Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lansdowne Road too small?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    There is nothing I can say that would answer a question like that.

    Where would you have built it, what size and who would be paying for it?

    I'm guessing anywhere it would have fit within as close to the city as possible with respect to land values, 65,000 minimum capacity with expansion possibility, I'm guessing the same sources who paid for the existing redevelopment. The land at Lansdowne Road wouldn't have been given away for nothing you know.

    I'm quite comfortable questioning the logic of tearing down a stadium and putting a 400m new one in it's place with the exact same capacity. The capacity is inadequate and when it was reduced from 65 to 50 during the planning process they should have looked elsewhere.

    The extra 15,000 (65 over 50) amounts to about 1m-2m per game for a sell-out. Care to take a stab at how much money that would generate for the IRFU, FAI and the State and economy in revenues over a 25 year period? I'm not going to but I'm sure it's ALOT.

    There were loads of sites that could have been considered. What about all the land out in Clare Hall, Swords, Irish Glass site or the IRFU's own land out in Newlands Cross? Don't suggest there wasn't a bit of land anywhere close to the city that could have accomodated it, particularly with land deals for 50-90m an acre being struck for land near to Lansdowne Road, which has the added advantage of sitting on a DART line. Based on those deals what is the site worth? OR should I say, what WAS it worth?

    16 acres by 50m = 800
    16 acres by 90m = 1440

    I'm sure that would have covered land AND a stadium on what would have been a greenfield site.


  • #33
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    The FAI could hardly get together their share for the current stadium, tell me how would they afford a stadium of increased size? They would stand to gain nothing from the sale of the Lansdowne Road site.

    You can't say the land would have sold for anything like the figures you mention as the previous use of the land would figure in the future use of the land. If the IRFU had acquired pre planning approval, maybe you'd get those prices but thats all hypothetical.

    It's also debatable where a 65,000 (to whatever your proposed expansion capacity is) stadium would get planning permission. An out of town location like Newlands or off the N32 wouldn't go down well with the planners for dispersal of the crowd post game, it would encourage travel by car. It's not just as simple as plonking a stadium down on some green field site.

    If it was all as easy as you say wouldn't the IRFU have gone it alone? Sale of 1.5bn, 100% own stadium for 500m and 1bn in the bank? There would have been no question.


  • #34
    NewApproach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,191 ✭✭✭NewApproach


    ALH-06 wrote: »
    Ok is it actually 50,000 or 55,000? I've always heard the first figure whenever the new Lansdowne Road is mentioned....

    I agree - it's definitely too small to be our national stadium. But it was a compromise that had to be made.

    Who says Landsdowne Rd is our national stadium??


  • #35
    Sparky14
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 155 ✭✭Sparky14


    NewApproach wrote: »
    Who says Landsdowne Rd is our national stadium??

    The FAI & IRFU.


  • #36
    Orizio
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,460 ✭✭✭Orizio


    Hogzy wrote: »
    I think the GAA are still a bit caught up in the whole Irishness of Croke Park

    :rolleyes:

    If this was true, there wouldn't be any rugby/soccer matches on in Croker. Its clear the GAA is far more interested in making money then in any other supposed ideological considerations.

    God only knows why anyone would prefer Lansdowne Road to one of the finest stadiums in Europe, but I assume it makes financial sense for the IRFU to move games out of Croker.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    The FAI could hardly get together their share for the current stadium, tell me how would they afford a stadium of increased size? They would stand to gain nothing from the sale of the Lansdowne Road site.

    You can't say the land would have sold for anything like the figures you mention as the previous use of the land would figure in the future use of the land. If the IRFU had acquired pre planning approval, maybe you'd get those prices but thats all hypothetical.

    It's also debatable where a 65,000 (to whatever your proposed expansion capacity is) stadium would get planning permission. An out of town location like Newlands or off the N32 wouldn't go down well with the planners for dispersal of the crowd post game, it would encourage travel by car. It's not just as simple as plonking a stadium down on some green field site.

    If it was all as easy as you say wouldn't the IRFU have gone it alone? Sale of 1.5bn, 100% own stadium for 500m and 1bn in the bank? There would have been no question.

    Newlands would have been on the LUAS. N32 on the Dart. Both close the motorway with plenty of park and ride options it wouldn't have been a major issue.

    A stadium with an extra 15,000 - 20,000 capacity would not have cost an amount hugely in excess of what's already being paid. Factor in future earnings from games too. It would make sense long term without a doubt.

