Taoiseach’s Mayo village cycling club hits jackpot with Lottery grant

OleRodrigo

greenspurs wrote: »

The silence from the club is deafening , if not damning ....
Why not come out and explain what is going on ? Wouldnt that satisfy any questions that people have ?
If they refuse to comment, they are fueling the flames of suspicion

Why should they?

Everyone is entitled to a good name - until proven with evidence, not internet hearsay - otherwise.

Why should they indulge the whim of a bunch of internet Walter Mittys?

spyderski

<SNIP>

Just looking back over the FOI. The PRO personally signed the application form. The application form was emailed to the Taoiseach's office from the club's email address. The PRO was listed as the contact, and acknowledgement of receipt of the application was sent from the Dept to the PRO.

THEM'S THE FACT RIGHT THERE.

greenspurs

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Why should they?

Everyone is entitled to a good name - until proven with evidence, not internet hearsay - otherwise.

Why should they indulge the whim of a bunch of internet Walter Mittys?

Because, if i was being accused of underhand tactics to gain a Lottery payout, and i hadnt done anything wrong, i would explain what happened, as i expect most people/companys/organisations would.

But if i was part of something dodgy/fishy/cronyism , then i would probably stay quiet .........

RayCun

plodder wrote: »

The 'remit of the department. Well, they made a case, and were awarded a grant. Quibble with the details all you like. To an extent that are going to be subjective.

Subjective? This is extremely clear.

"Who Can Apply:
Applications are accepted from community groups and voluntary organisations with an involvement in the provision of health services to specific client groups (for example persons with an intellectual disability and/or physical disability, elderly, etc.), national groups providing information and support for various disabilities and illnesses and groups with a specific interest (for example to provide respite for elderly, equipment for day services, residential homes, etc.)"

plodder wrote: »

So, if this is illegal, can you quote me the relevant offence? Shouldn't someone report them to the gardai?

I didn't say it was illegal. Your argument is that it couldn't have happened if it wasn't okay. I'm pointing out that lots of things happen that aren't okay.

magicbastarder

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Why should they?

Everyone is entitled to a good name - until proven with evidence, not internet hearsay - otherwise.

Why should they indulge the whim of a bunch of internet Walter Mittys?

if i spend budget in work, i can imagine how long i'd last in my job if when asked how i spent it, i did not say and depended on an 'innocent until proven guilty' approach.
they were given public money. asking them to account for how it was spent is not a problem.

Weepsie

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Why should they?

Everyone is entitled to a good name - until proven with evidence, not internet hearsay - otherwise.

Why should they indulge the whim of a bunch of internet Walter Mittys?

Everyone is entitled to a good name, yet you continually insult people yourself?? If it doesn't bother you, stop posting. We get it.

spyderski

From the first page of the application form:

Please note the following before completing the application form:

Applications that are not appropriate to the Department of Health
(Sports, Education, Childcare & Youth Affairs, etc.) will not be accepted.

I really, honestly believe this categorically puts an end to all debate about whether they were entitled to apply or not. I'll respond to any other criticisms of my points, but not to anything related to their eligibility to apply. If 50+ pages of irrefutable evidence does not convince some people, further engagement from me on the issue won't either.

plodder

RayCun wrote: »

Subjective? This is extremely clear.

"Who Can Apply:
Applications are accepted from community groups and voluntary organisations with an involvement in the provision of health services to specific client groups (for example persons with an intellectual disability and/or physical disability, elderly, etc.), national groups providing information and support for various disabilities and illnesses and groups with a specific interest (for example to provide respite for elderly, equipment for day services, residential homes, etc.)"



I didn't say it was illegal. Your argument is that it couldn't have happened if it wasn't okay. I'm pointing out that lots of things happen that aren't okay.

No, my argument was that there is nothing illegal or wrong with them applying for the grant. It was up to the granting authority to point out whether they were or weren't eligible. That is the point which you and others are just ignoring.

Or are you advocating a system where we depend on people only applying for grants when they "know" that they qualify, and we just award it to them, because nobody would ever apply for a grant that they don't qualify for?

D3PO

spyderski wrote: »

Just looking back over the FOI. The PRO personally signed the application form. The application form was emailed to the Taoiseach's office from the club's email address. The PRO was listed as the contact, and acknowledgement of receipt of the application was sent from the Dept to the PRO.

