Greens helped scupper Drogs' stadium

eagle eye · 16-02-2009 06:37PM

From reading your last two posts its clear that you have an issue with the Green Party. Thats political and not soccer.

I personally don't want to discuss this any further until I have read the whole article you mention and done some more research myself.

I don't have any political connections nor do I support any particular party for that matter, but I do object to reading a headline about the Green Party in the Soccer forum. And having it thrown in my face that the Green Party did something wrong when it might not be the case.

I don't think the Green Party should be mentioned in your thread title nor any other party for that matter. For me something like Councillors helped scupper Drogs plans would be more appropriate as its clear that there was not just one man involved.

I just really feel there is a hidden political agenda behind this.

SectionF · 16-02-2009 06:48PM

eagle eye wrote: »

From reading your last two posts its clear that you have an issue with the Green Party. Thats political and not soccer.

I personally don't want to discuss this any further until I have read the whole article you mention and done some more research myself.

I don't have any political connections nor do I support any particular party for that matter, but I do object to reading a headline about the Green Party in the Soccer forum. And having it thrown in my face that the Green Party did something wrong when it might not be the case.

I don't think the Green Party should be mentioned in your thread title nor any other party for that matter. For me something like Councillors helped scupper Drogs plans would be more appropriate as its clear that there was not just one man involved.

I just really feel there is a hidden political agenda behind this.

Right. It's a conspiracy, and that's a UFO that just went past my window.
Look, I haven't said that the Greens have done anything wrong. Stop reading nonsense into posts in order to fuel your righteous indignation. And please do read the article if you doubt my interpretation of it, and if you doubt Village Magazine's version then write them a letter.
The fact is that their man in Laytown played a significant role in stopping the stadium development. I know that doesn't fit with the friendly local Green image, and that's why it is worth noting!

eagle eye · 16-02-2009 07:20PM

SectionF wrote: »

Right. It's a conspiracy, and that's a UFO that just went past my window.
Look, I haven't said that the Greens have done anything wrong. Stop reading nonsense into posts in order to fuel your righteous indignation. And please do read the article if you doubt my interpretation of it, and if you doubt Village Magazine's version then write them a letter.
The fact is that their man in Laytown played a significant role in stopping the stadium development. I know that doesn't fit with the friendly local Green image, and that's why it is worth noting!

Well then why this thread title?

Greens helped scupper Drogs' stadium

SectionF · 16-02-2009 07:24PM

Because they did.
I'm not suggesting that they were morally wrong to do so. Or even wrong in terms of Meath's overall planning needs. But help to scupper it they did.

invincibleirish · 16-02-2009 09:42PM

SectionF wrote: »

I am simply raising the point that the Greens' priorities in this matter did not coincide with Drogheda United's interests. They talk local, and they are part of a government that (hypocritally, in my opinion) likes to invoke patriotism in economic matters, yet they have played a part in frustrating one element of the economic and cultural life of the area, as represented by the football club.

I think you are talking out of your hole when you talk about the Greens talking local but not acting upon it. You clearly do not understand that the stadium was only part of a plan which was primarily focused on housing and retail? a stadium that has more in common with American and PL type stadia plonked on the outskirts of town accessible by car only?.

On top of that you obviously fail to realise that the NRA/ABP and the Min. of Env. would also have issues with the development? you come on here making allegations about the greens when its clear you focused on the stadium idea above all else, you didn't acknowledge the issues involved outside football.

Which in turn makes your attack on the 'hypocritical' greens for not backing this all the more amusing because you are in essence arguing for the Greens to ignore any sort of planning guidelines to advance your own narrow interest, which is to see a stadium built no matter what the repercussions are (i call that celtic tiger thinking). Take off the LoI blinkers and acknowledge the bigger picture.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 10:31AM

invincibleirish wrote: »

I think you are talking out of your hole when you talk about the Greens talking local but not acting upon it. You clearly do not understand that the stadium was only part of a plan which was primarily focused on housing and retail? a stadium that has more in common with American and PL type stadia plonked on the outskirts of town accessible by car only?.

On top of that you obviously fail to realise that the NRA/ABP and the Min. of Env. would also have issues with the development? you come on here making allegations about the greens when its clear you focused on the stadium idea above all else, you didn't acknowledge the issues involved outside football.

