

Fr Tod Umptious

grbear wrote: »

Do you know if that money was given to the GAA on that basis? I haven't seen any sort of agreement saying that it was. Plenty of speculation with reagrds to EU rules but nothing resembling a contract between the GAA and the government.

And it's also interesting that this is the first we are really hearing about it.

If PUC had to be open from day one due to funding rules I'm surprised it's only now that people are talking about it.

STB.

The simple matter here is that the top brass in the gaa need a shakeup. They are totally out of touch with the grassroots. They are more recognisable as a concert promoter these days than an organisation that is meant to promote the sport. This and the sky deal that ensured less are watching the game is evidence of that.

Shocking PR. The head of PR should be fired immediately.

Liam did play gaa. There's even a picture of him captaining Ovens to victory at PUC.

https://twitter.com/maherncarpentry/status/1020080384183361536/photo/1

It should not have required public pressure. It takes the good out of it.

At least the decision has been reversed.

threeball

grbear wrote: »

Do you know if that money was given to the GAA on that basis? I haven't seen any sort of agreement saying that it was. Plenty of speculation with reagrds to EU rules but nothing resembling a contract between the GAA and the government.

Unfortunately it's just to be expected that once they see a chink of light at the doorjam that they are clambering over one another to push it open. It's the mentality from the top down and why they have nothing of their own. Living off the charity of the rugby, gaa and government.

threeball

STB. wrote: »

The simple matter here is that the top brass in the gaa need a shakeup. They are totally out of touch with the grassroots. They are more recognisable as a concert promoter these days than an organisation that is meant to promote the sport. This and the sky deal that ensured less are watching the game is evidence of that.

Shocking PR. The head of PR should be fired immediately.

Liam did play gaa. There's even a picture of him captaining Ovens to victory at PUC.

https://twitter.com/maherncarpentry/status/1020080384183361536/photo/1

They should not had to bow to public pressure. It takes the good out of it.

At least the decision has been reversed.

Hasn't been reversed yet. But I agree that Milton should get the road. I've said it as much earlier in this thread.

alaimacerc

threeball wrote: »

How much public funding was given to the Aviva or tallaght stadium without a thought given to whether gaa could be played there?

As far as I know, there's no demand from the Gaa to use either, and neither the IRFU or South Dublin County Counci have a Rule 42 to get us into this sort of "we'd love to, but y'know, our rulebook!" situation. So I don't see how any comparable breach of public funding conditions arises.

Other than whataboutery, of course. That arising is always a given.

STB.

threeball wrote: »

Hasn't been reversed yet. But I agree that Milton should get the road. I've said it as much earlier in this thread.

It has threeball according to John McHale sports editor with the Echo.

https://twitter.com/echosportsed/status/1020725457745039360

Bonniedog

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

there was the fear that the FAI would not be committed to Lansdowne (Aviva) and it might never get built/finished, and the GAA would be left accommodating the FAI.

On the nail. That was the gang's plan. Which is why GAA needs to have nothing to do with them. They are the cockroaches of Irish sport. They have access to huge amount of money very little of which goes to the support of their own structures outside of wages and god knows.

pjohnson

I'm still not sure how a charity fundraiser is part of a great FAI conspiracy.

Fr Tod Umptious

alaimacerc wrote: »

As far as I know, there's no demand from the Gaa to use either, and neither the IRFU or South Dublin County Counci have a Rule 42 to get us into this sort of "we'd love to, but y'know, our rulebook!" situation. So I don't see how any comparable breach of public funding conditions arises.

Other than whataboutery, of course. That arising is always a given.

There was a major objection to Tallagh Stadium by a local GAA club because the dimensions meant that GAA could never be played there, so public money was being spent and the GAA were excluded

It held up the building for a long time.

There were similar concern about the redevelopment of Lansdowne in the early 2000s but not as public and well before any actual work started on the rebuild.

Brendan Bendar

dulpit wrote: »

People go shopping for say bread. Of course they're only going to buy bread in the one shop. But people watch lots of sports. An awful lot of people in Ireland are soccer fans, hurling fans, rugby fans, all at the same time. The implication that a soccer match being played in a GAA stadium will cause the GAA to suffer membership loss strikes me as non-sensical

I don’t agree, Dulpit

I am not per se saying that “one soccer match...”I’m defending the stance of the GAA to protect their competitive advantage from their competitors.

Now let’s say that this game were to go ahead in PUC say on a date in September.I can assure you that for at least a week or two before it the main topic of interest amongst the youngsters of the Cork area would be this game.

