Should Croke Park be our National Stadium?

DublinWriter · 28-02-2007 02:48PM

Daith&#237 wrote: »

Those who argue for this are missing out on this following,salient point: Croke Park is the stadium of the NATIONAL SPORT, it's not a NATIONAL STADIUM.

That's a bit like the old People's Front of Judea vs. Judean People's Front arguement.

If you feel that precious about Croke Park, then the logical conclusion would be not to use it for Rock Gigs and events like the Special Olympics.

I think a previous poser nailed it, Landsdowne Road should be opened up for GAA and Croke Park opened up for Soccer and Rugby. Everyone wins.

At the end of the day, what can ever be achieved from a policy of exclusion?

Smiley101 · 28-02-2007 02:49PM

event wrote:

and an awful lot of taxpayers money

So what, the tax payers can pay for it, but only the GAA can use it, simply because they are ingrained into society?

aye, thats fair:rolleyes:

The government gave the GAA money to help pay for the stadium without any preconditions. If you're sour about that blame the government, not the GAA. The GAA own the stadium, not anyone else and the've been very obliging to the IRFU and FAI by providing Croke Park while they sort their own stadium out.

GreenHell · 28-02-2007 02:50PM

Ah... isn't the core of this debate really that the GAA can do whatever it likes with it stadium, or even stadiums?

It would be nice if our 3 main sporting organisations could work together to get the most from the resources we have and maybe they will after a successful 6 nations so far.

kevmy · 28-02-2007 03:55PM

1) Rugby and Soccer need there own stadium. Ground sharing between the three organisations is not viable. 35,000 need to be in Croker to make a profit. You will not get this number for San Marino or sh1te friendlies in soccer or the Magners league final or Leinster schools cup or rugby friendly versus Japan. So redevelopment of Lansdowne should go ahead.
2) It is the GAA's stadium, no matter what you say about taxpayers money, the GAA have control of it and it is within their remit to let whoever they want play in it.
3) IMO it is not going to work having the soccer team playing the home matches in June in Lansdowne and then switching to Croker after the Championship. A team should have a home and not mess about between two of them. They perform better when they play in only one stadium.
4) Croke Park is actually pretty heavily used from May till the end of Sept. Throw in a couple of concerts and the available dates drop further. Club final day (St. Patricks Day) is also out of the question. Croker is already used more than the old Lansdowne was. The residents association are already up in arms about the number of games played so playing more is going to be though.
5) Taking all these factors into account I think it is better for all if Rugby and Soccer play their games in Lansdowne. Even if Croker would make a better stage for some of the marvellous occasions of international sport.

PS: I ain't a GAA member but I do support all codes GAA, Rugby and Soccer and I reckon we can all get along if we just ganged up on those pesky cricketers. World Cup my arse

Terry · 28-02-2007 04:12PM

Ok. Let soccer and rugby have their own stadium.

Where are you going to put it?

Would you be willing to have it within a mile of your house?
This is where the bertie bowl ran into problems.
Everyone is all for a purpose built stadium. They just don't want it anywhere close to their own homes.

event · 28-02-2007 04:16PM

Smiley101 wrote:

The government gave the GAA money to help pay for the stadium without any preconditions. If you're sour about that blame the government, not the GAA. The GAA own the stadium, not anyone else and the've been very obliging to the IRFU and FAI by providing Croke Park while they sort their own stadium out.

not sour about anything

i was just saying that they did do it with a lot of taxpayers money

very obliging, arent they great the GAA, did it all out of the goodness of their heart, didnt get any money for it or anything

GreenHell · 28-02-2007 04:28PM

If I had a call on what way this would progress, I would in combination with GAA,IRFU and FAI go about upgrading staduims in Cork, Galway and Belfast then rotate the big fixtures around the country.

skywalker · 28-02-2007 04:48PM

netwhizkid wrote:

It is a thundering Disgrace that foreign games were allowed into Croke Park and for it to be made a "National Stadium" is another disgrace.

Why?

GreenHell wrote:

If I had a call on what way this would progress, I would in combination with GAA,IRFU and FAI go about upgrading staduims in Cork, Galway and Belfast then rotate the big fixtures around the country.

Not a bad idea at all. I like it

Lump · 28-02-2007 04:49PM

I'm still shocked at the size of the place.....

It's fifth largest in Europe.

http://www.stadiumguide.com/capacityspecial.htm

Think of the extra money brought into the country if Soccer/rugby was played there all the time. Economically it makes perfect sense.

John

Glenbhoy · 28-02-2007 04:49PM

Sleepy wrote:

Did the British government give the GAA grants towards Croker? Because if not, frankly I have a problem with the six counties of Northern Ireland using the stadium since they didn't pay for it.

