Jerry Kiernan has a pop...

BrianBoru00

There s a thread about this elsewhere that I ve spent half an hour reading with disbelief at some of the arguments only to just realise it s in an athletics forum - There seems to be a severe "anti-GAA" vibe over there.

Basically he says GAA players shouldnt get grants (Thats right - the massive amount that works out approx €500 average per player....)

http://www.thesportsdiaries.com/2013/02/14/gaa-grants-anger-kiernan/

Anyone hear it?

ardmacha

Jerry Who?

jive

He has a self-admitted lack of interest in the GAA, rarely watches it and yet he goes on national radio to belittle the efforts of the intercounty players? He undermined whatever point he was trying to make with his unlearned comments. We don't do half-bad against the Aussies in terms of fitness and they're professionals. If he wants the grants currently allocated to GAA players to go elsewhere then he's entitled to that opinion as long as he can back it up with logic rather than petty comments.

Some other quotes from him "there's not much too it" regarding football (how insightful, thanks for that Jerry). He comes across in the interview as bitter - he referenced some guy (Joe Sweeney) who won a race last week but didn't get any mention in the media. Basically his argument regarding fitness was that the run sessions they carried out weren't as good as the run sessions that people doing athletics were hahah; bear in mind this is a guy who says he doesn't even watch GAA and yet he knows all about how these different inter county teams train? Come off it. He comes across as bitter and ignorant in the interview.

You have to laugh at his attempt to compare people doing athletics and GAA players. What does he mean they're not fit enough? What is his gauge? Fit enough for what, exactly? Olympic level 5000m? A marathon? A 100m sprint? They're obviously fit enough for GAA. He couldn't give any examples regarding his comments of overweight players at intercounty level. The Clare lad who won an All-Ireland on the show said he trained 22 times in 21 days and Kiernan said that wouldn't be enough for the international level - completely disregarding the fact that everyone was talking about impact sport whilst he was comparing this to athletics.

Honestly he came across as extremely ignorant and it doesn't even warrant a post. In fact I'm stopping this rabbling post about it now because I could go all night and tear apart basically every aspect of his 'argument'.

WumBuster

Hypocritical rant really. Seem very off the cuff. If you are going to have a go at the GAA Jerry at least have your points properly thought out with examples and facts to back up your opinions. What about all these 'international' athletes and cyclists doped up to their eyeballs with EPO? Would have more respect for a half fit fella with a beer gut tearing around a GAA pitch than the type of people you crow about constantly.

Hammer Archer

Was gonna make some points about it but jive has pretty much covered everything. There's an unbelievable amount of ignorance and sheer stupidity in what he says, such as:

“What about the Carlows, the Wicklows, what about the other counties that simply don’t bother?”

Seriously, when someone making an "argument" against the GAA comes out with something like this, then you can pretty much disregard everything he says. That would be like me saying someone like Paul Hession "doesn't bother" as he failed to even get out of his heat in the Olympics.

Edit: By the by, I think my IQ dropped a few points after reading some of the comments over on the Athletics forum.

jive

jive wrote: »

Some other quotes from him "there's not much too it" regarding football (how insightful, thanks for that Jerry). He comes across in the interview as bitter - he referenced some guy (Joe Sweeney) who won a race last week but didn't get any mention in the media.

He says there is not much to it, and yet Jerry probably couldnt make his local club team down in Kerry let alone any of their inter-county levels. A total and utter buffoon who should have a gagging order against him with rubbish talk like that. A bitter bitter man

Gary Lewin the Arsenal physio along with some of the Arsenal players at the time were highly impressed with Graham Geraghty's level of fitness when he had a trial back in 1994. Lewin apparently was in disbelief that Geraghty was only an amateur athete

randd1

What a f***ing clown Kiernan is.

First of all, the GAA is by far the biggest sporting organization on this island. It generates a huge amount of money for the economy. Why shouldn't it get funding, no matter how much?

Secondly, going on about some guy running in Holland saying he should be in the news. I ran 5k the other day. Should I be on the news?

Last but not least, where are you more likely to see a crowd. At athletics or a GAA game? I can only speak for us here in Kilkenny but the last time I was at a junior game there was a couple of thousand at it, whereas I've never seen more than a couple of hundred in Scanlon Park for athletics, and that's only when the Harriers have their training sessions for the primary school kids.

Kiernan has always been a moaner, he complains the whole time when he's on the telly, he's only happy when he's moaning (I assume he's happy as you cant tell, he's as emotionless as a Vulcan from Star Trek). I hate seeing him doing any commentating on athletics, he sucks all the enthusiasm and enjoyment out of it with his miserable puss. I just keep watching athletics on the telly while waiting for the day his face breaks when he actually cracks a smile.

theoneeyedman

Laughing at the "not much too it" bit.....sure all yer man Bolt does is run in a straight line for 100m, and all Mohammad Farrah does is run in circles for a half hour; doesn't look like there is too much to that!!

Realt Dearg Sec

I had a quick read of some of the Athletics thread, I thought most of their posters were tending to regard Kiernan's comments as, at best, unhelpful, and at worst completely ignorant. A few wind ups and goons with chips on their shoulders but no more than we have here.

My impression is that when people start complaining about other sports they invariably slip into a demonstration of just how ignorant they are about those sports. People complaining about rugby are a great example of this. Kiernan's view of football is a very good illustration of it. And obviously, athletics gets more than its fair share of amateur opinions. Personally all I see is a bunch of events in which skill plays absolutely no part whatever, and in which, once the training is right, genetics pretty much decides the rest.

But my point is: that probably just illustrates that I know nothing about it.

Kiernan's opinion of GAA grants is as relevant to me as Kim Jong-Il's opinion on figure skating. If someone is as utterly ill-informed as Kiernan, who cares what he thinks?

Roger_007

I think there is a bit of playing the man rather than the ball here. I read Kiernan's comments and although he was disparraging about GAA players, he has a point about GAA people doing a little too much whinging. Here is an extract from the interview:

“

I often notice when they (GAA players) are commenting on things, they’re always talking about the sacrifices they make. You’ll never hear that among athletes, boxers, swimmers or people who do international running. But always with the GAA it’s always, always a sacrifice. Now maybe I’m extra sensitive to this…but they all talk about the sacrifice they’re making.

”

No doubt he is overstating it but I often cringe when I hear GAA players talking about the sacrifices they make. I played gaelic football at club level for 20 years in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I would have given anything to have been good enough to represent my county. I played for the love of the game and in my latter playing days I travelled 30 miles 3 times a week to train, (I had moved away from my parish). I did not get or expect any payment or expenses. It is a voluntary committment. Any player who does not want to make that committment is not worth bothering about. There are too many prima donnas in the game.

davegrohl48

There does be too much talk about sacrifices is true. But ... I'v often noticed it is included in every single interview a journalist makes with a player.
I liked last year when a journalist asked that dull question to Michael Murphy on a Friday night about his morning weights session the next morning. Murphy replied that he actually enjoys them and wouldn't want to be anywhere else.
It was a refreshing answer.
I think the training regimes were worse years ago when more was always seen as better. The training programs now are more for strength, speed and keeping players injury free and fresh throughout the season.