I could assure you the parents grandparents etc would come under severe pressure to get tickets and I would be extremely surprised if this didn’t result in loss of potential GAA players.Now a small loss maybe but for two weeks at least this would be an event of major interest amongst the young sporting children and all provided and facilitated by a rival sporting organization.

All the proof needed is the mayhem at exhibition matches when Liverpool or Celtic or MU come over for what are basically training spins.


The GAA are just protecting their patch against far far bigger players with deep pockets more exposure on TV.

And in my opinion they are quite right.

Fr Tod Umptious

STB. wrote: »

It has threeball according to John McHale sports editor with the Echo.

https://twitter.com/echosportsed/status/1020725457745039360

That's the only source that mentions PUC being used.

It has not been picked up by RTE

And that tweet is out almost a day.

pjohnson

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I don’t agree, Dulpit

I am not per se saying that “one soccer match...”I’m defending the stance of the GAA to protect their competitive advantage from their competitors.

Now let’s say that this game were to go ahead in PUC say on a date in September.I can assure you that for at least a week or two before it the main topic of interest amongst the youngsters of the Cork area would be this game.

I could assure you the parents grandparents etc would come under severe pressure to get tickets and I would be extremely surprised if this didn’t result in loss of potential GAA players.Now a small loss maybe but for two weeks at least this would be an event of major interest amongst the young sporting children and all provided and facilitated by a rival sporting organization.

All the proof needed is the mayhem at exhibition matches when Liverpool or Celtic or MU come over for what are basically training spins.


The GAA are just protecting their patch against far far bigger players with deep pockets more exposure on TV.

And in my opinion they are quite right.

Jaysus.

Brendan Bendar

threeball wrote: »

Terrible analogy.

Absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.

alaimacerc

grbear wrote: »

Do you know if that money was given to the GAA on that basis? I haven't seen any sort of agreement saying that it was. Plenty of speculation with reagrds to EU rules but nothing resembling a contract between the GAA and the government.

Did the word "contract" pass my keyboard?

As I said, I don't know exactly what the gov agreed with the EU, the Gaa with the gov, or indeed the Gaa with the EU. I'm going by what was in the report of EUC investigation into illegal state aid, which OK'd it on the basis that the "stadium could be rented out to other field sports", and "will be open to various users on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis".

So if it can't be, or if the basis is thoroughly opaque, someone's badly dropped the ball (of whatever size and shape).

threeball

STB. wrote: »

It has threeball according to John McHale sports editor with the Echo.

https://twitter.com/echosportsed/status/1020725457745039360

He jumped the gun. Both the GAA and the organising committee said there's no agreement yet just an agreement to meet.

alaimacerc

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I’m defending the stance of the GAA to protect their competitive advantage from their competitors.

Why should public funds be "protecting a competitive advantage"?

STB.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

STB. wrote: »

It has threeball according to John McHale sports editor with the Echo.

https://twitter.com/echosportsed/status/1020725457745039360

That's the only source that mentions PUC being used.

It has not been picked up by RTE

And that tweet is out almost a day.

Last night.

He is the sports editor with the local rag. He has confirmed that it's been agreed.

It's also in some of the press today. RTE not awake yet. It's a day of rest clearly.

dulpit

So I think the summary of this thread is more or less:
1) FAI to blame, they should have large stadia all over the country that would never be used.
2) Liam Miller's family/organising committee to blame, they should have planned charity event better.
3) GAA is all about community, but only if it doesn't affect the GAA product.
4) And soccer fans hate GAA fans who hate soccer fans. Rugby fans are seemingly okay?

dulpit

Oh and 1 last point, playing soccer matches in fancy has stadium won't attract more viewers/fans for regular matches. Limerick played in Thomand Park a few years ago while their ground was being developed, they didn't get huge crowds as a result.

Brendan Bendar

alaimacerc wrote: »

Why should public funds be "protecting a competitive advantage"?

I already explained that Al.

Sorry you need to find it yourself.

threeball

STB. wrote: »

Last night.

He is the sports editor with the local rag. He has confirmed that it's been agreed.

It's also in some of the press today. RTE not awake yet. It's a day of rest clearly.

As I said above both the GAA and organising committee have publicly stated there's no deal as there hasn't even been a meeting.

dixiefly

Bonniedog wrote: »

before

I never heard of Liam Millar before. Same as soccer supporters probably never heard of Matt Connor who neve got a testimonial.

As for the Liverpool supporter, how many people in Liverpool support Cork City or Dundalk?

Man would you ever give it a break.

