As I've stated in the past, if we complete the stand as it is, I think it would be a big, missed opportunity to build on the back, the full length of the stand, so we have some function rooms of our own. But even if we just complete it, as it is, it doesn't explain why the "No stand, no land" clause was removed from the deal at the instance of NTFC?
Why go to the trouble of removing that clause if you are, 100%, going to complete the stand? There is no logic in that whatsoever, is there? It was nothing to do with "like for like" with the Cilldara bid, as their bid never included the running track, CDNL's did. Maybe someone on here can come up with an explanation, have I missed something?
Why wouldn't they want the contract and everything else in their favour / under their control? There would always be the risk that someone at the council, or another institution, who held a personal grudge could kick up a storm that the finished stand isn't satisfactory and therefore delay the development of the land.
Now I know its high unlikely any institution or group of people would publicly critisise the actions of the owners but there is always that risk. It is 100% the right thing for the owners to do. I do understand your position but thats a question for the council, not the owners IMO
