Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Should Dublin Football be split?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
High Fidelity wrote: »Realistically financial arguements cant be made on one aspect of funding and ignore others, like provincal, other ISC grants to counties and commercial and fundraising. No one has ever posted cumulative figures. That’s why this debate will always be slanted and unreliable. Lads posting bits of reports and drawing conclusions on either side of debate and getting most of it wrong.
Interesting trend Dublins funding goes down almost year on year from 2013, yet a general trend is in increases in other counties funding during Dublin’s successful period. Don’t they say don’t bite the hand that feeds you.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
DONTMATTER wrote: »
I suspect the second county is Cork who we know got 30 million for PUC on top of GDF figures posted and Munster council grants not.
Like I say no one has posted cumulative figures.
If you were being pedantic you could look at it another way, less Dublin’s figure by 1 million as it’s provided by the ISC and Cork are taking more out of the GAA coffers. You can bend figures to suit any arguement really. It’s why this thread is speculative and designed to stir as opposed to being anything resembling being genuine.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Happyilylost wrote: »This is when I stopped replying. I felt this thread was about GAA creating a monster that in the future they cannot contain. The money pumped into kids around the Dublin would lead to massive problems starting around underage now and onwards. That I could debate. Instead you claim it's the fruits of the now. In a previous post I showed the age of the current age of this Dublin team and how it couldn't of influenced them. The spending of Dublin teams has never surpassed any teams by a large amount. Stephen Cluxton the teacher is no better off than Paul Conroy the teacher or Cillian O Connor the teacher. You're doing a massive dis service to Paul Flynn. I'll say no more than that. I'm surprised more Dublin fans didn't call you on it. Donegal under McGuinness caught everyone on the hop with the training and fitness of his team. Even Dublin. EVERY team quickly responded. Galway with no money recently tied Lukasz Kirszenstein to a long term deal to oversee all teams strength and conditioning in Galway. The only place Dublin have been ahead of teams is ability. The cups you showed Dublin winning are basically they've dominated Leinster. Fair play to them. That's the rest of the teams in Leinsters issues. Once they step out of Leinster they quickly meet their match (apart from senior) You've given no conclusive proof of any Dublin domination other than senior and I don't believe that has anything to do with money over the last 13 years. Galway Mayo Kerry Donegal couldn't care less about Dublin winning ten minors in a row in Leinster. Ten All Ireland's in a row might be different. But that isn't happening and doesn't look like happening.
Last note. Mighty Dublin with all their massive money beat a Westmeath U21 team by 3 points having been trailing for a lot of it. Galway beat Offaly by a cricket score. No sign of this money working so far.
No sign of this money working so far?
51 titles since 2005!!!
You somehow think investing millions upon millions into a county will have no affect, what sort of planet do you live on?
It just can't be ignored no matter how hard some try. It's completely irrelevant what other counties do, this level of financial doping is not right. No excuses, no deflection, no lies, no anything can cover for it. It's wrong and it can't continue.0 -
In this post when I demolish your argument about the senior team being more successful than Leinster teams in the past, you revert to talking about the success of the underage team (while conveniently ignoring the four in a row Kerry minor footballers)
However, I don't have to go back far to find a post where you completely contradict this:
When the motive is jealousy and bitterness, inconsistency isn't far behind.
Which is it? Is the domination at senior or underage level or both?
Was that the post where you were caught out lying?
It's neither. I've already said this, it doesn't matter if they win 0 titles, the funding is wrong.
What I'm pointing out is that with this level of funding, it's impossible for Dublin not to win titles. It's actually a bit embarrassing that they haven't won more!0 -
-
Advertisement
-
DONTMATTER wrote: »
So 40 titles won at Senior, U-21 and Minor football.
In the same time period since 2005, Kerry have won 31.
Since 2000, Kerry have won 42, while Dublin have won 46.
If you include O'Byrne Cup and McGrath Cup, it is 46 and 50, still a gap of four. However, if you are right, then the real difference should be shown when you add in Junior Championship. Dublin go to 52, but Kerry have gone to 62. Now, I am sure you will argue that Dublin have opted out of junior occasionally, but the facts are the facts.
