Bridge93 wrote: » That's a good point but in the short term anyway, seen as they are the most profitable sports organisation here you could say they don't need the funding while others do. Smaller bodies will continue to struggle and some make a loss as they don't have adequate investment to allow them to develop sustainable models long term. All this while the GAA has a brilliant model that makes them millions. The GAA can as you say effectively pay back their funding through schemes, and both quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits to the economy. But I was talking in a strictly sporting sense it's quite unfair they're allowed to flourish spectacularly with largely unneeded support while other flounder badly. GAA also gets massive income from non sporting events like concerts that others don't. Not embarrassing from the GAAs point of view but from a government viewpoint it should be. Those who earn a better wage pay more taxes and those really struggling get more benefits. It's kind of like what I'm saying the division of funding should be.
Frankie Lee wrote: » They get less than the FAI and almost the same as the IRFU in sports council grants. The IRFU takes in more money than the GAA too and has lower participation rates. The IRFU players also get very generous tax allowances after a number of years.
Bridge93 wrote: » Didn't know that, I'll take back some of what I said. But the other two are professional bodies who have to pay wages, cover trips abroad etc. I would be of the opinion that a professional body would need more support than an amateur one. Do the GAA have to pay their board members and officials or are they amateur too? The 600 grand for a stadium in London I will not change my mind on that is a disgrace when it's relatively small cash to the GAA but large in the context of the government funds available to sport in general.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » The GAA generates millions for the economy on an annual basis and so pays back any of the funding money it gets from the government in the additional tax revenue GAA matches generate.Think of the amount of money that is spent in Dublin, Thurles, Killarney,Cork etc and time there is a big match that would otherwise not be spent.
Breffnigolfer wrote: » The money will be spent in any case, whether or not a GAA match was played or not. Are you suggesting the money would not be spent if there wasn't a game?
Tin Foil Hat wrote: » Rule 42. Rule 42 is the answer to the OP's question. There's really no reason to be embarrassed about one of our teams or one of our athletes performing poorly on any particular day. There's no particular reason for national embarrassment when one of our sportspeople act like cnuts (Roy Keane - 2002) or takes drugs (Michelle Smith- 1996). These things happen everywhere. However, the deliberate, high profile bigotry of the GAA, up until less than a decade ago, is rather unusual - and made me absolutely cringe. I stopped supporting the GAA in my early teens because of it.
Breffnigolfer wrote: » Soccer has higher participation rare than GAA. Rugby, at least, represents Ireland internationally.
WesternZulu wrote: » Name me a sporting organisation who has acted in a completely dignified manner throughout their existence?
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » Are you suggesting thousands of people would just spontaneously show up in those towns to spend money on food and drink and thereby put millions into the local economy if the match wasn't played? Or do you just fundamentally misunderstand the benefit of economic activity to an economy?
Breffnigolfer wrote: » I, unlike you wasn't being parochial. The general, national, economy will end up the same as the money will be spent anyway.
Breffnigolfer wrote: » Fair play to the GAA for the good work they do but most local clubs spend the year pumping the people for every penny they can get. It gets tiresome after a while.
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » You do know that people don't have to contribute money if they don't want to.
Breffnigolfer wrote: » Yes, but that's a separate issue. I'm commenting on the endless shakedowns. A prime example is the local BLOTTO with,typically, 4 numbers from 28, and a chance of someone winning something like once every two years.
Realt Dearg Sec wrote: » So, don't do it if you don't want to...what's the problem?
martingriff wrote: » Like every other lotto in existence then. You know there is a great word you should get to know NO. Or walk past collections
Frankie Lee wrote: » Almost all small soccer clubs run equivilant lottos too, why no criticism there?
Breffnigolfer wrote: » You wouldn't understand.
Breffnigolfer wrote: » I've already answered that.
Breffnigolfer wrote: » I've already answered.
Bridge93 wrote: » The funding the GAA receive from the government is fairly embarrassing. They are the biggest association on the island with by far the largest revenue yet they recieve a huge cut of the funding compared to those who need it more. They got 600,000 to help build a HQ in London for feck sake. Ridiculous. If the want to waste money like that it should be out of their own large earnings rather than public funds. There are associations like Basketball, Athletics and Hockey struggling to survive due to a lack of funding and they can't raise it themselves as they don't have the structure, opportunities or facilities the GAA have. Yet the GAA continue to take a considerable chunk of the money. For a sport not competing on an international stage it's all the more needless. What's even more embarrassing and surely near the top is the Government funding itself. €25 million was the total sum out government put up for sport this year. A pathetic sum of money to spread across everything.
Peist2007 wrote: » Do you expect any sporting or cultural organisation, from the GAA to the National Tiddlywinks Association, to refuse funding?
martingriff wrote: » Wait there is a National Tiddlywinks Association. I am so there