    The prices I've quoted relate to land which did not have planning permission for what the buyers intended to build on it so it stands to reason Lansdowne Road's 16.5 acres could have been sold for something in the same ballpark.

    Whatever the case, and I'll repeat, I don't think you need to be a logistician or urban planner to see a problem with the logic of tearing down a stadium in order to build one with an identical capacity in it's place (granted the corporate side of things is more catered for in the new stadium) for 400 million euro. It's inadequate, that's simply a fact. We've had 2 games in 4 days which prove that and although it's now impossible to know, given the crazy money being thrown at sites in that area I believe they could easily have funded a proper stadium on a new site had they the necessary vision and will to do so, from the sale of the land at Lansdowne. The FAIs share of the new stadium cost could have been included in future leasing arrangements, or worked out between themselves whatever the financial sitation might have been.


  • #38
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Orizio wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    If this was true, there wouldn't be any rugby/soccer matches on in Croker. Its clear the GAA is far more interested in making money then in any other supposed ideological considerations.

    God only knows why anyone would prefer Lansdowne Road to one of the finest stadiums in Europe, but I assume it makes financial sense for the IRFU to move games out of Croker.

    I think even with corporate clients and stadium sponsorship it would still make financial sense for them to use Croke Park but it will never happen, for a start they would be funding the GAA, a competitor. It's common sense, they've built their ground, for better or for worse, it should be used and promoted as much as possible.


  • #39
    Sparky14
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 155 ✭✭Sparky14


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    I think even with corporate clients and stadium sponsorship it would still make financial sense for them to use Croke Park but it will never happen, for a start they would be funding the GAA, a competitor. It's common sense, they've built their ground, for better or for worse, it should be used and promoted as much as possible.

    I agree, we've made our pathetic little ground and now we're gonna have to play in it.


  • #40
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Sparky14 wrote: »
    I agree, we've made our pathetic little ground and now we're gonna have to play in it.

    I wouldn't call it pathetic. Aesthetically, and with respect to facilities and location it's an excellent stadium but the capacity is a joke* and I think that's the problem people have with it. Particularly because it doesn't improve on the previous capacity, it shows a lack of ambition for the future imo.



    *although corporate and premium seating will increase 10 fold I think?


  • #41
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    Newlands would have been on the LUAS. N32 on the Dart. Both close the motorway with plenty of park and ride options it wouldn't have been a major issue.
    LUAS is low capacity and both LUAS and DART on the main would be bringing people back into the city center, hardly ideal.
    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    Whatever the case, and I'll repeat, I don't think you need to be a logistician or urban planner to see a problem with the logic of tearing down a stadium in order to build one with an identical capacity in it's place (granted the corporate side of things is more catered for in the new stadium) for 400 million euro.
    No need to mention it's now an all seater stadium whereas in the past over 50% of the stadium was stading. You'd think they were building like for like.
    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    It's inadequate, that's simply a fact. We've had 2 games in 4 days which prove that
    The attendance at last nights game was 44k (as announced at the game). Don't mind the 65k thats in match reports today, they are incorrect. Less than 50k attended the previous FAI game.
    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    The FAIs share of the new stadium cost could have been included in future leasing arrangements, or worked out between themselves whatever the financial sitation might have been.
    I'd say the FAI are more than happy the way it's worked out. 50k is about right for them plus they are no longer a tenant in the new Lansdowne.

    I said it already but I'll mention it again, if it was as easy as your making out why do you think the IRFU didn't go it alone onto a green field site?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    ironingbored
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,425 ✭✭✭ironingbored


    I presume Leinster will use the new Landsdowne for big games (e.g. Munster, Ulster, HC).

    I think it was important to redevelop the Landsdowne site for reasons of tradition. Everybody in the world (esp. the rugby fraternity) knows about Landsdowne and its special place in sporting folklore. This is why the thought of calling it the Aviva stadium turns my stomach.


  • #43
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    LUAS is low capacity and both LUAS and DART on the main would be bringing people back into the city center, hardly ideal.

    I'm not going to engage in a debate really. I'm making a general point, not planning a new stadium. LUAS line is 5000 per hour or something, a metro spur could add another 10,000. I'm not sure where else you would want to bring people to after a game if not the city center. Some people are never happy, you suggest a slightly out of city site and they say it's too far away, you suggest a mode of transport that would deliver them to the city center and they moan about that too.
    No need to mention it's now an all seater stadium whereas in the past over 50% of the stadium was stading. You'd think they were building like for like.

