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

magicbastarder

spyderski wrote: »

they are not registered on lobbying.ie !

not necessarily relevant; https://www.lobbying.ie/help-resources/information-for-lobbyists/am-i-lobbying/
- they're not an employer with ten or more employees
- they're not a representative body where the comms is initiated by a paid employee
- they're not an advocacy body
- and they're not a third party

so the lobbying law is not written to take amateur sports clubs into account - which is hardly a surprise.

spyderski

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

magicbastarder

i've closed this thread pending mod discussion, some claims being made are flying a little too close to the wind, so we're looking into it. please bear with us.

Chips Lovell

Reopening thread now. I've had to delete or edit a small number of posts.

There's no problem with discussing this topic or asking why and how the club were awarded funding etc. However, I'd urge posters to avoid making unsubstantiated allegations, particularly against identifiable individuals.

Thanks for your patience

spyderski

Thanks mods, understandable in the circumstances.

Since the thread was locked it has come to my attention that the club have submitted confirmation of expenditure to the Department.

Presumably that’s the end of it and we’ll soon be seeing pics of the new spin bikes, mats, Bluetooth heart monitors and other equipment.

flutered

just back from meeting my u.s. side of the family, the partner of one is mayo bred born and raised, all advailable funding both private and church is being directed to heuston, to help with the recent damage, it is doubtfull if much funding for the cycle club will be raised in the u.s. according to them

spyderski

As per my last post, the club have installed the new smart turbos, screens etc. See link here …https://www.facebook.com/islandeadycycling/photos/pcb.1720516664688585/1720515748022010/?type=3&theater

So at least the money was spent on (almost) the equipment it was given for.

Still should never have come from the Dept Health fund, and is still a political stroke.

Weepsie

Well at least they used it for what they said, but it still doesn't change the fact they never ever should have got the money in the first place.

The insurance premium for Jack's Old Cottage has probably jumped right up too you'd think.

benneca1

Weepsie wrote: »

Well at least they used it for what they said, but it still doesn't change the fact they never ever should have got the money in the first place.

The insurance premium for Jack's Old Cottage has probably jumped right up too you'd think.

Fairly biased comment for a moderator. Are you an expert on grant allocation ? If not then it is opinion. This whole thread is pure daft. This thread should have been kept closed ages ago.

plodder

Looking at the photos above, they look pretty much what I expected, more a community cycling group, than a club in the traditional sense. I say more power to them. I admire people who go out looking for funding, rather than waiting for it to fall into their lap. And that's all I'm going to say on the matter.

Lusk_Doyle

benneca1 wrote: »

Fairly biased comment for a moderator. Are you an expert on grant allocation ? If not then it is opinion. This whole thread is pure daft. This thread should have been kept closed ages ago.

Great biased opinion.

Kaisr Sose

benneca1 wrote: »

Fairly biased comment for a moderator. Are you an expert on grant allocation ? If not then it is opinion. This whole thread is pure daft. This thread should have been kept closed ages ago.

What is meant by “kept closed” ? Are members of the public not allowed question why grants are given for purposes they were not intended? When such discussion is suppressed it’s normally for a reason!

What are your bone fides or motives here? Is it to quell public comment on such matters, and if so, why? If you are a neutral here, you should be grateful that someone asks questions that people would prefer were not asked. This seems to be parish pump / stroke politics at its best.

This thread asked questions that needed to be asked. I commend Spyderski for doing so.

mugsymugsy

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

What is meant by “kept closed” ? Are members of the public not allowed question why grants are given for purposes they were not intended? When such discussion is suppressed it’s normally for a reason!

What are your bone fides or motives here? Is it to quell public comment on such matters, and if so, why? If you are a neutral here, you should be grateful that someone asks questions that people would prefer were not asked. This seems to be parish pump / stroke politics at its best.

This thread asked questions that needed to be asked. I commend Spyderski for doing so.

This 100%. Public funds / spending should be open and transparent. I'm glad people like spyderski took time to check this out. If it's spent correctly then fantastic if it's not then unless people challenged then how would we know. Still not sure how they got funding from this department but hey ho......

OleRodrigo

The only useful insights this thread offers are the problems with self appointed citizen journalism ( or social media mob rule ) and fake news.

No mention of an apology either. Its like an episode from ' Black Mirror ' .

Weepsie

benneca1 wrote: »

Fairly biased comment for a moderator. Are you an expert on grant allocation ? If not then it is opinion. This whole thread is pure daft. This thread should have been kept closed ages ago.

My being a moderator has absolutely nothing to do with this and bias. It's frankly an absurd statement.

If you'd bothered reading the thread you'd see I did some amount of research, highlight how no sports clubs had been award for than a nominal amount in the last 5-7 years from the grant fund, and all of them where for very specific reasons related to health.

