The Abbey risks alienating the Government as it tries to secure funding for the theatre's relocation or extension. Alison O'Connor reports.
Visits by the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, to the National Theatre are as rare as hen's teeth.
So the news that Mr Ahern was to attend the opening night of Tom Murphy's A Whistle in the Dark was greeted with delight by those who believed it would present the perfect opportunity to have a word in his ear about the future of the Abbey.
But it was not to be. On that night in early October last year Mr Ahern was never alone for a moment. During the performance, he was surrounded (apparently deliberately) by those who had accompanied him.
It is now almost a year since he made known his opposition to the possibility of the theatre moving out of his constituency to a Grand Canal Dock site on the city's southside.
While it has long been agreed that the Abbey's and Peacock's facilities were "cramped and uninviting", theatre and architectural opinion on the future location has been sharply divided.
At a meeting with Mr Ahern the theatre board said its preferred choice was a redevelopment of the site.
A short time later, in June 2000, the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Ms de Valera, made it known she supported plans for a £50 million redevelopment.
However last February the board made the announcement it was its unanimous decision that, should funding be available, its preferred option for the future of the Abbey in the 21st century was to move to a Grand Canal site which had been offered to it for free.
At the time this announcement appeared to be a miscalculation on its part, not least because of the Taoiseach's interest - and Government's approval would be needed for such a move.
But Ms de Valera had been aware of the board's thinking and the offer which had been made in August 2000, of not one, but two free sites.
The second was a choice of two sites from Treasury Holdings in Spencer Dock.
It is understood that upon receiving these offers, the board immediately consulted the Minister and her Department and a number of meetings were held, and Ms de Valera inspected the sites.
On October 10th, 2000, Ms de Valera asked the board to return to her with their preferred option of the alternatives available.
The board weighed up its options, including staying on the existing, limited site, and felt it had to choose the free Grand Canal Dock site.
It is understood it wrote to the Minister telling her of their decision later that month on October 27th. In the absence of a reply, it decided she had accepted it.
At that point media speculation was mounting about the alternatives available for the Abbey and by the time the annual press conference, announcing the programme for the year, came about in February it was decided the "preferred option", which the Minister had been told about three months earlier, should be made known.
But they got a rude shock that evening when the Taoiseach, somewhat unusually, issued a statement expressing his surprise and accusing the board of a u-turn and that it was a serious mistake.
"The Abbey lobbied me personally in support of securing funds to build a new theatre on the existing site at Abbey Street.
"In a very detailed presentation the board and the artistic director stressed their strong commitment to the existing site," he said.
He pointed out that there was an ambitious £200 million plan to transform the city centre which was "well under way".
In fact an Office of Public Workds (OPW) report was already on Ms de Valera's desk which said that despite its many attractions and advantages the Grand Canal Dock site "cannot compete with a more prominent location in the city centre if such were to be made available".
Later in February last year at a meeting arranged by the Department with Dublin city manager Mr John Fitzgerald and officials from the Office of Public Works, the board was asked, apparently for the first time, their view of an extension of the existing site through acquiring a number of surrounding buildings.
This move would obviously be very expensive given there are around 25 property owners involved.
The city council was very keen that the theatre stay where it was for reasons of urban renewal.
It is understood the board indicated it was willing to reassess its view.
The OPW was asked to prepare a report on the various options, excluding the Grand Canal site, to be ready in a matter of weeks.
It was sent by that Department to Ms de Valera early last summer but has still not been discussed at Cabinet.
In November a meeting took place between board members and Ms de Valera during which the Minister apparently told them the matter of the theatre's future would be addressed within a week.
This was the first formal meeting of its kind on the theatre's future to take place in almost a year.
Next Tuesday the board will meet to discuss the situation yet again and are subsequently expected to make their huge frustration known to Ms de Valera.
They are caught between wanting to force a decision by the Government about funding either the theatre's relocation or its extension on the existing site, and the risk of alienating the Government.
With the general election looming they know that if the long awaited announcement is not made soon, they will remain in limbo.
In their report into the future of the Abbey, British Theatre consultants Carr & Aungier pointed out that with the National Theatre's centenary approaching in 2004 and its board anxious to put plans in place as soon as possible, there was "pressure on for an early conclusion to be reached".
Proposals to move the Abbey would be bound to cause unease and in an ideal situation the present site would be expanded.
But they got to the heart of the matter when they said "the danger of such a dream" was that it might cause delay or become a reason for doing nothing. "The new site and the centenary opportunity would then be lost."