Enquiring wrote: » I've given you and other Dubs plenty of education on this thread. Not expecting any thanks for it though.
Enquiring wrote: » I'll post up the 2016 accounts for you later then. You dont seem to want to post up the salaries amount. You dont believe quotes from Dublin GAA officials and employees either and now are you claiming their official accounts aren't real?
Bambi wrote: » Quotes from Dublin officials confirming that coaching has moved on from the 90s and 00s arent good enough. If theres actually any county out there coaching kids like they did 20-30 years then they're cracked. Lets start with your quote: Do you have proof that every position in Dublin GAA is a paid position? Of course, you don't but you tried wesel the sentence by using the word "overseeing", every county is overseen by professionals at some level, even though some might not look like it. So lets cut you some slack. Present some evidence: the total figure of all people involved in Dublin GAA and the percentage of those people who are paid professionals. Then present the same for all other Division 1 counties in football as comparison. No rush.
Bambi wrote: » I'm not the one making claims I can't back up chief. Theres a Conspiracy Theories forum on here for that lark.
Enquiring wrote: » Did you manage to find the 2016 financial accounts yet? Care to reveal the total for salaries? Or would you rather keep that quiet? Again, if you want a breakdown of the huge amount spent on wages, you'll need to get in contact with the Dublin county board and also request for them to release their latest accounts.
Fann Linn wrote: » No. It's just a repetitive mantra now. Split Dublin in 2 or 4 and now it's split the Hill in 2 also. They'll be counting the eyelets on Rock's boots to see if he's got an advantage the way things are currently going.
kilns wrote: » You have your figures ready to back this all up..........
Bambi wrote: » Oh right, I thought you had the figures given your statements about the amount of professional officers in Dublin GAA but it seems you were just spoofing, Of course you can still point us to the same figures for other county boards like I mentioned? They're readily available to you, yeah?
The Lost Sheep wrote: » What sport anywhere has teams where all sides have populations around the same. Sure get rid of parishes as well considering clubs based on parishes can vary so much in population. What do you replace the counties with then?
The_Kew_Tour wrote: » Dont have problem with Dublin playing in Croker etc. But Hill 16 should be made 50/50 for All Ireland day.. Hill 16 was big advantage to Dubs in that regard
Enquiring wrote: » Yes, they do dispute that Dublin got excess funding. A huge number of Dubs can't even admit that. The funding for Dublin started 2 decades ago. It basically maps out the disparity in professional coaches. Dublin had near 100 while every other county had below 6, some only had 1.
Enquiring wrote: » Nice to see that a Dub is joining the chorus requesting the Dublin county board to release their accounts. For now, the 2016 version will have to do you. Take your time having a read of it.
gaffer91 wrote: » Wait, so people getting hammered by 15+ points is a problem when it isn't Dublin doing it? At least be consistent. What's meaningful for Longford now to go and lose by that margin to Dublin, when we all know about Dublin's population, funding and other advantages? Splitting Dublin doesn't close the gap between Leitrim and stronger teams but it preserves the competition so it helps them that way. Dublin's unfair advantages mean they will never stop winning. Dublin are the only county that have the unique combination of massive unfair advantages so if we split them it does solve a lot of problems.
kilns wrote: » no you hang up..
kilns wrote: » I dont think anyone disputes Dublin received excess funding at the beginning but that has not been the case since 2017 and that graphic high lights the stupidy of people calling to defund Dublin now considering they are middle of the pack in terms of funding
Enquiring wrote: » I didnt mean to upset you. Start a new thread on what should happen after Dublin gets split and I promise I'll post in it.
kilns wrote: » hahaha You failed to answer a simple yes or no question, jeez give it up will you
kilns wrote: » Wow first I have heard that Dublin clubs were rejecting GDOs You must have an inside line to every club nobody else has
Enquiring wrote: » Dublins funding started in the early 2000's. There were years when Dublin were getting 1.6 million while some counties were getting 7,500 for games development. Do you want to work out the percentages on that? Picking one year out of 20 is a nice try though. Dublin have received about many multiples in games development funding compared with anyone else and way out of line with population.
Bambi wrote: » I don't need to contact the DCB, you're the one who was making big statements so you're the one who's going to back them up. No hurry on those figures, I'm sure you're can back your claim up.
Enquiring wrote: » I answered, gave an outline if what would happen. You didnt like he answer. That's not my issue I'm afraid. If you want more detail, start a thread on it.
Enquiring wrote: » No, it was in line with the funding. Dublin clubs were initially rejecting the GDA's, that's why placing paid officers to oversee the process is very important.
kilns wrote: » no its not, you were asked a direct question but didnt answer and it seems you wont. So lets close this thread of conversation
kilns wrote: » This is at a club, the biggest in Armagh. You dont have paid people at clubs, you need everyone to buy into it You hit the nail on the head, alot of county boards are very badly run but that is not always the fault of those running it, its a tough job and Dublin was the same they were a shambles too up until 20 years ago, when they did get their act together but again your facts are a bit off, Dublin started putting structures into place before the "funding"
Enquiring wrote: » You missed this part of my post: "And a big reason why is obviously the GDO system going into Dublin". This is a quote from a Dublin GAA employee. Do you think hes lying? Why do you think huge numbers of professional coaches would not make a huge difference to standards of players in a county? If you want to find out about the wage structure within Dublin GAA then you should contact them. For a helping hand, you can check out the leaked accounts from 2016 on st Sylvesters gaa club website to see how much are spent on wages yearly.
ArielAtom wrote: » These figures are based on HQ figure combined with census figures. They are factually based and not from some random guy on tinternet who likes to post inaccurate figures. Yes Dublin receive a large percentage of funding. But if you look at the other metrics it is not to bad. Cork are poorly funded and the imbalance needs to be redressed there.
gaffer91 wrote: » That shows once again Dublin's crazy population advantage, thanks for sharing. Equalising things for one year, from one source is meaningless- you have to take long term funding from all sources. And we see again how Dublin benefit massively compared to every other county. It's too late for a funding change to make a difference now though, it's gone on too long and we will be reaping the consequences for decades. And addressing funding does nothing for population and home advantage.