The terms and conditions of applying for and getting funding from this grant were plain and clear, they shouldn't have applied, they shouldn't have been considered after replying, and they shouldn't have gotten the special consideration they seemed to have got.

That plus I let my feelings on this known well before i became I mod.



If you have a problem with the post, please report it to one of the mods, (maybe not me, conflict of interest and bias can arise). Your comment amounts to backseat modding too, which if you feel it should be closed, report it and it will be considered.

Weepsie

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The only useful insights this thread offers are the problems with self appointed citizen journalism ( or social media mob rule ) and fake news.

No mention of an apology either. Its like an episode from ' Black Mirror ' .

The facts are they got funding they were not entitled too. That's the problem.

Remember this any time any of you apply for a grant you are actually eligible for and don't get it. It's because of nonsense like this

benneca1

Weepsie wrote: »

The facts are they got funding they were not entitled too. That's the problem.

Remember this any time any of you apply for a grant you are actually eligible for and don't get it. It's because of nonsense like this

If they were not entitled to it then they wouldn't have got it.
They got it good luck to them so let it go.

To be honest I don't feel strongly enough to do anything more.This thread is just mud raking nothing more. No evidence of any wrongdoing and yet you repeat it again as if there was. If you apply for a grant and don't get it they you either didn't apply correctly or you were not entitled. It will not be because somehow the whole system of grant allocation is skewed in favour of clubs with politicians.

benneca1

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

What is meant by “kept closed” ? Are members of the public not allowed question why grants are given for purposes they were not intended? When such discussion is suppressed it’s normally for a reason!

What are your bone fides or motives here? Is it to quell public comment on such matters, and if so, why? If you are a neutral here, you should be grateful that someone asks questions that people would prefer were not asked. This seems to be parish pump / stroke politics at its best.

This thread asked questions that needed to be asked. I commend Spyderski for doing so.

It was closed a while ago by the mods I assume because some of the comments bordered on libel. Wont be long before some other keyboard warrior comes out with something daft. I have no motive except I find this type of ill informed comment tiresome and where I see it I call it. I am not from mayo I am not a member of or have ever been a member of FG. I am a cyclist thats all.

Questions I don't mind but opinion served as judgment sticks in my craw.

The terms of the grant are sufficiently loose to allow the grant IMO the club were lucky to get the grant but thats the way it goes. To infer it was a stroke because they are in the taoiseach's constituency is just shooting the breeze or pub talk as someone said earlier no evidence has been presented of any wrongdoing full stop.
If you think it is wrong report it to the Controller and AG let his office investigate it.

Weepsie

benneca1 wrote: »

If they were not entitled to it then they wouldn't have got it.
They got it good luck to them so let it go.

To be honest I don't feel strongly enough to do anything more.This thread is just mud raking nothing more. No evidence of any wrongdoing and yet you repeat it again as if there was. If you apply for a grant and don't get it they you either didn't apply correctly or you were not entitled. It will not be because somehow the whole system of grant allocation is skewed in favour of clubs with politicians.

They were not entitled. It's plain and clear in the T&C on the front of the application which a lot of us saw. The terms of the grant eligibility are incredibly clear, on the very first page. It's been discussed endlessly. They never should have applied.

That someone then put in a word, that it landed on the right desk miraculously on the day of the deadline, that they got a grant and a sum that no other sports club has ever got from the fund all point to all sorts of wrongs on this.



I'm done repeating now. Typical, ah sure it's grand attitude that's deeply ingrained here, particularly on a local level.


There is a certain irony in posters repeatedly bashing "keyboard warriors" too when their own complete ignorance of the matter serves no use and all they have to offer is contrariness for the sake of it. Like those who use the term snowflake, SJW etc etc, it's a catch all that to me shows they havn't bothered to add any serious comment.

smacl

benneca1 wrote: »

If they were not entitled to it then they wouldn't have got it.

The implication here is that the system is incorruptible, I doubt that's true regardless of whether everything was above board or not in this case. Given the taoiseach's involvement with the club and the unusual nature of this health grant, it seems both reasonable and appropriate to ask questions. Fair play to spyderski for doing so.

velo.2010

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The only useful insights this thread offers are the problems with self appointed citizen journalism ( or social media mob rule ) and fake news.

No mention of an apology either. Its like an episode from ' Black Mirror ' .

Proclaiming fake news (a la Donald trump) is the 21st century version of Godwin's Law.:D

spyderski

OleRodrigo wrote: »

The only useful insights this thread offers are the problems with self appointed citizen journalism ( or social media mob rule ) and fake news.

No mention of an apology either. Its like an episode from ' Black Mirror ' .

I presume that’s aimed at me. I have nothing whatsoever to apologize for. I attempted to hold to account a process which was undoubtedly corrupted at some stage. Maybe it was always the intent to buy Kickrs with the money, and maybe it was due to pressure and scrutiny of the process by others.