Whose fault is it if att Connor never got a testemonial???? You cant pin that one on on the FAI or whoever your gripe is with.

I am sure there were fundraisers for Matt and if that wasn't sufficient why didnt you or someone else in the GAA do so???

alaimacerc

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

There was a major objection to Tallagh Stadium by a local GAA club because the dimensions meant that GAA could never be played there, so public money was being spent and the GAA were excluded

That's a fair point about the size of the pitch. But there's a difference between "this should be substantially redesigned to suit our needs" and "we shouldn't be precluded by rule, and administrative interpretation of rule, from any use of any access to use of it at all". Maybe Athletics Ireland would have liked them to put a running track around it, maybe the tennis peeps would have liked a roof, etc.

Fr Tod Umptious

STB. wrote: »

Last night.

He is the sports editor with the local rag. He has confirmed that it's been agreed.

It's also in some of the press today. RTE not awake yet. It's a day of rest clearly.

I had a quick Google

Joe, Pundit Arena, Irish Examine, Irish Sun are all quoting McHale as their source

Until I see it on RTE or the Irish Times from a source other than McHale I'll believe it.

alaimacerc

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I already explained that Al.

Sorry you need to find it yourself.

Let me rephrase that, then. Use of public funds to "protect a competitive advantage" is exactly the sort of carry-on that state aid rules make illegal. And properly so, I think.

Niles Crane

dulpit wrote: »

So I think the summary of this thread is more or less:
1) FAI to blame, they should have large stadia all over the country that would never be used.
2) Liam Miller's family/organising committee to blame, they should have planned charity event better.
3) GAA is all about community, but only if it doesn't affect the GAA product.
4) And soccer fans hate GAA fans who hate soccer fans. Rugby fans are seemingly okay?

1).They should have better stadia for LOI teams across the country, that is inarguable, if they did a better job running the game in this country there is no real reason we couldn't have a decent domestic league with proper stadia like they have in Scotland,Norway and other similar sized european countries.

2)The organizing committee should have given things more time instead of creating a big storm, the Cork County board didn't have any objection at all the PUC being used they should ahve let them lobby Croke Park and explain to them why it needed to be used.

3) Community events are held with the help of GAA clubs all across the country, it is not the GAA's job to look out for other sports affairs.

4)This issue has nothing to with Rugby .

STB.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

STB. wrote: »

Last night.

He is the sports editor with the local rag. He has confirmed that it's been agreed.

It's also in some of the press today. RTE not awake yet. It's a day of rest clearly.

I had a quick Google

Joe, Pundit Arena, Irish Examine, Irish Sun are all quoting McHale as their source

Until I see it on RTE or the Irish Times from a source other than McHale I'll believe it.

GAA haven't released their official statement as they are trying to figure out the wording to recover from the unmitigated pr mess they are already in.

Presumably McHale got the bottom line. He is risking his credibility otherwise.

Bonniedog

alaimacerc wrote: »

Let me rephrase that, then. Use of public funds to "protect a competitive advantage" is exactly the sort of carry-on that state aid rules make illegal. And properly so, I think.

I don't think the FAI would be too keen on having certain EU departments prying into their affairs

alaimacerc

dulpit wrote: »

Oh and 1 last point, playing soccer matches in fancy has stadium won't attract more viewers/fans for regular matches. Limerick played in Thomand Park a few years ago while their ground was being developed, they didn't get huge crowds as a result.

I'm guessing it's just the reverse, in fact. If you can't fill a 7000-seat stadium, you'd not want to be rattling around a 45k one needlessly. And the pitch size factor is also going to work against "atmosphere", if you have two men and a dog extra yards away from whatever's passing for the action.

Brendan Bendar

Niles Crane wrote: »

1).They should have better stadia for LOI teams across the country, that is inarguable, if they did a better job running the game in this country there is no real reason we couldn't have a decent domestic league with proper stadia like they have in Scotland,Norway and other similar sized european countries.

2)The organizing committee should have given things more time instead of creating a big storm, the Cork County board didn't have any objection at all the PUC being used they should ahve let them lobby Croke Park and explain to them why it needed to be used.

3) Community events are held with the help of GAA clubs all across the country, it is not the GAA's job to look out for other sports affairs.

4)This issue has nothing to with Rugby .

I would agree with that assessment Nils

alaimacerc

Bonniedog wrote: »

I don't think the FAI would be too keen on having certain EU departments prying into their affairs

Maybe all the more reason they should, then. Doesn't really go to my point, mind you.

alaimacerc

STB. wrote: »

Presumably McHale got the bottom line. He is risking his credibility otherwise.

