Strumms wrote: » Don’t have to fill, ‘boycott’ was the word used, look up it’s meaning.
the kelt wrote: » It’s meaning in GAA terms is “I can’t unfurl my flag so I’m not buying a burger”
Strumms wrote: » You are a hot dog guy I can tell
Enquiring wrote: » So do you think it's a fair competition if some counties are receiving 2.3 million while others are receiving pittance? Or you don't think it is but you think that's how the GAA should be let continue? Dublins sponsorship income has increased by over a million in 4 years. What happens when they reach 5 million in sponsorship income? More than that? It must be repeated. Gaelic games are amateur sports. The GAA wasnt formed and didn't grow on the ethos of professionalism. It was never about how much money you had like in other sports. Some may be happy to go down that route and see where it leads. I'm not and there are many more like me.
Enquiring wrote: » Dublins increased success came from the introduction of a huge number of professional coaches paid for by all of us. 100 titles since then and the sponsors came on board off he back of that.
ClanofLams wrote: » Haven’t followed all of this but unless I am missing something, obvious solution is GAA centrally appoints commercial officer (or whatever title you want to give) to each county whose job is to maximise income from sponsorships. Like with any role, they would have to hit certain benchmarks or kpis or whatever.
ClanofLams wrote: » All Ireland final v Tyrone not fully sold out per Irish Times.
ooter wrote: » Hurling final that year wasn't fully sold out either.
Strumms wrote: » Why would you fund counties who behave only in a manner that aims to subvert the participating and enjoyment of the game ? For everyone... I sat in Giants stadium the day Ireland beat Italy in ‘94... nobody gave us a chance.... up against Baggios, Baresi, Costacurta, Donadoni, Signori, Massaro, Maldini..Underdogs win... that day the underdog played them off the park, we had no chance...and a guy called Paul MCGrath put in a performance for the ages.. so it can be done..
tritium wrote: » And do you expect the teams players to play ball with showing up for sponsors events etc when there’s no upside for their team? Will Fenton or O’Shea or Clifford just meekly toddle along to photo shoots for the sponsor to keep the centrally appointed marketing manager happy? Pretty sure the answer is no. What then- threaten to drop them from the team? Good luck with that, I can’t see any county accepting that level of interference in their team
tritium wrote: » You’re assuming their sponsorship can just increase indefinitely, it can’t. At the moment with dublin being successful they’re the one every sponsor wants a piece of- and credit to dublin they’re making the most of it. Corks latest deal shows the same idea, with significant additional money if the team are successful. Put simply sponsors want to associate with winners and pay for the privilege. Once they stop winning those same sponsors quietly put their chequebooks away
ooter wrote: » I've said it before on here, under the new format a leinster county can go all the way to the all ireland football final without meeting dublin, any potential sponsors shouldn't be put off.
ClanofLams wrote: » On what basis could the GAA say hey your supporters decided not to attend a fixture featuring Dublin so we are taking away all your funding? Your children will pay for your actions! It's a free country you know, people can decide where or where not they go. Seriously, there's a lot of nonsense in the thread but that is just out and out delusional stuff.
Strumms wrote: » Yes, football and hurling are participation and spectator sports.. if people make a decision not to go as individuals, grand. 100%... but if a boycott is an organized toys out of the pram event designed to hurt the GAA and the sport...because a county or counties are not in agreement with funding allocations, fixtures or indeed anything... It couldn’t be hidden... communications would out.. and so would the organizers be outed... Imagine if Dublin fans in return said... “ ok, for every league game for 2 years we won’t travel “... they'd be lambasted... local economy not benefiting across several towns... there would be uproar... what’s good for the goose though....
ClanofLams wrote: » Under no circumstances would the GAA remove funding from counties because their fans decided not to travel, whether that was organised by supporters or not, whether it was supporters of Dublin or other counties organising. It's a completely off the wall suggestion. Especially considering the argument of many Dubs here (a valid argument too) is hey this funding supports children participating. Seriously insane notion.
