Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » I grew up playing in a very big club at home and my experience was that while they have very good structures in place, the large numbers mean that while the best players are identified early the weaker ones gradually become more marginalised, because the resources just aren't there to help everyone. It's not that a smaller club is better resourced, but that they are forced to care about everyone who participates, because numbers are so tight. I certainly didn't feel a sense of connection with my club once I was in my teenage years. If I had played for a small rural club with 16 minor players (like the one that played against my club in a minor county final a few years back) I might have felt differently. But I think the big clubs would feel very threatened if they thought a small club might start pulling some of those players away, even though they themselves can't really cater to everyone. Certainly when we were fighting for use of a pitch this was one of the reasons that club (I don't use their name anymore) named for not wanting to share. It's a trade-off though, because as you say, big clubs are way better set up to do things like put coaching structures in place to help players develop into really serious athletes and intercounty players and stuff. But in terms of fostering mass participation the small clubs are beneficial too. I think both are needed, but there is no appetite among the big clubs in Dublin to really encourage teams that they would regard as their competition. It's understandable, and I think the big clubs everywhere would be the same (there is no good reason why there's only three clubs in Kilkenny City for example), but in terms of the future of the sport(s) I think a mix is needed.
beggars_bush wrote: » Sad thing is that a lot of smaller clubs in Dublin have been let fold. Often the social element of clubs is overlooked. Clubs don't have to be winning silverware to be successful
RoyalCelt wrote: » That's one hell of a profit they made and they don't have to do massive fund raisers either. You'd wonder how the GAA can justify funding so many Dublin coaches when they could clearly afford it themselves.
ArielAtom wrote: » And all with less turnover than Kerry, turnover for vanity profit for sanity��
beggars_bush wrote: » How much did Dublin spend on mileage? How much free money do they get from HQ?
ArielAtom wrote: » Deflect from the facts that Kerry turned over more. We could all do that, sure the cost of living in Dublin is so much higher!!!!!
beggars_bush wrote: » but their costs were not subsidised by GAA HQ and high profile sponsors
ArielAtom wrote: » Neither were Dublins. If you bring games development funding into the county discussion you are factually wrong.
ArielAtom wrote: » So Kerry Group are not high profile?????????? OK.
gaffer91 wrote: » It's not factually wrong at all. Money for Games Development spares the county board from having to spend other funds on this. Money spent developing young players today will help club teams and inter-county teams a few years down the line. So it absolutely should be factored in. As well as the Games Development funding, Dublin also receive millions more from from their sponsorship partners compared to other counties, and also received millions from the Irish government in the late 2000s. Combine this with their huge population and their home advantage and it becomes clear that Dublin will need to be split to help level the inter-county playing field.
beggars_bush wrote: » High profile, but whats the actual monetary contribution from them? Not compared to AIG, and the 15 other sponsors involved
ArielAtom wrote: » The monies were for games development, no amount of deflection can change that. The population was always bigger. Success always attracts sponsorship. Now if you can actually give a structured way to deal with your perceived injustices instead of posting the same thing time and time again.
gaffer91 wrote: » The monies for game development were unfair and helped the senior team, no amount of deflection can change that. The population was always bigger and was such a statistical outlier that it alone was grounds for a split, never mind anything else. The sponsorship should be shared between all counties. It's a community sporting organisation with an amateur ethos. I have a structured away of dealing with the injustices- split Dublin into four teams, pool sponsorship money centrally and distribute evenly to all counties. I'll stop arguing the point when people stop posting the same debunked rubbish back to me.
ArielAtom wrote: » Splitting in four sounds easy, can go clearly define regions? Some have very little GAA activity in comparison to others. Sponsorship is interesting. Dublin have in place systems to secure their sponsorship, who are you proposing pays for this? It sounds really easy when you type it, but in reality it is hard to deploy, splitting will also kill the county game. Would you really get the same pleasure in beating Dublin West???
blanch152 wrote: » Some counties will just waste the money anyway. Take a look at Mayo. In 2019 on a turnover of €3.5m, they spend half of that on the county teams. Half of all of Mayo's money got spent on the county teams, and they spend more on the county teams than any other county not in the hurling round-robin. The Mayo county board have no interest in player development. The foundation wants to spend money on a centre for youth development but the board want to splurge the money elsewhere. Why would you take money off a county like Dublin, which spends it wisely on games development and juvenile participation, and give it to a county like Mayo who fritter the money all away.
Fann Linn wrote: » Dublin players don't eat.
Fann Linn wrote: » I s'pose. They wouldn't be as fat as some other teams.
Dots1982 wrote: » People from outside Dublin would be best to accept that this Dublin team is the closest thing to unbeatable you will ever see and just act accordingly: take up other pursuits that bring enjoyment if intercounty football doesn’t.
gaffer91 wrote: » It sounds easy because it is easy. Split regions can be organised by some combination of geography, population and current playing numbers per locality. The sponsorship could be pooled centrally and distributed equitably for all counties to benefit. Paying for the "systems" is easily surmountable- you just want it not to be because you want the current unfairness favouring Dublin to continue. Not splitting is what will kill the county game- it's obvious to everyone outside Dublin that the current state of affairs is grossly unfair and interest is waning correspondingly. And as I've explained to you before, a split would actually help the game in Dublin. Dublin derbies and more Dubs challenging for Sam Maguire are things most Dubs would quickly row in behind.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » monies in the long term were unfair but when population of Dublin is as big as it is then it needs huge amount of games development funding While there should be some shared resources you cant simply say everything should be shared. .
The Lost Sheep wrote: » It's ridiculous to say Dublin should be split in 4. How do you propose to do that? Should Kerry because they dominate Munster so much and are as successful in all Ireland...
The Lost Sheep wrote: » it isnt grossly unfair. Yes Dublin have lot of advantages but they get best out of what they have. They run a very good ship which plenty other counties dont if we are being honest. A split in Dublin wouldnt be good for the game. What would happen if both Dublin sides started dominating leinster at least.
gaffer91 wrote: » The population alone is grounds for a split (albeit pre financial doping I'd have been in favour of a two way rather than a four way split) not more money. Dublin are overfunded even when the population is accounted for- per head of population, per registered player. So it's unfair whichever way you look at it. But you should already know this- it's been explained to you personally countless times already on this very thread. When reading a post (or indeed any article/ book/ opinion piece etc for your general reference), you should actually try to retain and analyse the information. It's ridiculous to say Dublin shouldn't be split in four. How I propose to do it is simple- split them in four. Use a combination of geography, population and playing numbers. How many times does it have to be explained about the Kerry/ Kilkenny comparison? It's not just the fact Dublin are winning, it's the fact they are doing it from an unfairly advantaged position. Please try to actually read and retain this information to stop you posting this nonsense once again. You say it isn't grossly unfair and then in the very next sentence acknowledge that Dublin have a lot of advantages. The direct contradiction is unbelievable. A split in Dublin absolutely would be terrific for the game, including in Dublin, for the reasons I explained in my last post. The inter- county game is slowly dying currently with reduced interest and attendances year on year. Also, you realise Dublin have already killed Leinster as a competitive competition? So if two Dublin subdivisions started dominating it would be a significant improvement compared to what the lie of the land is currently, where Dublin are strolling to victory every year.
The Lost Sheep wrote: » splitting Dublin will not improve the quality of teams that many counties produce but the Dublin sides would still be very strong so where do we see an improvement? Who wins from that? Dublin shouldn't be split. Should we then split Kerry because of their rate of success? You cant compare Dublin to most counties. Most counties never have been competitive at provincial level nevermind all Ireland. Dublin have lots of advantages because of population, playing numbers they would have regardless of any funding. That alone would make them stronger than a lot of counties. The inter county game is changing and Dublin being so strong as they are is far from the main reason the inter county game has major issues.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0dafafc1bbba0825656a0e2446597edd.svg)
