cables wrote:
Perhaps you would also inform me as to how CT would somehow be acting less politically by changing his signature from ‘No to Maze’ to ‘Yes to a stadium for Belfast’.
It is about the perception it creates - I think a lot of people would agree that the Maze isn't a good site for a stadium but would not lend their support to a campaign with the tagline "Ulster says no..." given the originator of the phrase, suspicions about the type of people that may be involved and their motivation.
Speaking personally, before I'd support a campaign I'd want to know what it was supporting rather than just opposing - is it purely against the Maze and doesn't care about a new stadium anywhere? Or is it intended to campaign for a stadium in another location?
Cockatrice wrote:aaron- are you asking me a question?
i don't know what you mean by that. all i asked was, as stated above, if you'd consider changing your signature to one that more people could get behind?
I am in some difficulty understanding aspects of your post above.
hopefully then that will be the end of the claims that the government has a 'political agenda'
and
if that's the case, perhaps you might consider changing your political loaded signature? - perhaps to 'ulster says yes to a stadium for belfast'
Am I wrong to consider that a Government which, in relation to the Maze:
appoints consultants
appoints public bodies
issues press releases
holds press conferences
provides Ministers for interviews
is doing so to advance a political agenda?
Perhaps you would also inform me as to how CT would somehow be acting less politically by changing his signature from ‘No to Maze’ to ‘Yes to a stadium for Belfast’.
Mike's answered the second question for me. But I don't understand the first?
Having read Mike’s post Aaron, I just knew that you would say that Mike had already answered the second bit so I will respond to that first! Thanks for proving that my perception on this occasion was reality.
“Ulster says no†is widely used by Journalists and other article writers where they wish their headline to be eye-catching. Check it out for yourself. You will find it in articles against the Bush War, GM Foods and even in a medical article. I fail to see why CT cannot use it in his signature without it evoking the response it has. After all, it has perhaps become the local equivalent of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!â€
Were I to respond to Mike (who you accept as having answered for you) about “perceptions†or “suspicions about the type of people that may be involved and their motivationâ€, I think I would be banned from this Forum. The thread would at least run the risk of being locked.
Regarding political agendas. I don’t understand you. You don’t understand me. I had bolded the word Government. Was that not a clue that everything Government does is political and in pursuit of their political agenda? Educate me if you wish – I never studied or was involved in politics but I do always exercise my democratic mandate after due consideration.
I don't know the chances of this going ahead, but I would have thought that if it did, it would undermine the case for a stadium at the Maze - although some of the other things talked about like an equestrian centre or "conflict resolution centre" may still go ahead - or does "Ulster says no to the Maze" also mean no to an equestrian centre at the Maze?
It comes back to my opinion that there will be a lot of people that won't support some sort of "No to the Maze" campaign unless we know what it is for rather than what it is against.
As an individual saying No to the Maze for Ulster Rugby, I am also saying Yes to re-development of Ravenhill as planned. I would additionally be saying that a new stadium in Belfast would be welcomed by this punter. Furthermore, that Stadium should have a capacity of 20,000 or slightly more No proposals for a Belfast Stadium existed until recently but many anti-Maze posters have stated that any new Stadium should be in Belfast.
Does that not essentially represent what No to the Maze has always meant for many Ulster Rugby supporters for the last few years?
cables wrote:
“Ulster says no†is widely used by Journalists and other article writers where they wish their headline to be eye-catching. Check it out for yourself. You will find it in articles against the Bush War, GM Foods and even in a medical article. I fail to see why CT cannot use it in his signature without it evoking the response it has. After all, it has perhaps become the local equivalent of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!â€
Well I just did a google on the phrase "Ulster says no" and the first entry on the page is a wikipedia article on Ian Paisley so I think it is fair to say that is a more likely association rather than GM foods or GWB!
There is a word for widely used journalistic phrases - hackneyed - and it means familiar through overuse, trite.
cables wrote:
Were I to respond to Mike (who you accept as having answered for you) about “perceptions†or “suspicions about the type of people that may be involved and their motivationâ€, I think I would be banned from this Forum. The thread would at least run the risk of being locked.
My comment certainly wasn't directed at cables, CT or any other individuals on the forum and apologies if this came across as a personal insult - it certainly wasn't intended.
My point is that it isn't me you need to convince. Joe Public or journos won't know the people behind a campaign from Adam. My opinion is that the association of "Ulster says no..." will make a lot of people suspicious, journos will always look for an angle, and it may also attract people with an axe to grind and views that you would rather not be associated with.
cables wrote:Mike, I will take a risk and respond before CT.
As an individual saying No to the Maze for Ulster Rugby, I am also saying Yes to re-development of Ravenhill as planned. I would additionally be saying that a new stadium in Belfast would be welcomed by this punter. Furthermore, that Stadium should have a capacity of 20,000 or slightly more No proposals for a Belfast Stadium existed until recently but many anti-Maze posters have stated that any new Stadium should be in Belfast.
Does that not essentially represent what No to the Maze has always meant for many Ulster Rugby supporters for the last few years?
I also support redevelopment of Ravenhill, also believe that UR needs access to a 20k-30k stadium and also believe this would be best in Belfast and I suspect these views are commonly held by a number of UR fans. Indeed, I suspect that fans of other sports or people not interested in sports at all couldn't object to these points greatly.
But as a slogan, "No to the Maze" doesn't tell me that - it just means "No to the Maze".
Some people may be against the Maze for completely different reasons and not give a toss about Ulster rugby - so from a marketing perspective if you are for something, you need to tell people, and "No to the Maze" doesn't do that.
Well what is the "Ulster says No to the Maze" position on the Belfast City Council proposal for a stadium in Belfast?
I have no idea, my point is that the government have offered a National stadium to UR. In their words there is no plan"B".
This offer is also linked to to grants which have been applied for, a bribe of a sort.
It's take it or leave it, my view would be to leave it primarily from a location stance.
I really do think some people are reading too much into the term "Ulster says no to the Maze", but may'be i'm being naive.
Hope the use of the word national hasn't upset anybody either.
GerryO' wrote:
I don't mean to be rude , but if you really believe that this is a purely sporting venture, driven by sporting objectives, you are in dream land.
actually, Gerry, you're in dream land if you think there's such a thing anywhere in the world as a 'purely sporting venture'. (also see mike's post above)
i don't think this is a purely sporting venture - obviously the government have different, associated objectives and desires.
what i resent is the constant, ridiculous implication being made on this baord that the government is running this project with the intention of favouring one side of the community over the other. that paranoia is seemingly what is driving the NI-fans campaign, and I don't want to see the rugby campaign going down the same, narrow-minded, bigoted road.
My point is that the GAA do not need a new stadium, but the government are determined to keep them onboard. The result is that the two sports that do need a stadium are in a significantly weaker negotiation position than the GAA. The GAA have taken advantage of their strong position to call the shots vis-Ã -vis the location. So the real deciding factor in this is the politically driven aspiration to be inclusive at the expense of sporting, practical and economic expediency.
Posters are asking me to name a stadium built for purely sporting reasons. That is a spurious question; of course economics comes into it and so do other factors. The real question is this. Has there ever been a stadium built where political correctness was such a dominant theme or where the government was in such desperation to appease tribal factions? In my opinion the answer is no, this situation is unique. If we look at Wembley, there was a legitimate call to locate in the midlands, however the desire to have the national stadium in the national capital prevailed. Several of the new out-of-town stadia built in Japan for the 2002 world cup are virtually abandoned due to the inaccessibility issue. I don't think the government give a toss where the stadium goes as long as it keeps people quiet and the price is right. If the location is a long term economic failure they will trot out all the old platitudes about compromise etc.
The reason the GAA want the Maze site is that it was the only option presented to them that was not in what is perceived as an ‘orange area’. I would contest that the Government’s short listing process had this in mind. However, having said that, we have seen in the last 24 hours how Machiavellian the government can be, so this thing isn’t over yet.
A change of plan could still leave the final decision to the folks on the hill if they ever get it together.
Hope the use of the word national hasn't upset anybody either.
Why should it?
I don't know anyone who has a problem referring to the Ireland team as the national team, so why should there be a problem with the stadium being called the national stadium?
Unless of course the objector has a political agenda which precludes the recondition of Northern Ireland as a legitimate nation.
browner - the govt want it to be Maze, and have been saying for some time now that there are no alternatives, and that they're pressing ahead; however the fact that the timeframe keeps slipping, and the plans keep changing, say to me that their plans aren't as set in stone as they would have us believe.
The fact that Belfast city council has gone as far as to advertise for expressions of interest from developers is a strong statement that they too believe this.
We're in something of a phony war situation, it'll be interesting to see what comes up over the next week or too.
GerryO' wrote:
Why should it?
I don't know anyone who has a problem referring to the Ireland team as the national team, so why should there be a problem with the stadium being called the national stadium?
Unless of course the objector has a political agenda which precludes the recondition of Northern Ireland as a legitimate nation.
I think the chances of any new stadium being called "The National Stadium" are remote... commercial pressures will mean something like "The Tayto Dome" or "Magners Stadium" is far more likely