Dirty Dingus McGee

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think there is a bit of playing the man rather than the ball here. I read Kiernan's comments and although he was disparraging about GAA players, he has a point about GAA people doing a little too much whinging. Here is an extract from the interview:

“”

No doubt he is overstating it but I often cringe when I hear GAA players talking about the sacrifices they make. I played gaelic football at club level for 20 years in the 70s, 80s and 90s. I would have given anything to have been good enough to represent my county. I played for the love of the game and in my latter playing days I travelled 30 miles 3 times a week to train, (I had moved away from my parish). I did not get or expect any payment or expenses. It is a voluntary committment. Any player who does not want to make that committment is not worth bothering about. There are too many prima donnas in the game.

In fairness I doubt you trained as hard as current intercounty players do.I think the mentioning of the sacrifices intercounty players make is in part a suggestion by the players that the demands are too great these days and although they love representing their county and won't quit intercounty football/hurling because of the love of their county they probably find the demands placed on them a little bit unreasonable at times, but in order to compete they have no choice.

ProudDUB

The part of his rant that cracked me up was that he said that GAA players lacked any real skill. As opposed to what....running?

Yeah sure, Henry Shefflin or Lar Corbett catching a puck in mid air, or Bernard Brogan or Colm Cooper beating 3 men and then sending the ball over the bar from a ridiculous angle requires no skill what so ever....as opposed to you know....RUNNING !

Have every respect for the brain power re race management and tactics that goes into winning a race & the discipline & endurance levels required to do so. But to imply that running around a race track requires a supreme level of skill that GAA players do not have is just being silly.

ebbsy

Bet he would'nt come down to Rathnew and say that............

woodchopper

randd1 wrote: »

What a f***ing clown Kiernan is.

First of all, the GAA is by far the biggest sporting organization on this island. It generates a huge amount of money for the economy. Why shouldn't it get funding, no matter how much?

Secondly, going on about some guy running in Holland saying he should be in the news. I ran 5k the other day. Should I be on the news?

Last but not least, where are you more likely to see a crowd. At athletics or a GAA game? I can only speak for us here in Kilkenny but the last time I was at a junior game there was a couple of thousand at it, whereas I've never seen more than a couple of hundred in Scanlon Park for athletics, and that's only when the Harriers have their training sessions for the primary school kids.

.

Just because something is more popular does not mean it is good for you. For example Pizza and Beer is more popular than Bulgar Wheat and Quinoa yet the latter are much better for your digestive system and maintaing a healthy weight.

That 'some guy' who ran that race in holland has won more National titles than the Kerry football team in the modern era.

woodchopper

woodchopper wrote: »

Just because something is more popular does not mean it is good for you. For example Pizza and Beer is more popular than Bulgar Wheat and Quinoa yet the latter are much better for your digestive system and maintaing a healthy weight.

That 'some guy' who ran that race in holland has won more National titles than the Kerry football team in the modern era.

I think Jamesie O'Connor gave him the right reply and im going to give you the exact same. Your comparing apples with oranges.

I have great respect for anyone who trains and is involved with Athletics and i understand their own level of dedication, but for that idiot to dismiss Gaelic Games players of lacking fitness, of having no skill, its just blatant ignorance.

RTE should give this man a wide berth and hire another pundit on who doesn't talk scutter. He is not fit to comment on any sport. Even Dunphy wouldnt talk such sh*te after a night out in Lillies

Hammer Archer

woodchopper wrote: »

Just because something is more popular does not mean it is good for you. For example Pizza and Beer is more popular than Bulgar Wheat and Quinoa yet the latter are much better for your digestive system and maintaing a healthy weight.

What does this have to do with anything? I've seen some bad analogies, but this really takes the biscuit. I've absolutely no clue what it is you mean. Are you saying that playing football/hurling/handball is bad for you?

woodchopper wrote: »

That 'some guy' who ran that race in holland has won more National titles than the Kerry football team in the modern era.

And? Again, I fail to see your point.
It's funny that Kiernan had a pop at this Joe Sweeney fella not getting a mention in the media for winning a race in the Netherlands. Had a quick look at the Athletics Ireland website there and guess what? I could find no mention of Joe Sweeney's win there either.

woodchopper

I thought Jerry Kiernan was bang out of order to be fair. Its an insult to the great GAA hurley players of the past and present such as Harry Shefflin to come out with such tripe

Hidalgo

If Jerry Kiernan had made his point in a proper and construed way, he might have made a bit of sense.

It's often highlighted about the sacrifices GAA players make, swimmers, often train early morning and again in the afternoon.
Then again, comments from high profile GAA players will be picked up by the media before a discus thrower.

He really didn't do his homework. Who are the Kerry players he was on about that were 15-20lbs overweight?

His reply to Jamsie O Connors quotes regarding 21 sessions in 22 days was childish at best, almost like my daddy is richer than your daddy.

woodchopper

Hidalgo wrote: »

If Jerry Kiernan had made his point in a proper and construed way, he might have made a bit of sense.

It's often highlighted about the sacrifices GAA players make, swimmers, often train early morning and again in the afternoon.
Then again, comments from high profile GAA players will be picked up by the media before a discus thrower.

He really didn't do his homework. Who are the Kerry players he was on about that were 15-20lbs overweight?

His reply to Jamsie O Connors quotes regarding 21 sessions in 22 days was childish at best, almost like my daddy is richer than your daddy.

Michael Quirke perhaps?

Eoin Brosnan?

Darren O Sullivan?

Speculation of course.

Hammer Archer

woodchopper wrote: »

I thought Jerry Kiernan was bang out of order to be fair. Its an insult to the great GAA hurley players of the past and present such as Harry Shefflin to come out with such tripe

It's obvious that you're deliberately misspelling Henry Shefflin's name to get a rise out of people (just like you've done on the athletics forum). It's exceptionally childish.

jive

I don't know what picture he was talking about regarding the Kerry players walking off the pitch not appearing physically fit but I have found some saucy topless shots of 1 Kerry and 1 Donegal Player




Indeed it would appear that they are having a bit of trouble shifting that last 15-20lbs!

Hidalgo

woodchopper wrote: »

Michael Quirke perhaps?

Eoin Brosnan?

Darren O Sullivan?

Speculation of course.

There's no way Darren O Sullivan was 15-20lbs overweight last summer.

Tom Joad

I post on both the Athletics and GAA forums so have to be careful here but one poster with a chip on his/her shoulder does not equal the entire Athletics forum on here and quickly backed out of the thread on the Athletics forum.

Kiernan's ignorant bleating just shows himself up and the need for Athletics Ireland to get their own house in order but this is Ireland its always easier to blame somebody else or have a pop/sneer at another group of people/sport than to have a look at your own house.

But in saying that I wouldn't take the views of two trolls as being representative of the Athletics world.