Since the turn of the century, if you include Senior, Minor, U-21 and Junior national and provincial All-Ireland titles as well as the National League, Kerry have won 62 while Dublin have won 52. The conclusion is that we are still a while away from concluding that Dublin dominance is either unprecedented or unfair.0 -
DONTMATTER wrote: »Deflect, deflect, deflect. Cork wren't the second team in many. It swapped a lot between different counties.
This is one of the excuses I noted in my long post:Other counties get funding too
Yes other counties get funding too but, as the earlier images show, no where near the level of Dublin's funding. What we are not including is money for stadiums, centres of excellence etc. That's because if we included that, Dublin would be farther ahead in terms of financial support given.
So do you want to include the funding for Croke Park? Abbotstown? Various club and college facilities?
If you want to Dublin will come out looking even worse!
Oh ok you changed comparible counties every year, thanks for clarifying.
Classic wizard of Oz reply, “don’t look at that man behind the curtain” we are only looking at this money, we are not looking at all that other money.
I’m done here, hope you didn’t spend to much time over that post.0 -
DONTMATTER wrote: »Was that the post where you were caught out lying?
It's neither. I've already said this, it doesn't matter if they win 0 titles, the funding is wrong.
What I'm pointing out is that with this level of funding, it's impossible for Dublin not to win titles. It's actually a bit embarrassing that they haven't won more!
If the funding is to encourage kids to participate, which it is, then the funding is absolutely 100% justified.
You know when I get mildly irritated by jealous and bitter posters resenting Dublin's success, I just have to wander down on a Saturday to my local Dublin club and watch the kids playing, especially the kids with special needs who are welcomed into the teams like everyone else and are given the same training and the same support as all the other players and it is then that I realise that the money being put into Dublin GAA is going in the right way, it is going in to help all the kids, not just the special kids as in Kerry, and not just the senior team as in Mayo, and it makes me proud to be a Dub, that we have our priorities right, and then when we win again next September, I know it is just reward for doing the right things.0 -
-
So 40 titles won at Senior, U-21 and Minor football.
In the same time period since 2005, Kerry have won 31.
Since 2000, Kerry have won 42, while Dublin have won 46.
If you include O'Byrne Cup and McGrath Cup, it is 46 and 50, still a gap of four. However, if you are right, then the real difference should be shown when you add in Junior Championship. Dublin go to 52, but Kerry have gone to 62. Now, I am sure you will argue that Dublin have opted out of junior occasionally, but the facts are the facts.
Since the turn of the century, if you include Senior, Minor, U-21 and Junior national and provincial All-Ireland titles as well as the National League, Kerry have won 62 while Dublin have won 52. The conclusion is that we are still a while away from concluding that Dublin dominance is either unprecedented or unfair. What you have forgotten is that I'm using those years to make a comparison of the 13 years before funding and the 13 years after. It shows a change between 14 titles won by Dublin to a massive jump to 51. That shows the affect the money has had.
In your rush to deflect you forgot to compare Kerry's titles from 1992 to 2005, to the 2005-2018 period. If they're similar then there's no change in the pattern.0 -
High Fidelity wrote: »Oh ok you changed comparible counties every year, thanks for clarifying.
Classic wizard of Oz reply, “don’t look at that man behind the curtain” we are only looking at this money, we are not looking at all that other money.
I’m done here, hope you didn’t spend to much time over that post.
I put the figure for the county who received the 2nd highest amount of games development funds in the row that said 2nd highest. I put the figure for the county who got the lowest amount of games development funds on the row that says lowest.
They changed every year, the team at the top didn't.0 -
DONTMATTER wrote: » What you have forgotten is that I'm using those years to make a comparison of the 13 years before funding and the 13 years after. It shows a change between 14 titles won by Dublin to a massive jump to 51. That shows the affect the money has had.
In your rush to deflect you forgot to compare Kerry's titles from 1992 to 2005, to the 2005-2018 period. If they're similar then there's no change in the pattern. They are similar so you're not looking the brightest right now.
Not at all, you assumed money had an immediate effect and made conclusions based on that, without any evidence. That rendered your choice of time periods arbitrary. Once taken outside of that arbitrary context, your figures don't stand up.
