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

tritium wrote: »

Yes certainly, it’s the logical conclusion of enquirings argument. If it’s doesn’t happen, and indeed if we don’t see all Leinster ai finals for the foreseeable future after that it effectively debunks the argument

Stop clutching at straws.
Dublin received around €18,000,000 in games development in 11 years between 2007 and 2018. The next team was Cork at around €1.5m. Meath got around €850k. Westmeath got €750k.

The population is around 1,400,000. Meath and Kildare population is around the 200,000 mark.

It's the combination of these factors that have led a decade of success for Dublin. Don't pretend you don't know this. Dublin are a team of great players, particularly because the massive funding that was injected into the county. The players still had to put in the work to get to that position. They did so, and the rewards came.

Just out of curiosity - is this what the Dublin crew at clutching at when on about extra spending in Meath and Kildare.

Pat Teehan: On John’s figures from 2017, Dublin’s funding breaks down at €1.5m per annum, which works out at €1.11 a year per head of population. The rest of Leinster’s funding in 2017 averaged out a €738,000 per year, which equated to €0.57 per head. But now, in 2019, which is the last year the figures are there for, the spend on Dublin coaching was down to €1.2m. The spend on the rest of Leinster went from €738,000 a year to €2.1m a year. If you break all that down by head of population, the spend on Dublin is €0.89, the rest of Leinster is €1.63. And that will increase all the time.


That means nothing. He just lumps all the other Leinster counties in together. The "rest of Leinster" are independent counties, who do not have liaisons with each other. So basically he is saying that between 11 counties, the spending increased by €1.4m in 2019 - an average of about €125k per county. But in the same year, Dublins coaching spending was €1.2m. It's awful easy to throw random figures around, but when broken down, figures like that mean nothing. There's no point in throwing a hundred grand here and there at counties and say to them "right, get you house in order like Dublin". It needs proper funding on an ongoing basis,so that these coaches or whatever else is needed can be paid on an ongoing basis like Dublin.

But at least this breakdown should put an end to the desperate deflection attempt to out the focus on Meath winning an All-Ireland because they got a few hundred thousand extra.

flasher0030 wrote: »

But at least this breakdown should put an end to the desperate deflection attempt to out the focus on Meath winning an All-Ireland because they got a few hundred thousand extra.

And that's what it is. A desperate deflection attempt. There is no argument left against the funding disparity advantages Dublin have enjoyed for almost 2 decades. The Leinster county chairman has admitted it. Those within Dublin GAA have noted the huge change in standards caused by the influx of coaches. It's an established fact, Dublin have gained huge success from a plan devised and funded for them.

Enquiring wrote: »

Do you have an issue with counties having access to more coaches and other advantages all of a sudden? You don't seem to have a problem with Dublin having it for almost 2 decades.

And that's the key here. If Meath or any other county had their own special scheme planned and funded for them for nearly 2 decades, the same calls would be happening as with Dublin.

As it is, there is no justification for the coaching scheme to be limited to a certain area of the country. I'm sure not many from Meath or the other counties apart from Dublin would even attempt to justify the funding disparity.

By the way, you might need to check up on your facts yet again. The funding for Dublin first dramatically improved results at underage level and that brought unprecedented levels of success across all grades and codes. You may have noticed some upturn in results for those involved in the east Leinster project, Meath winning a Leinster minor title, Kildare an All Ireland u20, Wicklow beating Dublin at minor level for example.

Now imagine if it was only one of those counties who had access to far more coaches than every other county since 2002. Let's say Meath as it's the county being discussed. They had far more coaches which led to increased success. They increased sponsorship to a level above 2 million per year, they were spending over 2 million on salaries, 2 million on expenses, 1.5 million per year on team preparations, now spending close to 4 million per year on games development and they were beating every Leinster county including Dublin by cricket scores, would you have an issue with this?

I’m not the one who said I had an issue with counties getting extra coaches, you are. I’ve supported it throughout this thread as the way forward. Extending the 50:50 model was the sensible thing for the GAA since they benefit from a much smaller cash outlay by forcing the clubs to put skin in the game. They’ve basically funded the equivalent of 32.5 coaches in Dublin but see double the benefit through the efforts of the clubs to fund the rest. They also saw buy in on the scheme because clubs realised it was a way to save themselves from the crisis they faced, even if it meant sacrifices.

