Sports centre referendum

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Most of it's going to the clubs themselves. If the referendum didn't pass, anyone who joins a sports club would have to pay €60 a year on top of all the other costs associated with joining their individual clubs.

"Students: all students pay a registration fees entering College. A portion of this registration fee goes
to Capitation. There are 5 capitated bodies – SU, GSU, CSC, DUCAC and Student Publications. Therefore all students are entitled to join these bodies’ in the case of DUCAC through Clubs. The main proportion of DUCAC’S funding comes from this source."

http://www.ducac.tcdlife.ie/assets/pdf/2012-13/DUCAC%20General/DUCAC%20Policy%20Document-%20updated%2010th%20September%202012.pdf

It also means a lot of the sports clubs which don't get a lot of members, eg Judo, can continue to compete at a decent level even though they don't get nearly as much money as the rugby team or boat club do.

I'm not sure why you think that would justify asking ~12,500 undergrads to pay extra. It's a good thing the increase won't go to the clubs!

I also think if people pay for the gym it acts as an incentive to go.

Pretty much every gym in Ireland is unequivocal evidence that you are wrong.

Hopefully the extra funding won't be wasted on useless sh*t in the gym. There's far too many cardio machines and using power racks for a bench is far from ideal. I don't know how DUCAC plan on spending the money, but personally I voted yes because I know many people who would be badly affected if the referendum didn't pass, and since my parents are paying my fees, I don't think they'd notice the extra €30 too much.

And so, people understand why so many people either laugh or shake their head sadly at student politics.

papu wrote: »

I would argue that more people use the gym and sports facilities than any of the other services I mentioned.

Then (and I'm sorry, but there's no other way the phrase this), you are painfully ignorant and blind.

Somewhere to do Boxing classes or lift weights is more important than a disability service? More important than lighting? More important than chaplaincy?

You can get gym facilities anywhere in Dublin.

The student body absolutely needs a place for physical activity, nutritional education, strength training, personal development, stress relief
and general health and exercise.

And yet you still haven't explained why, nor justified why ~17,000 students need to subsidise a small minority.

Never using the sports facilities is nothing to be proud of, the gym is as busy as ever and this is a good thing in terms of higher numbers attending, but the facilities need a huge overhaul.

Where did I say it was something to be proud of? I said the majority don't use, do you have some sort of evidence that they do?


17000*€90 + 3400*€399 = ~€2.8m

Where are the published accounts on spending? Where is the breakdown on why the gym needs more than €2.8m a year to operate and upgrade equipment?

papu wrote: »

Firstly, thanks for the personal attack.

You need to educate yourself on the services the sports center provides, but posting an exhaustive list of the services they provide would just make you realize it is a fundamental facility for the student body.
Any other gym you'd pay anywhere from 3-5 times as much.

I'm well aware of the services it provides. I'm also well aware of the services provided elsewhere in the College that are directly linked to academic learning and ability to progress through college.

You, seemingly, aren't.

The reason you have to pay more in another gym is because there aren't...5?7? other people subsidising your gym membership because they are forced to.

I do await yet more nonsensical arguments.

The accounts don't exist, just like they don't exist for the SU. The SU has repeatedly refused to publish accounts.
On what planet do you think a student should need to submit an FoI request to view accounts for a Student Body that's meant to be acting on behalf of Students?
There's no 'obvious' about it. Your logic is quite flawed (SHOCKING!). Just because the Sports Centre says €2.8m isn't enough, doesn't mean it isn't enough.

papu wrote: »

Anything not linked with academic learning and progressing through college should be cut then? College is much more than just progressing and getting your degree, if this is all you're after then I'm very sorry for you.

I never said that. That's the second time you've lied about what I've posted. Getting to be a habit, aye.

No 5, 7 other people choose to subsidize you with other gym memberships.
Plenty of people choose to pay for gym memberships and don't use them.

That's the whole point. You just agreed with me. Awesome.

Oh God, I give up. You could have just posted at the very beginning "I have no logic or facts to back up my opinion that the whole of college should subsidise the minority who actually use the Gym, and have no interest in hearing anything contrary to that".