In fact, if you think about it logically, Dublin should dominate every year at minor and U-21 level because of the advantages, as that is where the money is directed, but that just doesn't happen, because the money is spread so thinly. Counties like Kerry who get more than their fair share and concentrate on developing the elite will get a far better return than Dublin who go after mass participation. You really need to focus on what money is spent on rather than how much is spent.
It is far better that money be spent on mass participation as in Dublin than in coaching elite youngsters as in Kerry.0 -
If the funding is to encourage kids to participate, which it is, then the funding is absolutely 100% justified.
You know when I get mildly irritated by jealous and bitter posters resenting Dublin's success, I just have to wander down on a Saturday to my local Dublin club and watch the kids playing, especially the kids with special needs who are welcomed into the teams like everyone else and are given the same training and the same support as all the other players and it is then that I realise that the money being put into Dublin GAA is going in the right way, it is going in to help all the kids, not just the special kids as in Kerry, and not just the senior team as in Mayo, and it makes me proud to be a Dub, that we have our priorities right, and then when we win again next September, I know it is just reward for doing the right things. This is just you admitting defeat, you can't debate the facts so you resort to this. Dublin have an elite player development system that has been financed by millions. 0 -
-
Not at all, you assumed money had an immediate effect and made conclusions based on that, without any evidence. That rendered your choice of time periods arbitrary. Once taken outside of that arbitrary context, your figures don't stand up.
In fact, if you think about it logically, Dublin should dominate every year at minor and U-21 level because of the advantages, as that is where the money is directed, but that just doesn't happen, because the money is spread so thinly. Counties like Kerry who get more than their fair share and concentrate on developing the elite will get a far better return than Dublin who go after mass participation. You really need to focus on what money is spent on rather than how much is spent.
It is far better that money be spent on mass participation as in Dublin than in coaching elite youngsters as in Kerry.
This is all a bit embarrassing for you. You're going to drop the Kerry comparison now?
Yes Dublin should dominate every year, they have spend millions on elite development. In fairness it has bought 27 underage titles but yes, they should be winning every year.
Why Dublin have won 5 of the last 7 All Ireland's at senior level is because they have been provided with a conveyor belt of talent supplied through the system. After that the have other millions to spend on senior team preparation. I went through that in my long post, I can copy it for you if you want?0 -
Advertisement
-
DONTMATTER wrote: » Can you not follow a simple table? I put the figure for the county who received the 2nd highest amount of games development funds in the row that said 2nd highest. I put the figure for the county who got the lowest amount of games development funds on the row that says lowest. Basic stuff.
They changed every year, the team at the top didn't.
It is a very simple table you have my total agreement there, It’s very narrow. Wizard of Oz stuff as I pointed out.
It’s like comparing Norway’s fishing quotas with Luxembergs. 0 -
DONTMATTER wrote: » What you have forgotten is that I'm using those years to make a comparison of the 13 years before funding and the 13 years after. It shows a change between 14 titles won by Dublin to a massive jump to 51. That shows the affect the money has had.
In your rush to deflect you forgot to compare Kerry's titles from 1992 to 2005, to the 2005-2018 period. If they're similar then there's no change in the pattern. They are similar so you're not looking the brightest right now.
If that is true, then all the money spent on Dublin has had no effect on the level of success enjoyed by Kerry. That points once again to the argument that the success enjoyed by Dublin at provincial level is down to the incompetence of the Meath, Kildare, Westmeath county boards et al rather than the funding.0 -
DONTMATTER wrote: »This is all a bit embarrassing for you. You're going to drop the Kerry comparison now?
Yes Dublin should dominate every year, they have spend millions on elite development. In fairness it has bought 27 underage titles but yes, they should be winning every year.
Why Dublin have won 5 of the last 7 All Ireland's at senior level is because they have been provided with a conveyor belt of talent supplied through the system. After that the have other millions to spend on senior team preparation. I went through that in my long post, I can copy it for you if you want?
Your points do not make any sense. Unless you can explain how Kerry have managed to keep pace with Dublin despite the disparity in funding claimed by you, then your argument is fatally flawed.0 -
High Fidelity wrote: »It is a very simple table you have my total agreement there, It’s very narrow. Wizard of Oz stuff as I pointed out.
