Dept of Sport Funding

spyderski

plodder wrote: »

So, what's your beef with them this time? Last time, it was because Enda Kenny was involved and they applied for a dept of health grant rather than a sports one, neither of which applies this time.

Please re-read the OP.

Chips Lovell

I'm none the wiser either. I think the implication is that anyone who didn't object to Islandeady getting a grant would balk at Wesley getting one. I'm not sure why they would/should though. But I may be reading it wrong.

benneca1

Spyderski clearly has a bee in his bonnet about grants in ministers constituencies. Againt there is no evidence of ministerial interference you are just muck raking. I have no liking for Ross but I don't believe he could have influenced it. Politicians jumping on the band wagon is nothing new If I recall correctly CJ Haughey made it to a TDF podium.

Hurrache

benneca1 wrote: »

Spyderski clearly has a bee in his bonnet about grants in ministers constituencies. Againt there is no evidence of ministerial interference you are just muck raking. I have no liking for Ross but I don't believe he could have influenced it. Politicians jumping on the band wagon is nothing new If I recall correctly CJ Haughey made it to a TDF podium.

The track record of grants and their amounts awarded in ministers constituencies suspiciously rise when the politician becomes the minister, some coincidence. The cute Kerry hoor (which one you may ask) former minister more or less said the reason local clubs got money was because of him and watch that gravy train end when he wasn't re-elected.

I also believe Wesley were initially rejected but on appeal they end up getting the maximum amount.

ted1

To be frank if he didn’t look after his constituents he should retire. He’s elected to look after them. Should ministers stop being TDs when appointed? maybe. But they are not, he is the elected represenitive if the constitution thst elected him. Albeit a very disappointing one. But that is how the system works

Hurrache

ted1 wrote: »

To be frank if he didn’t look after his constituents he should retire. He’s elected to look after them. Should ministers stop being TDs when appointed? maybe. But they are not, he is the elected represenitive if the constitution thst elected him. Albeit a very disappointing one. But that is how the system works

Gombeen politics.

Mattie500

Op has a perspective not widely shared on this one. The link between the allocation of money to a Cycling club in Mayo and a private school in Dublin is tenuous. Applications are scrutinised and succeed or fail on those making the application. GAA have a very wide base of participants (and skillful administrators) so I expect them to be high on the list. My attitude is that any funding for any sport is very welcome.. I think it sends the right message around health and well-being. Too bad a negative narrative is put forward around something I consider to be good for society.

lissard

Well success has many mothers and failure is an orphan. When we got our grant, all the local representatives came out of the woodwork and claimed credit. In fairness a couple of them had helped or at least seemed to be listening when we talked to them them. This is Ireland and you have to use your local representatives to help you get what you want. You can argue whether it is right or wrong. TDs end up pressuring the civil servants who are tasked with making the selection. I do wonder if it has any real effect on the outcome especially if everyone is following the same course of action. My own feeling is that the grant application has to be compelling enough in its own right to succeed.

brocbrocach

spyderski wrote: »

The point of my original post was to see if the people who were so vociferous on the cycling forum in their defence of the extremely suspicious awarding of grant funding to Islandeady Cycling Club would exhibit the same faith in the awarding of the grant to the private schools' hockey pitch.

It seems an obvious point and I agree entirely with you.
Shane Ross is connected to an institution that does extremely well in grant funding - major scandal, outrage abounds in newspapers, radio etc.
Enda Kenny is connected to an institution that does extremely well in grant funding - one solitary boards member seems to give a toss.

plodder

lissard wrote: »

Well success has many mothers and failure is an orphan. When we got our grant, all the local representatives came out of the woodwork and claimed credit. In fairness a couple of them had helped or at least seemed to be listening when we talked to them them. This is Ireland and you have to use your local representatives to help you get what you want. You can argue whether it is right or wrong. TDs end up pressuring the civil servants who are tasked with making the selection. I do wonder if it has any real effect on the outcome especially if everyone is following the same course of action. My own feeling is that the grant application has to be compelling enough in its own right to succeed.

Do they really though? They might say they had to pull out all the stops to make it happen, but maybe all they did was write a letter enquiring about it.

My guess would be that a TD who really pesters a civil servant will be sent off with a flea in their ear. We're long past the day when a TD can threaten a civil servant doing their job.

I find there is far too much perception of corruption and malpractice in this country, than there is really. If someone believes the system is rigged and they don't bother applying for a grant or they make a poor effort at it, then their belief becomes self-fulfilling when they end up with no grant.

1bryan

brocbrocach wrote: »

It seems an obvious point and I agree entirely with you.
Shane Ross is connected to an institution that does extremely well in grant funding - major scandal, outrage abounds in newspapers, radio etc.
Enda Kenny is connected to an institution that does extremely well in grant funding - one solitary boards member seems to give a toss.