“Fake news” has become a parody of itself, and those declaring it are often purveying the very “fake news” they are purporting to call out.

benneca1

Weepsie wrote: »

benneca1 wrote: »

If they were not entitled to it then they wouldn't have got it.
They got it good luck to them so let it go.

To be honest I don't feel strongly enough to do anything more.This thread is just mud raking nothing more. No evidence of any wrongdoing and yet you repeat it again as if there was. If you apply for a grant and don't get it they you either didn't apply correctly or you were not entitled. It will not be because somehow the whole system of grant allocation is skewed in favour of clubs with politicians.

They were not entitled. It's plain and clear in the T&C on the front of the application which a lot of us saw. The terms of the grant eligibility are incredibly clear, on the very first page. It's been discussed endlessly. They never should have applied.

That someone then put in a word, that it landed on the right desk miraculously on the day of the deadline, that they got a grant and a sum that no other sports club has ever got from the fund all point to all sorts of wrongs on this.
I'm done repeating now. Typical, ah sure it's grand attitude that's deeply ingrained here, particularly on a local level

There is a certain irony in posters repeatedly bashing "keyboard warriors" too when their own complete ignorance of the matter serves no use and all they have to offer is contrariness for the sake of it. Like those who use the term snowflake, SJW etc etc, it's a catch all that to me shows they havn't bothered to add any serious comment.

Wow you appear to be accusing both Islandeady cycling club and the person unnamed who put a word in of wrongdoing in a public forum. If they see it I hope they decide this is on a level with pub talk otherwise you might have to substantiate two pretty serious allegations admittedly implied but no doubt easy to see who you are implicating. Sailing close ti the wind here id say

liam7831

Can't believe yeir still crying about this

spyderski

benneca1 wrote: »

Wow you appear to be accusing both Islandeady cycling club and the person unnamed who put a word in of wrongdoing in a public forum. If they see it I hope they decide this is on a level with pub talk otherwise you might have to substantiate two pretty serious allegations admittedly implied but no doubt easy to see who you are implicating. Sailing close ti the wind here id say

It’s a bit late in the thread to be coming in with this false indignation and vague threat. I’ve made ot clear that there was wrongdoing somewhere - the club were not eligible to even apply for the grant. If the club or any individual want to take this further, they’re more than welcome to. I’ll pm them my address if they like. But they won’t, because they know it was a stroke.

OleRodrigo

Well Spyderski , Weepsie , Magicbasterder...et all...I shall from here on in read your posts in the voice of Captain Underpants.

Seems the best way to deal with such hubris.

Also, I haven't created any fake news, its you that have created or enabled this narrative. I and others have only challenged it. Hardly the same thing but typical of the rationale ( or lack thereof ) that has been applied to date.

benneca1

spyderski wrote: »

It’s a bit late in the thread to be coming in with this false indignation and vague threat. I’ve made ot clear that there was wrongdoing somewhere - the club were not eligible to even apply for the grant. If the club or any individual want to take this further, they’re more than welcome to. I’ll pm them my address if they like. But they won’t, because they know it was a stroke.

Can you even read. No indignation no threat I was very careful. Don't attack the poster I have shown no indignation only despair that opinion is being traded as fact and community folk are being tarnished by posters like you with an agenda. I have said from the start no agenda no political affiliation no anger no indignation nada. Just fed up with nonsense like this hijacking what is a cycling thread not a political thread.

spyderski

benneca1 wrote: »

Can you even read. No indignation no threat I was very careful. Don't attack the poster I have shown no indignation only despair that opinion is being traded as fact and community folk are being tarnished by posters like you with an agenda. I have said from the start no agenda no political affiliation no anger no indignation nada. Just fed up with nonsense like this hijacking what is a cycling thread not a political thread.

As you appear to be questioning my literacy, perhaps you should read the very first post on this thread. It will become very clear that this was always a political thread. If you don’t like it you have no obligation to post.

As to agenda, the only agenda that I have is that a political stroke has led to a sports club getting funding which they were unqualified to receive under the terms of the fund.

And if you can quote me something that I have said that is factually incorrect (other than an accidental miscalculation of a figure way back) I’d be very interested. I’ve been very careful too you see. ;-)

Weepsie

benneca1 wrote: »

Wow you appear to be accusing both Islandeady cycling club and the person unnamed who put a word in of wrongdoing in a public forum. If they see it I hope they decide this is on a level with pub talk otherwise you might have to substantiate two pretty serious allegations admittedly implied but no doubt easy to see who you are implicating. Sailing close ti the wind here id say

I'll point to the documentation which they must not have read which precludes them for applying thanks very much.

You're saying your sick of the indignation, but meeting it with nothing more than the same.

And with that I am also done with the thread.

magicbastarder

I'm closing the thread. I don't have time to be policing it and it seems to be going south with not much being added to the topic.