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

tomasrojo

CramCycle wrote: »

This was the way for farming when I was young as well. I think you got assessed once every four or five years.

Fair enough, I guess that is the system. I had in mind that your current year is assessed with regard to, say, four previous years' income. That would smooth out spikes in income, like a running average.

Again, not advocating it. I think the exemption up to 50k is ok. I don't think farmers' income is anywhere near as variable year-to-year as artists' income. John Braine, for example, got one biggish payout on Room at the Top when it was made into a movie. He didn't get a percentage deal though, and never had another hit. He was lucky he got a pension from something like a writers' guild.

magicbastarder

anyway, back on topic - how often do cycling clubs get these grants?

Chuchote

Haughey's original purpose in the tax-free (then) scheme for artists was twofold. Part was to attract rich, high-spending, high-profile writers to live in Ireland, with the effect of bringing clinky spending cash into the country and into the exchequer via other taxes (VAT etc), and of those writers publicising Ireland and attracting tourists and businesses into the country. This worked.
The second part was to give some help to one of the poorest groups in the country, with unreliable and meagre earnings but high value to the economy in tourism, world profile, etc. Before this, most Irish writers and artists had to leave the country to make a living. His plan was that it would be possible to live in Ireland, with the disadvantage of being far from world cultural centres, and still work and sell your work abroad. His plan was that this would allow Ireland to become a cultural centre.
The artists' exemption, though, has become a Trump-style strawman; rather than targeting the corporations that deprive the economy of billions of euro in lost taxes, this scheme is attacked. You'll never hear the same pure raging personal resentment against Apple or Cerberus for this. And you'll see action taken against this; you won't see the corporations or the banks being forced to pay.
It's a question of values.
Ooops, sorry, posts crossed, magicbastarder. Back on topic, as you say.

El Tarangu

Did any other cycling club apply for this grant and not get it? Or is this the only cycling club that applied, and was successful?

In any case, I'm glad for the club, and I hope that other cycling clubs are similarly successful in their applications for said grant in future.

Chuchote

One of the reasons the club may have got funding is that there's a good guide to how to apply in Mayo:

http://www.mayosports.ie/ProgrammesGrants/GrantInformation/

A Dingle club got a grant in 2010 and there was a piece in the Indo

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/localnotes/cycling-club-gets-10k-grant-27395297.html

I'm wondering whether these grants only get articles written about them when there's a certain nudge-nudge-wink-wink inference taken by the journalists.

Carawaystick

Chuchote wrote: »

Haughey's original purpose in the tax-free (then) scheme for artists was twofold. Part was to attract rich, high-spending, high-profile writers to live in Ireland, with the effect of bringing clinky spending cash into the country and into the exchequer via other taxes (VAT etc), and of those writers publicising Ireland and attracting tourists and businesses into the country. This worked.
The second part was to give some help to one of the poorest groups in the country, with unreliable and meagre earnings but high value to the economy in tourism, world profile, etc. Before this, most Irish writers and artists had to leave the country to make a living. His plan was that it would be possible to live in Ireland, with the disadvantage of being far from world cultural centres, and still work and sell your work abroad. His plan was that this would allow Ireland to become a cultural centre.
The artists' exemption, though, has become a Trump-style strawman; rather than targeting the corporations that deprive the economy of billions of euro in lost taxes, this scheme is attacked. You'll never hear the same pure raging personal resentment against Apple or Cerberus for this. And you'll see action taken against this; you won't see the corporations or the banks being forced to pay.
It's a question of values.
Ooops, sorry, posts crossed, magicbastarder. Back on topic, as you say.

Bertie Ahern got the artists exemption for his Autobiography....

I presume, the grant will have to be repaid if a club member ever decides not to use a cycle track...

And will anyone drive to the clubhouse to partake in spinning classes? or will they cycle...

MayoAreMagic

Interesting to observe some of the viewpoints people take on such a thing.
I must first state that Im not from this area, and although I have cycled all my life, Im not part of a cycle club either. But to me, you see an area of the country that is, frankly, painfully lacking in any kind of social output for people living there, getting a, in terms of monies involved in running clubs etc, fairly average sum; for a club that people seem to have taken to, has got people out and exercising and has grown well in it's short existence, and all most people seem to want to do is tear it down - without knowing the full details, or even any details.

This is why we get nothing done in Ireland. Nobody looks past their own doorstep. Out of an invented sense of being hard done by, we begrudge other people progressing, that expands out and ultimately, everyone is being blocked by someone else and nobody moves forward.

As for the feigned indignation about it being near the homeplace of the Taoiseach - give me a break. There isn't a person on this thread whose area hasn't had a public representative fighting to get something that they were no more deserving of than somewhere else.

Does anyone else find this thread quite depressing?

Mefistofelino

Chuchote wrote: »

Writers and artists laugh bitterly at Lottery funding. Originally, all funding was earmarked for the arts.

No - the opposite, I believe. When it was first proposed in the late 70's , it was as a sports lottery. In 1982 when it was formally proposed by the minister to the Taoiseach's depaartment, it was again as a sports funding lottery. It was Ted Nealon who got the arts included as beneficiaries before the act was drafted:

"Moneys paid into the Central Fund pursuant to section 8 of this Act shall be applied for—
(a)the purposes of such one or more of the following, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time, that is to say, sport and other recreation, national culture (including the Irish language), the arts (within the meaning of the Arts Act, 1951 ) and the health of the community, and

(b) such (if any) other purposes, and in such amounts, as the Government may determine from time to time"

The bigger issue is that successive governments applied clause b) very liberally from the get-go.

listermint

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Interesting to observe some of the viewpoints people take on such a thing.
I must first state that Im not from this area, and although I have cycled all my life, Im not part of a cycle club either. But to me, you see an area of the country that is, frankly, painfully lacking in any kind of social output for people living there, getting a, in terms of monies involved in running clubs etc, fairly average sum; for a club that people seem to have taken to, has got people out and exercising and has grown well in it's short existence, and all most people seem to want to do is tear it down - without knowing the full details, or even any details.

This is why we get nothing done in Ireland. Nobody looks past their own doorstep. Out of an invented sense of being hard done by, we begrudge other people progressing, that expands out and ultimately, everyone is being blocked by someone else and nobody moves forward.

As for the feigned indignation about it being near the homeplace of the Taoiseach - give me a break. There isn't a person on this thread whose area hasn't had a public representative fighting to get something that they were no more deserving of than somewhere else.

Does anyone else find this thread quite depressing?

I think its the fact that people ARE looking past their own doorstep thats key here and a fact you missed.

IF for example the awarding of moneys from tax payer funds like national lottery is transparent and clear then people wouldnt need to question it. But so far its been heavily linked to various politicians and also election campaigns.

If this is not the definition OF looking at your own doorstep what is?


Whats depressing is the transparency here. Or lack of it.

joey100

I have experience of getting a sports capital grant for a triathlon club. All clubs were encouraged by triathlon Ireland to put in an application for one. IT was fairly painless, quotes were needed and a reasoning behind the equipment and how it would be used. Extra points (?) were given if you were based in a disadvantaged area or had a youth section to the club. Can't fully remember but I think we got around 80% of the cost of 10 new turbos for the club. Good few triathlon clubs put in and the majority got something, can't remember seeing many cycling clubs on the list of clubs who received funds. Don't know if that's because they didn't apply or weren't successful though. A different fund than the one mentioned in this story but it really wasn't that hard to get the funding.

smacl

Lumen wrote: »

Maybe they should make art that people want to buy rather than attempting to extort money from the rest of us poor saps that have to just shut up and do our jobs.

Indeed. Who needs Samuel Beckett or Oscar Wilde when you've go J.K. Rowling and Jackie Collins?

magicbastarder

Deedsie wrote: »

I was thinking about this overnight, I am an advocate for cycling and I encourage people to cycle whenever I can... however, all cycling clubs in Ireland are given tax incentives already through the cycle to work scheme. So cycling clubs do receive support through that.

i'm not sure i'd agree. cycling clubs (unless i'm mistaken) generally focus on leisure/sporting spins, and the cycle to work scheme is specifically about, well, enticing people to cycle to work. so while there may be some crossover in the effect of the tax break, their stated aims have little crossover.

does the dublin cycling campaign or irishcycle.com get any grant money/tax benefits? there's possibly an argument that successful lobbying will do more to entice people to cycle than there is in making bikes a little cheaper (and cheaper for those on higher salaries, it has to be pointed out).

Wishbone Ash

listermint wrote: »

.... moneys from tax payer funds like national lottery...

The National Lottery Fund is not a tax payer's fund. Players may be tax payers but that's irrelevant - they choose to play it.

magicbastarder

but that's not an incentive to the club. it just made your bike a little cheaper for you to buy.

nilhg

Deedsie wrote: »

I was thinking about this overnight, I am an advocate for cycling and I encourage people to cycle whenever I can... however, all cycling clubs in Ireland are given tax incentives already through the cycle to work scheme. So cycling clubs do receive support through that.

Hopefully this will be a precedent for further funding though.

Some members of cycling clubs might, but I can't because I'm self employed as are quite a few other of the lads in our club, so I don't think that argument holds water.