Actually their is a debate similar to this going on in the shooting forum which shows that worthwhile discussions like these can take place without trolling another sport..

bidiots

One thing to avoid with Kiernan's ignorant rant is an Athletics v GAA scenario. Kiernan has the issue with the 'gah' so leave it with him. I have a feather in both hats so know only to well the sacrifices of both codes.

He made an arrogant ignorant comment that had no statistical backup whatsoever. He's lucky that it was a quiet, restrained Jamsie O'Connor that was the voice of reason for the Gaa. I fear if it was any other hot head then it could have sparked an even bigger war of words. As it is, let it lie, nobody will give credence to these comments and the more discussion just leads to chance of more hyperbole....

iDave

The problem with Kiernans 'pop' is like the vast majority of criticism levelled at the GAA its always brutally articulated. It usually reverts to lazy stereotyping. The amature argument is an easy back up that gets brought up along with the international outlet or lack thereof. On the most extreme scale then you get the usual nonsense about GAA people being inbred, culchie/farmers, you see it on the occasional thread on boards and elsewhere and when it suits just lump us in as an IRA extension too for good measure.
Its very sad really, especially when you look at how Americans and Australians treasure their home grown sports and dont worry about what foreigners think it. Its very Irish I suppose but sad nonetheless.

Hidalgo

Tom Joad wrote: »

I post on both the Athletics and GAA forums so have to be careful here but one poster with a chip on his/her shoulder does not equal the entire Athletics forum on here and quickly backed out of the thread on the Athletics forum.

Kiernan's ignorant bleating just shows himself up and the need for Athletics Ireland to get their own house in order but this is Ireland its always easier to blame somebody else or have a pop/sneer at another group of people/sport than to have a look at your own house.

But in saying that I wouldn't take the views of two trolls as being representative of the Athletics world.

Actually their is a debate similar to this going on in the shooting forum which shows that worthwhile discussions like these can take place without trolling another sport..

There is actually a very worthwhile argument behind the crux of what kiernan said.
The GAA is wealthy enough without needing government grants. Its just the way he went about arguing (ranting) his case meant he lost all credibility in my eyes.

Someone who had their facts in order with less tunnel vision against the GAA could have sparked an excellent debate

munchkin_utd

Hidalgo wrote: »

There is actually a very worthwhile argument behind the crux of what kiernan said.The GAA is wealthy enough without needing government grants. Its just the way he went about arguing (ranting) his case meant he lost all credibility in my eyes.
Someone who had their facts in order with less tunnel vision against the GAA could have sparked an excellent debate

yup, buried in this article in the Indo from the weekend you have succinctly articulted the real reason that the grants were given in the first place and why Kiernan is über humpy about the GAA

<snip>it isn't the money itself that rankles with Kiernan and several Irish athletes who expressed their opposition to the GAA payments being renewed for a further two years. In their criticisms it was easy to detect a long-standing gripe against the privileged position the GAA enjoys in Irish life and the huge attention it commands from the public and the media. In their eyes, the GAA, when it comes down to it, gets all the breaks.

That's not entirely true, of course, but you can see why certain athletes might think it. When the grants system was first conceived in 2007, at an annual cost of €3.5m, the Irish economy was still in overdrive and the GAA was reaping a rich financial dividend as soccer and rugby relocated temporarily to Croke Park. The downside was that pressure from players and the GPA for some sort of monetary recognition began to grow ever more intense.

And there's no doubt that the sports council grants arrived at a very convenient time for the GAA. It meant they could put the lid on tough questions that can only ever yield uneasy answers. They could see the players happy for a few bob while still proudly proclaiming the association's amateur ethos, entirely comfortable with the contradictions that always entailed. So how is that war against illegal payments to managers progressing anyway?<snip>

http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-football/its-dangerous-to-assume-money-lies-at-the-root-of-all-temptation-29076195.html
of course in the background in 2007 was still the fresh questions of what status the GPA should have and whether they were a good or bad force and the first step in turning the association pay per play, i.e. professional.

sometimes the GAA is too good at using its clout in society and with the politicans. Attaining the grants for players to placate the intercounty players could be argued to be a case in point where the politicans were in trall to the might of the GAA.

Tom Joad

Hidalgo wrote: »

There is actually a very worthwhile argument behind the crux of what kiernan said.
The GAA is wealthy enough without needing government grants. Its just the way he went about arguing (ranting) his case meant he lost all credibility in my eyes.

Someone who had their facts in order with less tunnel vision against the GAA could have sparked an excellent debate

I totally agree with you that there is a debate to be had but was lost in the anti-gaa rant (which Kiernan does time and again) and that's why I highlighted the debate being had on the shooting forum.

Sparks

Tom Joad wrote: »

I totally agree with you that there is a debate to be had but was lost in the anti-gaa rant (which Kiernan does time and again) and that's why I highlighted the debate being had on the shooting forum.

And which, to be fair, is exactly the same debate that pretty much every sport outside of the Big Five has been having for several years now. There's a long-held belief founded on experience that the Sports Council shouldn't be using its rather meagre supply of funds to support organisations like the GAA who pull in between fifty and seventy million euro a year, to the tune of nine hundred thousand when other smaller NGBs would get around thirty thousand a year to run an entire sport.

The reason that'd be a bad thing is that we'd get a monobloc culture in sport, where all we did was that one sport. It'd be great for that one sport, but it'd mean anyone who didn't suit the sport would be effectively told to just go home and not bother anymore. And the whole point of funding sport is to reap healthcare benefits and publicity from international successes for the tourism industry and so on - it's investment, not a begging bowl.

Frankly, quite a lot of the other sports are of the opinion - even when they don't publicly say so - that the GAA are quite well off enough, thank you, and no they don't think they should be getting a massive slice of what is now a rapidly dwindling pie which should be reserved for sports that haven't had the commercial success the Big Five have enjoyed - commercial success which undeniably owes a lot (if not all) to state favour, rather than intrinsic worth.

Shooting's a bit of an extreme example of this - we've won the World Championships in Olympic clay pigeon twice, we have international medals and Olympic-level athletes aplenty, all of whom are woefully underfunded or not funded at all - and we're crucified by draconian legislation (name me one GAA hurler who needs two character references to buy a hurley, and fill out an eight-page form and get grilled by the Gardai and has to give up medical confidentiality and so forth). But I've heard identical arguments coming from every other sport whose NGB admins I've ever spoken to over coffee, off the record (I spent a while working on an NGB committee and we'd wind up meeting at conferences and the like). It's not a view you can just dismiss by pointing at Kiernan and laughing or trying to make out like being 9th in the world was nothing because "running isn't difficult" (seriously? You think nobody can make that kind of ad hominem joke about GAA sports? Talk to me over a coffee sometime, I'll give you some examples )

Dirty Dingus McGee

Sparks wrote: »

And which, to be fair, is exactly the same debate that pretty much every sport outside of the Big Five has been having for several years now. There's a long-held belief founded on experience that the Sports Council shouldn't be using its rather meagre supply of funds to support organisations like the GAA who pull in between fifty and seventy million euro a year, to the tune of nine hundred thousand when other smaller NGBs would get around thirty thousand a year to run an entire sport.

