Sunday, October 07, 2007
Windsor Going South?
The continuing debacle over the siting of a new multi-sports stadium is likely to re-enter the political arena with the news that an IFA/ Linfield-commissioned report is due to recommend the closure of the South Stand at Windsor Park from January 2008, reducing the capacity of the stadium to 9,000. IFA Chief Executive, Howard Wells, admits he has “no idea where the money is coming from” to meet the cost of upgrading Windsor to the basic standard required to host international football- now there’s true leadership for ya, IFA-style!
With opinion strongly divided within the DUP over the location of such a stadium and republicans on record as opposing any alternative siting to that on offer at Long Kesh/ Maze site, it doesn’t appear that the IFA’s ‘wish’ for a massive financial bail-out is likely- in which case, this website and phone number may come in handy…
Chris Donnelly @ 09:29 PM
Apologies Ulsterfan, it was indeed in response to Realist
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 10:01 AMChris Donnelly
The very suggestion that millions of pound be thrown after multiple new stadia across Belfast just to ensure rugby and soccer don’t have to share with the GAA is a joke, never mind a non-starter.
This statement needs to be challenged on two fronts.
First, the cost of upgrading existing stadia, or even building new stadia in Belfast is less than the cost of building the Maze, so – on financial grounds – how can either suggestion be either a joke or a non-starter?
Second, you imply that the unpopularity of the Maze is due to a desire not to share with the GAA (presumably with a sectarian subtext). This is (deliberately?) misleading. The Maze is unpopular primarily because of its totally unsuitable location: out-of-town locations have proved to be disastrous; they are contrary to environmental, transport and planning policies. But also because its size design do not meet the needs of football or rugby – it’s too big. Yes, this is at the behest of the GAA, but if the GAA’s demands don’t meet the needs of the other sports then the basis for sharing is hugely weakened. And, finally, it is rather rich to be complaining about sports not wishing to share with the GAA when the GAA has rules enshrined in its constitution to ban other sports from sharing with it!
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 10:22 AMwillow
Any chance of the IFA ending it discriminatory rules regarding the banning of sport on a Sunday.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 11:35 AMNot that I am overly religious, who does that discriminate against, it is a rule that applies to all, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 11:36 AMFootball is no 1 sport in the world.
As a society we should do all we can to encourage our children to become involved and play to the highest level.
The fact the game was not administered well in the past should not be an obstacle for development.
GAA do not need a new stadium in or near Belfast. Casement Park is more than adequate but if some improvements are needed I have no problem with these being funded from the public purse.
Football is in such a weak position that it needs more help.
If IFA had received the same support as GAA in the past our problems would not arise .
We know there is a need so lets address it on a fair and equitable basis---- no more no less.Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 12:05 PMrubin
Any chance of the IFA ending it discriminatory rules regarding the banning of sport on a Sunday.
Yes, I think there is. Why do you ask?
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 12:21 PMUlsterfan
“Football is no 1 sport in the world.”
Yes, but it’s third best (at best) in NI, and that’s what counts.
“As a society we should do all we can to encourage our children to become involved and play to the highest level.”
I think this statement is true of all sport.
“The fact the game was not administered well in the past should not be an obstacle for development.”
A track record of dire administration is a very good argument as to why said administration should not be trusted with huge sums from the public purse. If the IFA were a normal business, it would have gone to the wall years ago.
“Football is in such a weak position that it needs more help.”
Frankly, soccer is in such a weak position that it should keep its head down. To be honest, I’ve been in favour of a Belfast site for a shared stadium all along, but the arrogance and barely-concealed anti-GAA animus evident from the NI fans’ lobby has turned me right off. And the irony is, if there’s no new stadium, it won’t be the GAA, IRFU/Ulster rugby or indeed Linfield FC that suffers - it’ll be the NI fans who have so sickened me and many others.
“If IFA had received the same support as GAA in the past our problems would not arise.”
If only the GAA had received a fraction of the support NI soccer has down the years, we’d be having a Croker-style “Open Up Casement” debate right now.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 01:05 PMWillow
“The cost of upgrading existing stadia….”
Where are you getting these figures from?
“The Maze is unpopular primarily because of its totally unsuitable location:”
It’s only unsuitable if you’re from Belfast. (Have to laugh at you city lads, who find it quite unreasonable that you should be expected to travel EIGHT MILES to a game!) Why is the Maze a “totally unsuitable location”?