Which in turn makes your attack on the 'hypocritical' greens for not backing this all the more amusing because you are in essence arguing for the Greens to ignore any sort of planning guidelines to advance your own narrow interest, which is to see a stadium built no matter what the repercussions are (i call that celtic tiger thinking). Take off the LoI blinkers and acknowledge the bigger picture.

NRA is already covered, and the wider context is also referenced, as you would see if you read the thread rather than focussing your attention on orifices.
You seem to have difficulty with the fact that the post is made from a LoI perspective. The bigger picture has never been denied, but the inescapable reality that is the subject of this thread, and the only part of the affair relevant to football, is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

eagle eye · 17-02-2009 11:34AM

SectionF wrote: »

NRA is already covered, and the wider context is also referenced, as you would see if you read the thread rather than focussing your attention on orifices.
You seem to have difficulty with the fact that the post is made from a LoI perspective. The bigger picture has never been denied, but the inescapable reality that is the subject of this thread, and the only part of the affair relevant to football, is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

Green Party played a key role in the demise of the club.

You are twisting words to try and make it sound like the above without ever stating it because you know thats a false statement.

What comes through everytime you post is an inherent dislike for the Green Party. There is nothing sporting about it.

As far as I'm concerned this is a planning argument at best, and maybe has some political element to it also.

Drogheda United made a mess of Drogheda United. They attempted to rush through planning that was certainly not going to get by the NRA and then An Bord Pleanala.

Basically this whole thread is a plie of garbage using the English language to its full extent to make a mountain out of a molehill.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 12:03PM

Green Party played a key role in the demise of the club.

Is that a quote from me? Who is twisting what? Please do not put words in my mouth.

LuckyLloyd · 17-02-2009 01:09PM

SectionF wrote: »

Is that a quote from me? Who is twisting what? Please do not put words in my mouth.

No, you've said:

SectionF wrote:

Greens helped scupper Drogs' stadium

SectionF wrote:

is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

Which is awfully close to:

Green Party played a key role in the demise of the club.

In any case, you have failed to demonstrate in this thread that there is any real issue here.

SectionF wrote:

You seem to have difficulty with the fact that the post is made from a LoI perspective. The bigger picture has never been denied, but the inescapable reality that is the subject of this thread, and the only part of the affair relevant to football, is that a Green Party played a key role in stopping the stadium, an event that almost brought about the demise of the club.

So what? If the stadium was part of a bad development plan and the greater area as a whole would be better off with its rejection then it represents good work by the councilors involved, irrespective of party political affiliations or policies. And if the stadium was not the majority element of the plan, then it is unfair to contend or imply that the decision could be motivated out of a desire to inhibit the growth of professional football in this country.

It seems to me that you would be happy if a decision had been taken which aimed to trump the interests of Drogheda FC at the expense of wider social and economic development concerns for the surrounding area. And that isn't a position I find terribly compelling.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 01:35PM

They are not awfully close. They have radically different meanings, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

I never said that the Greens contributed to the demise of the club. Why would anyone say that when the club is still with us?

Your disingenuous interpretation of what I have said in perfectly plain English flies in the face of reality and logic.

Edit: It is also quite seriously dishonest to quote me in this way and to change the form of words to provide a different meaning.

eagle eye · 17-02-2009 01:43PM

SectionF wrote: »

They are not awfully close. They have radically different meanings, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

I never said that the Greens contributed to the demise of the club. Why would anyone say that when the club is still with us?

Your disingenuous interpretation of what I have said in perfectly plain English flies in the face of reality and logic.

Edit: It is also quite seriously dishonest to quote me in this way and to change the form of words to provide a different meaning.

I never quoted you as saying that, and its quite clear from the first line of my post below the quotation. I simply used the quotation marks to make a point.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 01:47PM

eagle eye wrote: »

I never quoted you as saying that, and its quite clear from the first line of my post below the quotation. I simply used the quotation marks to make a point.

You put it in a quote box.
Then you accused me of twisting words!
Now you are saying it wasn't a quote.
And we have another contributor saying it means the same thing, when clearly it has a completely different meaning. Farce.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 01:48PM

Actually, here's what you said. You accused me of lying, when you were lying.

eagle eye wrote: »

You are twisting words to try and make it sound like the above without ever stating it because you know thats a false statement.

therecklessone · 17-02-2009 02:28PM

SectionF wrote: »

I must say, this desire to see each politician in any given situation accorded equal attention is an innovation in political debate.