Strumms wrote: » If people / counties go to underhanded means such as ‘encouragement’ or ‘organization’ of boycott.... they should be in receipt of zero funding...’you are not interested in going ? We are not interested in paying so’...don’t put in, don’t expect a pay out...a boycott is an organized move, a planned move, you don’t boycott by accident... Funding does support the underage games, correct. Want to keep funding available to your county ? Turn up, show up, contribute to the game, the war chest...Play with a straight bat... get rewarded.. X county ‘supporters’ not showing up ? why should their reward be a payout ? Undermining a sport and taking away from it...means no rewards....nada.
tritium wrote: » As I’ve asked you already, are” all of us” also paying for the 118 coaches in the rest of Leinster? Who exactly is “all of us” by the way. You almost make it sound like the good folk outside dublin had a collection for the poor aul dubs. Did dublin people also contribute? Given they have, as you keep telling us, a huge pool of people, are they contributing much more than most other counties perhaps?
MayoAreMagic wrote: » Id imagine he means the irish taxpayers. Im sure Dublin people did contribute. However, the pertinent point is 3/4 of the people contributing were from elsewhere. They werent necessarily gaa people either, just people paying tax in tye country. On that topic, has anyone ever looked at the figures as regards the notion that dublin bring so much funds into the gaa? Looking at attendances and number of games played, they bring in much lower a percentage than they take out.
ClanofLams wrote: » Ok, I'm not debating this any further because it is a ridiculous idea that has absolutely zero chance of ever being implemented.
ArielAtom wrote: » I've avoided posting for a bit purely because I found delivering fact based data was counter argued with figures pulled from the air with not data to back it up. One thing on funding that has been mentioned is two decades now. That is simply untrue, the Dublin project went from 2007 to 2017 where there were additional funding allocated to Dublin, this was done to save Gaelic Games in the capital. On funding, there is zero outcry from the usual posters when it comes to one county getting 30m from the taxpayer, 20m from HQ and 3.75m from the Munster council to develop their home ground. Before the usual suspects pile in with CP is Dublins home ground, it is not. It might be where they play the majority of their home games, but so can any other county should they wish to. You rent it, it really is that simple. I really do hope Dublin develop a 30k seater stadium at either Hollystown or Spawell. This would hope get the posters who whinge about "home" advantage to pipe down. The funding for GPO's should be rolled out to every county and i the same manner as it was in Dublin. But lads let's drop the Dublin funding line, I posted a long while back the figures taking into account the census numbers, and according to that Dublin underfunded in comparison to some other counties, although as has been pointed out in the past some clubs in Kildare rejected the offer of GPO's based on the fact that they did not need them, I'd argue based on their current status that is exactly what is required. I posted a twitter feed from a GPO which if you read the full thread he details the work he does as a GPO in a Dublin club and also offered advice on how this could be rolled out in other counties. Very good ideas from this young Gael. I was heavily involved in my club at juvenile level when my kids were underage. They have moved onto adult games now, neither will ever make county, do I care? not a jot. Club is where it starts, club comes 1st. County is a bonus. I may even volunteer again for our academy, big numbers attending, great to see.
Enquiring wrote: » Where is your fact based data? You've been shown to be wrong numerous times on this thread yet you keep repeating the same untruths! 1. The Dublin project started in the early 2000's, not 2007. 2. Dublin GAA still receive 1.3 million every year so the project has not ended. It spends over 3 million on games development every year. 3. Gaelic Games did not need saving in Dublin. It was going fine only the Dublin County board couldn't accept a few defeats to other Leinster counties. 4. If you want to include county grounds in your argument, then you have to include Croke Park. Dublin footballers didn't play a single championship game outside Croke Park for a decade, the GAA tried it with the Dublin hurlers too but Dublin supporters weren't interested in attending their hurlers matches. 5. Grounds in Hollystown or Spawell or whatever side can be used for one of the four counties in the splitting of Dublin. 6. It's so magnanimous of Dublin to say let everyone else have a go at the Dublin only program after they had sole use of it for nearly 2 decades. 7. Again, you are trying to use figures from one year under specific guidelines and ignore all the other years. The overall figures show that Dublin were overfunded by a large amount. 8. You've been told that Kildare did not reject any GDO. 9. That twitter account posted a list of job specifics for the GDO. It went against your line that they just work in primary schools. They do huge amounts of work within clubs which include advanced academies. 10. Loads of us have kids in clubs. Why were all kids in clubs outside Dublin excluded from the GDO program? Basically, your post claiming to be full of facts was full of the opposite.
kilns wrote: » Where is that CNN fact checker guy when you need him....[/QUO This one really amuses me. The data would knock you out.
