The Dominance of Dublin GAA *Mod warning post#1*

MayoAreMagic

ArielAtom wrote: »

As has been pointed out, preparation is essential if you are going to debate. John did little or no preparation and thought he could blag his way through it. He got schooled. That is a fact. PPPPPP.

No it isnt a fact. It is complete finction truth be told. You got the name right, that is about it.
As for preperation, how do you prepare for a figment of someone elses imagination? Regardless of your views of this topic, no gaa official should be doing that, it reflects very badly on the association as far as im concerned

MayoAreMagic

dobman88 wrote: »

What's the East Leinster project for then?

A bit of window dressing that will change nothing.
Any analysis of the differences in scale at play will tell you that.

dobman88

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

bit of window dressing that eill change nothing.
Any analysis of the differences in scale at play will tell you that.

Of course it's not. It has only started and will take time for any noticeable difference to appear. So it is being addressed.

Enquiring

dobman88 wrote: »

He does. Nice to see you row back on your assertion. It shows me you may be able to be reasoned with which is quite surprising so fair play.

I didn't row back so take back that reasoned claim. He said the championship so he could have meant either but it's a step in the right direction in any case.

MayoAreMagic

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

1. Provincial council officers would have access to real time financial info for year, GAA members would not

2. Evidence for their accuracy?

They werent real time figures.

Why werent you asking for accuracy when it was claimed they disproved connellan?

Enquiring

dobman88 wrote: »

Of course it's not. It has only started and will take time for any noticeable difference to appear. So it is being addressed.

It's a very limited program which still includes Dublin and a few other counties. If that's addressing it then we're all in very bad shape.

dobman88

Enquiring wrote: »

It's a very limited program which still includes Dublin and a few other counties. If that's addressing it then we're all in very bad shape.

It's a start and better than what had been happening tbf. Like everything, it'll take time to get there.

rebel girl 15

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

No it isnt a fact. It is complete finction truth be told. You got the name right, that is about it.
As for preperation, how do you prepare for a figment of someone elses imagination? Regardless of your views of this topic, no gaa official should be doing that, it reflects very badly on the association as far as im concerned

Took me 15 minutes to find and collate this data - I don't want you or any of the posters to take this the wrong way, but you simply don't have a clue about how the upper echelon's of GAA business work. You go in prepared - you trawl through everything available to you, you use any contacts you have to get the info - 2019 accounts were available for him to go through. 2020 should be out soon given that Congress was last weekend.

2019 GAA accounts
Leinster counties paid €2,791,599 in Games Development
Latest census figures 1,285,318 people
€2.17 per head of population

Dublin paid 1,337,630 in Games Development
Latest census 1,345,402 people
€0.99 per head of population

Enquiring

dobman88 wrote: »

It's a start and better than what had been happening tbf. Like everything, it'll take time to get there.

To think it will get there, you have to ignore that Dublin have increased their income to incredible levels off the back of their increased success. Other Leinster counties are 5 and 6 million behind on yearly income, even the counties within the East Leinster project are in that bracket and the gap is increasing!

Do we seriously want our competitions to slip further into those who can gain access to huge resources v those who can't? This is not the GAA I want and I'm of the belief that many others would agree with me.

ooter

Yeah donnellan said on the gaa hour the figures he hadn't seen before were population figures, surely he could've had them before going in to an interview with the Leinster council chairman?

rebel girl 15

dobman88 wrote: »

Of course it's not. It has only started and will take time for any noticeable difference to appear. So it is being addressed.

To people hell bent on knocking Dublin off their perk, they don't understand this concept.

It will take time, but it will happen. Can take 5-10 years for investment in structures (and note I'm not saying just money here, as money doesn't buy success) to come to the fore.

It isn't the GAA they have a problem with, its Sports Ireland - who funded a lot of the Dublin project.

Again, change in the GAA takes a lot of time, but they don't acknowledge that the GAA funding of Dublin has actually changed, with Leinster increasing. No acknowledgment of the article where they have said that actually the funding has changed, but just use it to wave around saying yes, Dublin were funded etc

dobman88

Enquiring wrote: »

To think it will get there, you have to ignore that Dublin have increased their income to incredible levels off the back of their increased success. Other Leinster counties are 5 and 6 million behind on yearly income, even the counties within the East Leinster project are in that bracket and the gap is increasing!

Do we seriously want our competitions to slip further into those who can gain access to huge resources v those who can't? This is not the GAA I want and I'm of the belief that many others would agree with me.