It’s like comparing Norway’s fishing quotas with Luxembergs. Thought you were done here? You mustn't have read all the post. Here I'll show some more.
You're not in Kansas anymore toto.0 -
If that is true, then all the money spent on Dublin has had no effect on the level of success enjoyed by Kerry. That points once again to the argument that the success enjoyed by Dublin at provincial level is down to the incompetence of the Meath, Kildare, Westmeath county boards et al rather than the funding. No matter how hard you wish for it, it just won't go away. You have 51 titles to account for. 0
-
-
-
-
I was half hoping that there would be new data unearthed in this thread that might give new insight into how we might move the GAA as a whole forward in a positive direction. Alas, no. We've got a lot of data here alright, but nothing new. I've read variations of this post maybe, I dunno, half a dozen times - both here on boards, and on other sites. Even the infamous "274" graphic makes an appearance. Ah sure, it wouldn't be a Financial Doping post without that, would it?
I did, however, take the time to read the (rather long, but detailed and comprehensive) post. In fact, I read it twice. I'm pretty sure I'd need to read it again - it's alot to take in. It's a bit rambling in places, and it jumps about as regards the flow of logical argument - but these are observations, not criticisms. I don't know if I could do better, and I've a fairly high opinion of myself.
My primary observation on this particular post, is that it is written upside down.
The assertion made is "Dublin have been allowed to cheat by the GAA handing over lots of money to them, and that splitting Dublin up is required as a result of this in order to restore the natural order".
Pretty much everything is presented within a narrative that skews it's thinking towards this assertion. I use the term assertion, as it is certainly not the conclusion that can be drawn from the majority of elements contained within the post. But I'm being general here, let's look at specifics, and see what we can see.
Disclaimer: Maybe I'm wrong about all of this. Maybe I'm not following the logic, or the argument, maybe I can't read graphics to save my life. Maybe I've overlooked basic maths.
First up, our old friend the "274" Graphic. The one everyone gets their pants in a twist about. I've spoken at length about this before. Basically, using Registered player numbers to provide a relative ratio for Games Development Funding, is well, silly. It reminds me of the Famous Pirates Versus Global Warming Graph:
Games Development Funding is to get people (read: kids) playing GAA games. It is not related to the numbers of players registered to the GAA in any meaningful way. Dublin has proportionally far fewer registered players (less that 3% of population) than the likes of Kerry or Mayo (Up around 10%, as I recall), and the Graphic is taking full advantage of that fact to create the most gasp-worthy figure it can.
Compare it to the next Graphic which makes a much more sensible comparison of Games Development Spend as it relates to population. Now everything starts to look at little less shocking. Sure, it shows Dublin spent 4x the amount per head of population than Mayo. But a) This is during a specific phase of investment in Dublin, and b) Mayo have a much healthier starting point - in fact the disparity in spend is not a bad match for the disparity in registered players as a percentage of population.
So these graphs don't really support the assertion that Dublin are Financially Doped to any great degree.
The next graph continues in the same vein, except this time it is used to support a startling revelation. (Dun dun duuuun).
The conclusion drawn from this graph is: "So as you can see, the evidence is damning. The level of funding Dublin GAA receive in comparison to all other counties is astronomical."
Eh, hang on.
This damning evidence shows Dublin getting ~24% of available funding while having >20% of the population. This, during a period of targeted funding. Not exactly Supernova stuff. In fact, the big take from this graph is that Northern Counties and counties (excluding Dublin) with cities, fare very badly in comparison to other counties.
Look at Leitrim - 0.5% of Population 2.5% of Funding. That's a 500% Doping skew right there.
(Ok, ok, I know I'm being a dramatic twat, but you get the point).
We can't be sure that timeline this graph is covering - it's not stated. I'm pretty sure it's not the same time period as the ones above it, nor is it Games Development Funding specifically. Honestly, I don't know what it is. (@DONTMATTER - can you clarify?)
What it is though, is a nice big pointy graph we can look at and be horrified with. Or you know, it's a graph that shows a fairly equitable division of funds (except Leitrim - the greedy b*stards).
At this point, while not comprehensive, there is a trend forming in how data is being presented. Big numbers, big accusations. However, at this point in the post, there is not a single solid proof of Financial Doping offered.