Sleepy, perhaps you should refrain from posting until you can grasp some understanding of simple mathematics.
We'll look at this in simple terms:
Stadium cost 250M
Govt Contribution 60M
GAA Contribution 190M (being Stadium Cost- Govt Contribution)
Total GAA Membership residing in Ulster - approx 1/3, approximately 4/5 in NI = 27%.
Pro Rata contribution from NI to building of Croke Park = 51.3M (almost as much as the Irish government).

If the GAA decide to allow continued access to Croke Park that is their decision, I think they will, but I also think a 40/50K stadium is also needed which must be able to accommodate GAA as well as Rugby and Soccer, the majority of games in all these codes don't need a stadium bigger than that and there's nothing worse than Croker with 20/30K in it.
And as for persons continually harping on about how their taxes paid for the stadium, it's time they realised that yes, that's how taxes are used, in order to provide services for the community, they should also realise that as the biggest sporting organisation on the island, then gaa members can also legitimately claim to have provided funds for, well, for any fcuking thing that the govt provide, be it a new x-ray machine in tallaght hospital through to allowing Shamrock Rovers to continue to exist (well, how many businesses have tax liabilities of approx 1.5M written off?).

daveirl · 28-02-2007 04:55PM

This post has been deleted.

redzerdrog · 28-02-2007 04:55PM

this is getting very tiring croker is the GAA's stadium our national games are played there and the irfu and fai are being allowed untill 2008 and no longer end of story

humanji · 28-02-2007 04:59PM

Glenbhoy wrote:

And as for persons continually harping on about how their taxes paid for the stadium, it's time they realised that yes, that's how taxes are used, in order to provide services for the community, they should also realise that as the biggest sporting organisation on the island, then gaa members can also legitimately claim to have provided funds for, well, for any fcuking thing that the govt provide, be it a new x-ray machine in tallaght hospital through to allowing Shamrock Rovers to continue to exist (well, how many businesses have tax liabilities of approx 1.5M written off?).

And how would GAA members like being told they can't use the roads/water/refuse systems that their money paid for? (ironically, they probably can't because of the sh1te roads/water/refuse systems we have in this country

)

Actually, what's the capacity of Landsdown?

skywalker · 28-02-2007 05:15PM

Lump wrote:

I'm still shocked at the size of the place.....

It's fifth largest in Europe.

http://www.stadiumguide.com/capacityspecial.htm

Think of the extra money brought into the country if Soccer/rugby was played there all the time. Economically it makes perfect sense.

John

Its the third largest, according to its wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croke_Park

Mushy · 28-02-2007 05:41PM

Hi, the reaction from Europe to Croke Park (Especially from across the water) has been quite astounding. After the England match on Saturday there was nothing but praise for this great facility in the media and many overseas are asking why in gods name this is not the national stadium to accomodate all sports and events? Naturally the worlds media has given the GAA the type of advertising it could only dream of and they are making a mint out of these arrangements. I think many who were against the opening of Croke Park will probrably rethink that posistion in the light of the two memorable rugby matches staged there. It was a wonderful advertisement for our country. It showed the GAA in a new light and everyone wins.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai...8/srinvr28.xml

So should the great stadium be opened always to rugby and soccer? Or would the GAA eventually lose out in such an arrangement? Given that Tax payers paid the majority of costs for the stadium is it rich of the GAA to say what we can and cant use the stadium for? Would you settle for Rugby to always be played in Croke Park at least? Or should they just close it away from the eyes of the world again in 2009? Are you one of the anti 'forgein games' brigade?

BTW should the Hill 16 terracing be developed to finish the stadium (giving capacity of well over 100,000 people). Thats John Inverdales point in that article. Does it look unfinished with the Hill? Or is the Hill just too important to us Dubs?

Hill 16 cant be upgraded due to the lack of space behind it, but yes, it would be sweet to see the whole stadium like that.

I'm mainly a GAA fan, I wont deny that, but I do think it should be opened up as long as it doesnt interfere with the GAA program. Maybe if only the competitive matches are played there, to save the surface itself! I do also think that once it has been opened, there's not much that can be done to stop it staying this way. Everyone agrees what great occasions the two rugby matches, how do we not want more of them? Although the whole novelty will wear off sooner or later. The GAA, I feel, are just holding the IRFU/FAI to ransom now, making sure they re-develop it first. The GAA dont want to be held t ornsom the other way round, as its their decision in the first place to allow access. Another stadium is definately needed, and personally, I wouldnt care if the GAA was accomodated in there or not. Maybe if it does stay open, everyone should be forced to tour the Museum there(generate more income:D)

Humanji, capacity of Landsdowne is ~45,000 AFAIK.