    Nobody said it was. Obviously a new stadium is a new stadium. I'm just not sure it's worth spending 400m on it.
    The attendance at last nights game was 44k (as announced at the game). Don't mind the 65k thats in match reports today.

    Yeah, I'm sure they got it wrong by about 50%.

    And at the weekend? 84,000? How many more people would have gone?
    I'd say the FAI are more than happy the way it's worked out. 50k is about right for them plus they are no longer a tenant.

    As I've said, new site, new arrangements. Citing existing arrangements and saying they would be in appropriate to a greenfield site stadium is simply stating the obvious and not really making any point at all.
    I said it already but I'll mention it again, if it was as easy as your making out why do you think the IRFU didn't go it alone onto a green field site?

    Fear of ****ing it up? Lack of ambition? Playing it safe?


  • #44
    Sparky14
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 155 ✭✭Sparky14


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    I wouldn't call it pathetic. Aesthetically, and with respect to facilities and location it's an excellent stadium but the capacity is a joke* and I think that's the problem people have with it. Particularly because it doesn't improve on the previous capacity, it shows a lack of ambition for the future imo.



    *although corporate and premium seating will increase 10 fold I think?

    Ok well its a pathetic attempt at improving the existing Lansdowne Road. Couldn't really care less about facilities or corporate seating. In terms of atmosphere the 5,000 increase in capacity will not be enough to compensate for the loss of the Terraces.


  • #45
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 29,813 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    Whatever the case, and I'll repeat, I don't think you need to be a logistician or urban planner to see a problem with the logic of tearing down a stadium in order to build one with an identical capacity in it's place (granted the corporate side of things is more catered for in the new stadium) for 400 million euro.

    The main aim of the rebuild wasn't to increase capacity. The stadium had to be replaced - it was in bits. It looks a silly decision now, but there was no guarantee at the time that there would be enough demand for a larger stadium anyway.


  • #46
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    If it will keep out some of the cretins booing at halftime, it will do fine.


  • #47
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm sure they got it wrong by about 50%.
    I'm not making it up, I was there, I saw the attendance, I saw the empty seats, I heard the announcement of 44k.

    It's really pointless trying to debate something if not going to take things at face value.
    "The number of tickets sold is pretty close to 50,000, and we would expect the final figure to be in or around that," FAI head of communications Peter Sherrard said yesterday.

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fai-expects-25000-empty-seats-for-world-cup-qualifier-1635174.html

    A certain number of block bookers would have paid yet not attended, absorbing the cost to keep their block booking allocation.


  • #48
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    I'm not making it up, I was there, I saw the attendance, I saw the empty seats, I heard the announcement of 44k.

    It's really pointless trying to debate something if not going to take things at face value.



    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fai-expects-25000-empty-seats-for-world-cup-qualifier-1635174.html

    A certain number of block bookers would have paid yet not attended, absorbing the cost to keep their block booking allocation.

    Fair enough but there were 60,000 at the previous friendly (yes, we know, a lot of Poles went to it).

    I say it's too small and I think the vast majority of people agree.


  • #49
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    I say it's too small and I think the vast majority of people agree.
    Definetly too small for Rugby but probably the right size for soccer.

    I'm still at a loss to understand why the IRFU ruled out a new location. I'm trying to look back over the years when the decision was made and there there seems to be a lot of political support and lobbying for funds to be made available for the redevelopment of the existing site. Maybe after the disappointments of Eircom Park and The Bertie Bowl government forces and the IRFU (and the FAI to a lesser extent) were left thinking they'd be left with nothing.


  • #50
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Sparky14 wrote: »
    Ok well its a pathetic attempt at improving the existing Lansdowne Road. Couldn't really care less about facilities or corporate seating. In terms of atmosphere the 5,000 increase in capacity will not be enough to compensate for the loss of the Terraces.


    AFAIK some of the newer stadia in Germany have the facility to convert entire stands from seats to terraces and vice verca in just one hour. Perhaps this may be worth investigating for the rugby matches in the new Lansdowne?


  • #51
    Stupido
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Stupido


    Lads......


    1) The stadium COULD have been 65,000 but for 2 reasons - political (Mary Harney) and Rugby (Lansdowne flat refused to lose their pitch). A scheme was developed for a stadium 90 degrees from the old one. Any capacity could have been atained. Prob was you would have lost the second pitch.