You might want to check up on you’re facts yourself btw. Meath and Kildares record in the Leinster minor championship is pretty solid prior to the east Leinster project and indeed during the 2010s. Kildare at u20 level have been solid through the century, even prior to the east Leinster project. Or to put it another way, you’re talking ****e

Tell me, do you think it’s unreasonable for the GAA in general to allocate special funding to areas in dire need or should they just ignore problems? Or just if it’s dublin. Because the unique issue dublin faced are well documented. Should the GAA have ignored dublin at that point. They were completely transparent with the plan they implemented and the reasons. They got buy in from other bodies who also saw the need. What representation did your own county board make in the matter. What alternative did they propose. You’ve mentioned other counties at various stages and how they had need- what should have been done for ulster since you’ve mentioned them previously. I assume you also have a major problem with the funding and scheme that went in there since it was a project for just one area? Is targeted schemes to deal with the specific issues an area faces generally wrong? You already given this vague notion that if you had your way a “committee” would look at the needs of each county to allocate funding- how would that be different? Actually how IS that any different to the strategic approach the GAA are taking to trying to build the game, based on dealing with specific issues in specific areas? John Connellan complains that the GAA is trying a one size fits all approach but they’re not, that’s actually your approach and the approach the anti dublin brigade keep calling for.

One thing we are in agreement on though you may not want to concede it- dublin DID increase sponsorship. As in dublin did- they got if their arses took risks and put in the hard yards to maximise sponsorship. Even before they were being successful to the current scale. The negotiated up, moving from armotts to Vodafone to AIG. They put in the work while some other counties sat on their hands and asked for a cut. Work that counties like cork are doing now. And to hell with anyone who thinks that work should be held against them just because others couldn’t be bothered.

tritium wrote: »

I’m not the one who said I had an issue with counties getting extra coaches, you are. I’ve supported it throughout this thread as the way forward. Extending the 50:50 model was the sensible thing for the GAA since they benefit from a much smaller cash outlay by forcing the clubs to put skin in the game. They’ve basically funded the equivalent of 32.5 coaches in Dublin but see double the benefit through the efforts of the clubs to fund the rest. They also saw buy in on the scheme because clubs realised it was a way to save themselves from the crisis they faced, even if it meant sacrifices.

You might want to check up on you’re facts yourself btw. Meath and Kildares record in the Leinster minor championship is pretty solid prior to the east Leinster project and indeed during the 2010s. Kildare at u20 level have been solid through the century, even prior to the east Leinster project. Or to put it another way, you’re talking ****e

Tell me, do you think it’s unreasonable for the GAA in general to allocate special funding to areas in dire need or should they just ignore problems? Or just if it’s dublin. Because the unique issue dublin faced are well documented. Should the GAA have ignored dublin at that point. They were completely transparent with the plan they implemented and the reasons. They got buy in from other bodies who also saw the need. What representation did your own county board make in the matter. What alternative did they propose. You’ve mentioned other counties at various stages and how they had need- what should have been done for ulster since you’ve mentioned them previously. I assume you also have a major problem with the funding and scheme that went in there since it was a project for just one area? Is targeted schemes to deal with the specific issues an area faces generally wrong? You already given this vague notion that if you had your way a “committee” would look at the needs of each county to allocate funding- how would that be different? Actually how IS that any different to the strategic approach the GAA are taking to trying to build the game, based on dealing with specific issues in specific areas? John Connellan complains that the GAA is trying a one size fits all approach but they’re not, that’s actually your approach and the approach the anti dublin brigade keep calling for.

One thing we are in agreement on though you may not want to concede it- dublin DID increase sponsorship. As in dublin did- they got if their arses took risks and put in the hard yards to maximise sponsorship. Even before they were being successful to the current scale. The negotiated up, moving from armotts to Vodafone to AIG. They put in the work while some other counties sat on their hands and asked for a cut. Work that counties like cork are doing now. And to hell with anyone who thinks that work should be held against them just because others couldn’t be bothered.

No, I have no problem with anyone getting access to coaches. Dublin or anyone else. The problem arises when one county gets their own special access to a huge number of coaches while everyone else has access to 6 or less. This is the issue and it has been repeated to you numerous times. You just have no argument against it.

The plan drawn up for Dublin was a great plan, I've said this already. Why wasn't it brought in across the country? Why do you think Dublin deserved special treatment above counties who faced far bigger challenges? Your continued efforts to ignore almost 2 decades of funding keeps failing miserably.

Dublin increased their sponsorship sums off the back of increased success. It helps when you can afford to hire highly paid marketing managers because your player development system is being paid for.

By the way, Kildare won their first u20 All Ireland since 1965, Meath their first Leinster minor title in a decade and when was the last time Wicklow beat Dublin at any level? These pesky things called facts keep ruining your argument.

SheepsClothing wrote: »

"Putting in hard yards" = Having a paid full time commercial director and a quarter of the countries population.