CramCycle

Wishbone Ash wrote: »

The National Lottery Fund is not a tax payer's fund. Players may be tax payers but that's irrelevant - they choose to play it.

Precisely, it is a condition of their license or permission to host the lottery but it is nothing to do with the general tax pool. It certainly takes nothing from it, if anything it might alleviate pressure on it in some circumstances.

Jawgap

A little birdie told me that, actually, the Taoiseach had nothing to do with this so apologies for suggesting otherwise.......


.......apparently it's more likely to have been 'the Ringer' (Michael Ring) who sorted it out for them......

.......if there was in fact any 'sorting out' - something a lot of people seem sceptical about in the absence of direct evidence.

OleRodrigo

You're really getting the hang of this ' post-truth ' thing.

CramCycle

There is always the possibility of indirect tampering, much like some people are concerned that Trumps companies applying for business on foreign soil will get preferential treatment because of who they are associated with, maybe there is a belief that while not interfering directly, the association of Mr. EK lends them to a more favourable position.

Failing any actual evidence and or proof that anyone else was overlooked or a similar cycling club with a similar application was overlooked, I am not sure of the issue.

I will certainly be looking at the Lotto as an application possibility for club projects in future.

Jawgap

OleRodrigo wrote: »

You're really getting the hang of this ' post-truth ' thing.

Well it seems worthy of investigation/discussion?

If for no other reason than to help other clubs access money from little known lottery funds at a rate of €200 or so per member?

smacl

nilhg wrote: »

Some members of cycling clubs might, but I can't because I'm self employed as are quite a few other of the lads in our club, so I don't think that argument holds water.

Likewise. Self employed, paying PAYE, not to mention corporation tax and collecting VAT for the government as well but no cycle to work for me either.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

I will certainly be looking at the Lotto as an application possibility for club projects in future.

I wonder what the qualification criteria are for them to get funding on health grounds? I'd doubt it is enough that a cycling club is already part of the community and cycling is by its nature a healthy activity, though not sure what specifically would be required to trigger funding.

OleRodrigo

Jawgap wrote: »

Well it seems worthy of investigation/discussion?

If for no other reason than to help other clubs access money from little known lottery funds at a rate of €200 or so per member?

Discussion yes, but how these things are framed is another matter entirely.

Jawgap

OleRodrigo wrote: »

Discussion yes, but how these things are framed is another matter entirely.

You don't think the 'framing' was appropriate given the tradition of this country when it comes to the disbursement of public money?

The fund may not draw on the tax streams, but it was provided to serve a specific social objective - you'd wonder if the objective is being advanced through this award?

magicbastarder

the question remains - what is the money to be used for?
what will they be able to spend the money on to entice non-cyclists to start cycling?

Lumen

smacl wrote: »

Indeed. Who needs Samuel Beckett or Oscar Wilde when you've go J.K. Rowling and Jackie Collins?

Was Oscar Wilde a big recipient of State funding?

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

I wonder what the qualification criteria are for them to get funding on health grounds? I'd doubt it is enough that a cycling club is already part of the community and cycling is by its nature a healthy activity, though not sure what specifically would be required to trigger funding.

I presume it is possible to review all applications, as I can't imagine there is any reason for confidentiality. FOI maybe?

ford2600

Lumen wrote: »

Was Oscar Wilde a big recipient of State funding?

Free lodgings for a spell anyhow

Wishbone Ash

ford2600 wrote: »

Free lodgings for a spell anyhow

At her majesty's expense I think.

OleRodrigo

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't think the 'framing' was appropriate given the tradition of this country when it comes to the disbursement of public money?

The fund may not draw on the tax streams, but it was provided to serve a specific social objective - you'd wonder if the objective is being advanced through this award?

Framing a topic for discussion with a ' politicians are corrupt until proven otherwise' innuendo wont facilitate much interesting comment. Ireland does quite well in the annual Transparency International corruption index, something that's often ignored. Having worked in the PS myself, I noticed that what appears to be corruption is often just benign bureaucracy , wasteful and all that it is.

But if everyone comes away with a better idea on how to avail of grants, all well and good.

I would say that a social objective is being advanced, but not nearly as far as it could go. If someone put forward an analysis , based on data such as the amount of money a person might cost the health service, at certain stages of their life, per year and compare that to the annual cost of preventative action, such as monies spent on a local cycling club facilities, it would be an interesting take on the issue. With that you could argue that handing out a 20000 grant to 50 clubs nation wide could be funds well spent. Maybe even subsidize clubhouses ? In the context of the amount spent on health and social services, the expenditure would be low. Money spent improving peoples health and indirectly transforming loss making local pubs into thriving coffee and cake establishments, with knock on effects to tourism etc..