THEM'S THE FACT RIGHT THERE.

Notification from the department of the taoiseach or the department of health ?

If its the former then spot on your dead right and hes bang to rights if its the latter then there is still a grey area.

RayCun

plodder wrote: »

No, my argument was that there is nothing illegal or wrong with them applying for the grant. It was up to the granting authority to point out whether they were or weren't eligible. That is the point which you and others are just ignoring.

I'm not ignoring it, neither is anyone else.

As spyderski found with his FOI requests, there was a letter sent from the Taoiseach's office in support of their application.

The club were not entitled to the grant, but they got it because of political interference.

plodder wrote: »

Or are you advocating a system where we depend on people only applying for grants when they "know" that they qualify, and we just award it to them, because nobody would ever apply for a grant that they don't qualify for?

No, I'm advocating a system where people apply for grants that they are eligible for, and the department decides which grants to approve based on how effective they would be at fulfilling the remit of the department.

Weepsie

plodder wrote: »

Or are you advocating a system where we depend on people only applying for grants when they "know" that they qualify, and we just award it to them, because nobody would ever apply for a grant that they don't qualify for?

Yes, in this instance certainly as it was absolutely clear. There is a DTTAS grant fund for them to apply for. They'd used it before successfully. They could have done it again.

I'm not addressing the point again either, as people are either willfully ignorant or trolling

D3PO

spyderski wrote: »

From the first page of the application form:

Please note the following before completing the application form:

Applications that are not appropriate to the Department of Health
(Sports, Education, Childcare & Youth Affairs, etc.) will not be accepted.

I really, honestly believe this categorically puts an end to all debate about whether they were entitled to apply or not. I'll respond to any other criticisms of my points, but not to anything related to their eligibility to apply. If 50+ pages of irrefutable evidence does not convince some people, further engagement from me on the issue won't either.

Thats not the argument here. The argument has moved on to weather the money was spent on what they applied for.

The fact is they did apply and it did get approved. They did nothing illegal by applying what should have happened is that it should have been rejected. That is not their fault.

They are not responsible for oversight by the granting department. They are however responsible for meeting their obligations under the grant application namely spending the money for the purpose intended.

That they are responsible for and that they can and should be accountable for and that needs to be the focus of this topic now. The other ship has sailed.

Beasty

To be clear I am not objecting to their application. If that has gone through without proper scrutiny, that's not the club's fault. My overriding concern is the club's failure to confirm if the money was spent in accordance with that application. I really cannot understand their reluctance to clear this up (well I could, but am assuming they don't feel they have anything to hide here)

D3PO

RayCun wrote: »

The club were not entitled to the grant, but they got it because of political interference.

I think people will almost universally agree with this, and not condoning this but this happens daily in all areas.

That for me though is not the fault of the club that is the fault of the then Taoiseach and he is the one responsible for answering to this.

If enough people contacted their local TDs about this Im sure it would be brought to leaders questions and the floor of the dail however again this is not the clubs fault.

They put in an application they leveraged influence (the morality of which is not really what should be debated here) and they got the grant.

For me the key is did they spend the money for its intended purpose. The rest has a grey area in it, this does not, this is absolute you got 20k for spin bikes did you spend 20k on spin bikes.

If not the club has questions to answer for, if they did spend the money on the spin bikes we can like it or hate it that they got this grant but we have to accept that they have dont nothing wrong legally irrespective of weather morally they did.

RayCun

D3PO wrote: »

For me the key is did they spend the money for its intended purpose.

For me, the key thing is that a Department of Health grant should be spent on material that is within the remit of the Department of Health.

They shouldn't have applied for a grant they knew they weren't eligible for. They shouldn't have contacted the office of the Taoiseach for assistance in getting the grant. They were pulling strokes, and your attitude appears to be that it's all water under the bridge now.

If they haven't spent the money yet, it isn't too late to give it back.

spyderski

D3PO wrote: »

I think people will almost universally agree with this, and not condoning this but this happens daily in all areas.

That for me though is not the fault of the club that is the fault of the then Taoiseach and he is the one responsible for answering to this.

If enough people contacted their local TDs about this Im sure it would be brought to leaders questions and the floor of the dail however again this is not the clubs fault.

They put in an application they leveraged influence (the morality of which is not really what should be debated here) and they got the grant.