He'd never work on a reputable newspaper again! (Position at the Echo remains safe.)

Fr Tod Umptious

STB. wrote: »

GAA haven't released their official statement as they are trying to figure out the wording to recover from the unmitigated pr mess they are already in.

Presumably McHale got the bottom line. He is risking his credibility otherwise.

Journalists risk their credibility on that damn Twitetr thing every day of the week.

grbear

alaimacerc wrote: »

grbear wrote: »

Do you know if that money was given to the GAA on that basis? I haven't seen any sort of agreement saying that it was. Plenty of speculation with reagrds to EU rules but nothing resembling a contract between the GAA and the government.

Did the word "contract" pass my keyboard?

As I said, I don't know exactly what the gov agreed with the EU, the Gaa with the gov, or indeed the Gaa with the EU. I'm going by what was in the report of EUC investigation into illegal state aid, which OK'd it on the basis that the "stadium could be rented out to other field sports", and "will be open to various users on a non-discriminatory and transparent basis".

So if it can't be, or if the basis is thoroughly opaque, someone's badly dropped the ball (of whatever size and shape).

I'm just wary of stating as fact, like I've seen on various platforms, that the GAA would have no choice but to open up the stadium if someone took them to court. If they received funding while everyone knew Rule 42 was in place, and it wasn't made explicitly clear that by accepting the funding that the GAA would have to change the rule, could they be forced to open the stadium at a later point? Or would the government that handed over the money be the ones at fault?

In an ideal world this sort of issue would start a bigger discussion about how build stadia in general and figuring out a better way for them to serve more sports and the wider community.

alaimacerc

dulpit wrote: »

4) And soccer fans hate GAA fans who hate soccer fans. Rugby fans are seemingly okay?

Better class of the garrison? As opposed to the "scum of the earth" enlisted ranks.

upandcumming

Bonniedog wrote: »

FAI demonstrated this when allowed use Croke Park, by changing the name of Hill 16 to "North Terrace" on their tickets. Anyone who thinks that was other than childish reflection of their hatred and jealousy of the GAA is na.

In stitches here...

STB.

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Journalists risk their credibility on that damn Twitetr thing every day of the week.

I know all about broadcasters and journos believe you me.

He is not just a journo. He is the sports editor there. I would imagine that the local cb are the source.

smurgen

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

dulpit wrote: »

People go shopping for say bread. Of course they're only going to buy bread in the one shop. But people watch lots of sports. An awful lot of people in Ireland are soccer fans, hurling fans, rugby fans, all at the same time. The implication that a soccer match being played in a GAA stadium will cause the GAA to suffer membership loss strikes me as non-sensical

I don’t agree, Dulpit

I am not per se saying that “one soccer match...”I’m defending the stance of the GAA to protect their competitive advantage from their competitors.

Now let’s say that this game were to go ahead in PUC say on a date in September.I can assure you that for at least a week or two before it the main topic of interest amongst the youngsters of the Cork area would be this game.

I could assure you the parents grandparents etc would come under severe pressure to get tickets and I would be extremely surprised if this didn’t result in loss of potential GAA players.Now a small loss maybe but for two weeks at least this would be an event of major interest amongst the young sporting children and all provided and facilitated by a rival sporting organization.

All the proof needed is the mayhem at exhibition matches when Liverpool or Celtic or MU come over for what are basically training spins.


The GAA are just protecting their patch against far far bigger players with deep pockets more exposure on TV.

And in my opinion they are quite right.

You sound like a head the ball and someone who would damage the interests of soccer and football.here's hoping the match is a success at PUC and lots of money is raised for Marymount.The palative care they give to Cork people in their darkest hours is amazing.

Brendan Bendar

grbear wrote: »

I'm just wary of stating as fact, like I've seen on various platforms, that the GAA would have no choice but to open up the stadium if someone took them to court. If they received funding while everyone knew Rule 42 was in place, and it wasn't made explicitly clear that by accepting the funding that the GAA would have to change the rule, could they be forced to open the stadium at a later point? Or would the government that handed over the money be the ones at fault?

In an ideal world this sort of issue would start a bigger discussion about how build stadia in general and figuring out a better way for them to serve more sports and the wider community.

I think people are getting a little carried away with the Govt funding stuff.

As I understand it the Govt. provided 30m,the Gaa funded the majority of the expense.

The Govt fund almost every sporting body in the country with various grants.

Are they Santa Claus- of course not.

These are investments, they are not doing it for no reason.

Get back to PUC, the whole community of Cork benefit from that Govt investment.They can have concerts, Munster Hurling Finals bringing thousands of people into the city spending their money ,creating employment, and giving a boost to the whole economy of the area.

In turn the income generated by the GAA is ploughed back into clubs which train youngsters who are more healthy as a result are off the streets which reduces the cost to the Govt on health and social delinquency issues.

That’s the way it works, the GAA don’t just build the place,lock it up and let it rot .

pjohnson

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

I think people are getting a little carried away with the Govt funding stuff.

As I understand it the Govt. provided 30m,the Gaa funded the majority of the expense.

The Govt fund almost every sporting body in the country with various grants.

Are they Santa Claus- of course not.

These are investments, they are not doing it for no reason.

Get back to PUC, the whole community of Cork benefit from that Govt investment.They can have concerts, Munster Hurling Finals bringing thousands of people into the city spending their money ,creating employment, and giving a boost to the whole economy of the area.

In turn the income generated by the GAA is ploughed back into clubs which train youngsters who are more healthy as a result are off the streets which reduces the cost to the Govt on health and social delinquency issues.

That’s the way it works, the GAA don’t just build the place,lock it up and let it rot .

So you think the hospice isn't part of the Cork community is it?

Why do you want it to not get as much funds as possible to support the community?

alaimacerc

grbear wrote: »

I'm just wary of stating as fact, like I've seen on various platforms, that the GAA would have no choice but to open up the stadium if someone took them to court. If they received funding while everyone knew Rule 42 was in place, and it wasn't made explicitly clear that by accepting the funding that the GAA would have to change the rule, could they be forced to open the stadium at a later point? Or would the government that handed over the money be the ones at fault?

It's very possible it's the government that's at fault here. Their apparent motivation was in large part having a stadium for the RWC. So, we'll bung them some money on the "understanding" they'll later formally OK that, as needed. Then the EU query it, and again some "understanding" is reached. What exactly were those understandings? Are they compatible with rule 42? Or indeed with the state aid rules?

I don't know, and I'm pretty sure it'd cost you at least €500/h to find out, and more likely large multiple of that.

It might be that the upshot is some tweaked Gaa guideline in which they're able to say "yes" or "no" to requests to use their facilities, but where they show they're not being discriminatory on the one hand, and not flat ruling it out on the other. For example (just off the top of my head), charity soccer games, non-profit handegg games, and such like are OK, but commercial pro sports aren't.

In an ideal world this sort of issue would start a bigger discussion about how build stadia in general and figuring out a better way for them to serve more sports and the wider community.

It would. Bit of a case of the horse having bolted, though.

Fr Tod Umptious

smurgen wrote: »

You sound like a head the ball and someone who would damage the interests of soccer and football.here's hoping the match is a success at PUC and lots of money is raised for Marymount.The palative care they give to Cork people in their darkest hours is amazing.

The president and general secetrary of the GAA are having a meeting with the organisers next week.

In the absence of any confirmation that the game will be in PUC I can see the GAA telling the organisers how it's not possible to host the event and also handing over a large donation to Marymount.

Bridge93

This 'us v them' attitude is alarming from some. Talk if competitive advantage instead of just letting people play/watch/enjoy multiple sports. It's not 1970 anymore for **** sake. It's possible for all sports to thrive. In fact, they might benefit from people engaging across the sporting spectrum

Pauliedragon

Brendan Bendar wrote: »

Would Dunnes Stores hand over three or four aisles to Aldi or Lidl in a prime Dunnes location with top class facilities.

Would a manager who took this decision off his own bat last long?

Would you think it would be sound business sense for Dunnes to allow Tesco or Lidl or Aldi to use Dunnes premises to sell Lidl /Aldi/Tesco goods on fairly regular basis?

The current issue with PUC is a bit different, but the principle is the same, you protect your competitive advantage as much as you can.

It’s pure common sense.

If those aisles were built with government assistance under the condition other supermarkets could use it then Dunnes would have to open up those aisles to Lidl.

Bobeagleburger

Bridge93 wrote: »

This 'us v them' attitude is alarming from some. Talk if competitive advantage instead of just letting people play/watch/enjoy multiple sports. It's not 1970 anymore for **** sake. It's possible for all sports to thrive. In fact, they might benefit from people engaging across the sporting spectrum

It's weird.

Thankfully it's not the norm. Most people just enjoy and respect a variety of sports.

Brendan Bendar

Pauliedragon wrote: »

If those aisles were built with government assistance under the condition other supermarkets could use it then Dunnes would have to open up those aisles to Lidl.

So how does that contribute to the PUC issue.

We are going around in circles here.