At least it would have been honest.

Deleted User wrote: »

I get that you don't like subsidising a service you never use but I do think you're underestimating the importance of exercise to one's overall health.

I use the Gym and pay full price this year, until I return in September. Assumptions and all that.

These are all really important for students and no one should have a barrier to exercising in a gym or joining a sports club because they can't afford it.

People who can't afford it can already have the Sports Centre charge refunded.
https://www.tcd.ie/Senior_Tutor/pdf/Student%20Sport%20Centre%20Charge%20Waiver%20Application2009.pdf

It was quite obvious that during the first referendum there was very poor awareness about what was being asked (I didn't even know about it until I went to vote), and that regardless of who's fault it was that it wasn't publicised better it needed to be repeated to ensure people actually understood it.

What evidence do you have that the second vote was more informed, more equitable and fairer? None of my friends were in any way more informed of the second vote. Indeed, they were so unaware of it that they didn't vote.


Let's keep it simple.

There was a preferendum that barely (barely!) passed - 931 to 851.
A referendum with 4700 votes where No was the overwhelming vote, 58% to 42%
A repeat referendum with 1335 votes where Yes was the overwhelming choice

We have SU members who say things like;
"She said that simultaneous campaigning for the SU sabbatical officer elections as well as for two other referendums has made it difficult to effectively inform students about the issues at stake in the sports centre referendum. “As the main focus has been on the sabbatical positions, there has not been enough information given out by College or the SU about the three referendums which are also taking place,” she said, adding that when she started campaigning “very little was known about them and the majority of students were unaware that they were even happening.”"

Followed by

"She said that the absence of a ‘no’ campaign for the referendum is not an issue. “The facts are there for people to make up their minds, so I don’t really think it is a problem,” she explained."

So, the facts weren't there for people voting yes, but the facts WERE there for people voting no. And this was said without even a hint of irony.

That is but one of many examples of such cognitive dissonance and rank hypocrisy by SU members on this issue.

We have people arguing that the increase is needed because the Sports Centre says it is, without the Sports Centre being willing to detail why or how it is.

We have people saying that the majority of Students should subsidise the minority who use the facility, because there should be an affordable gym for students - despite there already being a waiver for students who can't afford the gym, and without any kind of analysis on how non-subsidised gym fees would affect the students who do use it.

Indeed, this thread alone is littered with far more examples of illogical arguments in favour of the increased Sports Centre charge. "Exercise your way out of depression" "Rowing machines will help you with bereavement and loss" "Treadmill twice a day to keep the STIs away". "You can go through college without having the lights on, but not without weight training in the gym!"

Gott im Himmel.

papu wrote: »

Over dramatize as you wish
There is a wealth of information on the benefit of exercise for a huge amount of conditions, not to mention the preventative aspects of exercise and resistance training.
http://exerciseismedicine.org.au/public/factsheets

There's such a wealth of information that the only 'evidence' you provide is from a website called "exercise is medicine"?

I never said exercise wasn't beneficial. We are talking about gym facilities. We are talking about whether funding gym facilities is as important as funding health facilities and mental health facilities. There is no evidence out there about exercising in gyms vs exercising outside of them. There is no evidence out there that prevalence of gyms can be linked causatively with fitness. There is no evidence out there of health outcomes of gym fitness vs non gym fitness. Blah blah blah.

As usual, you're blowing smoke out your hole.

Take the amount of students who you believe use the gym, take the 2.8 million euro number and divide, there's your answer ,non-subsidized gym fees would not be affordable.

So you don't know how much the fee would be, you don't know what students who would like to use the gym can afford, but you know that the fee would not be affordable?

As usual, you're blowing smoke out your hole.

Nice to see MightyMandarin thanking posts, while he's still too afraid to acknowledge his only contribution to this thread was wholly erroneous.

There's a correlation between exercise and health, in this thread there's a correlation between supporters of the increased fee, and being thoroughly misinformed.

Make of it what you will.