Letters to the Editor: All rugby internationals should be played in Croke Park
Tickets Picture: Davin A Seats Fitzgerald/sportsfile Hill 50,000+ Could Stand Reader Dynamic The For Teams Using And To Coaches Proposes Croke 17,000 End School Tickets And Pricing Sell And Sell 16/nally Park Their 13,000 David
It is painful to read about the current indebtedness of various GAA county boards, as well as the precarious finances of the IRFU.
Back in 2008, a young whippersnapper called Rob Kearney asked Ronan O’Gara why he played better for Munster than for Ireland. The answer is that Munster (and the other provincial) fans are passionate, but the Ireland team attracts a different clientele.
On the evening of the last Six Nations international in Croke Park in 2010, Keith Wood on the BBC panel hoped that matches in the future Lansdowne Road would be more atmospheric.
In 2013, writing in the , Alan Quinlan noted the lack of atmosphere in the Aviva stadium for the match against England. Against the ould enemy! He was heavily criticised for this.
At the Rugby World Cup, the enthusiastic support from the Irish fans is so noticeable.
Such was the lack of atmosphere at this year’s autumn internationals, they may as well have been played behind closed doors.
I understand why clubs sold their ticket allocations to the corporate sector, as this paid the budget for the first team for the entire season. But we can’t expect the Irish players to perform intensely without passionate support.
So here’s a daft suggestion: As Croke Park has an extra 30,000 capacity, play all Irish rugby internationals there.
Sell 50,000+ tickets using the dynamic pricing model as for concerts; these will be snapped up by the corporate sector.
Sell 13,000 tickets for the Hill 16/Nally end and 17,000 Davin stand seats to school teams and their coaches, to club youth players and their coaches at a tenner per ticket on the understanding that the coaches will attend the matches with their charges.
The GAA will get badly-needed stadium rental fees to distribute as it sees fit to each county board, the IRFU will get more income — and some raucous fans.
John O’Brien’s letter ( , December 6) argued the positive influence of the GAA on Irish community life.
It has seemed to me that the GAA, together with literary festivals and historical lectures and the various parish hall community occasions, has for decades been doing what the agenda-setters and change agents of the left have wanted it to do, which is to distract the public from any attempt to parse and analyse the proposals for social change so regularly brought before the Oireachtas or introduced surreptitiously.
Gerald O’Carroll, Ballylongford, Co Kerry
It’s disappointing, but not in the least surprising, that all the talk about forming a new government has so far focused mostly on the divvying up of government positions and who is going to be taoiseach. All the parties’ focus has been on which of them are going to get the ‘Mercs and perks’, rather than on the serious issues facing the country such as housing, health, etc.
Would it be too much to ask that the political parties put aside the perks and prestige of office for a while and give our country and our society real leadership for a change?
Many communities all over the country have been totally abandoned by successive governments, over many years. Gerry Hutch’s relatively large vote in the general election was at least in part a reaction to the abandonment of the community in Dublin Central. The new government and the entire membership of the new Dáil should reflect deeply on that.
December 12 is the United Nations International Day of Neutrality. Article 29 of Bunreacht na hÉireann obliges the Government to be guided by the ideal of peace and friendly co-operation amongst nations, founded on international justice and morality, and to adhere to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination and that Ireland accepts the generally recognised principles of international law as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states.
This is reflected in Article 2 of the UN charter, which obligates member states to settle their international disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or the use of force in their
relations with other states.
Active Irish neutrality is supported by the vast majority of the Irish people. In recent decades,
successive Irish governments have been eroding our neutrality by allowing the US military to transit through Shannon Airport and Irish airspace while waging wars of aggression against Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
This has continued since October 7, 2023, while the US has been actively supporting the state of Israel which is committing war crimes amounting to genocide against the Palestinian people.
At present, Irish neutrality is a matter of Government policy which can be ended by a vote in Dáil Éireann. Neutrality needs to be enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann as a sovereign decision by the Irish people. The wording of this constitutional amendment should include that the Irish State will adopt the status of permanent, active neutrality.
Since it is now likely that a United Ireland will occur within the next decade or so, it is vital that this United Ireland will be a permanently active neutral Ireland, promoting international peace and global justice.
Less than two months ago, I heard a talk from Syrian writer Jaber Baker about the regime’s prison system. His mood was rather resigned and defeatist about the chance of change any time soon. How wrong he was.
This enormous geopolitical news further focuses the microscope on the Middle East. I almost don’t know where to look, from Doha to Tel Aviv, from Tehran to Raqqa. The Syrian crisis in particular brought the Arab world into Europe’s reckoning with the enormous political and demographic change caused by refugees arriving almost a decade ago. A few minutes ago, I watched a report from Sky News showing Syrian residents of Manchester celebrating on the streets, waving the pre-Assad regime flag of Syria.
The press releases of almost all Western leaders had a tone of celebration, welcoming the news. However, amidst the cacophony of joy, one would be right to have misgivings.
Do not get me wrong, I have followed Syrian affairs and the barbaric, selfish nature of Assad ever since his interview with Jeremy Bowen in 2013. I am no defender of him.
Yet if you pause and look at a map of Syria right now, reflect on other nations’ experiences since the Arab Spring, and listen to the sentiments expressed by various Syrians today, I would be concerned.
Firstly, Syria now finds itself shared by Kurds in the north east, Turkish militias in the north, small Daesh provinces in the centre, Russian forces on the coast, a small base of American troops, and lastly the Free Syrian Army encompassing the aforementioned areas. It’s a crowded bathtub, and there is zero guarantee that Syria does not merely become the next Libya. Thirteen years on from Gaddafi’s disposal, Libya fails to meet almost any definition of a functioning nation state, greatly fractured with two men claiming power, General Haftar and Mr Menfi.
Secondly, I could do little more than laugh at the suggestion from the Syrian prime minister of the possibility of a ‘free election’ to decide Syria’s rulers.
Look at Egypt: Having deposed President Mubarak in 2011 and being touted as a potential bright light of a democracy to-be, the country went through a troublesome election campaign only for an Islamist to be elected (a factor at play in Syria), who was then overthrown by the military in the form of Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi who has held an iron grip on power since.
Does one really think that with power having been seized in Syria by literal jihadists with tanks and guns, that these men will suddenly turn around and hand out ballot papers?
Lastly, look at the man who is now the face of this surge, Abu Mohammad Al-Jolani. He was radicalised by, and celebrated, the killing of over 3,000 Americans on 9/11, idolised Ayman Al-Zawahiri of Al-Qaeda, and had a friendship and alliance with the later leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Some caution must be exercised by Western leaders hailing this movement and man as semi-heroes. We should not be celebrating or welcoming Islamic fundamentalism.