SectionF wrote: »

Of course it's a political debate. And it's a football debate. Why is there a problem with that? Do we have to get councillors to do keepy-uppies to talk about them? I really don't get your fascination with this semantic distinction.

You were the person who initiated this, not me. It is not a political discussion, if it was it would not belong here. It is a discussion on a political decision that has implications for a sporting organisation, namely Drogheda United. That is the sole reason for us debating the issue, there is not much more I can do to help you see that distinction.

The importance of the distinction is to allow me to address the former of those two quotes: I'm interested in the background and context to this planning issue, and so would like a complete account of the proceedings, not just an editorialised account of the proceedings. That is why I question why you downplay the contribution of Cllr Cuddy in your thread title, and why I question the headline of the blog article.

SectionF wrote: »

You can choose not to accept my interpretation of the import of the article, but to do so without having read it doesn't make sense. Other politicians from other parties are mentioned (and this is clearly stated in the blog post) but that's hardly unusual and therefore is of less interest. The blog article makes it clear that this is part of a wider picture, as you and Invincible Irish have shown with your interesting contributions fleshing out the story. Perhaps I am too inured to FF planning affairs to see anything out of the ordinary in them.

I have now read the article, for any interested party it is on page 29 of Issue 2 of Village Magazine (February/March edition). The headline? Meath Planning. The tagline? Conflicting views on good planning scupper Drogheda United. That paints a different picture from the blog and your thread on this forum.

Cllr Kelly is mentioned on two occasions in the Village article, one of which is quoted directly in your linked blog:

… the persistence of Councillors Kelly and Cudden and the lobbying by the landowners… have had the effect of removing this obstacle to the development of the Mill Road and the alteration of the zoning on the Bryanstown lands which, according to Doyle (promoter of the Bryanstown development), have made his proposal unviable financially.

The other paragraph reads as follows:

Frank Connolly, Village Magazine wrote:

Instead of promoting the development of the Bryanstown lands the new plan included a recommendation for the re-zoning, to residential use, of lands on the Mill Road closer to Drogheda. These lands were included in the latest area plan at the insistence of two east Meath councillors, Jimmy Cudden (Ind) and Tommy Kelly (Green Party) supported by Pat Boshell(FF) who have claimed that they are ideally suited for development as they are closer to the town

Kelly is one of three Cllrs mentioned, why did you not highlight that? In my opinion that calls into question even more the basis for your claim in the thread title. You have attempted to explain away your unwillingness to highlight the contribution of Cllr Cudden, when the article itself provides reason enough to pay attention:

Frank Connolly, Village Magazine wrote:

The lands are owned by developer Philip Reilly...Mr Reilly already owns a retail centre near the Mill Road lands...in recent weeks, permission was sought for an extension to the retail centre, against the advice of senior planners and council management, following a motion to the Council by Councillor Cudden

How that escaped your notice I will never know.

SectionF wrote: »

I'm comfortable with the headline, since most reasonable people associate political parties with the actions of their elected members, but don't hold everyone who ever voted for them collectively responsible.

Really? How would you express that association given the internal party differences on show as outlined in my links?

Onlookers at Monday’s meeting were treated to the rare sight of Fianna Fail councillors criticising the actions of a Fianna Fail Minister while Fine Gael councillors were equally critical of their TD colleague.

I know the electorate are confused at the best of times, but that must have heads spinning. There are multiple examples of political representatives acting contrary to party policy in this country, particulalrly at local level. You appear fixated on the role of the Green Party in this regard, in my opinion to advance an agenda of your own, as expressed towards the end of your link's editorial:

A familiar tale when it comes to some other political parties, but not the sort of scenario that one associates readily with the Greens. Perhaps, as in so many other aspects of Irish life, football is the exception.

Maybe Kelly and his fellow champions of doing things locally are happier seeing Irish fans rack up their carbon footprint as they jet off to Britain for their football each weekend.

SectionF wrote: »

Any attempt to discuss the policy rather than the much less important issue of my post would be refreshing. Why does no one want to deal with it head on?

Any chance you'll address the valid points raised by invincibleirish, rather than brushing them off? I think he makes some very good points that are pertinent to the debate.