The next part of the post can be summed up as "Remember the time Team GB bought Olympic Glory". Yup, we remember. No real denying anything said here, although comparing the Olympics to the GAA is, even according to the poster "difficult". The main thrust of this section is to show that it has been possible historically to purchase success in sport. This is indisputable, and the point is well made, and well supported.
However this point is tangential to the subject matter of the post. There is no evidence that such activity is present within the GAA. Certainly the "Damning evidence" of the previous graphs do not support this assertion.
Now, the poster may have a point in the next part of the post. I haven't seen these numbers presented like this before (it's simple and clear, so Kudos to the poster), and it looks like something that can and should be mulled over. Certainly the 14 V 51 bottom line is a bit of an eyebrow raiser. But it would seem that was the aim.
If we say that Dublin Hurling in the Last 13 years at Senior, U21 and minor have won 11 out of 91 possible titles, no-one is going to faint from the shock. It is up from 0/91 in the previous period - a big jump. But is Dublin hurling over performing now, or underperforming back then?
Ditto if we look at All Ireland's only. Dublin have won 10 from 39 at the three grades in the last 13 years (up on 2/39 before that). It's a big improvement, but it's hardly domination.
Now Leinster, WHOLE different ball game. But looking at the league standings of Leinster teams, Dublin's dominance might not solely be about how good they are, but rather how badly others have regressed.
Once you get past the last table - It's an opinion piece from here on in - not that there is anything wrong with that. But it's subjective, and ergo defies objective analysis (I feel it does get very rant-y in places, but that's my opinion, not a statement of fact). It does have some good ideas though, Copying the Dublin-tried model of a Strategic Planning Officer with regional development officers, hurling development officers and games promotion officers reporting to them - solid idea.
Didn't mean to go on so long, Sorry - it's not far off 3am, and the almighty knows I need my beauty sleep.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was half hoping that there would be new data unearthed in this thread that might give new insight into how we might move the GAA as a whole forward in a positive direction. Alas, no. We've got a lot of data here alright, but nothing new. I've read variations of this post maybe, I dunno, half a dozen times - both here on boards, and on other sites. Even the infamous "274" graphic makes an appearance. Ah sure, it wouldn't be a Financial Doping post without that, would it?
I did, however, take the time to read the (rather long, but detailed and comprehensive) post. In fact, I read it twice. I'm pretty sure I'd need to read it again - it's alot to take in. It's a bit rambling in places, and it jumps about as regards the flow of logical argument - but these are observations, not criticisms. I don't know if I could do better, and I've a fairly high opinion of myself.
My primary observation on this particular post, is that it is written upside down.
The assertion made is "Dublin have been allowed to cheat by the GAA handing over lots of money to them, and that splitting Dublin up is required as a result of this in order to restore the natural order".
Pretty much everything is presented within a narrative that skews it's thinking towards this assertion. I use the term assertion, as it is certainly not the conclusion that can be drawn from the majority of elements contained within the post. But I'm being general here, let's look at specifics, and see what we can see.
Disclaimer: Maybe I'm wrong about all of this. Maybe I'm not following the logic, or the argument, maybe I can't read graphics to save my life. Maybe I've overlooked basic maths.
First up, our old friend the "274" Graphic. The one everyone gets their pants in a twist about. I've spoken at length about this before. Basically, using Registered player numbers to provide a relative ratio for Games Development Funding, is well, silly. It reminds me of the Famous Pirates Versus Global Warming Graph:
Games Development Funding is to get people (read: kids) playing GAA games. It is not related to the numbers of players registered to the GAA in any meaningful way. Dublin has proportionally far fewer registered players (less that 3% of population) than the likes of Kerry or Mayo (Up around 10%, as I recall), and the Graphic is taking full advantage of that fact to create the most gasp-worthy figure it can.
Compare it to the next Graphic which makes a much more sensible comparison of Games Development Spend as it relates to population. Now everything starts to look at little less shocking. Sure, it shows Dublin spent 4x the amount per head of population than Mayo. But a) This is during a specific phase of investment in Dublin, and b) Mayo have a much healthier starting point - in fact the disparity in spend is not a bad match for the disparity in registered players as a percentage of population.
So these graphs don't really support the assertion that Dublin are Financially Doped to any great degree.