The reason that'd be a bad thing is that we'd get a monobloc culture in sport, where all we did was that one sport. It'd be great for that one sport, but it'd mean anyone who didn't suit the sport would be effectively told to just go home and not bother anymore. And the whole point of funding sport is to reap healthcare benefits and publicity from international successes for the tourism industry and so on - it's investment, not a begging bowl.

Frankly, quite a lot of the other sports are of the opinion - even when they don't publicly say so - that the GAA are quite well off enough, thank you, and no they don't think they should be getting a massive slice of what is now a rapidly dwindling pie which should be reserved for sports that haven't had the commercial success the Big Five have enjoyed - commercial success which undeniably owes a lot (if not all) to state favour, rather than intrinsic worth.

Shooting's a bit of an extreme example of this - we've won the World Championships in Olympic clay pigeon twice, we have international medals and Olympic-level athletes aplenty, all of whom are woefully underfunded or not funded at all - and we're crucified by draconian legislation (name me one GAA hurler who needs two character references to buy a hurley, and fill out an eight-page form and get grilled by the Gardai and has to give up medical confidentiality and so forth). But I've heard identical arguments coming from every other sport whose NGB admins I've ever spoken to over coffee, off the record (I spent a while working on an NGB committee and we'd wind up meeting at conferences and the like). It's not a view you can just dismiss by pointing at Kiernan and laughing or trying to make out like being 9th in the world was nothing because "running isn't difficult" (seriously? You think nobody can make that kind of ad hominem joke about GAA sports? Talk to me over a coffee sometime, I'll give you some examples )

The amount the intercounty players received was less than 1 million out of a budget of around 25 million.So around 4% of the funding goes to GAA players.The GAA would make a bigger contribution to the Irish governments coffers than any other sport receiving money from the Irish Sports council so really in an indirect way the players are only getting back money they put in.The GAA are in not in as healthy a financial position as some people like to think, a fair few county boards have posted deficits in 2012.The GPA and not the GAA loked for this grant money, if the Irish Sports coucnil don't pay it then the GAA won't pay it.You can't blame the GAA players for having a representation and suggesting their players should be entitled to some money to help with expenses, if the sports council feel they shouldnt be entitled to anything than they shoudl not pay the money, you can't blame the GPA for asking.

Sparks

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

The amount the intercounty players received was less than 1 million

Okay, stop there.
I mean, seriously, right there.

Let's put this myth to bed immediately. €900k is not chicken feed. It is not a small amount of money. It is more money per year than the Olympic rifle shooters have ever received - ever, combined. It is more money per year than the Olympic shotgun shooters have received in the past decade - a decade where they won the World Championships twice and several World Cups and a European Championships or two and placed in the top ten in an Olympics, despite all the obstacles their shooters have to overcome (again, ever met a hurler who needed two character references to buy a hurl?).

When other Olympic sports who have actual international-level and world-level athletes are getting €30k a year to run the sport (or less, in the case of the rifle shooters who currently get nothing), despite the six million euro a year that firearms licences generate (and for which we receive absolutely nothing in return, even in theory), then saying €900k is a small amount is just not a valid argument.

You could pay GAA players out of the money the GAA paid for marketing last year and still have more money in the GAA marketing budget than some Olympic sports see in five years. It is just not a supportable argument to say that a very commercially successful sport like the GAA - which is damn close to being a monopoly, it's so large - should be allowed on the basis of its own internal rule about paying players, to have those players paid from the same dwindling supply of money that funds the smaller sports and allows people to have a range of sports to choose from (which in the long term benefits the state by reducing healthcare costs and increasing tourism revenue as well as boosting international image). It's just not right.

Tom Joad

Sparks wrote: »

And which, to be fair, is exactly the same debate that pretty much every sport outside of the Big Five has been having for several years now. There's a long-held belief founded on experience that the Sports Council shouldn't be using its rather meagre supply of funds to support organisations like the GAA who pull in between fifty and seventy million euro a year, to the tune of nine hundred thousand when other smaller NGBs would get around thirty thousand a year to run an entire sport.

The reason that'd be a bad thing is that we'd get a monobloc culture in sport, where all we did was that one sport. It'd be great for that one sport, but it'd mean anyone who didn't suit the sport would be effectively told to just go home and not bother anymore. And the whole point of funding sport is to reap healthcare benefits and publicity from international successes for the tourism industry and so on - it's investment, not a begging bowl.

Frankly, quite a lot of the other sports are of the opinion - even when they don't publicly say so - that the GAA are quite well off enough, thank you, and no they don't think they should be getting a massive slice of what is now a rapidly dwindling pie which should be reserved for sports that haven't had the commercial success the Big Five have enjoyed - commercial success which undeniably owes a lot (if not all) to state favour, rather than intrinsic worth.

Shooting's a bit of an extreme example of this - we've won the World Championships in Olympic clay pigeon twice, we have international medals and Olympic-level athletes aplenty, all of whom are woefully underfunded or not funded at all - and we're crucified by draconian legislation (name me one GAA hurler who needs two character references to buy a hurley, and fill out an eight-page form and get grilled by the Gardai and has to give up medical confidentiality and so forth). But I've heard identical arguments coming from every other sport whose NGB admins I've ever spoken to over coffee, off the record (I spent a while working on an NGB committee and we'd wind up meeting at conferences and the like). It's not a view you can just dismiss by pointing at Kiernan and laughing or trying to make out like being 9th in the world was nothing because "running isn't difficult" (seriously? You think nobody can make that kind of ad hominem joke about GAA sports? Talk to me over a coffee sometime, I'll give you some examples )

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I know absolutely nothing about your sport so am not going to try and insult anyone involved in shooting by claiming to know anything about it.

I highlighted the shooting forum debate as an example of posters being able to have an intelligent and proper debate without reverting to having a sneer at the GAA.

Any valid points to be made by Kiernan was always going to be lost in the hysteria of making insulting pops at GAA players which was taken up with glee on the Athletics forum by a minority of posters - it actually reflects badly on the hieracrchy of Athletics in this country.

If you ask the question where should €900k funding go the GAA or a minority sport where it is badly needed? the minority sport wins for me every day of the week.

But blame the Sports Council and the week minded politicians who came up with this funding structure/scheme and have the debate centered on that rather than the "lets have a pop at the unfit, flabby, beer swilling Gah players" shíte that's been thrown around.

I'd love to try my hand at shooting but doubt ye would have insurance enough to cover against the likes of me (unless ye have a stick him in the backs equivalent!!)

Sparks

Tom Joad wrote: »

I'd love to try my hand at shooting but doubt ye would have insurance enough to cover against the likes of me (unless ye have a stick him in the backs equivalent!!)

