Should the GAA be getting ISC grant money?

It wasn't me!

4gun wrote: »

Its not about not need it, they will put it to better use,
Building facilities for a fringe sport is a total waste.

Of course it's about their need. Like I say, their reason for requesting it is because of an internal policy to not pay their players from their own money. That's a crap policy, and their internal policies should not mean the sports council gives them money to do something they're well capable of themselves. That's really not their core raison d'etre.

Giving lads better shooting equipment is not going to make them better shooters.

You're kinda betraying some ignorance of the sport there 4gun. It won't make them better shooters. It might help them shoot better and achieve better results, and if that weren't true, we wouldn't see the constant agitation for technological innovation that's such a part of the sport and we'd all be using thirty year old gear with no thought to its selection.

No one forces them to take the sport up, nobody forces anyone into the GAA
but more people choose it.

Now that's just crap. The reason the GAA gets such huge participation is simply exposure at a young age. Growing up, in my first school, the only sport I had *any* exposure to was gaelic football. There wasn't anything else, and I played that. When I moved school, it was rugby, and I played that. Now, the reason the GAA *retains* players after childhood is its community infrastructure (and given the number of people who come to football and rugby from GAA, their community infrastructure is demonstrably not foolproof either). I'd love to see shooting and other sports get exposure at junior level. I was always fascinated by shooting, and if I'd had a chance to take it up as a kid, I'd have jumped at it, and I'd be at least ten years ahead of where I am now.

Its participants for the most part are amateur, the top inter county may receive sponsorship through the organisation. Should the players go pro, the best players would then be drawn to the top and best funded counties.
Sparks mentioned how the game has evolved in the last 20 years like it was a bad thing (Faster and fitter players) imagine what it would be come if they were pro.
I'm done this topic, whinging and whining isn't going to change the way thing are no matter how loud it's gets

Evolution's not a bad thing at all. We have a huge amount to learn from the GAA, and a lot to admire about their participation in life around the country, but it's not perfect, it has serious internal problems and causes big external issues as well. We can and should attempt to address that. Getting shooting into secondary schools is entirely achievable and well worth trying. After all, for those who hunt, how many of you had exposure to the sport by that age (13ish)? I'm guessing a lot of you were hunting with family at that age, and in a sporting sense were probably competing in school at GAA, football or rugby. What the goal should be is to get some secondary schools involved in air rifle and such, for all of the same reasons and benefits.

4gun

What can I say, A tick box survey, with tick a many boxes a necessary,
so you get everyone who plays GAA football + hurling also tick soccer
those that play golf will also tick soccer
they you have the lads that run + play soccer +football
take swimming nearly everybody swims
so on
you know those surveys
how is the data compiled?
most people play more that one sport

Show me one where it shows sole participation


there...

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

What can I say, A tick box survey

It's not a tick box survey, didn't you read it? From the very first paragraph of the entire report:

The ISM is designed to measure and monitor physical and social participation in sport
and other forms of exercise. The survey sample is designed to be representative of the
Irish population aged 16 and over, with interviews conducted by telephone throughout
2011. The survey uses large sample sizes to ensure robustness in the estimates both
at an overall level and for key socio-demographic sub-groups. 8,749 interviews were
conducted in 2011, with previous years based on similarly large samples (9,781 in
2007, 6,829 in 2008 and 9,767 in 2009)

You can't just "tick as many boxes as possible".
And if someone does golf and GAA football, it doesn't change the data about which sport is more popular; there are still more people hitting a little ball with a stick than there are kicking the ball.

you know those surveys
how is the data compiled?

Didn't read it at all, did you?
There's a technical appendix at the back, there's basic information on how it was compiled at the front.

You really are just arguing to be contrary and not because you actually hold that opinion, aren't you?

It wasn't me!

You said it yourself though, most people play more than one sport, so sole participation is meaningless. I shoot, hunt, hike, run and cycle. The only one I consider my sport is target shooting, since it's all I'm seriously competitive about, but I'm guessing had I answered that survey my profile would reflect participation in all the above. Doesn't mean my cycling or running takes place within a structured training environment though.

I think we're having a problem determining what's really at issue though. We're talking about the GAA as an entity within local communities, and even up to national level, but what's mostly being talked about here is the GAA at local, first-contact level. The sports council exists to promote elite sport though, and while the GAA has serious links to other sports, the money spent on funding players they should be supporting themselves could provide an absolutely massive boost to any ten other sports which actually have an international facet. World and Olympic medals is what we should be chasing. We saw after London the two loudest shouts were that our medal haul was tiny and that we'd done brilliantly. Both ignored the fact that they were mutually correct. We did amazingly, considering very poor investment in sport, but we can do so much better. A body like the GAA sucks up funding that it doesn't need, while the sports with an international profile are overshadowed and get no promotion or core investment.