For me the key is did they spend the money for its intended purpose. The rest has a grey area in it, this does not, this is absolute you got 20k for spin bikes did you spend 20k on spin bikes.

If not the club has questions to answer for, if they did spend the money on the spin bikes we can like it or hate it that they got this grant but we have to accept that they have dont nothing wrong legally irrespective of weather morally they did.

In fairness, I can't really argue with any of that. It reflects my stance on the matter now. The thread did initially start out commenting on how they qualified for the grant, it has evolved on from that over time. Thats why I posted above to say I wouldn't be engaging in further debate over that issue - I'm 100% convinced it was a political stroke.

I fully agree that at this stage, the only thing that can be scrutinised effectively is whether they do spend the money on what it was granted for. That's my focus for now. The US funding/charity issue is a further, connected matter for debate - if they have funding for 25 spin bikes, which there's no evidence of having been purchased, why are they attempting to raise money for further similar equipment?

D3PO

RayCun wrote: »

For me, the key thing is that a Department of Health grant should be spent on material that is within the remit of the Department of Health.

They shouldn't have applied for a grant they knew they weren't eligible for. They shouldn't have contacted the office of the Taoiseach for assistance in getting the grant. They were pulling strokes, and your attitude appears to be that it's all water under the bridge now.

If they haven't spent the money yet, it isn't too late to give it back.

yes they were probably pulling a stroke and I'm not condoning it but the position is that guidelines are just that there are no rules set in stone that stop the department from not following their own guidelines.

it stinks but lets be realistic there is no mechanism to get this grant retracted. I don't like it but that is the reality of the situation.

D3PO

spyderski wrote: »

In fairness, I can't really argue with any of that. It reflects my stance on the matter now. The thread did initially start out commenting on how they qualified for the grant, it has evolved on from that over time. Thats why I posted above to say I wouldn't be engaging in further debate over that issue - I'm 100% convinced it was a political stroke.

I fully agree that at this stage, the only thing that can be scrutinised effectively is whether they do spend the money on what it was granted for. That's my focus for now. The US funding/charity issue is a further, connected matter for debate - if they have funding for 25 spin bikes, which there's no evidence of having been purchased, why are they attempting to raise money for further similar equipment?

Id be in sync with you on most of that bar the US funding thing. If its nothing to do with the taxpayer then we don't really have any right to question it unless they are misrepresenting themselves as a charity

RayCun

D3PO wrote: »

yes they were probably pulling a stroke and I'm not condoning it but the position is that guidelines are just that there are no rules set in stone that stop the department from not following their own guidelines.

:rolleyes:

spyderski

D3PO wrote: »

Id be in sync with you on most of that bar the US funding thing. If its nothing to do with the taxpayer then we don't really have any right to question it unless they are misrepresenting themselves as a charity

Firstly, until we can establish that the initial €20k has been spent on spin bikes, the 2 issues are inextricably linked, due to additional monies being sought for equipment with a similar purpose to that already funded.
Secondly, there is a serious concern that they are in fact misrepresenting themselves. What other conclusion could be drawn from the phrase "non-profit/charity"? I have contacted the US-Mayo fund in question regarding this and am awaiting a reply. If there turns out to be evidence of inappropriate behaviour in relation to the private donations, it would not simply be a case of "it's nothing to do with the taxpayer". The club are affiliated to Cycling Ireland also, and would be subject to their rules of governance.

plodder

spyderski wrote: »

What other conclusion could be drawn from the phrase "non-profit/charity"?

Is that really in dispute? I take it to mean non-profit or charity. Or are you suggesting they are really a profit making business?

I have contacted the US-Mayo fund in question regarding this and am awaiting a reply. If there turns out to be evidence of inappropriate behaviour in relation to the private donations, it would not simply be a case of "it's nothing to do with the taxpayer". The club are affiliated to Cycling Ireland also, and would be subject to their rules of governance.

As far as I can see they aren't affiliated to Cycling Ireland, which lends more credence to the idea that they aren't a regular cycling club and maybe more of a community org.