DublinWriter · 28-02-2007 05:47PM

netwhizkid wrote:

It is a thundering Disgrace that foreign games were allowed into Croke Park and for it to be made a "National Stadium" is another disgrace.

So, using your 'foreign games' argument, you would have called the hosting of the Special Olympics in Croker a disgrace and banned it?

Hmmmm.....

Glenbhoy · 28-02-2007 06:06PM

humanji wrote:

And how would GAA members like being told they can't use the roads/water/refuse systems that their money paid for? (ironically, they probably can't because of the sh1te roads/water/refuse systems we have in this country )

Glad you get the point, taxes are precisely that, a feckin tax on everyone in society, if people have a gripe as to how they're expended they really should elect another government (actually, they really should elect another government!!).

RuggieBear · 28-02-2007 06:08PM

kevmy wrote:

1)
PS: I ain't a GAA member but I do support all codes GAA, Rugby and Soccer and I reckon we can all get along if we just ganged up on those pesky cricketers. World Cup my arse

why drag cricket into this?

Ghost Train · 28-02-2007 06:54PM

yes, I agree with the article, seems like a waste if it goes back to a GAA only stadium in a few years time. If there are large international rugby and soccer matches that could use the capacity and it won't interfere with GAA matches then why not use the stadium. If the GAA are worried that they'd be loosing out to foreign games then they need to get their heads screwed on. Make money by using the stadium and invest the money made into promoting GAA. By closing off croke park the GAA only games it's not going to make a differance what games little ann and barry decide to play in school. By using the stadium for more events, surely the GAA could promote the place as the home of the GAA and national stadium of ireland and market the game and association to more people.

As for the completing the stadium, times move on, if the extra capacity could be added and used makes sense to do it. Any problems with planning or building a bigger structure there surely could be worked out.

super_furry · 28-02-2007 07:11PM

redzerdrog wrote:

this is getting very tiring croker is the GAA's stadium our national games are played there and the irfu and fai are being allowed untill 2008 and no longer end of story

True. I despise the GAA (mostly for the disgraceful way in which they're trying to prevent Shamrock Rovers from moving into Tallaght), however it's their stadium, built with their money and should be their's to use as they see fit.

Sure they had huge ammounts of tax-payers money, but so have other sporting groups, they just haven't pissed it up the wall.

28-02-2007 07:14PM

The 'taxpayers money' argument is a farce. Taxpayers money goes into many projects, it doesn't mean they can be used by all and sundry. I can't walk in to someone's house and plant my arse on their sofa and point out that my tax monies went to their first time buyers grant. I can't go to hospital and open the drugs cabinets up because my taxes fund the HSE.

Afaik, Croke Park does not meet the strict UEFA requirements on football stadia, I believe it is something to do with the time it takes to evacuate a large crowd. That may not be a problem in GAA, but in football of course it is important to be able to remove one or both groups of fans very quickly in certain situations.

As only a few countries play rugby anyway, and its only really become popular amongst those from below the upper middle classes since Ireland/Munster started doing well in the past 5 years, I'm not sure if they really have stringent stadia criteria.

kevmy · 28-02-2007 07:40PM

RuggieBear wrote:

why drag cricket into this?

Come on its not a real sport. They've got a bat yet the last time anyone was hit by it was 1927 by mistake.
Totally eilest in that any country which does make strides is beaten back by not allowing them to play the good ones regularly enough.
They take a break for tea.
They take a break for rain.
They take a break for not enough light (anyone heard of floodlights).
They have a confusing scoring system.
You can break the rules by scuffing the ground.
They all cheer when some old guy puts up his hand.
It's boring.
10 guys standing in a big field waiting for a ball to fall into their hands. Waste of a field you could have a fair few round bales out of it.

Point I'm making is that GAA, Rugby and Soccer are great sports and I'd watch anywhere from young lads in the street to the Stade de France.

Ghost Train · 28-02-2007 07:49PM

Deleted User wrote:

Afaik, Croke Park does not meet the strict UEFA requirements on football stadia, I believe it is something to do with the time it takes to evacuate a large crowd. That may not be a problem in GAA, but in football of course it is important to be able to remove one or both groups of fans very quickly in certain situations.

As only a few countries play rugby anyway, and its only really become popular amongst those from below the upper middle classes since Ireland/Munster started doing well in the past 5 years, I'm not sure if they really have stringent stadia criteria.

whats the issue with meeting stadium requirements for uefa etc, surely if soccer and rugby matches can be played there this year why should it be a problem in future years. if a sport can use the extra capacity the stadium provides for big matches then it makes sense to use it, it shouldn't matter if it the common soccer or middle class rugby fans or whatever their background is. Its the GAA's decision etc. but they should know it reflects badly on them if they're willing to let their stadium sit empty when it could be being used as part of big international sporting events like the last two rugby matches

Wertz · 28-02-2007 08:46PM

kevmy wrote:

Come on its not a real sport.

I'll not pretend to like or understand cricket, but you can't say that it's not a game of skill,athleticism and a lot of tactics (all the qualities of sport).
Things like rain or poor light are important in what is a precise moving about of a ball....just because it's not belting it down the field in the pouring rain to be met with a hurley stick doesn't make it any less a sport.
If it didn't bore the hell out of me, I'd like to know more about the odd rules, the scoring system...oh and while I'm on the subject it's great seeing the English loose at another sport they invented.

As for croke park? No problem with it being used temporarily but the other sports need their own stadium. I'd have nothing against the GAA charging for the privileges of hosting in the longer term, perhaps allowing them to subsidise other sub-national GAA stadiums around the country like someone mentioned above. You can rest ssured that if there' money in it the GAA won't shy away from it.

To anyone crying about tax payers and the GAA, try going to a game and supporting your county sometime, especially in croke park. It's magical.

admiralofthefleet · 28-02-2007 11:12PM

seeing as though most of the re-development was paid for by tax payers from all walks of life i would say yes, it would be great to see it as the national stadium

Terry · 01-03-2007 12:16AM

What did I say about bitching and moaning?
Don't make me open IE and ban some people.
I don't like doing either.

Sleepy · 01-03-2007 12:44AM

Unpossible wrote:

So do you have a problem with the GAA teams of those counties playing in Croke park? Or is it just with the people from those counties who play "foreign games" ?

Sorry, don't quite think the sarcasm came across there properly. That post was meant to point out the absurdity of Daithí Locha trying to use the GAA as justification for getting in the usual bull**** republican nonsense.

Unpossible · 01-03-2007 01:05AM

Sleepy wrote:

Sorry, don't quite think the sarcasm came across there properly. That post was meant to point out the absurdity of Daithí Locha trying to use the GAA as justification for getting in the usual bull**** republican nonsense.

ah, ok.

Calibos · 01-03-2007 01:11AM

DublinWriter wrote:

So, using your 'foreign games' argument, you would have called the hosting of the Special Olympics in Croker a disgrace and banned it?

Hmmmm.....

Of course not, because the Greeks didn't invade and oppress us for 800 years:D

MadsL · 01-03-2007 01:29AM

Of course not, because the Greeks didn't invade and oppress us for 800 years

Ye started it!

Relatively few Welsh forts were occupied after AD330, with Segontium (Gwynedd) being a notable exception. This fort, with its naval base of Caer Gybi at Holyhead and the watchtower at Caer-y-Twr on Holyhead Mountain, may represent elements of an integrated system for the protection of north-west Wales from the Irish.

http://www.walespast.com/article.shtml?id=33

It was common for the Welsh to trade with the Irish and to colonize in Irish lands, and vica versa.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/invasion.htm

And pretty much invited it....

Losing his powerful allies in Ireland, it seemed evident that the ousted King of Leinster, Dermot MacMurrough, would seek assistance in Wales. The English (Norman) King, Henry II, granted Dermot permission to recruit forces to regain his kingship. Dermot formed an alliance with Richard de Clare, who was denied by King Henry to his title as Earl of Pembroke, Wales, otherwise known to history as Strongbow. Dermot promised Strongbow grants of land as well as his daughter's hand in marriage in exchange for his help. After winning Stongbow over to his cause, Dermot visited the Welsh prince of South Wales, Rhys ap Gruffydd, to gain the freedom of Robert FitzStephen, a "knight of great reknown," who had been held captive by Rhys. At the request of Robert's half-brothers, David (bishop of St. David's) and Maurice FitzGerald, Robert was released on condition that he went to Ireland to assist Dermot MacMurrough.

In 1167 Dermot returned to Ireland with a small force of Welsh and Flemish under Richard FitzGodebert. With native Irish support to regain control of his homeland, Ui Ceinnsealaigh in southest Leinster, Dermot attempted to reclaim his kingship of Leinster. He was however defeated southest of Carlow town in 1168 by the high-king Ruairi O'Conor and his ally Tiernan O'Rourke, the same who had ousted him in 1166.

http://www.rootsweb.com/~irlkik/ihm/invasion.htm

/me Ducks behind wall!

Should Croke Park be our National Stadium?

Comments