On your earlier point, I do agree though. The GAA were right to fund their sports in Dublin, they should have just split the county in four while they were at it.

And the funding should continue in the four counties post split. And increased all across the country. No more segregated schemes. We have to learn from the results of the Dublin only fund.

tritium wrote: »

Putting in someone to do a job properly on the commercial side. Taking a risk that they could do things better than was the norm at the time. Thinking in the long rather than short term . Tell me we’re your county one of the ones laughing at dublin when they originally showed everyone their plan?

Oh great, following Dublin's lead Westmeath should just go hire a commercial director with their imaginary money. Then that commercial director can go to AIG with the attractive pitch of - "We have a total market of 88,700 and we are on television once every second year. Now give us a million quid."

tritium wrote: »

I’m not the one who said I had an issue with counties getting extra coaches, you are. I’ve supported it throughout this thread as the way forward. Extending the 50:50 model was the sensible thing for the GAA since they benefit from a much smaller cash outlay by forcing the clubs to put skin in the game. They’ve basically funded the equivalent of 32.5 coaches in Dublin but see double the benefit through the efforts of the clubs to fund the rest. They also saw buy in on the scheme because clubs realised it was a way to save themselves from the crisis they faced, even if it meant sacrifices.

You might want to check up on you’re facts yourself btw. Meath and Kildares record in the Leinster minor championship is pretty solid prior to the east Leinster project and indeed during the 2010s. Kildare at u20 level have been solid through the century, even prior to the east Leinster project. Or to put it another way, you’re talking ****e

Tell me, do you think it’s unreasonable for the GAA in general to allocate special funding to areas in dire need or should they just ignore problems? Or just if it’s dublin. Because the unique issue dublin faced are well documented. Should the GAA have ignored dublin at that point. They were completely transparent with the plan they implemented and the reasons. They got buy in from other bodies who also saw the need. What representation did your own county board make in the matter. What alternative did they propose. You’ve mentioned other counties at various stages and how they had need- what should have been done for ulster since you’ve mentioned them previously. I assume you also have a major problem with the funding and scheme that went in there since it was a project for just one area? Is targeted schemes to deal with the specific issues an area faces generally wrong? You already given this vague notion that if you had your way a “committee” would look at the needs of each county to allocate funding- how would that be different? Actually how IS that any different to the strategic approach the GAA are taking to trying to build the game, based on dealing with specific issues in specific areas? John Connellan complains that the GAA is trying a one size fits all approach but they’re not, that’s actually your approach and the approach the anti dublin brigade keep calling for.

One thing we are in agreement on though you may not want to concede it- dublin DID increase sponsorship. As in dublin did- they got if their arses took risks and put in the hard yards to maximise sponsorship. Even before they were being successful to the current scale. The negotiated up, moving from armotts to Vodafone to AIG. They put in the work while some other counties sat on their hands and asked for a cut. Work that counties like cork are doing now. And to hell with anyone who thinks that work should be held against them just because others couldn’t be bothered.

Correct me if I'm wrong here. But was it not the case the Arnotts withdrew their sponsorship back in 2009 off their own bat. Then there was a battle between Vodafone and Meteor to win the sponsorship. Remember, Dublin were not All Ireland champions back then but they were still selling out an 80k seater stadium. The promoters aim is to make sure their product is as visable to as many people as possible. And then in 2013, Vodafone withdrew, and
AIG jumped on to what was then the corporate gravy train.
Wouldn't need to be a full time paid commercial manager to make that work.

ooter wrote: »

2005 to 2011 is 6 years, the east leinster project began in 2016. I would fully expect meath to be reaching an all ireland final in the next 2 years with the coaching and funding advantages they now have.

And can you quantify those advantages of funding and coaching i.e. what massive funding Meath has received in 2016 that compares with the €18,000,000 that Dublin received in 12 years.

The auld "deflect and people might forget" approach. :rolleyes:
And putting the pressure on poor auld Meath.

tritium wrote: »

If it was that simple I’m struggling to see why other counties can’t get the same sponsorship deals. As one poster has claimed Mayo are bringing just as many supporters as dublin. Kerry (who to be fair have had huge sponsorship, for a long time the biggest in the country) have huge star power over the years. Meath in the 90s had real brand power too. Tyrone, Galway Donegal would all be brands capable of filling an 80k stadium based on their success down the years. That’s just in football.

Cork are now spending time maximising their commercials and all of a sudden they have a huge sponsorship deal. What took them so long, clearly the tea lady could have done that deal in her sleep.