D3PO

spyderski wrote: »

Firstly, until we can establish that the initial €20k has been spent on spin bikes, the 2 issues are inextricably linked, due to additional monies being sought for equipment with a similar purpose to that already funded.
Secondly, there is a serious concern that they are in fact misrepresenting themselves. What other conclusion could be drawn from the phrase "non-profit/charity"? I have contacted the US-Mayo fund in question regarding this and am awaiting a reply. If there turns out to be evidence of inappropriate behaviour in relation to the private donations, it would not simply be a case of "it's nothing to do with the taxpayer". The club are affiliated to Cycling Ireland also, and would be subject to their rules of governance.

they are non profit though and we also don't know exactly who or what application for fundraising has been made. I see they are part of a larger "community" organization I don't know the makeup of this but perhaps there is a charitable element to it.

Look regardless this seems to be another stretching of the boundaries. These guys evidently play hard and fast with the guidelines but I'm not sure cycling Ireland can sanction a club for entering the grey area in such matters ?

Perhaps they can and if so they should investigate and sanction appropriately.

spyderski

plodder wrote: »

Is that really in dispute? I take it to mean non-profit or charity. Or are you suggesting they are really a profit making business?

As far as I can see they aren't affiliated to Cycling Ireland, which lends more credence to the idea that they aren't a regular cycling club and maybe more of a community org.

I have never used the phrase "charity' when describing my cycling club, and the only reason I can see for doing so would be to misrepresent. I am open to correction on that one, It's just my personal opinion.

They are affiliated to CI. I looked it up.

D3PO

RayCun wrote: »

:rolleyes:

great reply :rolleyes: really added to the debate.

My point is there are rules and there are guidelines. A guideline is just that and can be circumvented or ridden roughshod over. I don't agree with that kind of behavior but that's the reality of the situation.

so weather you like it or not your view that the money should be reclaimed has no basis in reality. Sorry for pointing this out but that's the situation.

I don't have to like what I'm writing to write it, but ignoring it adds nothing to the discussion.

plodder

spyderski wrote: »

They are affiliated to CI. I looked it up.

Apologies. I checked the club locator map, and it seems I didn't know where Islandeady is....

"non-profit/charity" could be a general category that the US awarding organisation uses. It might not be their choice at all.

RayCun

D3PO wrote: »

My point is there are rules and there are guidelines. A guideline is just that and can be circumvented or ridden roughshod over. I don't agree with that kind of behavior but that's the reality of the situation.

"Who Can Apply:
Applications are accepted from community groups and voluntary organisations with an involvement in the provision of health services to specific client groups (for example persons with an intellectual disability and/or physical disability, elderly, etc.), national groups providing information and support for various disabilities and illnesses and groups with a specific interest (for example to provide respite for elderly, equipment for day services, residential homes, etc.)"

The phrase "ah sure, you're grand, you know yourself" mysteriously fails to appear.

But then again, it doesn't say "These are RULES", so maybe they just put down whatever came into their heads, and didn't expect anyone to actually read it.

D3PO

Ray I'm not going to argue semantics with you. There was nothing illegal in them applying and nothing illegal in them lobbying their local politician.

I don't like what they did but they did nothing wrong. The department gives out the grants as they see fit, if they determine that a grant is eligible then sorry but its tough sh1te.

they only way anybody here can possibly affect change in this situation is for the right political pressure to be put on the situation. If for example somebody could provide that they spent the money on something other than spin bikes then with the right level of political contact you could effect a revoking of the money.

So perhaps focus on the necessary here namely did they spend the money correctly or indeed at all.

spyderski

plodder wrote: »

"non-profit/charity" could be a general category that the US awarding organisation uses. It might not be their choice at all.

The fund has 4 projects it is putting forward for funding:

A GAA club
A National School
An animal protection group
Islandeady Cycling Club.

None of the other groups mention the word "charity" in their biog. The biogs for each appear to have been written by the promoters, not the Mayo fund.

I must stress that this is based on my reading of the website, I have no other source, before someone pulls me up for not having "actually facts" again.

spyderski

they are not registered on lobbying.ie !

mod edit: it has yet to be established for certain what law pertains to them, so some of this post has been removed.

RayCun

D3PO wrote: »

Ray I'm not going to argue semantics with you. There was nothing illegal in them applying and nothing illegal in them lobbying their local politician.

I never suggested it was against the law.

It was obviously a case of politics interfering with the correct application of guidelines. If you don't care about that, you don't care.

If they went on to spend the grant money on something else that would make the situation worse, but if they spend it on spin bikes that doesn't make it okay.