suisse wrote:I never understood the sniggering at Munster attendances here.
I wouldn't have thought it was all that difficult. If you claim to be the brave and faithful by the grace of God best fans in the world and you build a white elephant as a tribute to this belief, then when you have to get banners made to cover entirely empty terraces, you're going to get laughed at.
Leinster's entire off-field operation has been second rate for a couple of years alright, but thats a different thing to pointing out southern hubris. We never claimed to be anything we aren't.
That's exactly it. The framing of supporters as "liginds" was bullshit, like all teams in Ireland there are a bandwagon jumpers down in Limerick. The press also bought all the hype which made it even worse and as you say there was a lot of nonsense around the ground - it was built too big and they refused to sell the naming rights because the ground was too sacred and ligindry. Now as you say it's a white elephant bailed out by the IRFU - yet when Zebo and Ryan chose to go abroad that's the IRFU's fault......and Jamie Heaslip's obviously.........
By the way, 2017 we were the best supported team in the Champions Cup and the second best in the Pro12 slightly behind Ulster. As people are saying, we are not fulfilling our potential and you have to ask questions of the branch on that but at the same time we have a really solid base upon which to build!
42.ie reporting this is being postponed due to lack of funding. .........can we get "Dave" Kearney to tweet his bestie in the Ministry for Funding Ballinteer Sporting Emporiums and divert a few quid across the D14/D4 border?
Hardly surprising. Ireland specialises in inadequate stadia. Pretty much all are either incomplete or don't have roof cover. You have to guard against waste and white elephants, but there are 4 professional clubs playing international tournaments who play at the RDS and the Galway Sportsgrounds.
I also see that it will mean a full season where the Anglesea will be shut down and temporary seating put in place on the North and South ends to facilitate those who have their tickets on the Angelsea. That's a bit cr@p. I'm assuming the cost of the tickets will reflect that?
molloyjh wrote:I also see that it will mean a full season where the Anglesea will be shut down and temporary seating put in place on the North and South ends to facilitate those who have their tickets on the Angelsea. That's a bit cr@p. I'm assuming the cost of the tickets will reflect that?
That was the way Ravenhill was rebuilt but we paid same for end seats for a season to retain the seat nearest your old one in the new stand, if you didn't agree then you joined the rat race for the remaining seats with no guarantee of getting one.
rooster wrote:That was the way Ravenhill was rebuilt but we paid same for end seats for a season to retain the seat nearest your old one in the new stand, if you didn't agree then you joined the rat race for the remaining seats with no guarantee of getting one.
That's a bit of a scam, isn't it? Paying the same amount for inferior seats so that you can be sure to get the seats you've been paying for all along the next season?
rooster wrote:That was the way Ravenhill was rebuilt but we paid same for end seats for a season to retain the seat nearest your old one in the new stand, if you didn't agree then you joined the rat race for the remaining seats with no guarantee of getting one.
That's a bit of a scam, isn't it? Paying the same amount for inferior seats so that you can be sure to get the seats you've been paying for all along the next season?
Yip but sure that is what happens, they did hold the price for the year out plus following year but it still was a scam, our main stand has been oversubscribed for years and only a few new ones get in each season
RDS gets go-ahead for larger Anglesea Stand
The existing stand was built in the 1930s and can accommodate 5,743 people, and its proposed replacement will accommodate 6,481 patrons.
THE ROYAL DUBLIN Society (RDS) has secured the go-ahead for a new three-tier 6,481-capacity Anglesea Stand at the venue that is set to increase the current €24.7 million annual spend by Leinster rugby supporters attending rugby matches at the stadium.
This follows Dublin City Council giving the plan the go-ahead after finding that the planned stand will “provide a modern stand facility with enhanced hospitality facilities for visitors and patrons”.
The RDS told the city council that the increased capacity is essential for securing some of the high-profile events which the RDS is expected to host to remain attractive in an increasingly competitive field.
The existing Anglesea Stand was built in the early 1930s and can accommodate 5,743 people, and its proposed replacement will accommodate 6,481 patrons – representing an increase of 738.
The new plan involves a new three-level grandstand with a connected two-level hospitality and services building called the ‘Pocket Building’.
Planning had previously been granted for the redevelopment of the stand but the new stand won’t be completed before this permission expires, necessitating the need for the new planning application.
Consultants for the RDS told the council that the multi-purpose RDS arena “is a significant contributor to the economy of Dublin with an overall estimated combined economic impact of €136.5 million to €166 million for rugby games, concert events and the annual horse show”.
Sponsorship potential
The application has the support of the Irish Rugby Football Union with the chief executive of the IRFU, Philip Browne, telling Dublin City Council that the proposed development will underpin the Leinster rugby operations at the RDS.