    2) The new design DOES ALLOW for an extension of capacity. The upper tiers only run around 3 sides of the stadium. In effect the new lansdowne road is just like croker...3 sides of 4 tiers and a scutty little bit at one end with a score board

    I think you will find that the IRFU own a few of the houses in Havelock Square...and O'Connell Gardens too.......:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Stupido
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Stupido


    but thats not to say they will get planning permission for an expansion.....


  • #53
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Stupido wrote: »
    1) The stadium COULD have been 65,000 but for 2 reasons - political (Mary Harney) and Rugby (Lansdowne flat refused to lose their pitch). A scheme was developed for a stadium 90 degrees from the old one. Any capacity could have been atained. Prob was you would have lost the second pitch.
    They would have only got planning for one a tier stand on the north end of the site due to the shadow the tier would have cast in the north from the southerly sun. The one tier along the long side would have restricted the capacity to something similar to the current design.

    They covered everything during the design, there is a good bit of documentation floating around showing all the options and you'll find that what they have now is best for the site.


  • #54
    sdanseo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,276 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Folks, if any of you are on the FAI ticket list and get a call, be sure to lead them on that you're interested. My dad got a sales pitch last week offering him 10-year tickets at €12,000 a pop - and for refusing to rule out the posibility that he might buy 2 (like fúck, much better things to spend the money on even if he had it), he's bagged a free tour of the stadium (the bit that's built) and asked me along. Provided cameras are allowed, expect tons of pictures.

    So if your phone rings with private number, answer it!
    Bluetonic wrote: »
    The attendance at last nights game was 44k (as announced at the game). Don't mind the 65k thats in match reports today, they are incorrect. Less than 50k attended the previous FAI game.

    Have to say it looked like much more than that for Poland, at least 60,000. Yesterday around 50k, 44 seems very low although it was a bad turnout either way.

    You can't say they aren't selling out Croker for the rugby though. We're bigger fish in that sport so people will flock.


  • #55
    fabman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭fabman


    If the FAI did stadiums they'd probably be the best stadiums in the world

    http://www.lrsdc.ie/gallery/singlecategory.asp?PCID=106


  • #56
    Stupido
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Stupido


    Bluetonic wrote: »
    They would have only got planning for one a tier stand on the north end of the site due to the shadow the tier would have cast in the north from the southerly sun. The one tier along the long side would have restricted the capacity to something similar to the current design.

    They covered everything during the design, there is a good bit of documentation floating around showing all the options and you'll find that what they have now is best for the site.


    Not true! What you have attached is the Non-technical summary btw. Look at the shadow modelling and the proposed design. Not a convincing overshadow (OF SUNLIGHT as opposed to natural light) on back gardens of houses in O'Connell Gardens (which are owned by IRFU btw - see DCC webside/planning apps). Clearely they didn't develop the idea from the start for the reasons I outlined earlier.

    Incidently IRFU also own all houses on lansdowne road (bar 1) from DART to Dodder, so shadowing on that side would not have been an issue as well.


  • #57
    Serenity Now!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,326 ✭✭✭Serenity Now!


    Stupido wrote: »
    Incidently IRFU also own all houses on lansdowne road (bar 1) from DART to Dodder, so shadowing on that side would not have been an issue as well.
    Absolute tosh.
    They do not own "all bar one" on that road :rolleyes:
    Its with baseless claims like above that stupid rumours and myths spin off.


  • #58
    Stupido
    Closed Accounts Posts: 164 ✭✭Stupido


    Strange, their latest planning application in relation to the stadium shows this.......

    Now why would they do that if they didn't own the land???


  • #59
    themont85
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,608 ✭✭✭themont85


    fabman wrote: »
    If the FAI did stadiums they'd probably be the best stadiums in the world

    http://www.lrsdc.ie/gallery/singlecategory.asp?PCID=106

    Haha look at the first photo, John Delaney looks absolutely hammered:D


  • #60
    Bluetonic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,588 ✭✭✭Bluetonic


    Stupido wrote: »
    Not true! What you have attached is the Non-technical summary btw. Look at the shadow modelling and the proposed design. Not a convincing overshadow (OF SUNLIGHT as opposed to natural light) on back gardens of houses in O'Connell Gardens (which are owned by IRFU btw - see DCC webside/planning apps). Clearely they didn't develop the idea from the start for the reasons I outlined earlier.
    Can we see your proposed plans?

    By your accounts the IRFU own half of D4 :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement