blanch152 wrote: » Vanity projects versus mass juvenile participation. Dublin have chosen the latter, and for that I am delighted.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I find this post somewhat ironic. Considering this whole thread was instigated due to an obsession with Dublin, by those predominately outside Dublin. In answer to your question those other counties get mentioned because some view them all as the nearest/former competitors to Dublin - in Leinster and outside Leinster. Personally I do not have Mayo on that list anymore Kerry have usurped them. Also I would include Donegal in the list for sure. Meath are only ever mentioned in the context of mismanagement from a position of strength. I know first hand from a cousin ingrained in Meath GAA that things were let slide gradually over a number of years in Meath. Kildare are another example. People mention Dublin's dominance in Leinster - but never seem to question how the former great traditional leinster counties Meath/Kildare have fared in the qualifiers or outside leinster or super 8's? That cannot be blamed on Dublin.
Strumms wrote: » Parnell Park has a published capacity of 13,499. Therefore not fit for purpose. Because of its location is not suitable for expansion. To suit the ‘Dublin not in croker’ brigade should the Dubs invest millions in building ANOTHER stadium ? Enabling Croke Park to become a white elephant with about four to six games and one concert per year ? A facility not exactly overburdened as it is just seeing say 8-10 days of usage out of 365 if you include potential replays and gigs etc ? That’s not a good scenario. A stadium operational for one day every 52 on average. Look at building or expanding stadiums outside Dublin. Though do Parc Ui Caoimh or Semple require expansion for their usage and demand for tickets ? No easy solution, the more it’s looked at the status quo seems while not perfect, the lesser ‘evil’ certainly...
bruschi wrote: » But again, a poster from Roscommon makes a point and in response he gets some guff about the Kerry group and yerra. Which has what to do with his point? This isnt a Dublin dominance thread about their nearest competitors, this is about all the other counties wanting to be afforded the same funding and coaching opportunities that up until recently were 100% only given to Dublin and now only have a minuscule amount of counties who have partial access to it.
tritium wrote: » Nah, if you were pro Gaelic games you’d have explained how you plan to make the leitrims of this world successful Instead you’ve explained how you’d make Kerry the top dog again on the back of all the historic advantages they’ve built up over weaker counties.
kyote00 wrote: » Incorrect. They don't get millions more.
blanch152 wrote: » I have previously posted this reply to you outlining Kerry's unfair advantages for over a century, yet you ignore it in your replies and keep spouting nonsense.
omega man wrote: » @gaffer91 your cherry picked responses are weak at best. I’ve seen no evidence from you which even slightly backs up your financial doping claims. Can I ask if the answer to your problem is ‘split dublin’ then how does that address your funding or croke Park advantage complaints?
Floppybits wrote: » Some folk really have taken Dublin winning 5 in a row well, you'd be worried about them. I wonder the response be the same if any other county won 5 in a row or is it just Dublin?
mountgomery burns wrote: » Think it was 16 championship games. 9 league games then as well plus 3 concerts I think. Take Dublin out of there bar the neutral game in Super 8s, Leinster Final and All Ireland Semi and final and it would be 14 championship and 5 league games so 19 games in total this year (albeit league hurling final and quarter finals usually wouldn't be held there). And at that would be by a distance most used stadium for County games. And you know what I forgot the club finals ( intermediate and junior as well not just Paddy's Day) and also lower tier hurling finals. Not sure I have much position on the argument in general only that yeah it is an advantage. No harm highlighting it but not a caveat to 5 in a row.
omega man wrote: » @gaffer91 you still haven’t provided any evidence of financial doping. You just waffle on repeating the same bitter begrudging crap.
omega man wrote: » What would be the loss of revenue for the gaa in taking dublin out for all those games? Croke Park would be empty most of the year. Who benefits from this? How many thousands of fans will miss out on seeing these games due to Parnell Parks capacity? Dublin have at least 10K season ticket holders if not more.
Happyilylost wrote: » 10,000 season ticket holders??? Seriously lads let's try and stick to some sort of facts.https://www.wearedublin.com/football/dublin-supporters-outnumber-tyrone-fans/https://www.irishexaminer.com › ... Web results Dublin fans could outnumber their Omagh hosts on Saturday - Irish Examiner More or less same article from two sources putting the figure no where near 10,000. Be impossible for the Gaa to allow numbers to reach that amount with the number of small stadiums around the country.
omega man wrote: There are DCB ‘Parnell pass’ season tickets as well as separate GAA Dublin season tickets.
Happyilylost wrote: » Mentioned in both articles
gaffer91 wrote: » It's been provided many times- see the charts Gachla and gormdubhgorm posted for an easily digestible and understandable snapshot of how Dublin successes at all grades in all codes have improved hugely since the financial doping started in the early 2000s (from a relatively successful base too). See how Leinster has been destroyed. See how Dublin have won 6 of the last 7 All-Irelands. Again there is no begrudgery- I have no problem with success, just with success coming from an unfair platform, as Dublin's does. No animosity towards Dubs either. I just want the appropriate steps to be taken to ensure the survival of the game we all love- these steps will have to include splitting Dublin.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Again you are deliberately using my username to take my post out of context of any real analysis.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » You have yet to provided actual evidence that more funding = success in the GAA.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Where exactly has this money contributed to the improvement of players?
gormdubhgorm wrote: » You seem to be under misguided impression that funding is the sole reason for Dublin footballs success.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Look at intercounty hurling, club football your argument falls apart - I won't repeat all those again
gormdubhgorm wrote: » You seem to still be of the misguided believe that more funding equates to success automatically. Therefore if is some form of 'doping'.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » By the very fact you use the phrase 'financial doping' indicates a lack of knowledge by you on how the GAA works, and clearly indicates that you have a high level of begrudgery despite your faux protestations to the contrary.
gaffer91 wrote: » You did post several charts and they did indeed show that Dublin's title count has drastically increased. I didn't comment on your "analysis" because it was a load of wordy garbage and it was irrelevant to the point I was making. I'd qualify that and say more funding = more success, not necessarily a guaranteed victory in every code and every level every single year. But the actual evidence you seek has been provided many times, you have just chosen to disregard it as you are a biased Dublin supporter with your head in the sand. You'd rather see the inter-county game ruined than the playing field leveled- not a true supporter of Gaelic games in other words. Many ways- enhanced backroom teams, improved development of talented players, improved standard of Dublin club competitions and many many more ways. You realise the argument you are making is that money has no impact on sporting results- it's absolutely absurd. Why do you keep repeating this lie? I've said numerous times that funding isn't the sole reason. Please stop lying so much. It actually enhanced my argument, that's probably why you won't repeat it. Not automatic i.e the money would have to be spent well. Dublin do seem to have done this in fairness. Although we're not talking peanuts here, we're talking tens of millions of euro. "Financial doping" is a good term as it implies that the Dublin success is unfair, not attainable or replicable by any other county and gives them an unfair advantage on every other county. It also implies that they wouldn't have had this level of success without the money. All of this is completely true. I think I may understand a little bit more about the GAA, and sport in general, than people who think funding is irrelevant so sporting outcomes in the 21st century, that home pitch advantage doesn't matter and that having a playing pool 6 times the average doesn't confer any advantage. Any of those things individually would be a huge benefit but taken together you have the perfect storm for endless Dublin dominance. And seriously- you and all Dublin fans should realise how tiresome this victim act is. You've been favoured hugely by the organisation and still you whinge.
tritium wrote: » But dublin had to be funded- they’d actually underachieved up to that point, partially, in football at least, due to the financial and administrative doping of the Kerry juggernaut over the decades but also due to wanton neglect of dublin as a fanbase. The only question now it’s worked to an extent (albeit it’s hard to say how emphatic a success it is as the result is blurred by the once in a lifetime talent that was in dublin at the same time) is how do we roll out a funding and development plan on a transferable way to other counties. Basically we should be aiming to move away from the historical model of the past hundred years where no one questions one team effectively being basically dropped into the AI at semi final stage almost every year and hovering up >60% of provincial titles to one where each province has 3-4 strong teams with a chance of winning. Splitting dublin is way down the list of actions to achieve that
tritium wrote: » I assume you’ll agree that the “financial doping” of Kerry over the decades is also unfair then even though they’ve also spent money well (and used the administrative advantages well also)
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Also applying term 'financial doping' to the Dublin GAA or any form of GAA is laughable in the exteme. Even looking at the defintion from Collins dictiionaryhttps://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/financial-doping " financial doping noun sport 1. the situation in which a sports franchise borrows heavily in order to contract and pay high-performing players, jeopardizing their long-term financial future 2. the situation in which the owner of a sports franchise invests his or her own personal wealth into securing high-performing players, rather than relying on the revenue the franchise is able to generate for itself" --- None of this seems remotely applicable to the GAAhttps://www.gaa.ie/the-gaa/about-the-gaa/ "The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) is Ireland’s largest sporting organisation. It is celebrated as one of the great amateur sporting associations in the world. It is part of the Irish consciousness and plays an influential role in Irish society that extends far beyond the basic aim of promoting Gaelic games."
kyote00 wrote: » its probably time to move on as gaffer91 is 'trolling' at this stage..... His tune has changed since these old posts - no sign of the doping ****e in 2013https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86318844&postcount=424https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86311516&postcount=184https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=79752253&postcount=144 It was the ref doping here "https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86672743&postcount=1038https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86672353&postcount=1028https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86687265&postcount=1148 wow !https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=86688121&postcount=1158
omega man wrote: » Hadn’t realised you were from Kerry gaffer91. Explains your current state of depression with GAA and Dublin’s 5 in a row!
gormdubhgorm wrote: » The simple people then get swayed by the phrases if they are repeated often enough. With no real scrutiny attached to them.
MayoAreMagic wrote: » The phrase financial doping on the other hand stands up to scrutiny completely... Instead of loading up on substances nobody else can use - i.e. doping, this is loading up one team with exponential amounts of cash that nobody else has access too. It is actually a very apt phrase.
Floppybits wrote: » Kilkenny weren't winning on a level playing field. Kilkenny only compete in hurling, all their efforts only go into hurling. They don't have to split everything between the 2 codes. So tell me how is that a level playing when put against dual counties. Again you are talking out your hole. So split Dublin but not kilkenny or kerry who won 3 or 4 minor titles in a row. Your are letting your anti dub bias cloud your thinking. Also explain how splitting dublin would benefit weaker counties? Will these weaker counties suddenly get a population explosion? Agian talking sh1te
omega man wrote: » Not that it’ll ever happen but how would splitting Dublin level the playing field between say Kerry and Carlow for example?
MayoAreMagic wrote: » So basically you are suggesting that it has to fix every ill in the sport in one go, before it can be considered? Nonsense. It would fix the massive difference between dublin and the majority of counties. That is enough to suggest that it is a move worth taking.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0dafafc1bbba0825656a0e2446597edd.svg)