Other counties will increase theirs when they become successful. It's all cyclical. Sure even cork have a big new sponsor now. It's up to each county to go and get that. If Dublin get 1 million or 100 million from aig or whoever, that's just between them and the sponsor.

Spending caps on county teams would do more to level the playing field besides trying to hamper sponsorship a county can generate.

rebel girl 15

ooter wrote: »

Yeah donnellan said on the gaa hour the figures he hadn't seen before were population figures, surely he could've had them before going in to an interview with the Leinster council chairman?

I got them very easily, so could Donnellan

dobman88

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Took me 15 minutes to find and collate this data - I don't want you or any of the posters to take this the wrong way, but you simply don't have a clue about how the upper echelon's of GAA business work. You go in prepared - you trawl through everything available to you, you use any contacts you have to get the info - 2019 accounts were available for him to go through. 2020 should be out soon given that Congress was last weekend.

2019 GAA accounts
Leinster counties paid €2,791,599 in Games Development
Latest census figures 1,285,318 people
€2.17 per head of population

Dublin paid 1,337,630 in Games Development
Latest census 1,345,402 people
€0.99 per head of population

:pac:

Is John Connellan posting as MayoAreMagic?? Schooled.

rebel girl 15

dobman88 wrote: »

Other counties will increase theirs when they become successful. It's all cyclical. Sure even cork have a big new sponsor now. It's up to each county to go and get that. If Dublin get 1 million or 100 million from aig or whoever, that's just between them and the sponsor.

Spending caps on county teams would do more to level the playing field besides trying to hamper sponsorship a county can generate.

100% agree with that piece in bold.

Why does Dublin get the biggest jersey sponsorship? Because they have the biggest market - that's never going to change.

Enquiring

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

Took me 15 minutes to find and collate this data - I don't want you or any of the posters to take this the wrong way, but you simply don't have a clue about how the upper echelon's of GAA business work. You go in prepared - you trawl through everything available to you, you use any contacts you have to get the info - 2019 accounts were available for him to go through. 2020 should be out soon given that Congress was last weekend.

2019 GAA accounts
Leinster counties paid €2,791,599 in Games Development
Latest census figures 1,285,318 people
€2.17 per head of population

Dublin paid 1,337,630 in Games Development
Latest census 1,345,402 people
€0.99 per head of population

The 2020 figures are already up. Dublin received 20% of the games development funding last year.

The per capita argument is a disingenuous one. First of all Dublin received more in relation to that measure for nearly 2 decades but as we know, the funding wasnt divided per capita. Everyone else received in and around the same. Antrim, Leitrim, Wexford, Tipperary, whoever, no major gaps at all. From Cork as the second highest and Fermanagh in last, the gap was quite small. Everyone received enough to gain access to between 1 and 6 coaches. An example to show the per capita analysis is nonsense is comparing Dublin with Cork. In 2019, Cork had around the same number of youth teams and players and a wider area to cover yet only had access to 7 coaches.

The second part of this being a poor measure is that the games development funding is for children under 18 and particularly those registered to clubs. Dublin have had 30,000 and under children aged between 8-18 registered to clubs since this scheme came into action in 2002. They saw the main benefit of the coaches as they were hired by clubs.

Another part that can't be ignored. Following the increased success on the field from the coaching scheme, Dublin increased their income off it. Dublin spend between 3.5 million and 4 million in total on games development now. The 2 decade head start has had an enormous impact.

Enquiring

dobman88 wrote: »

Other counties will increase theirs when they become successful. It's all cyclical. Sure even cork have a big new sponsor now. It's up to each county to go and get that. If Dublin get 1 million or 100 million from aig or whoever, that's just between them and the sponsor.

Spending caps on county teams would do more to level the playing field besides trying to hamper sponsorship a county can generate.

Well you obviously don't mind continuing on a road where it's about gaining access to huge resources in order to compete. That's fair enough but I'd be hopeful that the majority wouldn't agree with that.

Enquiring

dobman88 wrote: »

:pac:

Is John Connellan posting as MayoAreMagic?? Schooled.

Au contraire.

ooter

There must be at least 200,000 children under 18 in Dublin, that's an awful lot more than 30,000.

ShamoBuc

ooter wrote: »

There must be at least 200,000 children under 18 in Dublin, that's an awful lot more than 30,000.

Around 170,000 I'd say.

Enquiring

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Around 170,000 I'd say.

But under 30,00 registered players aged between 8 and 18. These would have the main impact on elite standards. This is not to say that the nurseries and schools coaching has not had a positive impact also.

ooter

ShamoBuc wrote: »

Around 170,000 I'd say.