[obligatory Plug]
www.courtlough.com - or for that matter, pretty much any other shooting range in the country - will take anyone who wants to try the sport and walk them through it, usually will have club rifles so you don't have to buy your own to start with, and will show you what it's like. Be warned, it's addictive for some. I started in order to spend a week or two learning how to handle firearms safely out of a curious impulse.... twenty years ago.
[/obligatory Plug]

bruschi

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, stop there.
I mean, seriously, right there.

Let's put this myth to bed immediately. €900k is not chicken feed. It is not a small amount of money. It is more money per year than the Olympic rifle shooters have ever received - ever, combined. It is more money per year than the Olympic shotgun shooters have received in the past decade - a decade where they won the World Championships twice and several World Cups and a European Championships or two and placed in the top ten in an Olympics, despite all the obstacles their shooters have to overcome (again, ever met a hurler who needed two character references to buy a hurl?).

When other Olympic sports who have actual international-level and world-level athletes are getting €30k a year to run the sport (or less, in the case of the rifle shooters who currently get nothing), despite the six million euro a year that firearms licences generate (and for which we receive absolutely nothing in return, even in theory), then saying €900k is a small amount is just not a valid argument.

You could pay GAA players out of the money the GAA paid for marketing last year and still have more money in the GAA marketing budget than some Olympic sports see in five years. It is just not a supportable argument to say that a very commercially successful sport like the GAA - which is damn close to being a monopoly, it's so large - should be allowed on the basis of its own internal rule about paying players, to have those players paid from the same dwindling supply of money that funds the smaller sports and allows people to have a range of sports to choose from (which in the long term benefits the state by reducing healthcare costs and increasing tourism revenue as well as boosting international image). It's just not right.

some reasonable debate, the thread on the athletics forum is just a clusterfeck right now.

some points about the above though.

You say the GAA is so large. It has more members I would assume than shooting clubs? It would generate more revenue for the state than shooting too? I dont have any figures at all to hand, but I would wager tha percentage wise, the 900k given back to GAA intercounty players, as a percentage against money generated to the state, is more than the money generated by shooting/athletics to the state. These are my own general opinions, that GAA generates more money, and isnt taking as much on grants percentage wise than athletics or shooting. (and whilst I take your point on firearm license, you would have to tell me how many are sport licences related, and how many are other, ie farms etc. If I am way off here, I'll admit it.)

Now the flipside of that, and I would agree with you, is that because it is large, it can generate its own funds to pay the players. I wouldnt dispute that. But whilst you say that is 900k athletics etc lose out on, it is also 900k that local GAA clubs lose out on for their own clubs and developments for underage structures etc.

secondly, and is one item that annoys me greatly, is why should an event because it is international be given priority? Do Americans complain about American Football not having an international base so money shouldtn go there? Do Australians complain about Aussie Rules? Why should funds be diverted away from a sport because it isnt internationally competed at? It doesnt necessarily make it a better or more popular sport.

The other thing too, what sport in Ireland would you reckon generates more tourism interest? Again, I am only guessing, but I would wager that GAA attracts more tourists than other sports.

With regards to the specific point on the grants though, I dont think the €400 each player gets is enough to warrant an overall cost of €900,000. It means feck all to the GAA player really, but as an overall cost is a large sum of money that probably would be better spent and utilised elsewhere. But if the GAA are able to get it, its not their fault.

The GAA has plenty of faults, dont get me wrong at all (and I say this as someone who follows a lot of other sports never mind GAA), but there is a massive amount of misinformation about the training etc that Kiernan was going on about, and others use as a means of knowledge when it is factually incorrect. some of the posts on the Athletics fourm are blatant flaming and trolling and are pointless to even debate with.

aidan24326

jive wrote: »

Some other quotes from him "there's not much too it" regarding football (how insightful, thanks for that Jerry).

Because there's clearly a lot to running in circles round a track.

Anyone involved in Irish athletics isn't in much of a position to be slagging off anyone else. Yes they're underfunded, but the fact is that most people in ireland have little or no interest in some of the minority sports that look for funding (such as shooting, which no offence sparks but it has an interest level among the wider public that is close to zero).

Hidalgo

Sparks wrote: »

Okay, stop there.
I mean, seriously, right there.

Let's put this myth to bed immediately. €900k is not chicken feed. It is not a small amount of money. It is more money per year than the Olympic rifle shooters have ever received - ever, combined. It is more money per year than the Olympic shotgun shooters have received in the past decade - a decade where they won the World Championships twice and several World Cups and a European Championships or two and placed in the top ten in an Olympics, despite all the obstacles their shooters have to overcome (again, ever met a hurler who needed two character references to buy a hurl?).

When other Olympic sports who have actual international-level and world-level athletes are getting €30k a year to run the sport (or less, in the case of the rifle shooters who currently get nothing), despite the six million euro a year that firearms licences generate (and for which we receive absolutely nothing in return, even in theory), then saying €900k is a small amount is just not a valid argument.

You could pay GAA players out of the money the GAA paid for marketing last year and still have more money in the GAA marketing budget than some Olympic sports see in five years. It is just not a supportable argument to say that a very commercially successful sport like the GAA - which is damn close to being a monopoly, it's so large - should be allowed on the basis of its own internal rule about paying players, to have those players paid from the same dwindling supply of money that funds the smaller sports and allows people to have a range of sports to choose from (which in the long term benefits the state by reducing healthcare costs and increasing tourism revenue as well as boosting international image). It's just not right.

That's hardly the shock of the century. II'd wager that there's more intercounty GAA players out there than Olymic rifle shooters (or even including those anywhere near olympic qualification)

Should whomever is over the body that runs rifle shooting not take the €6m figure up with the government as a means of getting back some of what they give???

Hidalgo

Tom Joad wrote: »

I don't disagree with anything you are saying. I know absolutely nothing about your sport so am not going to try and insult anyone involved in shooting by claiming to know anything about it.

I highlighted the shooting forum debate as an example of posters being able to have an intelligent and proper debate without reverting to having a sneer at the GAA.

Any valid points to be made by Kiernan was always going to be lost in the hysteria of making insulting pops at GAA players which was taken up with glee on the Athletics forum by a minority of posters - it actually reflects badly on the hieracrchy of Athletics in this country.

If you ask the question where should €900k funding go the GAA or a minority sport where it is badly needed? the minority sport wins for me every day of the week.

But blame the Sports Council and the week minded politicians who came up with this funding structure/scheme and have the debate centered on that rather than the "lets have a pop at the unfit, flabby, beer swilling Gah players" shíte that's been thrown around.

I'd love to try my hand at shooting but doubt ye would have insurance enough to cover against the likes of me (unless ye have a stick him in the backs equivalent!!)

For me the funding should go where it will do the most good for the biggest amount and not simply to a minority sport because its a minority sport. No point in giving funding to a minority sport if said funding could benefit far more people of another code.

Sparks

bruschi wrote: »

You say the GAA is so large. It has more members I would assume than shooting clubs?

Correct, but that's a comparison that's almost utterly devoid of context...

It would generate more revenue for the state than shooting too?

In what way? VAT? I doubt we could compile accurate figures on that, but honestly, I don't think it'd be a difference that would be as much as you'd imagine. There aren't as many people in shooting as you'd see in the stands at GAA matches, but everyone in shooting actually shoots, so that's a lot of generated VAT on consumables and equipment and so forth. I'd reckon GAA would win the comparison; I just don't think it'd be as big a landslide as everyone would expect.

I dont have any figures at all to hand, but I would wager tha percentage wise, the 900k given back to GAA intercounty players, as a percentage against money generated to the state, is more than the money generated by shooting/athletics to the state.

But if you reduce this to simple investment and cost/benefit figures, you're going to get a monobloc sports culture very quickly in what becomes (pardon the pun) a race to the bottom. You need a diverse range of sports for people to choose from because not everyone finds football or hurling gets them out of bed on a sunday morning to go train; and without everyone having that drive, you don't get the social healthcare benefits of sport. And that's what the Sports Council is supposed to be maximising.

Now the flipside of that, and I would agree with you, is that because it is large, it can generate its own funds to pay the players. I wouldnt dispute that. But whilst you say that is 900k athletics etc lose out on, it is also 900k that local GAA clubs lose out on for their own clubs and developments for underage structures etc.

Lets be honest here; 900k would pay for an Olympic medal in shooting.
Straight up, no bull. We've had top ten Olympic finishes in the past decade as well as world championships won and world cups and european championships and all with sod all money. We've held our own against fully funded teams that don't have the legal obstacles we have here and who have far better facilities than we do and who get to start training five or six years earlier than we do. Fund those people who can do that with so little and you will see medals, it's as simple as that.

But that 900k can't go to underage facilities in the GAA because it's carding grant funding and is ringfenced for athletes - it goes to them directly, bypassing the NGB. So what you're saying is that 400 euro for every intercounty player (something that the GAA could pay out of its marketing budget alone without affecting a single sports development program at all according to its own figures), is worth more than an Olympic medal for Ireland.

Others might disagree with that value judgement. Strongly.

secondly, and is one item that annoys me greatly, is why should an event because it is international be given priority? Do Americans complain about American Football not having an international base so money shouldtn go there? Do Australians complain about Aussie Rules? Why should funds be diverted away from a sport because it isnt internationally competed at? It doesnt necessarily make it a better or more popular sport.

Nor does it necessarily make it elitist or snobbish, which seems to be the undertone here.

The other thing too, what sport in Ireland would you reckon generates more tourism interest? Again, I am only guessing, but I would wager that GAA attracts more tourists than other sports.

I think Golf and Rugby would beg to differ, but shooting (while small) can and does happily run international matches here and for the amount of money we're given, we just give more bang for the buck. But again, that's coming down to a commercial judgement and that's not what the ISC should be doing and it wasn't my point to suggest it was (my point, ironically, was that we got better return as a whole if we didn't do the sport-v-sport thing and instead funded in such a way as to give us the most diversity in available sports).

Sparks

aidan24326 wrote: »

(such as shooting, which no offence sparks but it has an interest level among the wider public that is close to zero).

...for various historical reasons that we could completely derail a thread with, and which are completely unique to Ireland. Go anywhere on the Continent or most of the rest of the world and you'd find that target shooting isn't a minority sport; it's one of the top four or five sports in the world (and many argue the top sport in terms of participation, but that's an argument for another thread).

Which sounds off-topic, but isn't; the point is that things are the way they ware for reasons of historical accident rather than intrinsic worth of the sport, so "we've always done it this way" isn't necessarily a valid reason for policy in sport.

Sparks

Hidalgo wrote: »

Should whomever is over the body that runs rifle shooting not take the €6m figure up with the government as a means of getting back some of what they give???

You might be surprised to learn that this has actually been mentioned once or twice before.

You might also be surprised to learn that the kind of reaction we have encountered is not one that any Olympic NGB should receive.

Suffice to say that in terms of sporting administration, one particular sports journalist was competely correct when she said that at or above the club management level, sports administration in Ireland is a crock of ****. (That's a direct quote, rather than a gratuitous expletive btw). And the higher up you go, the worse it gets. By the time you reach the zenith, you've really reached the nadir.

Tom Joad

Hidalgo wrote: »

For me the funding should go where it will do the most good for the biggest amount and not simply to a minority sport because its a minority sport. No point in giving funding to a minority sport if said funding could benefit far more people of another code.

I'm not saying it should be just given out with no rationale. Bodies should have to compete to win funding and it should be based on a proper evaluation.

In my view any funding from National Government i.e. taxpayers money should be clearly and demonstrably shown to be needed, based on the premise that a Government should only intervene where there is a clear need and to correct a wrong. That's something all systems of Government should be built on where taxpayers money is given out.

So in that scenario if I have 900k to give out in grant money and I get applications in from the GAA, the Shooting Association and lets say the angling federation for arguments sake. If all the applications stand up and have merit, for me I would give half to the shooting association and half to the angling federation as the GAA can survive without the funding and have a greater ability to leverage their own funding elsewhere e.g. via, lottos, fundraisers etc, etc.

If things were done properly and grants were based on the premise that the government need to intervene to correct a wrong, the GAA would never get the funding it would go to the minority sport. Minority sports would die out if they don't get a leg up from grant schemes as they could never survive without intervention and we would be a lot poorer as a society without minority sports. As not everyone is suited/interested in GAA/Rugby/Soccer etc there is a clear rationale for investing in minority sports and using funding to see can they contribute more to the economy. E.g. Is there any reason why this country couldn't be the home of angling etc, etc.

bruschi

Sparks wrote: »

Correct, but that's a comparison that's almost utterly devoid of context...


In what way? VAT? I doubt we could compile accurate figures on that, but honestly, I don't think it'd be a difference that would be as much as you'd imagine. There aren't as many people in shooting as you'd see in the stands at GAA matches, but everyone in shooting actually shoots, so that's a lot of generated VAT on consumables and equipment and so forth. I'd reckon GAA would win the comparison; I just don't think it'd be as big a landslide as everyone would expect.


But if you reduce this to simple investment and cost/benefit figures, you're going to get a monobloc sports culture very quickly in what becomes (pardon the pun) a race to the bottom. You need a diverse range of sports for people to choose from because not everyone finds football or hurling gets them out of bed on a sunday morning to go train; and without everyone having that drive, you don't get the social healthcare benefits of sport. And that's what the Sports Council is supposed to be maximising.

dont disagree with any of that. all I was trying to say was that for the amount of participants, and the popularity of it in general, as a percentage it isnt a lot. But as I sadi, the figure itself of €900k would probably be better spent elsewhere.

Sparks wrote: »

Lets be honest here; 900k would pay for an Olympic medal in shooting.
Straight up, no bull. We've had top ten Olympic finishes in the past decade as well as world championships won and world cups and european championships and all with sod all money. We've held our own against fully funded teams that don't have the legal obstacles we have here and who have far better facilities than we do and who get to start training five or six years earlier than we do. Fund those people who can do that with so little and you will see medals, it's as simple as that.