“...out-of-town locations have proved to be disastrous;”
You’re over-egging the pudding. I agree, city centre locations are preferable, but to say “out of town locations have proved to be disastrous” is to apply an absolute judgement on a subjective reality.
“they are contrary to environmental, transport and planning policies.”
Fair point.
“But also because its size design do not meet the needs of football or rugby – it’s too big.”
It’s not too big for Irish rugby internationals, and certainly wouldn’t be too big for an Ulster rugby side on a 1999-style European run. I’d even venture that NI could have pulled 40k for the England game. (Or indeed, with them being on such a good run, for the likes of Spain or Sweden.)Upper tiers can be roped off for less-attended games, to ensure minimal loss of atmosphere.
I mentioned the other day, the “fair weather index” - as in, you can judge the health of a sport by the number of fair weather fans it attracts at a given moment. Willow, you’re probably right to suggest that there are perhaps no more than 10,000 hardcore NI fans, but you’re wrong to think that the future of NI soccer should be solely designed with them in mind. You shouldn’t have to be a hardcore fan to want to go to a game - I’d guess many thousands of only slightly interested fans would go to a modern, attractive stadium to watch top class teams. And I mean nationalists, unionists and none of the above. They wouldn’t be going because they wanted to become one of the hardcore, they’d just be looking for an enjoyable day/evening out. Those same people, however, would not go to the notorious Windsor. (Whether you think that notoriety is deserved or not.)
“Yes, this is at the behest of the GAA, but if the GAA’s demands don’t meet the needs of the other sports then the basis for sharing is hugely weakened.”
The argument for sharing is that the public purse is paying for it, so all sports should be entitled to use it. End of. The way you’re talking, you’d think soccer was doing GAA a favour by contemplating “sharing” with them.
Perhaps GAA people should start trying to argue that the stadium should be shared between GAA and rugby, with 10,000 seats and standing room for 40,000 more. Not that it’d be sectarianism or anything, it’s just that FIFA’s rules on all-seater stadia are fundamentally different from those governing GAA and rugby. So, sorry soccer, but we don’t think GAA and rugby should share with you. Nothing sectarian about it, of course, it’s just that our needs are just different, that’s all....
Except that you don’t hear GAA people coming out with this tripe, do you?
“And, finally, it is rather rich to be complaining about sports not wishing to share with the GAA when the GAA has rules enshrined in its constitution to ban other sports from sharing with it!”
The GAA’s rules refer to GAA property. Sorry to break it to you, but any new stadium here would not be the property of the IFA, even if some soccer fans sure behave as if it would be. It’d be a public facility. I’m not aware of any GAA fans calling for soccer to be excluded from any public facility. Nor am I aware of any GAA supporter bitching about the fact that there has never, ever, in all history, been a GAA match at Windsor Park, at Ravenhill, at Lansdowne, at Thomond, at the Oval, at Dalymount....
Ah, but never mind reality, you say: the GAA (which as hosted both rugby and soccer this very year) has a rule....
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 01:06 PMBilly Pilgrim
Where are you getting these figures from?
From the SIB.
It’s only unsuitable if you’re from Belfast. (Have to laugh at you city lads, who find it quite unreasonable that you should be expected to travel EIGHT MILES to a game!) Why is the Maze a “totally unsuitable location”?
Oh dear. You completely fail to understand the arguments about the proposed location. It’s got nothing to do with travelling eight miles. It’s got everything to do with being a soulless, isolated location lacking the necessary infrastructure.
You’re over-egging the pudding. I agree, city centre locations are preferable, but to say “out of town locations have proved to be disastrous” is to apply an absolute judgement on a subjective reality.
Well, ok, in some cases they have proved to be disastrous. In other cases they have proved to be not as good as city centre locations would have been.
Fair point.
Thank you.
It’s not too big for Irish rugby internationals, and certainly wouldn’t be too big for an Ulster rugby side on a 1999-style European run. I’d even venture that NI could have pulled 40k for the England game. (Or indeed, with them being on such a good run, for the likes of Spain or Sweden.)Upper tiers can be roped off for less-attended games, to ensure minimal loss of atmosphere.
Ordinarily, it will be too big for Ulster rugby or NI football, occasional big fixtures notwithstanding. And, sorry, but we don’t want a half-full ground with the other half “roped off”.
I mentioned the other day, the “fair weather index” - as in, you can judge the health of a sport by the number of fair weather fans it attracts at a given moment. Willow, you’re probably right to suggest that there are perhaps no more than 10,000 hardcore NI fans, but you’re wrong to think that the future of NI soccer should be solely designed with them in mind.