I seen figures on another forum of 168,000 in 2016 for 4 to 14 year olds so just assumed it would have been higher for under 18s.

ShamoBuc

ooter wrote: »

I seen figures on another forum of 168,000 in 2016 for 4 to 14 year olds so just assumed it would have been higher for under 18s.

Could well be, a lot of children might not be registered though.

But all of them would still be getting the coaching and training in schools of course, so the effect of monies spent on this is obviously having an effect on the higher figure.

dobman88

Enquiring wrote: »

Well you obviously don't mind continuing on a road where it's about gaining access to huge resources in order to compete. That's fair enough but I'd be hopeful that the majority wouldn't agree with that.

You must have missed the 2nd part of my post and it makes a lot of sense. So I'll post it again.

Spending caps on county teams would do more to level the playing field besides trying to hamper sponsorship a county can generate.

That way, you limit what counties spend on teams and instead they can put any surplus into developing facilities and the like. No team should be punished or have their sponsorship stopped after going out to get it.

tritium

rebel girl 15 wrote: »

To people hell bent on knocking Dublin off their perk, they don't understand this concept.

It will take time, but it will happen. Can take 5-10 years for investment in structures (and note I'm not saying just money here, as money doesn't buy success) to come to the fore.

It isn't the GAA they have a problem with, its Sports Ireland - who funded a lot of the Dublin project.

Again, change in the GAA takes a lot of time, but they don't acknowledge that the GAA funding of Dublin has actually changed, with Leinster increasing. No acknowledgment of the article where they have said that actually the funding has changed, but just use it to wave around saying yes, Dublin were funded etc

Equally there’s no acknowledgement that the dublin project itself took time to yield results. The dublin structures took years to yield benefits yet there are posters trying to attribute success back in the early noughties to funding. There seems to be his idea that if you throw money at games development it yields overnight results, which bizarrely enough is the mindset that the dublin project appears to have been designed to prevent.

ShyMets

dobman88 wrote: »

You must have missed the 2nd part of my post and it makes a lot of sense. So I'll post it again.

Spending caps on county teams would do more to level the playing field besides trying to hamper sponsorship a county can generate.

That way, you limit what counties spend on teams and instead they can put any surplus into developing facilities and the like. No team should be punished or have their sponsorship stopped after going out to get it.

One potential issue with pooled sponsorship is it may generate less money then envisaged.

If teams teams know sponsorship will be pooled they may be less inclined to seek out blue chip sponsors.

I'm not suggesting teams would purposely get a bad deal. But the likes of Dublin may not be inclined to target AIGs of this world

dobman88

ShyMets wrote: »

One potential issue with pooled sponsorship is it may generate less money then envisaged.

If teams teams know sponsorship will be pooled they may be less inclined to seek out blue chip sponsors.

I'm not suggesting teams would purposely get a bad deal. But the likes of Dublin may not be inclined to target the likes of AIG

Exactly. Why would they bother if they're going to be punished for doing so. If a county is unhappy with the deal they have it's up to the board to negotiate a new one or go find a different sponsor. I remember some Westmeath lad complaining they had to pay for shorts or something. God forbid a player would pay 20 quid for an essential piece of kit. If that player wants free shorts, approach the county board and tell them to get it in the sponsorship deal.

It's all very simple really.

tritium

Enquiring wrote: »

But under 30,00 registered players aged between 8 and 18. These would have the main impact on elite standards. This is not to say that the nurseries and schools coaching has not had a positive impact also.

Except that the idea of games development is to develop the games amongst your full catchment rather than just registered players......

That’s why gdos go to the schools I guess

rebel girl 15

dobman88 wrote: »

Exactly. Why would they bother if they're going to be punished for doing so. If a county is unhappy with the deal they have it's up to the board to negotiate a new one or go find a different sponsor. I remember some Westmeath lad complaining they had to pay for shorts or something. God forbid a player would pay 20 quid for an essential piece of kit. If that player wants free shorts, approach the county board and tell them to get it in the sponsorship deal.

It's all very simple really.

Its how a county board structures a kit sponsorship deal. Nothing stopping counties having a primary sponsor for the jersey and secondary sponsors for leisurewear. Player reps should negotiate the leisurewear allocation before a season starts so it is budgeted for - in that case it doesn't seem to have been well negotiated or thought out

ArielAtom

A spending cap is interesting. I have to say I would be in agreement. There are some elements that need to be factored in, such as travel for country lads working away. That would be outside the team preparation. It would need to be monitored, as some fairly high profile county lads openly admitted to abusing it by 4/5 lads in one car and all claiming travel expenses.