The next graph continues in the same vein, except this time it is used to support a startling revelation. (Dun dun duuuun).
The conclusion drawn from this graph is: "So as you can see, the evidence is damning. The level of funding Dublin GAA receive in comparison to all other counties is astronomical."
Eh, hang on.
This damning evidence shows Dublin getting ~24% of available funding while having >20% of the population. This, during a period of targeted funding. Not exactly Supernova stuff. In fact, the big take from this graph is that Northern Counties and counties (excluding Dublin) with cities, fare very badly in comparison to other counties.
Look at Leitrim - 0.5% of Population 2.5% of Funding. That's a 500% Doping skew right there.
(Ok, ok, I know I'm being a dramatic twat, but you get the point).
We can't be sure that timeline this graph is covering - it's not stated. I'm pretty sure it's not the same time period as the ones above it, nor is it Games Development Funding specifically. Honestly, I don't know what it is. (@DONTMATTER - can you clarify?)
What it is though, is a nice big pointy graph we can look at and be horrified with. Or you know, it's a graph that shows a fairly equitable division of funds (except Leitrim - the greedy b*stards).
At this point, while not comprehensive, there is a trend forming in how data is being presented. Big numbers, big accusations. However, at this point in the post, there is not a single solid proof of Financial Doping offered.
The next part of the post can be summed up as "Remember the time Team GB bought Olympic Glory". Yup, we remember. No real denying anything said here, although comparing the Olympics to the GAA is, even according to the poster "difficult". The main thrust of this section is to show that it has been possible historically to purchase success in sport. This is indisputable, and the point is well made, and well supported.
However this point is tangential to the subject matter of the post. There is no evidence that such activity is present within the GAA. Certainly the "Damning evidence" of the previous graphs do not support this assertion.
Now, the poster may have a point in the next part of the post. I haven't seen these numbers presented like this before (it's simple and clear, so Kudos to the poster), and it looks like something that can and should be mulled over. Certainly the 14 V 51 bottom line is a bit of an eyebrow raiser. But it would seem that was the aim.
If we say that Dublin Hurling in the Last 13 years at Senior, U21 and minor have won 11 out of 91 possible titles, no-one is going to faint from the shock. It is up from 0/91 in the previous period - a big jump. But is Dublin hurling over performing now, or underperforming back then?
Ditto if we look at All Ireland's only. Dublin have won 10 from 39 at the three grades in the last 13 years (up on 2/39 before that). It's a big improvement, but it's hardly domination.
Now Leinster, WHOLE different ball game. But looking at the league standings of Leinster teams, Dublin's dominance might not solely be about how good they are, but rather how badly others have regressed.
Once you get past the last table - It's an opinion piece from here on in - not that there is anything wrong with that. But it's subjective, and ergo defies objective analysis (I feel it does get very rant-y in places, but that's my opinion, not a statement of fact). It does have some good ideas though, Copying the Dublin-tried model of a Strategic Planning Officer with regional development officers, hurling development officers and games promotion officers reporting to them - solid idea.
Didn't mean to go on so long, Sorry - it's not far off 3am, and the almighty knows I need my beauty sleep.
So DONTMATTER’s analysis was biased but yours above isn’t? Seems there about as biased as each other..0 -
-
-
-
Won't quote because it's too long.
First of all, fair play to you. You've actually tried to deal with the points raised instead of the usual response from Dublin fans. The only issue is that you're completely wrong. It's nice to see some attempt at justification though.
Yeah, I admit it's not perfect. I kinda of threw things together quickly but I think the general points were backed up reasonably well.
It's my opinion that Dublin should be split into four. There are other options, including leaving things as they are. I've included that in my post but I do admit that as I'm coming from a position that I'm absolutely convinced the finance has had a major influence, the post is slanted in that view. I have backed up my view though.
I didn't just use the '274' graph though. There's a money per county population and a money per number of clubs graph. All 3 of them show the imbalance. The Games Development Fund is directly related to players registered. Yes it's to get kids from schools joining clubs but also to improve standards in clubs. The GPO's coach teams, train other coaches, put structures in place as well as enter schools.