Funny too that one poster keeps complaining that dublins money from commercials and sponsorship keeps growing while you come on and basically state that anyone could do it. You couldn’t make this stuff up tbh

Maybe it’s not that simple and there’s something to be said for using professionals to get the best deals.....

No. It is that simple. These sponsorships fell into their laps. Any clever corporate would be knocking the door down in 2013 when Vodafone finished.
And prior to that, when Arnotts finished, Vodafone and Meteor were battling to take up the sponsorship role.
I didn't say anyone can do it for other counties. I'm saying anyone could do it for Dublin. Couple of phonecalls pitting one company against another and you're there. Other counties don't have that luxury.
despite it being obvious about the overfunding resulting in Dublin's success. It's a closed book on that. But you try to deflect - on about Meath winning all-irelands, Mayos sponsorship etc.
Croke Park is the hub of GAA, Dublin's home ground (depite some other poster's claim about PP. Dublin has the biggest population by far so draws the bigger crowds. More people = more exposure to the product. I'm not involved in marketing but this is not rocket science.
You say Mayo are bringing just as many supporters as Dublin. Bringing them where? do you mean Croke Park? Can you please explain that to me and everyone else here. Considering that Dublin play in Croke Park maybe 10 times a year between league and championship. Please explain that one to us.

And one other thing, I see another deflection (to get away from the €18,000,000 in funding is putting an emphasis on funding per person in the county.The amount of people in Dublin who have no interest,and never will have interest in GAA is massively higher than other counties. So Pat Teehan coming out and saying that Dublin receipt of fundraising is only €1.11 per head of population is pretty desperate. A huge volume of that population will never benefit from that funding.And you'll have certain social categories of people that will never play GAA. And you have many other sporting alternatives in Dublin than other counties - soccer and rugby in particular. So the funding is a lot more centalised than attributing €1.11 per person of population.
I'm surprised Teehan wasn't called out on this. It's schoolboy stuff.

Strumms wrote: »

Sponsorship for gaa counties is and should be only a matter for the county themselves...

When Sports Direct struck a deal with Cork GAA which they announced two days ago... with their new kit...apart from seeing a headline and seeing the photos today somewhere I didn’t even read the article, just skimmed it and thought ‘fair play’...because I don’t care...good luck to em... Cork GAA no doubt had protracted negotiations, efforts to enable that deal, great ! Dublin achieve the same, no different, no doubt they have a little more pulling power but when compared to 30 other county’s Cork have serious advantages too, such is life....

That's great. But if Dublin have extra pulling power for sponsorship etc.,why the need for GAA to provide them with another €18,000,000 over 11 years.
That's not just life. It was a decision made, and in hindsight a very foolish decision.

Enquiring wrote: »

Crazy spending for one county. It is still high for 4 counties but it makes sense to split Dublin into 4.

It makes no sense on any level to punish a team for driving standards forward.

Instead of splitting Dublin in 4, other counties should amalgamate to make regional teams to improve their own standards.

Enquiring wrote: »

As has been noted by the Leinster council chairman, Dublin's success has been greatly assisted by the enormous funding disparity between Dublin and the rest. As you're talking about the football championship, he agreed that it has decimated that championship.

It also has been pointed out that it's not only the men's senior footballers who've benefited, it's across the board of Dublin GAA. The split has to happen because of the Dublin only fund and the consequences of that. It's not a punishment, the split will be a great thing for GAA in Dublin and the rest of the country.

It won’t be great for Dublin or the GAA, it’ll be great for begrudgery. Pool your resources, raise your standards and come chasing us. Don’t drag us down to your level, you guys step up to ours.

Every other sport has teams that are ahead of others, that’s always the way it is and it’s generally cyclical. Dublin will go years and years again without winning Sam but until then step up and improve.

Great to see these initiatives, it wont be long before the Dublin are less dominant. I wonder if this is a free one or are there funds associated with it? Who is paying for it? Is it GAA central funding, ISC, Munster Council or government funding. I really like the idea of the audit to identify points of improvement for the clubs willing to commit.

Well done to all involved.

https://www.gaa.ie/news/munster-gaa-launch-the-club-development-programme/?fbclid=IwAR1NU5GEnLEXMmHChrB_HA0T5zwnATXSC2xlat8W3LcRBByibxmDiL9h6bU

ShyMets wrote: »

Lets respectful agree to disagree. Just on your 20 counties. How many have won a provincial title in the last ten years. Just of the top of my head quite a few hadn't won one in over 10 years and some are even hitting the 20 year mark

To increase the standards in counties who haven't won anything for a while, would it be better to give them a higher level of funding than everyone else or would giving the stronger counties more funding be more helpful?