tritium wrote: » And another part of your argument falls apart Tell me so, per capita doesn’t float your boat, even though the figure I’ve given reflect basically the target group for this funding. And you state you disagree with Connellan, so registered player approaches are out. What approach do you think is “fair” for allocating gd funding
ooter wrote: » Surely Westmeath having 1/13th the number of 4-15 year olds Dublin have and receiving 1/6th the level of funding Dublin received in 2019 is more than fair in anyone's eyes?
Enquiring wrote: » John Connellan can speak for himself. I've already stated that I disagree with his analysis and using per capita figures is not the way the funding has been split. As you know, everyone has been receiving in and around the same apart from Dublin.
tritium wrote: » Simple question Connellan made a very specific statement Is that supported by those figures In case you missed it, this was his quote And the figures are what you responded too
Enquiring wrote: » It's like we have gone back in time here. This has been busted a long time ago. The only sly bit of selective data is coming from yourself. The funding isn't divided on a per capita basis. It never has been. Do you want me to quote you the Dublin and Cork comparisons again? Dublin are still receiving far more than everyone else after already having 2 decades of the disparity.
"The current GAA player experience and pathway of a child in a school or club in Dublin is so far superior, they are disproportionately funded per head compared to a child in a school or club in Athlone or Tullamore," he said. "Why is that acceptable? All we're asking for is that no longer are the Dublin schools funded so disproportionately at the expense of the clubs and schools down the country.
tritium wrote: » And he possibly thought he was being quite cute with that sly piece of selective data From the GAA 2019 annual report, page 196 Games development allocations by county Offaly. €212594 Westmeath. €243372 Dublin. €1337630 From the CSO 5-14 year olds by county based on 2016 census Offaly. 12096 Westmeath. 13311 Dublin. 168828 The numbers don’t support him, Connellans statement was more about rhetoric than facts
Enquiring wrote: » The East Leinster project doesn't include Offaly or Westmeath and the funding was never done on a per capita basis.
ArielAtom wrote: » o The message that is being put as a subtly as a sledgehammer is that I was blocked due to abuse. It could not be further from the truth. If it’s suits a poster that has been schooled by the majority on here. A busted flush. And they know it. The poster with no allegiance to a county, or not he will admit to. Must be really embarrassed of their roots. You can’t take them seriously anymore.
dobman88 wrote: » Are you referring to the 1 poster on here that was blocked who has already clarified he did not abuse Connellan or how do you know he blocked people? I've had a look and nothing on his feed to suggest he blocked a load of people. I agree, nobody should be subject to abuse online.
Enquiring wrote: » He blocked people for abuse he was receiving. That's not right. There's no way of dressing that up.
ArielAtom wrote: » Connellan did block me. There was zero abuse as alluded by another poster, Connellan just was not up for logical debate. But to use the angle that I abused Connellan suits the other posters rhetoric. The arguments are now a busted flush.
ArielAtom wrote: » Cheers Jeff, I am always guaranteed a response from you at some stage.
tritium wrote: » Probably, in one report he claimed that Even though it’s pretty easy to show that per capita (which mentioning schools implies) dublin receive less than the rest of Leinster. I dont doubt John knows that given the career he has so he either hasn’t done his homework or is deliberately misrepresenting things.
JeffKenna wrote: » Are you not the person who keeps saying Croke Park isn't Dublin's home ground? As Rebelgirl said in a previous post, the way to make changes is go through the GAA process, which is what he's doing. I highly doubt he has time to be debating with trolls online.
dobman88 wrote: » Well you just said he had to block plenty of people so why say it if you dont know? I'm sure he has better things to do than to reply to me on Twitter. You seem to speak for other posters a lot. I dont know if he has received abuse. What I do know is he blocked a poster from here for asking why he was ill prepared in an important debate, that doesn't constitute abuse surely? Asking a simple question. He doesn't need to block anyone that just disagrees with him either tho. If he does get abuse, that person deserves to be blocked, yes.
dobman88 wrote: » How many did John block and why isn't he interested in a debate? Is it because he is consistently ill prepared?
Enquiring wrote: » You would have to ask John Connellan. I'm sure you condemn the abuse he's received though? He shouldn't have to block people on Twitter for voicing his opinion.
tritium wrote: » Your argument defies the laws of physics I think that says it all about your argument
Enquiring wrote: » You can see standards improving in the few counties receiving extra funding soon. But you deny the improvements caused by the over funding of Dublin for 2 decades I think that says it all about your argument.
Enquiring wrote: » Didn't John Connellan have to block you on twitter? You were far from the only one. Anyone who dares speak of the over funding of Dublin gets abuse directed at them.
