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

Bonniedog wrote: »

When did Kerry play Westmeath? Dublin have often played in Mullingar,

Point is that over 135 years Dublin could have played Westmeath in Mullingar or Milan, or Kerry played Clare in Ennis or Enfield.

Would have made absolutely no difference, whatsoever on almost 99% of those occasions.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I grew up playing in a very big club at home and my experience was that while they have very good structures in place, the large numbers mean that while the best players are identified early the weaker ones gradually become more marginalised, because the resources just aren't there to help everyone. It's not that a smaller club is better resourced, but that they are forced to care about everyone who participates, because numbers are so tight. I certainly didn't feel a sense of connection with my club once I was in my teenage years. If I had played for a small rural club with 16 minor players (like the one that played against my club in a minor county final a few years back) I might have felt differently.

But I think the big clubs would feel very threatened if they thought a small club might start pulling some of those players away, even though they themselves can't really cater to everyone. Certainly when we were fighting for use of a pitch this was one of the reasons that club (I don't use their name anymore) named for not wanting to share.

It's a trade-off though, because as you say, big clubs are way better set up to do things like put coaching structures in place to help players develop into really serious athletes and intercounty players and stuff. But in terms of fostering mass participation the small clubs are beneficial too. I think both are needed, but there is no appetite among the big clubs in Dublin to really encourage teams that they would regard as their competition. It's understandable, and I think the big clubs everywhere would be the same (there is no good reason why there's only three clubs in Kilkenny City for example), but in terms of the future of the sport(s) I think a mix is needed.

ArielAtom wrote: »

And all with less turnover than Kerry, turnover for vanity profit for sanity��

ArielAtom wrote: »

Deflect from the facts that Kerry turned over more. We could all do that, sure the cost of living in Dublin is so much higher!!!!!

beggars_bush wrote: »

but their costs were not subsidised by GAA HQ and high profile sponsors

ArielAtom wrote: »

So Kerry Group are not high profile?????????? OK.

beggars_bush wrote: »

High profile, but whats the actual monetary contribution from them?
Not compared to AIG, and the 15 other sponsors involved

gaffer91 wrote: »

The monies for game development were unfair and helped the senior team, no amount of deflection can change that.

The population was always bigger and was such a statistical outlier that it alone was grounds for a split, never mind anything else.

The sponsorship should be shared between all counties. It's a community sporting organisation with an amateur ethos.

I have a structured away of dealing with the injustices- split Dublin into four teams, pool sponsorship money centrally and distribute evenly to all counties. I'll stop arguing the point when people stop posting the same debunked rubbish back to me.

Fann Linn wrote: »

I s'pose. They wouldn't be as fat as some other teams.

gaffer91 wrote: »

The population alone is grounds for a split (albeit pre financial doping I'd have been in favour of a two way rather than a four way split) not more money. Dublin are overfunded even when the population is accounted for- per head of population, per registered player. So it's unfair whichever way you look at it.

But you should already know this- it's been explained to you personally countless times already on this very thread.

When reading a post (or indeed any article/ book/ opinion piece etc for your general reference), you should actually try to retain and analyse the information.

It's ridiculous to say Dublin shouldn't be split in four. How I propose to do it is simple- split them in four. Use a combination of geography, population and playing numbers.

How many times does it have to be explained about the Kerry/ Kilkenny comparison? It's not just the fact Dublin are winning, it's the fact they are doing it from an unfairly advantaged position. Please try to actually read and retain this information to stop you posting this nonsense once again.

You say it isn't grossly unfair and then in the very next sentence acknowledge that Dublin have a lot of advantages. The direct contradiction is unbelievable.

A split in Dublin absolutely would be terrific for the game, including in Dublin, for the reasons I explained in my last post. The inter- county game is slowly dying currently with reduced interest and attendances year on year.

Also, you realise Dublin have already killed Leinster as a competitive competition? So if two Dublin subdivisions started dominating it would be a significant improvement compared to what the lie of the land is currently, where Dublin are strolling to victory every year.

gaffer91 wrote: »

Did you actually read anything I posted? You *immediately* bounced back in with "why not split Kerry" when I gave reasons then (and have done many times previously too) why the two are different. You didn't respond to any of the issues I raised either.

Try to actually comprehend things before you come back blindly regurgitating the same tripe.i

Splitting Dublin will help other teams by ensuring there is still a semblance of a competition to compete in rather than the uncompetitive farce which the All-Ireland is currently descending into. No-one will be watching in 10 years if things continue on their current trajectory. If you want to see the future of the All Ireland championship, look at the Leinster championship.

There are other problems with the inter-county game but Dublin are the main problem. Nothing else even comes close.

It's likely you won't read this post either but will come back with some combination of "no-one said anything about Kilkenny" or "Dublin have the best volunteers" or some other tired, debunked cliche.

gaffer91 wrote: »

So, like I said in my last post to you, your argument is that because one county board may or may not have wasted money, Dublin should be overfunded relative to everyone else, permanently? Got it. This includes being overfunded relative to competently run county boards as well.

So we've established your argument is still absurd. The simple counterargument is: Mayo wasting money does not justify Dublin's .overfunding relative to everyone else, either now or in the past

Dublin are being overfunded in 2019. Include sponsorship deals. Games Development funding needs to factor in long term averages too as a year or two of something approaching funding equalisation won't matter- the residual effects of the financial doping will linger for many years. Hence the urgency to split Dublin to help Gaelic Games.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My point is that they do have those advantages over the 'smaller' counties. How much more funding do Mayo receive vs Roscommon? What about their population advantage vs Leitrim, or Kerry's sponsorship vs Laois sponsorship?

All this "level playing field" is just a smokescreen for begrudgery at being left behind. It's harder for Mayo or Kerry to win an AI, but what about Wicklow? If Dublin were banned from next year's AI, what difference would that make to their chances of even getting to a QF?

If you really wanted to make it fair, you'd split everyone on the same criteria. Instead, you just want to hobble Dublin so that the other contenders can catch up more easily. Like the other poster said, it's Christmas take a chill pill, have a drink. Every post you've made in the last 4 months was about Dublin. Take a break.

gaffer91 wrote: »

Funding should be pooled and equalised regardless of any other changes. Current expenditure on teams could be looked at too to help level things somewhat, maybe after mileage, number of matches etc are accounted for. But Dublin would still need to be split. The residual effects of the financial doping for the last 15 years will last for years to come.

Feel free to look up the answers yourself to the questions you have posed- what I will tell you is that Dublin receive significantly more than everyone else- both from the GAA, from the government and from their sponsors. This has been well documented on this thread and others so I'm not going to comb through it again for you. Combine this with their other advantages and it's obvious they need to be split.

Also Dublin wouldn't be "banned", they'd be split. There would actually be more players from Dublin than ever before challenging for the All-Ireland.

With Wicklow, splitting Dublin wouldn't help them getting to a quarter final as quarter finals don't exist anymore. But it may help them get to the super 8s for instance by ensuring that there is still a functioning competition for years to come. There won't be if the Dublin problem continues.

Like I said before, it's the combination of funding + population + other advantages that mean Dublin need to be split four ways- not any of these things individually. EDIT: well the population alone is grounds for a split, but by itself, a two way split would probably be sufficient.

gaffer91 wrote: »

The teams I was referring to in my last post were senior inter-county teams, my apologies, I should have made that more clear.

Overall funding could indeed factor in population, playing numbers, historical funding and other things.

Splitting Dublin will make other counties competitive as it will ensure there is still a meaningful competition for them to actually compete in.

Dublin are getting more from their sponsors because they have the largest population and market.

The real question is the Dublin problem and splitting them is the answer. There are other problems with Gaelic Football at present but nothing else even comes close. What needs to change for other counties is for Dublin to be split and other issues to be dealt with subsequent to that single, most important change.