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

Why wouldn't Kerry Group just sponsor Kerry. The clue is in the name. Why would you suggest that they sponsor other counties. They could if they wanted, but why would they? Just like Staycity (I think) sponsor Dublin. And AIG did. I wouldn't expect them to sponsor other counties teams. Maybe they do. I don't know. Would you expect them to?

It was the Irish Government (led by Bertie) that provided the funds to Dublin (approx) €13m back around 20 years ago, that kickstarted their success from 2011 onwards. Impossible to deny this. People on here about Kerry from a hurling county, populations, demographics etc. That's all rubbish and smokescreens. There is little control GAA can have about populations, which counties play football or hurling, which counties have poor areas and so are not on equal footing with other areas and therefore poorer facilities. Every sport will have various outside influences that are not controllable. But Bertie did have control over finances. He decided that Dublin were winning feck all back in the mid 2000's, didn't like it and decided to do something about it to get them back winning. And of course it worked. The issue now is that too much funds were provided, and the money has turned Dublin GAA into an almost unstoppable beast with player after player coming off the production line. I mentor young kids in Dublin - under 10s. We are playing a club tomorrow that has over 70 under 10s (and that's only the lads). That's only one age group in one area of Dublin. When all these youngsters in Dublin progress along, there will be an army of footballers in the next 5, 10, 20 years. It is absolutely great to see them all out playing, and the great banter that goes on, and the love of the game that the kids have (well most of them anyway; there's always a few that are there cause Mam and Dad forced them to). But there is no denying that Dublin have better facilities now on account of the funding. I rock up to the pitches (10 minutes walk), and the goals are made up, the bibs and cones are lined out for me - and an endless amount of training gear (footballs, sliothars, hurls, helmets) that I want. Our club has staff (presume some of them are paid something) that do this for us, cause we have numbers in tow. Counties that did not get the Government handout don't have this luxury.

God bless Bertie 😂🤣

Again, you're just looking at the outputs i.e., victories and outputs. What's far more important is whether the inputs were fair or not. In Dublin's case they include massive population advantage, funding advantage (from the GAA, their sponsors, the government etc), playing consequential games at home etc. If any other county had those advantages, I'd be calling for them to be split I assure you. But as it is Dublin who enjoys the advantages, I want them to be split instead. As I said before, nothing personal, it's just for the good of the game.

Also, are you now accepting that funding is a massive advantage? This is a massive concession of you to make! Now you are beginning to see why Dublin are unfairly advantaged over all other counties. Yes, there are discrepancies in funding (and population, playing at home etc) between other counties but none of the scale as in Dublin. It's the combination, nature, scale and duration of advantages that Dublin enjoy that is unfair, not just one of those things individually.

So once again, we have to conclude that when we examine funding that Dublin alone should be split.

P.S still waiting for you to comment on how you propose to deal with Dublin's unfair advantages?

Not at all, player make statements, insinuate things etc and yes, I counter/rebut/debunk them, I make no apologies for that, that's what a good debate/discussion is about. But I never falsely claim anything or misrepresent anyone. And when challenged on a point and presented with compelling evidence I will of course admit I was wrong. It hasn't happened frequently on this thread though I will admit but that says more about the standard of arguments of people falsely claiming Dublin alone aren't uniquely unfairly advantaged.

See my previous post for where I responded to Tombo2001- yes, he didn't say it explicitly and yes he was wrong to attribute the players' success to coaching alone and disregard the funding. There can be no debate on that one.

Re the golden generation, I absolutely believe it but correct am no longer arguing it with you, as I've no interest in doing that.

I dont know what 'per player' stat you are talking about, or whats being included in that.

But according to this fairly trusted source, 30% of Games Development Funding since inception has gone to Dublin. Which to me seems reasonable.

Anyway, lets draw a line under it - send your viewpoints on it to Jarlath Burns and let him mull over them; I dont see a meeting of the minds here.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/revealed-dublins-23m-bonanza-how-capital-still-benefit-most-from-development-funding/a1536679538.html

He didn't say it explicitly.