But that 900k can't go to underage facilities in the GAA because it's carding grant funding and is ringfenced for athletes - it goes to them directly, bypassing the NGB. So what you're saying is that 400 euro for every intercounty player (something that the GAA could pay out of its marketing budget alone without affecting a single sports development program at all according to its own figures), is worth more than an Olympic medal for Ireland.

Others might disagree with that value judgement. Strongly.

what I meant by the 900k, if that is taken away, and the GAA fund it itself, then you are taking away that money from grassroots and local clubs. you mention taking it away from its marketing. GAA marketing as it stands is shabby at best. There is a thread here about how poor it is, so I doubt it would help matters taking more away from it.

Sparks wrote: »

Nor does it necessarily make it elitist or snobbish, which seems to be the undertone here.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so I dont know what or who was being elitist or snobbish? All I am saying is that because a sport is international, it doesnt necessarily automatically entitle it to funds, which was a point JK also made in his illinformed rant.

Sparks wrote: »

I think Golf and Rugby would beg to differ, but shooting (while small) can and does happily run international matches here and for the amount of money we're given, we just give more bang for the buck. But again, that's coming down to a commercial judgement and that's not what the ISC should be doing and it wasn't my point to suggest it was (my point, ironically, was that we got better return as a whole if we didn't do the sport-v-sport thing and instead funded in such a way as to give us the most diversity in available sports).

fair point about rugby actually, as international and Heineken cup games would probably trounce GAA. Same for golf related specific holidays. I suppose what I meant was the casual tourist who comes to the country, what is it they want to go see? much like a tourist going to Australia who wants to take in one of their sports just for an occasion whilst away on holiday.

just as an aside to the whole GAA funding thing anyway, it seems to be thought that there is a huge amount of money in the sport and that it is being mis spent or as one deluded poster on here mentioned, given to the fatcats, but if you see underage teams, even at county level, they struggle big time to fund teams. there is still all voluntary coaches, fund raising by players to get gear for themselves, and just an overall sense of barely being able to field teams with so many financial restrictions being placed on them. Its not a wealthy sport by any means, and people involved in it dont make the fortune that some seem to think they do.

Hidalgo

Sparks wrote: »

Correct, but that's a comparison that's almost utterly devoid of context...


In what way? VAT? I doubt we could compile accurate figures on that, but honestly, I don't think it'd be a difference that would be as much as you'd imagine. There aren't as many people in shooting as you'd see in the stands at GAA matches, but everyone in shooting actually shoots, so that's a lot of generated VAT on consumables and equipment and so forth. I'd reckon GAA would win the comparison; I just don't think it'd be as big a landslide as everyone would expect.


But if you reduce this to simple investment and cost/benefit figures, you're going to get a monobloc sports culture very quickly in what becomes (pardon the pun) a race to the bottom. You need a diverse range of sports for people to choose from because not everyone finds football or hurling gets them out of bed on a sunday morning to go train; and without everyone having that drive, you don't get the social healthcare benefits of sport. And that's what the Sports Council is supposed to be maximising.



..

One area where GAA brings in far more money for the state is through the money created on matchdays.
Look at All Ireland final weekend, the amount that's spent on alcohol, accommodation, fuel, food etc. All this adds to the state coffers.

All this is really besides the point. For me the most important thing is that kids play sport of one kind or another, be it GAA, soccer, basketball, long jump or whatever your having yourself.
Teaches kids the benefits of hard work, team work and that's not even mentioning the health benefit considering the amount of obesity in this country

Tom Joad

Hidalgo wrote: »

All this is really besides the point. For me the most important thing is that kids play sport of one kind or another, be it GAA, soccer, basketball, long jump or whatever your having yourself.
Teaches kids the benefits of hard work, team work and that's not even mentioning the health benefit considering the amount of obesity in this country

Nail on the head there.

My contention would also be that the more choice you create by supporting sports that are considered minority sports the more chance you have of getting people involved.

Sparks

bruschi wrote: »

what I meant by the 900k, if that is taken away, and the GAA fund it itself, then you are taking away that money from grassroots and local clubs. you mention taking it away from its marketing. GAA marketing as it stands is shabby at best.

And yet the budget for marketing was over a million euro in 2011 according to the GAA figures. Hence my point that they could fund their players without going near money earmarked for actual sporting development.

I'm not sure what you mean here, so I dont know what or who was being elitist or snobbish? All I am saying is that because a sport is international, it doesnt necessarily automatically entitle it to funds, which was a point JK also made in his illinformed rant.

No, but it does increase both its operating costs and the breadth of the competition. With the best will in the world, and without taking away from his talent, would you be able to say that Colm Cooper is the best GAA footballer in the world if GAA football was played in every country in the world? There's always someone better, someone faster, someone stronger, regardless of sport; and the wider the competitive field, the higher the bar gets raised by. I think that was Kiernan's point - if he only had to compete in Ireland with a population of 4-odd million, statistics alone says he has an easier job to be the best in a sport here - any sport - than if he's competing against a population of 7 billion.

I don't think it's a point that quite merits the ad hominems we've seen (from either side, btw, the discussions in here have been very tame compared to stuff outside of boards.ie and the GAA side has not held back in getting the elbow in), but there's a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere.

How much it's worth and how it should figure into policy decisions is another argument altogether however. Personally, I'm just looking at the larger price tag that comes with international sports and comparing that to the their income and seeing a higher level of need.

I suppose what I meant was the casual tourist who comes to the country, what is it they want to go see?

In Ireland? I suspect the Vintner's Association beats every sporting NGB in the country put together!

but if you see underage teams, even at county level, they struggle big time to fund teams. there is still all voluntary coaches, fund raising by players to get gear for themselves, and just an overall sense of barely being able to field teams with so many financial restrictions being placed on them. Its not a wealthy sport by any means, and people involved in it dont make the fortune that some seem to think they do.

That's exactly what we would see in shooting for national teams training and going to win international medals for Ireland. And your small international matches run to about a grand to compete in per shooter; larger internationals would run to more. Training camps abroad come to about the same amount. I couldn't give you a figure for how much it cost to train fulltime for a year in rifle shooting because nobody's ever been able to do it, but our best guess for a full competitive season would be somewhere around twenty to thirty grand depending on how many world cups were held outside of continental europe. The total amount of kit for Olympic air rifle (the cheapest rifle shooting sport) would come to about five grand, and while the rile will last for many years, other expensive bits (eg. the shooting suit) would need to be replaced every year or two at that level which is about two grand when all is said and done and tailored and fitted. And that's all out of the pockets of people who are not earning vast amounts of money.