I don't think anyone here was overly outraged by the wesley grant. It's perhaps a little eyebrow-raising, but on further reflection, is impossible to judge without doing so in the fullest context possible.

I don't see a difference between the 2 examples, albeit I don't know the detail of either. But, as someone else mentioned previously, I'm sure they both made very compelling cases and, as a result, were awarded their grant.

It's just a shame there isn't enough money to give to all worthy causes.

joey100

I work in a grant funding department, not sports based but the applications have to meet a lot of criteria to get the grant they apply for. It's not that hard but there is a bit of prep work for the organisations involved and we do not look for anything strange or anything they shouldn't really have like account information, policies that are needed to meet their legislative requirements tax clearance cert.

We do occasionally get enquiries from politicians about certain applications, doesn't really make a difference. Our department is regularly audited so we need to make sure that all the applications meet the requirements. Regularly see the politicians then say they helped get the grant for the organisation but in reality they had nothing to do with it. A lot of time though they just know how the system works and what's required and help the organisation prepare their application. All it does it speed up the process a little as we usually don't have to go looking for supporting documents and generally they are just completed to a higher standard, but they still have to meet the same requirements as every other application.

Felexicon

plodder wrote: »

Do they really though? They might say they had to pull out all the stops to make it happen, but maybe all they did was write a letter enquiring about it.

My guess would be that a TD who really pesters a civil servant will be sent off with a flea in their ear. We're long past the day when a TD can threaten a civil servant doing their job.

I find there is far too much perception of corruption and malpractice in this country, than there is really. If someone believes the system is rigged and they don't bother applying for a grant or they make a poor effort at it, then their belief becomes self-fulfilling when they end up with no grant.

I don't think anyone is saying a TD would threaten a Civil Servant over issuing a grant but you can't say that if the Minister for Sport rang the Civil Servant in charge of issuing Sports grants to inquire about an application from a club in his constituency that it would not have any impact. Now you can argue over the intentions of said Minister making that call.

Weepsie

The cycling one was problematic as they applied to a fund they were not supposed to get funding from, and their application should have been disregarded at the first step as such. It wouldn't have been an issue had it come from the sports fund however. Not going to get into it again.

This one raises eyebrows for different reasons. There are vast inequalities around right now, that are only getting worse. That a school that has an awful lot of good facilities already, has large fees and entirely inaccessible to the vast majority of kids/families can get the award is what bugs people.

Loretto have received the grant to resurface their pitch for the 2nd time in 12 years. These pitches should apparently be replaced between 8-15 years so that's not necessarily bad going, but I guess people wonder why 250K and 150K should be used to fund the activities of a small number of people.


That said Hockey is also a sport at which Ireland have either gradually improved and or consistently performed over the last 15 years with the Mens team now ranked 10th and the Womens 16th in the world.

With that said, it's a worthy investment, it just looks bad due to the connotations of the being attached to the fee paying school, and Mr. Ross. I sincerely hope he loses his seat, but he's going to get a ministerial pension now anyway. He likely does not care.

magicbastarder

given the history of irish politics, i think most people understand why many people would be sceptical about whether irish politicians do or do not interfere in processes which should supposedly ignore their entreaties.

Felexicon

I'd like to see the answer to this question for some of the projects that received funding

ted1

Weepsie wrote: »

.

, but I guess people wonder why 250K and 150K should be used to fund the activities of a small number of people..
.

250k is less than the price of a council house in Dublin. Which is giving to a single mother and her child.

I don’t have an issue with some of the countries money being distributed for use by other people in the country who don’t normally see any benefits to their taxes

magicbastarder

They don't 'give' them the house. They allow them to live in it.

ted1

magicbastarder wrote: »

They don't 'give' them the house. They allow them to live in it.

For life and their family can stay in it it they buy it for a token value. Either way the cost to the state for the mother and child is a lot more then 150k for sports grant which will be used by several hundred if not thousands of people.

Carawaystick

Article in de paper about how Neptune Stadium scored 0 for being in a disadvantaged area despite being within 500m of 4 DEIS schools :rolleyes:

benneca1

magicbastarder wrote: »

given the history of irish politics, i think most people understand why many people would be sceptical about whether irish politicians do or do not interfere in processes which should supposedly ignore their entreaties.

Thats exactly how it works the politicians ask a banal question the civil servants give the stock answer (the process is in train and cannot be discussed) the politician then can truthfully say they followed up the matter and if successful they claim a part of the credit and if the application is rejected they talk about the independence of the process. I wouldn't get too het up about it. The serious issue is that most grants and tenders fail because they didn't address all the requirements. Bit like the leaving cert answer the question and answer all parts if you leave anything out you are immediately being marked out of eighty or seventy etc as the case may be.