Browne stated that “the new development will enhance the sponsorship potential of Leinster rugby thereby helping it to retain its best players and to continue to develop the sport in Dublin and throughout Leinster”.
He went on to state that the “proposed redeveloped Anglesea Stand will enhance and rejuvenate the facility which is no longer compatible with visitor expectations”.
CEO of Horse Sport Ireland, Ronan Murphy, and CEO of Leinster Rugby, Michael Dawson, also wrote to the council to endorse the plan.
Murphy wrote that the proposed redevelopment of the stand “is a necessary part of the infrastructure that will support the further growth in the sports horse industry which supports 14,057 jobs in the sector and is worth €816 million to the Irish economy”.
As part of the application, the direct spend by spectators at Leinster games at the RDS is listed as €1.9 million per match with the cumulative direct expenditure at €24.7 million.
Planning had previously been granted for the redevelopment of the stand but the new stand won’t be completed before this permission expires, necessitating the need for the new planning application.
My reading of this is that they re-submitted an already successful planning application. That's not good news, as far as I can tell.
Planning was granted in October 2016 [source: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rds-ar ... -1.2815246 ], less than two years ago. Planning permission lasts for five years, outline permission for three. If they are less than two years into the duration of the planning permission, and have sought planning because "the new stand won’t be completed before this permission expires", then they have estimated that it will be more than three years before the stand is substantially complete.
Lar wrote:How does an increased capacity in the stand of 738 translate to the stadium going from 18,500 to 21,000 total capacity?
It doesn't. Original plans were 25k, then 21k, now not even 19.5k.
It's a joke, I assume planning objections from local residents are to blame. I remember reading about concerns from people in the area about increased traffic on Anglesea road due to the increase in capacity.
If it ever gets built (one stand), it'll be totally inadequate. I can't think of too many pro clubs at their peak of their respective sport that plays in such a sh!t stadium. 3 temporary stands (2 uncovered) and maybe a new one.
No matter what they do with the Anglesey, they'll never be able to block out the noise of kids running up and down temporary steps.
I'm not an architect but in the case of the Aviva would it have been technically/financially possible to lower the pitch level to allow for greater crowd capacity without blocking resident's light, Ted?
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
tomthefan wrote:I'm not an architect but in the case of the Aviva would it have been technically/financially possible to lower the pitch level to allow for greater crowd capacity without blocking resident's light, Ted?
Not without significant costs - there were a number of issues, but the one I saw explained was the level of the water table in that area.
You then get into issues around the degree of rake of the stands. You can bank the stands more sharply to get more seats into a smaller footprint but it becomes less comfortable for the attendee as accessibility is affected. It is one of the factors taken into account when a stadium is classified by UEFA (only Cat 4 stadia can host games at a finals level).
There is also a rule of thumb in stadium design around how many seats you can get onto a particular footprint for a particular price. Adding more seats increases the cost per seat - there are effectively diseconomies of scale
tomthefan wrote:I'm not an architect but in the case of the Aviva would it have been technically/financially possible to lower the pitch level to allow for greater crowd capacity without blocking resident's light, Ted?
Not without significant costs - there were a number of issues, but the one I saw explained was the level of the water table in that area.
You then get into issues around the degree of rake of the stands. You can bank the stands more sharply to get more seats into a smaller footprint but it becomes less comfortable for the attendee as accessibility is affected. It is one of the factors taken into account when a stadium is classified by UEFA (only Cat 4 stadia can host games at a finals level).
There is also a rule of thumb in stadium design around how many seats you can get onto a particular footprint for a particular price. Adding more seats increases the cost per seat - there are effectively diseconomies of scale
Thanks, good answer. Regarding the degree of rake, at least from tv, FC Porto's looks the steepest I've ever seen, positively dizzying.
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.
Going on 10 years now since it was first mooted that Leinster would look to modernize the RDS as a permanent home. This thread is already over 5 years old. What an absolute tit they have made of the stadium situation. As well as Leinster is run, and it's by far the best run and most professional province in Ireland, ever since the fluffing of the opportunity to redevelop Donnybrook, it seems this is an issue Dawson and co., just can't get over. Even the plan to fully fund an RDS stadium with funds attracted by Leinster with zero ownership can't get over the line.
I get their reluctance to commit to any kind of financial burden, but as mentioned in the article "the direct spend by spectators at Leinster games at the RDS is listed as €1.9 million per match", that's a lot of money to hand over to the RDS every other week because we never had the balls or competency to sort it out ourselves. Given that it's been a decade since this process started, I'd say the current situation and facilities are a disgrace. Still sitting on scaffolding in either the rain or under a canopy, unless you have the luxury of sitting in a stand that was built roughly a decade before the commencement of world war II ....
jezzer wrote:He will never be the second coming of BOD, because the only thing their game shares is probably the appetite for work around the pitch. He'll hopefully be the first coming of Ringrose.