He didn't insinuate it.

He didn't say it vaguely.

He didn't hint at it.

In fact, he never said it at all, in any capacity whatsoever.

You took him up wrong, that's on you.

He told you that you were mistaken.

I told you you were mistaken.

And you are STILL trying to maintain that that's what he said and meant, despite being corrected multiple times.

Why won't you admit that you were wrong?

Apologies, flasher, I didn't mean to insinuate that was how you see things, so if you took me up incorrectly then I'm sorry. It was more to explain the sponsorship nonsense being put forward by others with an axe to grind.

no offence, but I mentor in my own club for a kids team. It’s a big club by numbers. I can tell you the following for sure, which I suspect is true for most clubs around the country to be fair:

the bibs and cones are out because the mentors got their arses down early to put them out

there’s lots of footballs and sliotars because the club does a pile of fund raising. Even then there are times someone puts their hand in their own pocket to arrange something for the kids

we have a GPO for sure- with the size of the club they don’t spend their day giving us personalised coaching sessions. Pretty much all of the training the kids get is given by mentors whose own knowledge is based on giving up their time to go to sessions the club arranges with coaches from other teams or areas.

there are a pile of the kids who won’t ever play at top level and in some cases won’t ever want to. Every one of them gets the same time and opportunity regardless.

Often we’re shoehorned in to a small sliver of the pitch trying to find ways to work on skills in limited space. Yes the facilities have improved over the years but the demand on them has increased massively.

None of the mentors are getting a penny for this- most of us were roped in when the kids were starting out and have stuck around.

by the way I’m not the one you need to ask about Kerry group and Staycity since I’m not the poster who made an issue originally about sponsorship.

I meant per registered GAA player in the county; member may have been a better word to use. The point I'm making is that by any metric, whether it's funding per member, or funding per head of population or anything, Dublin have received a disproportionate amount of the funding- and this ignores that Dublin's population is already an insane advantage, and we are only talking about Games Development funding, and not other sources of funding which are equally relevant!

That article is blocked for me as not a subscriber, I can see a glimpse of what you are claiming though. This actually doesn't tally with previous figures, with Dublin more over-represented. Granted, the funding has equalised somewhat over the last 5 years due to outcry but sadly the damage had been done by this stage. And as above, it doesn't account for other sources of funding.

(One last thing is that in a GAA context, Dublin are not 30% of the population, as the North has to be included. Even if we rightfully exempt the Unionist population, they are close to 25%).

Read my previous posts on this where I spell out my argument. I agree he didn't say it explicitly. But attributing Dublin's success to coaching, and saying funding was irrelevant, is just grossly inaccurate as I said. And with respect, you tell me I was mistaken doesn't mean a whole lot- you've been proved wrong repeatedly over the course of this discussion. Granted Tombo2001 is a relative latecomer and seems more reasonable, such as by admitting the population advantage, so I would be inclined to cut him more slack. So unfortunately I can't admit I was wrong because it wouldn't be true- that would really be wrong!

You keep saying he didn't say it explicitly.

What does that mean. Are you implying that is what he actually meant?

I've said this numerous times, on this forum. My post history only goes back to 2011 so I won't be able to find evidence from before then, but there is some from years ago. Sadly, even by 2011, Dublin had been grossly overfunded for years relative to everyone else so the stipulation you are adding (re: the lion's share of the funds) will have been true for that entire 2011-present time.

So you never said it before Dublin were the big dogs in terms of sponsorship money. And you're only saying it now because you want a slice of the action. So you're a hypocrite.

Mod Edit

Warning issued.

I assume you’d concede that Kerry’s funding advantages over the years in Munster is also not irrelevant so?

ie, they’re not “just good”

Ie they have benefitted from unfair advantages due to their financial muscle for example?

Dublin get sponsorship for the same reason Kerry do. They’re a marquee brand that’s useful to be associated with. Dublin have also been very astute in trying to maximise that channel (as indeed have Kerry). If population was the key the Indian national soccer team would be fighting off sponsors