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

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.

tritium

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.

Just to be clear, you’re fine with some counties having incomes that’s many millions greater than other counties. That’s many multiples of other counties

Just once that county isn’t dublin

MayoAreMagic

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

Well, I dont want you to take it the wrong way either, nor is it personal, but those figures are deliberately misleading. Fair play to enquiring, he has taken the time to debunk your point, I wouldnt have bothered tbh. The points the gaa official made have been shown to be disingenuous, why anyone of a reasonable mind would be chastising connellan in respect to that fact, I do not know.

It would suggest you arent really looking at the thing objectively, but rather you are hearing what you want to hear. In all honesty, if that is the approach then what is the point in even listening/reading it?

Also, connellan has little vested interest in this and has little to gain from it. The other lad is a different story. Turkeys wont vote for christmas, be they dublin gaa fans or gaa officials with lofty personal ambitions.

Enquiring

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.

Oh I agree with spending caps as well as pooled sponsorship. Some counties are already spending close to 4 million on player development, I think a more balanced system is required.

Enquiring

tritium wrote: »

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.

Kildare won their first u20/u21 All Ireland title for decades. Meath won their first Leinster minor in a decade. Wicklow beat Dublin in an underage football game for the first time in how long?

Similarly, player development in Dublin had an immediate impact. Their first ever u21 All Ireland in football, followed soon by underage success in hurling and football that was unheard of pre funding.

MayoAreMagic

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 AIGs of this world

So they would sulk and do a crappy job? Sounds like they are dublin gaa people, rather than gaa people. Anyone doing so could always be replaced by someone willing to do their job I suppose.
Id imagine some joined up thinking, with the gaa being sold as an entity, would get far larger deals than dublin or anyone else would alone. Again, thinly veiled threats about earning power arent going to dissuade the debate. There was a gaa before dublin inc. There can be one after them too.

Enquiring

tritium wrote: »

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

Part if their role is to get access to kids at a young age to coach skills and encourage club involvement. Of course that's very beneficial to standards in Dublin but the main role of the coach is within the clubs themselves. That's were the elite standards get raised.

Enquiring

tritium wrote: »

Just to be clear, you’re fine with some counties having incomes that’s many millions greater than other counties. That’s many multiples of other counties

Just once that county isn’t dublin

I don't know where you have picked that up from? Certainly not the post you quoted. You need to drop the victim complex. As has been explained, this is not anti Dublin, this is pro fair play but as this thread is about Dublin, I think noting that they have a yearly income of many millions more than their competitors is fair.

tritium

Enquiring wrote: »

Part if their role is to get access to kids at a young age to coach skills and encourage club involvement. Of course that's very beneficial to standards in Dublin but the main role of the coach is within the clubs themselves. That's were the elite standards get raised.

You really have no idea of how a gdo works in a dublin club do you?

I mean a real idea, not a line you pulled from an internet article because it seemed to prove your point for a message board.

Have you ever actually been involved with a club in dublins and seen how it works?

Enquiring

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Well, I dont want you to take it the wrong way either, nor is it personal, but those figures are deliberately misleading. Fair play to enquiring, he has taken the time to debunk your point, I wouldnt have bothered tbh. The points the gaa official made have been shown to be disingenuous, why anyone of a reasonable mind would be chastising connellan in respect to that fact, I do not know.

It would suggest you arent really looking at the thing objectively, but rather you are hearing what you want to hear. In all honesty, if that is the approach then what is the point in even listening/reading it?

Also, connellan has little vested interest in this and has little to gain from it. The other lad is a different story. Turkeys wont vote for christmas, be they dublin gaa fans or gaa officials with lofty personal ambitions.

That's a really fair point. You don't become the Leinster council chairman by going up against Dublin, nevermind moving up higher. The Leinster council has a lot to answer for in all this.

Somehow funding a few other counties in Leinster is solving all the issues now. Every other county can rest assured, the problem is being sorted by not giving you appropriate funding and continuing to fund Dublin.

ooter

How is giving out accurate population figures that donnellan didn't have disingenuous?

tritium

Enquiring wrote: »

That's a really fair point. You don't become the Leinster council chairman by going up against Dublin, nevermind moving up higher. The Leinster council has a lot to answer for in all this.

Somehow funding a few other counties in Leinster is solving all the issues now. Every other county can rest assured, the problem is being sorted by not giving you appropriate funding and continuing to fund Dublin.

Ah yeah here we go so, we must be in the endgame of the thread

All a conspiracy- check
Sinister forces in the Leinster council -check
References to vested interests - check

The Illuminati’ should be along any minute now

tritium

ooter wrote: »

How is giving out accurate population figures that donnellan didn't have disingenuous?

As far as I can find the only real point of contention with teehans numbers is whether the dublin money from sports ireland was ringfenced. Connellan has tried to imply it’s a huge deal but to be honest it’s not since it only goes to a timing of when the funding could have been redistributed, which is a live question anyway and one that I think most dublin posters would concede to some extent at least

Enquiring

tritium wrote: »

You really have no idea of how a gdo works in a dublin club do you?

I mean a real idea, not a line you pulled from an internet article because it seemed to prove your point for a message board.

Have you ever actually been involved with a club in dublins and seen how it works?

I have been involved in a club in Dublin and I know current and former GPO's. I know exactly what role they do and the huge benefits of it.

I don't use anecdotal evidence however. The Dublin county board strategic manager has outlined the roll of the coaches. It's not some random quote from some random person.

ShyMets

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

So they would sulk and do a crappy job? Sounds like they are dublin gaa people, rather than gaa people. Anyone doing so could always be replaced by someone willing to do their job I suppose.
Id imagine some joined up thinking, with the gaa being sold as an entity, would get far larger deals than dublin or anyone else would alone. Again, thinly veiled threats about earning power arent going to dissuade the debate. There was a gaa before dublin inc. There can be one after them too.

It was not a thinly veined threat. I merely pointed a potential issue which may or may not arise.

They can be a GAA after Dublin could be construed as a thinly veiled threat

Enquiring

tritium wrote: »

Ah yeah here we go so, we must be in the endgame of the thread

All a conspiracy- check
Sinister forces in the Leinster council -check
References to vested interests - check

The Illuminati’ should be along any minute now

I think you want this thread to be ended as the facts have absolutely obliterated any argument that defends the financial disparity.

tritium

Enquiring wrote: »

I think you want this thread to be ended as the facts have absolutely obliterated any argument that defends the financial disparity.

Hey I’m happy to keep going, I’m not on the side that’s being reduced to conspiracy theories and talk of vested interests

Which may be understandable given that all the split arguments have been demolished at this point and there’s really a small group determined to do an Alamo on it left

Enquiring

tritium wrote: »

Hey I’m happy to keep going, I’m not on the side that’s being reduced to conspiracy theories and talk of vested interests

Which may be understandable given that all the split arguments have been demolished at this point and there’s really a small group determined to do an Alamo on it left

How can we have fair competitions with Dublin having an annual income of 5 or 6 million more than most other counties? Can you answer that question without any whataboutery or deflection?

tritium

Enquiring wrote: »

How can we have fair competitions with Dublin having an annual income of 5 or 6 million more than most other counties? Can you answer that question without any whataboutery or deflection?

The same way you seem to think it’s been a fair competition with Kerry and Mayo having 2 to 3 x the income of their competitors I guess. The same way you seem to think it’s been a fair competition when Kerry’s 2019 income appears to be on par or better than dublins. The same way you think it’s been a fair competition when some counties have had 30 years of lucrative commercial arrangements.