Hidalgo

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You said it yourself though, most people play more than one sport, so sole participation is meaningless. I shoot, hunt, hike, run and cycle. The only one I consider my sport is target shooting, since it's all I'm seriously competitive about, but I'm guessing had I answered that survey my profile would reflect participation in all the above. Doesn't mean my cycling or running takes place within a structured training environment though.

I think we're having a problem determining what's really at issue though. We're talking about the GAA as an entity within local communities, and even up to national level, but what's mostly being talked about here is the GAA at local, first-contact level. The sports council exists to promote elite sport though, and while the GAA has serious links to other sports, the money spent on funding players they should be supporting themselves could provide an absolutely massive boost to any ten other sports which actually have an international facet. World and Olympic medals is what we should be chasing. We saw after London the two loudest shouts were that our medal haul was tiny and that we'd done brilliantly. Both ignored the fact that they were mutually correct. We did amazingly, considering very poor investment in sport, but we can do so much better. A body like the GAA sucks up funding that it doesn't need, while the sports with an international profile are overshadowed and get no promotion or core investment.

Agreed by and large, but at times there's an argument that the GAA put on balaclavas loaded the rifles (no pun intended) and robbed the ISC money vault.

Yes the GAA are to blame for getting funding, but imo the ISC are more culpable for giving it. They're supposed to be the body in charge of elite investment.

It wasn't me!

Hidalgo wrote: »

Agreed by and large, but at times there's an argument that the GAA put on balaclavas loaded the rifles (no pun intended) and robbed the ISC money vault.

Yes the GAA are to blame for getting funding, but imo the ISC are more culpable for giving it. They're supposed to be the body in charge of elite investment.

Oh, no argument there. I can't blame the GAA for taking money they're given. I'm blaming the body that doesn't tell them to shove that stupid policy up their collective hole and get on with the business of funding sports that actually do need it.

Hidalgo

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Oh, no argument there. I can't blame the GAA for taking money they're given. I'm blaming the body that doesn't tell them to shove that stupid policy up their collective hole and get on with the business of funding sports that actually do need it.

Yep the ISC should grow a pair, if they are after all supposed to be funding elite sportspeople in the international field.


What the GAA are doing is essentially an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Maintaining the amateur statue as grant money to players isn't coming directly from the pocket of the GAA

Glensman

Hidalgo wrote: »

What the GAA are doing is essentially an Irish solution to an Irish problem. Maintaining the amateur statue as grant money to players isn't coming directly from the pocket of the GAA

Actually what the GAA are doing is asking the government to provide funding towards the expenses incurred by being and inter-county footballer or hurler.
Much the same as is done in Ireland and other countries for Olympians.

The GAA got this to give parity, now you want it taken away.... to give parity.

It wasn't me!

I think you're missing the point that GAA players, at any level, are not Olympians. That's the major issue. That funding should be going towards sports with an international facet.

Hidalgo

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I think you're missing the point that GAA players, at any level, are not Olympians. That's the major issue. That funding should be going towards sports with an international facet.

Rugby isn't as of yet an Olympic sport yet it receives funding.
Soccer although it is will more than likely feature Ireland and receives funding.
American football gets funding and isn't an Olympic sport (thought eh amount is extremely €25k I think)

Just because a sport has an international aspect shouldn't guarantee it funding imo. I don't see the point in funding a sport unless there is a chance of it growing and benefiting the wider population.

Sparks

Hidalgo wrote: »

Just because a sport has an international aspect shouldn't guarantee it funding imo.

No, but winning medals in it despite incredibly poor funding should.
(and by incredibly poor I mean that that "extremely small" €25k would be close enough to five years worth of funding - maybe six, depending on the years you chose - for Olympic rifle shooting in Ireland).

Hidalgo

Sparks wrote: »

No, but winning medals in it despite incredibly poor funding should.
(and by incredibly poor I mean that that "extremely small" €25k would be close enough to five years worth of funding - maybe six, depending on the years you chose - for Olympic rifle shooting in Ireland).

While winning medals would be great, I'd be more interested in funding sports that would in time become popular and benefit what in time might become something more than a tiny minority. Personally (and no more than my opinion) I'd prefer to see funding go to a sport like swimming, benefit more than 1 even if it resulted in no medals over funding going to 1 individual in a sport, he/she wins a medal but its of little to no benefit to the sport overall or to the nation.

Of course, one of the best ways to increase interest in a sport is when athletes/competitors are doing well in said sport (swimming in the UK after London).

Sparks

Hidalgo wrote: »

While winning medals would be great

Ahem.
Is great.
We've won a few already, was my point, despite chronic under-funding. And if we were properly funded, we'd win far more.

I'd be more interested in funding sports that would in time become popular

There's the bit of vision that's needed. Right now, we fund sports that already are popular. It's a nasty little catch-22. You can't get popular without the funding, and you can't get the funding without being popular.