Except I don’t think that!
You shouldn’t have to be a hardcore fan to want to go to a game - I’d guess many thousands of only slightly interested fans would go to a modern, attractive stadium to watch top class teams.
40,000 wouldn’t, except for very occasional matches. And especially not at the Maze. You don’t build a huge stadium because every 10 years or so you’ll get 40,000. You build a 25,000 stadium because you hope regularly to attract 20,000. If you’re going to build an ambitiously-big stadium, then its location becomes even more crucial – all the more reason not to site it at the Maze.
And I mean nationalists, unionists and none of the above. They wouldn’t be going because they wanted to become one of the hardcore, they’d just be looking for an enjoyable day/evening out.
Not much enjoyment sitting in traffic for hours before and after a game in a half-full soulless bowl in the middle of nowhere.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 01:45 PMBilly Pilgrim
Those same people, however, would not go to the notorious Windsor. (Whether you think that notoriety is deserved or not.)
Well, some may not. Others undoubtedly would in the right circumstances. And all undoubtedly would go to a new stadium in a decent location.
The argument for sharing is that the public purse is paying for it, so all sports should be entitled to use it. End of. The way you’re talking, you’d think soccer was doing GAA a favour by contemplating “sharing” with them.
Yet, ironically, it costs more to build a shared stadium at the Maze than it would to upgrade existing facilities or even to build a new stadium in Belfast. Each sport will look after its own interests: if GAA determines that it needs a 40,000+ stadium at an isolated location that is it’s call; if football and/or rugby determine that they need a smaller stadium in a city centre location that is also their call. If the needs of the sports can’t be matched then a shared stadium won’t work. Neither the GAA, nor “soccer” can be blamed for putting their own interests first. They would be irresponsible not to.
Perhaps GAA people should start trying to argue that the stadium should be shared between GAA and rugby, with 10,000 seats and standing room for 40,000 more. Not that it’d be sectarianism or anything, it’s just that FIFA’s rules on all-seater stadia are fundamentally different from those governing GAA and rugby. So, sorry soccer, but we don’t think GAA and rugby should share with you. Nothing sectarian about it, of course, it’s just that our needs are just different, that’s all....
No problem with that, so long as some funding also went to football.
Except that you don’t hear GAA people coming out with this tripe, do you?
Well, no, but we do know that the GAA people demanded a stadium that is too big for football and Ulster rugby and at a location favoured by neither. “A stadium designed for GAA, but which could also be used for football and rugby” (Tony Whitehead, SIB).
The GAA’s rules refer to GAA property. Sorry to break it to you, but any new stadium here would not be the property of the IFA, even if some soccer fans sure behave as if it would be. It’d be a public facility.
Indeed the rules do refer to GAA property – other sports are banned from it. Hence it is somewhat rich for an apologist for the GAA – an organisation which bans other sports from its own property – complaining about other sports supposedly not wishing to share with it! The irony is plain regardless of whether the site being complained about is a public facility.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 01:46 PMWould some one please get figures as to what financial aid has been given to various sports, otherwise this debate is not going anywhere.
What grants have been paid by the exchequer and the Lottery commission.
Fairness all around is order of the day.Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 01:58 PMwillow
‘soulless, isolated location’
Was that not Windsor between 1987 & 2002 :)
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 02:33 PMcertainly wasn’t souless on many occasions, as for “isolated”, did it get lifte to a different location in the country during this period ;-)
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 02:34 PMWillow
“From the SIB.”
Fair enough.“Oh dear. You completely fail to understand the arguments about the proposed location. It’s got nothing to do with travelling eight miles. It’s got everything to do with being a soulless, isolated location lacking the necessary infrastructure.”
Actually, I understand the arguments very well, which is why I have always been in favour of a city centre stadium. However, I pointed out that some of the arguments used by mostly Belfast-based people are spurious to anyone south of Finaghy or north of Glengormley. (You yourself described Lisburn as “the middle of nowhere” – classic city-boy arrogance!) I wanted to see if you could make your argument as to why a city location would be best, without doing so in the totally off-putting way I referred to already. (I repeat, I agree with you re the location, yet your manner, and the manner of those backing a Belfast stadium is enough to turn me.) Your reply was condescending and rude. Ah well.“Ordinarily, it will be too big for Ulster rugby or NI football, occasional big fixtures notwithstanding.”
A 40k stadium would represent a compelling reason for the IRFU to play at least a couple of meaningful internationals there per year. (Say one Six Nations game and a major Autumn international.) Furthermore, why shouldn’t soccer be looking to attract much larger attendances than at present? They used to get 60,000 at Windsor. The Troubles are over and we hear regularly about how sectarianism has been given the boot. Why is soccer so unambitious? Why should rugby and GAA be held up by soccer’s lack of ambition?“And, sorry, but we don’t want a half-full ground with the other half “roped off”.”
Now you’re just being a tosser. You know very well that it’s standard practice in stadia around the world for upper tiers to be closed off at lesser-attended games, with little or no loss of atmosphere. You pretend like I’m suggesting shutting half the ground, though you know very well that’s not what I’m talking about. Why do dishonest Willow? Why so needlessly difficult?
“Except I don’t think that!”
You don’t think what?
“40,000 wouldn’t, except for very occasional matches.”
I’d say the three sports, plus concerts, could fill a 40k stadium half a dozen times a year, with a couple more 30k+ crowds and a few more 20k plus. That’d be a perfectly reasonable performance for the stadium. If soccer can’t pull the crowds, who’s problem is that?“You don’t build a huge stadium because every 10 years or so you’ll get 40,000.”
40k isn’t a “huge” stadium. It’s medium-sized, at best. It would only barely qualify to host a World Cup game, in the unlikely event that Ireland ever hosts it. If my reckoning is correct, that would make it the seventh-largest stadium in Ireland. How about, instead of expecting everyone else to lower theirs, soccer fans tried lifting their pathetic horizons?
“If the needs of the sports can’t be matched then a shared stadium won’t work.”
To be honest, the impression I get is that certain vocal NI fans are working overtime to create reasons why the GAA’s needs are totally irreconcilable with theirs. And yes, of course, this raises the spectre of sectarianism. Would you agree that NI fans need to do more to counter this impression?
“Neither the GAA, nor “soccer” can be blamed for putting their own interests first.”
And they will, you can be sure of that. The disparity however, is in the relative strength of the organisations. The IFA has no choice but to take whatever it is given – yet it is soccer fans who are the most vocal and are quickest to throw their weight around. What arrogance! Meanwhile the GAA is sensibly playing its cards close to its chest, knowing full well that they are actually in the strongest position of the three sports, and would be the most important crowd-puller in any new stadium.
There’d be a certain amount of schadenfreude in seeing the GAA walk away from the project (which they don’t need) back to their own embarrassment of riches in terms of stadia, leaving the soccer crowd to wail impotently as they limp back to Windsor (greeted by Linfield’s smiling solicitors) to play before 9,000 ultras in crumbling stands, bitching about how that 40,000 state-of-the-art stadium would’ve been too big anyway….
But that’d be childish.Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 02:36 PM“Well, no, but we do know that the GAA people demanded a stadium that is too big for football and Ulster rugby and at a location favoured by neither.”
Actually the IFA have backed the Maze, as have the IRFU.
“Indeed the rules do refer to GAA property – other sports are banned from it.”
Sorry, but did you not see Ireland v England at Croker? Or Ireland v Slovakia? The GAA HAS hosted other sports. That means you can’t keep bitching about how they won’t share!
“Hence it is somewhat rich for an apologist for the GAA – an organisation which bans other sports from its own property – complaining about other sports supposedly not wishing to share with it!”
Apologist? What on earth does the GAA have to apologise for?
“The irony is plain regardless of whether the site being complained about is a public facility.”
I own a swimming pool. I don’t want you using it. Tough. There is a public swimming pool up the street, which my taxes have helped pay for. I decide to use it. You can’t stop me. There is no irony in this position. If you own an asset, you can decide who uses it. If you don’t, you can’t. End of story.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 02:39 PMWillow
“You don’t build a huge stadium because every 10 years or so you’ll get 40,000.”
Maybe soccer would only fill it once a decade. Rugby and GAA could probably fill it two or three times a year each.
The selfishness of soccer fans is breathtaking.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 02:45 PMUlsterfan,
The Sports Council for Northern Ireland provided exchequer funding as follows in 2006-2007:Soccer ÂŁ2,158,272.68
Rugby ÂŁ882,900.62
GAA ÂŁ2,692,846.27
From Hansard this May.Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 02:58 PMThe gloves are off:
Linfield issue writ against IFA
The IFA wants to terminate its deal with Linfield over Windsor Park
A wrangle between the Irish FA and Linfield over the venue of international matches is heading for the courts, it has emerged.
The IFA wants to terminate a deal signed in 1984 stating that all home internationals would be played at Linfield’s Windsor Park for 104 years.But Linfield’s solicitors Carson McDowell issued a High Court writ of summons against the IFA on Tuesday.
Six Linfield trustees lodged papers in the High Court.
The Linfield trustees applied for a declaration that the IFA was not entitled to terminate the 1984 Agreement and a further declaration that the agreement should continue to run for the remainder of its term.
The trustees are Richard Johnson, Peter Lunn, Dr Cameron Ramsey, Jack Grundie, William Meikle and Paul Weir.
In the writ the trustees insisted that Linfield was not in breach of clause 5 (1) of the agreement - to keep Windsor Park, the stands, offices and other accommodation in good order, repair and condition.
Alternatively, if there was a breach, the trustees argued, then Linfield should be given adequate time to remedy it.
Linfield is also seeking an injunction to prevent the IFA from holding matches covered by the terms of the Agreement at any other ground than Windsor Park pending determination of the court action.
The potential financial loss to Linfield is covered by the final clauses in the writ which claim damages for any breach of the agreement by the IFA.
Leading QC Mark Horner has been briefed along with Jacqueline Simpson, BL, to represent Linfield.
The IFA has 14 days to respond to the writ which states that if they fail to do so the club may proceed and judgement may be given in their absence.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 03:00 PMyou’ll have a far better chance of getting 40k in Belfast than you would at the Maze. Good road and train links to Her Majesty’s former finest aint there?
Dunno about GAA but i’d reckon you’d be lucky to pull over 20,000 to ANY NI footy match or ulster rugby game.
Personally a stadium around 25,000-30,000 in size somewhere inside Belfast close to road/rail/air/sea links and useful things like restaurants and bars would be a more feasible option than sticking a 40,000ish stadium in the countryside where there is essentially nothing.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 03:05 PM“Maybe soccer would only fill it once a decade. Rugby and GAA could probably fill it two or three times a year each”
Billy,
The, as yet unseen, Business Plan might reveal more on that score.
When are we going to see it?
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 03:10 PMal
“Personally a stadium around 25,000-30,000 in size somewhere inside Belfast close to road/rail/air/sea links and useful things like restaurants and bars would be a more feasible option than sticking a 40,000ish stadium in the countryside where there is essentially nothing.”
I happen to agree, re location, but the new stadium would have to be bigger than Clones (35k), Casement (32k) and Breffni Park (30k) to make it worth the GAA’s while. As I’ve also said, a larger stadium could attract rugby internationals.
That aside, in principle I think a city centre stadium would be the best thing. It’s not the message but some of the messengers that are the problem!
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 03:13 PMGeorge
Thank you very much.
This gives us something to work on.
I wonder does the picture change if we took the figures over a longer term say 10/15 years?Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 03:14 PMAgain and again the infrastructure argument. WTF do people expect? Someone mentions the idea of building a stadium outside the city and the road and rail links magically appear overnight? Of course there isn’t access to the site, there’s nothing there to access yet. It would be a bit funny having a motorway and train line running to a disused empty prison wouldn’t it. The idea would be that once there’s a stadium you build roads and rail links.
There’s a motorway, and the trainline passes within a mile of the proposed stadium. Where exactly is this mythical train line at Ormeau Park? What about the motorway? I must have missed it somehow. And of course to top everything off, the traffic just flows through Belfast, why an extra 20,000 cars would just fly through town without a problem.
Yet people talk about the lack of infrastructure at the Maze which is a lot closer to both train and motorway lines.
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 03:15 PMRealist
“The, as yet unseen, Business Plan might reveal more on that score. When are we going to see it?”
The way things are going, I’d say the Business Plan will be published the week after the Anlgo-Irish Boundary Commission issues its report.....
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 03:16 PM“I wonder does the picture change if we took the figures over a longer term say 10/15 years?”
Full breakdown of Lottery Funding for all sports from Sports Council of NI (Strategic Plan ‘02-’07 - Appendix IV - pp.34-) (its a pdf file).
Note criteria for drawing down funds!
http://www.sportni.net/Lottery/index.htm
Redeveloped Thomond Park in Limerick is doubling its capacity for Munster Rugby to 26,000. Munster (smaller population than NI/Ulster) is well serviced with GAA/Soccer stadia and also plays half its Magners League games in Cork. It seems they have worked it out that it will be viable on their Heineken Cup games (and of course selling the naming rights (some say its soul) to the new stadia for 16m also helps).
Posted by on Oct 09, 2007 @ 04:20 PM