My issue is with how you have chosen to frame this debate, which is in itself pertinent.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 04:53PM

I think you really do need to get the ball out from under your feet on this. You seem to be caught up with it on the one hand/foot and distinctly unable to grapple with its duality on the other. Perhaps in your other life you are a single-issue independent councillor.

The affair raised has at the very least two dimensions. I have chosen to raise the football-relevant part of it in a football forum. That's why I framed it this way. There is no means to discuss anything, anywhere, other than to do so within a selected frame, or perhaps to write a very large book, though even then someone will, rightly, say your version in incomplete.

Every issue under the sun, big and small, from climate change, to the collapse of the global free market, to British football, to the Israeli assault on Gaza, to the holocaust, to traffic calming on my street, inevitably is framed once it is raised for discussion. Every single thread on boards.ie is framed. Whoever wrote the headline and blurb for the Village piece framed it, as did the article author, as did the sub-editors and authors of all the other articles.

I choose to frame Meath Co. Council/Drogheda planning in relation to entities and issues in which I am interested and which are relevant to the forum in which I am posting, though I am from neither Meath nor Drogheda, nor am I a Drogs supporter.

Perhaps you find this unusual because, as a supporter of a club in another political jurisdiction, you most likely do not have to grapple with planning, environment and other local issues in Tottenham, London, and can frame your take on the sport according, mostly, to television schedules. This is a good example generally of LoI fans living in the actual world, where real issues are found, sometimes, to impinge.

But back to Meath. Frankly, I'm not particularly interested in Irish planning issues as, like so many who have not been living under a rock in recent decades, I have already arrived at an analysis of it that presents a rather unedifying vista. It's predictably complex, depressing and futile to discuss, IMO, as I think the blog post makes clear, and it's also off-topic for this forum. (I'd actually be interested in a piece claiming that the planning system works well, or claiming to have found a way to make it work at all, though I would read it critically.)

I happily acknowledge focussing on that which interests me, and doing so honestly from an LoI perspective. You may or may not have noticed that that is what the blog does, with a deliberately niche agenda.

I have not made any statement that is not factual or that is not attributable to another source, and I have never denied that the councillor's stance is part of a wider narrative. My opening post remains valid. Regardless of the roles of the NRA or an Bord Pleanala, or of the Minister, if the Village piece is accurate, then the councillor who is the focus of my post undeniably has played his part in frustrating Drogs in their failed quest for a new stadium.

Despite my quite straightforward setting out of the issue, I have been seriously and dishonestly misrepresented, for whatever motivation, to the point of so-called 'quotes' being artificially set up containing false and absurd positions for me to defend. Perhaps that's just politics.

If for some reason you want to frame the saga in another way, there is no shortage of space on boards.ie or on the internet generally for you to do so. But don't expect me or anyone else to feel compelled to comment.

K-9 · 17-02-2009 05:16PM

Still wondering why the Greens are specifically mentioned in the Thread title?

therecklessone · 17-02-2009 05:31PM

SectionF wrote: »

Perhaps you find this unusual because, as a supporter of a club in another political jurisdiction, you most likely do not have to grapple with planning, environment and other local issues in Tottenham, London, and can frame your take on the sport according, mostly, to television schedules. This is a good example generally of LoI fans living in the actual world, where real issues are found, sometimes, to impinge.

Perhaps you should stop assuming you know me based on some preconceived notion you hold due to the club (and the league in which they play) I support. I travel 25+ times a season, home and away with Tottenham. I am acutely aware of the planning and environmental issues affecting the north London area, I am aware of the transport problems Spurs fans have on matchdays, the availability of car parking, the operation of the CPZ (controlled parking zone) in the area and all that entails for my fellow fans, the paucity of public transport options, the changing face of Tottenham, both ethnically/culturally and economically. I am also aware of the impact that 36k supporters arriving in N17 on matchday has on the lives of its residents, and am paying close attention to the planning issues associated with the development of the new stadium. I drink in a north London pub more often than any in this country, and count its Irish owner and the landlady who oversees his operation there among my friends. I travel away from home regularly with a friend who lives in Edmonton, which adjoins Tottenham, and visit him and his family regularly.

Do not try to demean my experience of supporting the team I have for the last 27 years through some misguided sense of superiority. And do not try to dismiss my arguments on this thread based on the same.

SectionF wrote: »

I happily acknowledge focussing on that which interests me, and doing so honestly from an LoI perspective. You may or may not have noticed that that is what the blog does, with a deliberately niche agenda.

I am aware of the agenda.

SectionF wrote: »

I have not made any statement that is not factual or that is not attributable to another source, and I have never denied that the councillor's stance is part of a wider narrative...despite my quite straightforward setting out of the issue...

My point and the point raised by others is that unchallenged, you would have persisted with the notion that this was a Green Party initiative, ignoring the clear role stated by Mr Connolly in his piece played by other councillors. You have deliberately omitted key facts from your own narrative, with a view to framing this discussion in a way that suited your agenda. I do not consider that "a straightforward setting out of the issue"

SectionF wrote: »

I have been seriously and dishonestly misrepresented, for whatever motivation, to the point of so-called 'quotes' being artificially set up containing false and absurd positions for me to defend. Perhaps that's just politics.

I would appreciate it if you address those points to those concerned. I have invented no quote from you.

I note you have still not addressed the questions asked by invincibleirish.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 05:47PM

therecklessone wrote: »

Perhaps you should stop assuming you know me based on some preconceived notion you hold due to the club (and the league in which they play) I support. I travel 25+ times a season, home and away with Tottenham. I am acutely aware of the planning and environmental issues affecting the north London area, I am aware of the transport problems Spurs fans have on matchdays, the availability of car parking, the operation of the CPZ (controlled parking zone) in the area and all that entails for my fellow fans, the paucity of public transport options, the changing face of Tottenham, both ethnically/culturally and economically. I am also aware of the impact that 36k supporters arriving in N17 on matchday has on the lives of its residents, and am paying close attention to the planning issues associated with the development of the new stadium. I drink in a north London pub more often than any in this country, and count its Irish owner and the landlady who oversees his operation there among my friends. I travel away from home regularly with a friend who lives in Edmonton, which adjoins Tottenham, and visit him and his family regularly.

Do not try to demean my experience of supporting the team I have for the last 27 years through some misguided sense of superiority. And do not try to dismiss my arguments on this thread based on the same.

That's a rare level of engagement, I think you will agree, and not typical of most EPL-only supporters. If I were going to that much trouble it wouldn't be for Spurs. (As an aside, if you are that transported by Spurs and Tottenham, why do you bother with an Irish message board?).

But I'm sorry for your trouble: the point is that, here in Ireland, where at least I and the Cllr are located, and where presumably boards.ie resides, this event, affecting this Irish club, and its Irish supporters who are not so desperate as you are to open up so much distance from the game here (even though most of them probably follow an English club too), is relevant in a real way. And so the actions of a political party at local level are open to analysis and criticism. And I fail to understand why, other than having a need to snipe, you have a problem with that.

PS: what do you think of Village Magazine? Good, innit?

therecklessone · 17-02-2009 06:09PM

SectionF wrote: »

As an aside, if you are that transported by Spurs and Tottenham, why do you bother with an Irish message board?

I'm Irish, I live and work in this country. I found boards through Phantom FM's hosted forum where I was doing some promotion for a mate's band many years ago, and stuck around because it catered for my many interests. Incidently, you do know GuanYin lives on the west coast of the US? I though you of all people, given our recent philosophical discussions elsewhere, would appreciate that the internet is largely border-less anyway.

SectionF wrote: »

But I'm sorry for your trouble: the point is that, here in Ireland, where at least I and the Cllr are located, and where presumably boards.ie resides, this event, affecting this Irish club, and its Irish supporters who are not so desperate as you are to open up so much distance from the game here (even though most of them probably follow an English club too), is relevant in a real way.

Again, t'is dangerous to jump to conclusions...I will be in Tolka Park on the 6th March for the opening game of the season, and hope to take in as many games as time allows this coming year. I've not been as much as I'd like of late, partly due to family pressures and partly due to me prioritising Spurs over Shels (I won't apologise for putting the club I've supported since the mid 80s over the club I've supported since the mid 90s). There's only 24 hours in the day, and with me working an average of 6 and sleeping for about the same, time tends to be precious.

SectionF wrote: »

PS: what do you think of Village Magazine? Good, innit?

Its a refreshing counterpoint to the mainstream media, I'll give them that.

invincibleirish · 17-02-2009 09:31PM

SectionF you title the thread in a politically provocative manner.

Then you say you're only focusing on the football part of it when faced with the blatantly obvious reasons the stadium plan was rejected.

Then you attack us by saying "you most likely do not have to grapple with planning, environment and other local issues" because we're fans of PL clubs and we just odon't understand.

Stop flip flopping. If you want to get your digs in at the bar stoolers do it without trying to stir it up by misrepresenting the Drogs Stadium case for your own ends and generate traffic for your poxy blog which you mention in every single thread on here you post on.

SectionF · 17-02-2009 10:11PM

invincibleirish wrote: »

SectionF you title the thread in a politically provocative manner.

Then you say you're only focusing on the football part of it when faced with the blatantly obvious reasons the stadium plan was rejected.

Then you attack us by saying "you most likely do not have to grapple with planning, environment and other local issues" because we're fans of PL clubs and we just odon't understand.

Stop flip flopping. If you want to get your digs in at the bar stoolers do it without trying to stir it up by misrepresenting the Drogs Stadium case for your own ends and generate traffic for your poxy blog which you mention in every single thread on here you post on.

You just can't handle it, can you? Your increasingly abusive tone tells a tale in itself. You seem to interpret everything as an attack on your soft, barstooling underbelly, and you refuse to engage in the subject directly. That's why you've leapt on the EPL reference, made as an aside in relation to someone who sports a Spurs crest in his avatar, but long, long after you got excited about this issue. Whatever about his efforts to get to Tottenham, the fact remains that planning issues around their club is not an issue of concern for the vast majority of Irish fans of EPL clubs.

There is no flip-flopping on my part, but there is a lot of meaningless flapping about on yours. The football dimension was the focus from the start. The Greens were the focus from the start, and deliberately so. The context was provided from the start. Please point out one statement of mine in this thread that you can demonstrate to be untrue.

And, since you are now resorting to cheap accusations relating to the blog, support them, or withdraw them. Show me not even 'every single thread' but a significant set of other threads in which, apart from my sig, the blog is mentioned in order to justify your last allegation.

(If I were trying to generate traffic to a blog I'd hardly have chosen LoI as a topic. There are plenty of Irish football blogs out there for you to read if that doesn't interest you, almost all of them offering uniquely anodyne insights into English football, as seen on TV.)

LuckyLloyd · 17-02-2009 11:10PM

SectionF wrote: »

You just can't handle it, can you? Your increasingly abusive tone tells a tale in itself. You seem to interpret everything as an attack on your soft, barstooling underbelly, and you refuse to engage in the subject directly.

Your pontification grows tiresome. There are mountains being made out of molehills here:

- Drogheda FC ran itself into the ground through horrendous financial management and unsustainable player expenditure;
- A potential long shot saving grace appeared in the prospect of a new stadium as part of a proposed large and diversified development plan;
- The development was denied planning permission because it was assessed as being ill thought out;
- The Developer was unwilling (or financially unable) to modify the idea so that it would pass muster;
- This meant that Drogheda FC suffered as a new stadium was part of the rejected idea;
- As a result, the club was no longer able to sidestep the problems created by it's own idiotic financial decisions;

That's it. In the planning process, the proposed stadium was not the primary reason for the rejection - and not a significant enough concern in of itself to warrant a plan being put through that would hurt the wider community as a whole.

There is a lot of noise in this thread. But for all that noise, I still have no idea what is particularly important or relevant as far as the LOI is concerned. The core of this story is not about the LOI, or Drogheda FC. It's about local authority planning decisions. The prospective stadium seemed to be a relatively minor element of a plan that was sunk in a sea of larger debate over things entirely unrelated to football.

The OP has failed to make a clear case to the contrary, and has thus far avoided directly responding to the straightforward analysis provided by invisibleirish. Instead, he has blustered on to no discernible end. Awesome.

K-9 · 17-02-2009 11:37PM

The reality is the stadium wouldn't have been finished or even built, regardless of planning decisions, if you look at the construction sector at the minute.

Thank God we didn't have another Tallaght stadium.

SectionF · 18-02-2009 12:56AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There is a lot of noise in this thread.

You said it.

Greens helped scupper Drogs' stadium

Comments