The world-class carding grant is €40k, give or take. I can name right off the top of my head three people who should be getting that and about five who should be getting a large chunk of that (ie. more than half) based solely on their current performances and abilities. People who're putting in medal-winning scores now who aren't winning medals because they can't afford to go away to win them, and who can't afford to train at this level all the time (so those names will change during the year, but it's always about the same number). I make one phone call to the clay pigeon guys I know in their high performance team, I can probably double that number, with the same caveats. So about six people with about ten snapping at their heels, all able to win medals in Olympic sports for Ireland, who just can't afford to do so. That we (as a state) don't throw money at that problem and reap the medals says just one thing to me - we're not actually interested in sport the way we claim to be...

Sparks

Hidalgo wrote: »

For me the most important thing is that kids play sport of one kind or another, be it GAA, soccer, basketball, long jump or whatever your having yourself.
Teaches kids the benefits of hard work, team work and that's not even mentioning the health benefit considering the amount of obesity in this country

This. Times a million. But it's an argument for funding in such a way as to create a diversity, which means funding sports that can't fund themselves (hopefully "yet") and leaving the larger behemoths take care of themselves.

bruschi

Sparks wrote: »

And yet the budget for marketing was over a million euro in 2011 according to the GAA figures. Hence my point that they could fund their players without going near money earmarked for actual sporting development.


No, but it does increase both its operating costs and the breadth of the competition. With the best will in the world, and without taking away from his talent, would you be able to say that Colm Cooper is the best GAA footballer in the world if GAA football was played in every country in the world? There's always someone better, someone faster, someone stronger, regardless of sport; and the wider the competitive field, the higher the bar gets raised by. I think that was Kiernan's point - if he only had to compete in Ireland with a population of 4-odd million, statistics alone says he has an easier job to be the best in a sport here - any sport - than if he's competing against a population of 7 billion.

I don't think it's a point that quite merits the ad hominems we've seen (from either side, btw, the discussions in here have been very tame compared to stuff outside of boards.ie and the GAA side has not held back in getting the elbow in), but there's a kernel of truth buried in there somewhere.

How much it's worth and how it should figure into policy decisions is another argument altogether however. Personally, I'm just looking at the larger price tag that comes with international sports and comparing that to the their income and seeing a higher level of need.


In Ireland? I suspect the Vintner's Association beats every sporting NGB in the country put together!


That's exactly what we would see in shooting for national teams training and going to win international medals for Ireland. And your small international matches run to about a grand to compete in per shooter; larger internationals would run to more. Training camps abroad come to about the same amount. I couldn't give you a figure for how much it cost to train fulltime for a year in rifle shooting because nobody's ever been able to do it, but our best guess for a full competitive season would be somewhere around twenty to thirty grand depending on how many world cups were held outside of continental europe. The total amount of kit for Olympic air rifle (the cheapest rifle shooting sport) would come to about five grand, and while the rile will last for many years, other expensive bits (eg. the shooting suit) would need to be replaced every year or two at that level which is about two grand when all is said and done and tailored and fitted. And that's all out of the pockets of people who are not earning vast amounts of money.

The world-class carding grant is €40k, give or take. I can name right off the top of my head three people who should be getting that and about five who should be getting a large chunk of that (ie. more than half) based solely on their current performances and abilities. People who're putting in medal-winning scores now who aren't winning medals because they can't afford to go away to win them, and who can't afford to train at this level all the time (so those names will change during the year, but it's always about the same number). I make one phone call to the clay pigeon guys I know in their high performance team, I can probably double that number, with the same caveats. So about six people with about ten snapping at their heels, all able to win medals in Olympic sports for Ireland, who just can't afford to do so. That we (as a state) don't throw money at that problem and reap the medals says just one thing to me - we're not actually interested in sport the way we claim to be...

but I think the last point shows the crux of the problem, all sports are underfunded, and no matter what happens, everyone is going to complain and champion their own preferred sport. I get the point that international sport will cost more because of the nature of travel etc, but I think JKs point is a bit moot because he thinks it is international so deserves more funding automatically. Indiginous sports shouldnt suffer because of that, and it isnt the case in many countries where indiginous sports are also the most popular and main funded sports.

I could give you similar examples of GAA teams and counties who if they had more money would have medal winning teams too, but for whatever reason the funding isnt there and its a pity, but its across every sport in every country.

Hidalgo makes the most valid point, that the more sport options we have for kids in partcular, the better. And I say that as someone who has pretty much played every sport possible within travelling distance (cant say I ever had a go at shooting tho ) and much to the disgust of my wife, will watch any sport possible on TV.

Hidalgo

Sparks wrote: »

This. Times a million. But it's an argument for funding in such a way as to create a diversity, which means funding sports that can't fund themselves (hopefully "yet") and leaving the larger behemoths take care of themselves.

If its funding then it would be political suicide for a minister/politician to direct funding towards a minority sport over a majority one.
Giving the funding to a local soccer pitch/redevelopment of GAA dressing rooms will garner far more votes for the 'local hero politician' who managed to get the funding.

Maybe wrong but that's simply the way it works

Sparks

bruschi wrote: »

I could give you similar examples of GAA teams and counties who if they had more money would have medal winning teams too, but for whatever reason the funding isnt there and its a pity, but its across every sport in every country.

But the difference there is that the funding is there - it's just being spent by the GAA on different things than core sporting items.
I personally wouldn't think the GAA athletes should be getting carding grants while their NGB is spending more money on non-core things like marketing than they would get in carding. It'd just be encouraging a very broken system to continue.

And again, in case the point was lost - we're talking here about carding which does not go to the NGB and therefore cannot be obtained and redirected to build new facilities for clubs or pay for coaching or whatever.

Either this money goes to the athletes directly, or it just doesn't get paid out at all, those are the rules of the carding grant system. I just don't think the GAA ought to be eligible for it while it's spending such vast amounts on non-core things. It'd just be bad financial management to do that.

bruschi

Sparks wrote: »

But the difference there is that the funding is there - it's just being spent by the GAA on different things than core sporting items.
I personally wouldn't think the GAA athletes should be getting carding grants while their NGB is spending more money on non-core things like marketing than they would get in carding. It'd just be encouraging a very broken system to continue.

And again, in case the point was lost - we're talking here about carding which does not go to the NGB and therefore cannot be obtained and redirected to build new facilities for clubs or pay for coaching or whatever.

Either this money goes to the athletes directly, or it just doesn't get paid out at all, those are the rules of the carding grant system. I just don't think the GAA ought to be eligible for it while it's spending such vast amounts on non-core things. It'd just be bad financial management to do that.

no, I get the carding point you are making, all I am saying is that if the GAA were to take that on themselves, that money then is directed away from other resources. So if they are to lose the grants, then I would be of the opinion that should be the end of it and players dont get that money anymore. I get where you are coming from on why they shouldnt be getting it, and like I say, I dont know why either, but they arent going to turn it down either. Its not their fault, but more the sports council, which is why JK should be directing his ire there.

with regards to the marketing point you make though, I'm sure many here think that the money there is not well spent at all, and should be vastly improved. there is a thread about it recently here if you do have any interest in reading the opinions, mostly of trolls though to be honest.