The advantage Dublin have is that they have one, sometimes two paid coaches in all the medium to big clubs. Smaller clubs usually have to share coaches. This makes a massive difference, no other county can come close to matching that.
This is without mentioning the elite player pathway, the work that goes into that, the standards they reach in preparing players for senior football.
The next two graphs prove the chasm even more between
Dublin and the rest of the country. It isn't just the period between 2010 and 2014 either. My graphic showing the Games Development money received between 2005 and 2015 shows that's a decade long period of time. The difference has tightened in the most recent years.
The graphs can't be passed off as one of those things. Look at the difference per number of clubs, it's huge! The same with the other two graphs. From your point of view, of course you'd try to downplay them. You'd say that of course I'd try to hype them up. I just can't see how anyone can look at them and not see the huge imbalance and how that can have an effect.
The line you quoted; "So as you can see, the evidence is damning. The level of funding Dublin GAA receive in comparison to all other counties is astronomical." That was in reference to all the graphs, not just the last one.
I'll be honest, glack did some good work so I wanted to include one of his graphs but by his own admission he couldn't find the data he required. It's comparing two different years. Funding for 2016 and the figures for population and registered players were from 2014. As I've already said, the level of funding for other counties went up in 2016. So that is certainly is not a fair reflection of the decade long funding disparity. The graph is flawed essentially and I shouldn't have included it. (Sorry glack)
"At this point, while not comprehensive, there is a trend forming in how data is being presented. Big numbers, big accusations. However, at this point in the post, there is not a single solid proof of Financial Doping offered." That's an amazing conclusion you came to. You jumped all over the last graph and tried to brush aside the others. Those graphs clearly show the disparity. This is also ignoring the graphic I made which shows the amount Dublin were getting every year since 2005 in comparison to the county who received the 2nd highest amount in those years and the team who received the lowest.
So from here, your post continues on the premise that the graphs mean nothing. This is a false premise. I used the Olympic improvements in Britain as an example but I could have used examples from many different sports. As I said, and you noted, it is difficult to compare amateur sports to professional ones. I'd be of the opinion that the funding disparity has a greater influence in an amateur sport. Especially when it's allocated by the governing body.
Just take a step back for a second. If it was another county receiving the hugely unproportionate level of funding while Dublin was struggling, would you have any complaints? Be honest about it.
The next part shows the huge transformation in Dublin GAA. This is all about showing what effect the money has had. You're argument seems to be based on 'it really is not that many titles' and 'it's because others have regressed'.
51 one championships and leagues in 13 years is a huge difference from 14. There's no other explanation for it except for the obvious. Even if Leinster has regressed, there's 39 other titles to explain. This is an unparalleled period of success. I just compared from 1979 to 1992 and from 1966 to 1979. Dublin won 20 and 19 titles respectively. This is in a period when not only most of Leinster was in a bad state but many places across Ireland were really struggling for different reasons.
So your excuses really don't work. 51 titles at a time millions upon millions of euro is pumped it is too hard to blame on a freak coincidence, standards in other counties lowered or somehow trying to claim it's not actually that many titles. It's too big a jump.
Using an example earlier, it'd be like saying the UK increasing their medal haul from 15 medals in 1996 to 67 medals in 2016 is not really that big a jump and it had nothing to do with the millions pumped in through public funds. And also adding that the rest of Europe isn't as good as they used to be. It would be just ridiculous.
You forgot to cover the next part of my post. It deals with the huge sponsorship money available to Dublin and the huge cost that goes into assembling the massive backroom team and what goes into preparing Dublin senior teams.
It also deals with other advantages Dublin has but you've ignored it. It's all these elements added together that leads me to make the conclusions I have. The resources to create players added to the resources to create champions. It an unprecedented level of funding that has lead to unprecedented level of success.
Like I said at the start of this post. Fair play to you for actually trying to argue the points but you have failed to show that the huge advantages Dublin have has made a huge impact on results and you've failed to show that the huge level of resources Dublin have is in anyway fair.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
The Border Sheep wrote: »No fan of GAA but why would you want that
It'd be like asking Federer to cut off one hand or Man City to split their team.Just because they're a better team.
When they weren't winning I don't think I heard such ridiculous request!
Typical Snowflake Generation ****e! All you can do is laugh at that nonsense. 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement