Should Dublin Football be split?

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Do you know how much 1 GPO costs? Do you know Leitrims population?

Again, for the purposes of this exercise, this is irrelevant. Data has been presented, a conclusion drawn from it, and a suggested course of action based on that conclusion provided.

Whatever action should be taken with Dublin, should also be applied (even more so) to Leitrim. Quid Pro Quo.

Do you disagree with this assertion, and if so, why?

High Fidelity

ArielAtom wrote: »

Still replying to Ewan. He’s bored in Brazil, should be in Russia but no one would foot the bill for a washed up hack. Pundit arena is his level now. Time to stop feeding this thread gents.

Surely professional journalists aren’t allowed to their copy research online in places like this. I mean if anything was used in a publication without consent or purposes information was given that would be pretty serious, no.

ArielAtom

High Fidelity wrote: »

Surely professional journalists aren’t allowed to their copy research online in places like this. I mean if anything was used in a publication without consent or purposes information was given that would be pretty serious, no.

Yes, for anyone real journalist with standards I suppose.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

It's financial doping because Dublin receive millions more than anyone else in creating and developing players. This is before we count senior team preparation.

No, it really isn't. You keep saying that it's financial doping but that is not what financial doping means in sports. You are using the word doping because of its associations with illegal medical and chemical supplements. Then the word has been tagged to financial to make it sound worse and tarnish Dublin's victories. Dublin aren't doping, either financially or otherwise. Dublin generates millions more in revenue too, but it is not up to Dublin to distribute a lot of that, it is up to the GAA and provincial councils, the official governing bodies of the sport.

High Fidelity

ArielAtom wrote: »

Yes, for anyone real journalist with standards I suppose.

Maybe we should keep an eye on the Indo.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Can you post the link to the source of the population graph?

It’s not right and I’m going to correct it, but I want to look at the source data, how that conclusion was reached etc?

Population of Dublin: 1.345 million, Games Development Funding: 1.298 million, Ratio per head of population: 96 cent

Population of Kerry: 140.600k, Games Development Funding 197.600k, Ratio per head of population: 1.40 euro.

Population of Mayo: 130k, Games Devlopment Funding: 127.98k, Ratio per head of population: 98 cent.

Population of Donegal: 158k, Games Devlopment Funding: 132.000K Ratio per head of population: 83 cent.

Population of Galway: 258,552, Games Development Funding: 178.400k Ratio per head of Population: 69 cent.

Population of Tyrone: 177.986k, Games Developmet Funding: 119k, Ratio per head of population: 66 cent.

Population of Monghan: 60,483k Games Devlopment Funding: 122.500k, Ratio per head of population: 1.99 euro.

Population of Cork: 542,196k, Games Development Funding: 249k, Ratio per head of population: 45 cent.

Population of Kildare: 222,130, Games Developemnt Funding: 226.428k, Ratio per head of population: 1 euro.

Population of Meath: 194,942, Games Development Funding: 267.421k, Ratio per head of population: 1.37 euro.

I have the link, it's quite comprehensive so Bertie economics won't cut it I'm afraid:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308516324_A_Rating_System_For_Gaelic_Football_Teams_Factors_That_Influence_Success

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

Again, for the purposes of this exercise, this is irrelevant. Data has been presented, a conclusion drawn from it, and a suggested course of action based on that conclusion provided.

Whatever action should be taken with Dublin, should also be applied (even more so) to Leitrim. Quid Pro Quo.

Do you disagree with this assertion, and if so, why?

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Surely professional journalists aren’t allowed to their copy research online in places like this. I mean if anything was used in a publication without consent or purposes information was given that would be pretty serious, no.

Oops! Looks like someone doesn't want the full research shown, wonder why that is?

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I have the link, it's quite comprehensive so Bertie economics won't cut it I'm afraid:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308516324_A_Rating_System_For_Gaelic_Football_Teams_Factors_That_Influence_Success

Again I asked for the link to the graph you posted from 2010-2014 GDF to population. I beginning to think you doctored it can you post the source and how the source reached the figures in the graph. Thanks.

Population of Dublin: 1.345 million, Games Development Funding: 1.298 million, Ratio per head of population: 96 cent

Population of Kerry: 140.600k, Games Development Funding 197.600k, Ratio per head of population: 1.40 euro.

Population of Mayo: 130k, Games Devlopment Funding: 127.98k, Ratio per head of population: 98 cent.

Population of Donegal: 158k, Games Devlopment Funding: 132.000K Ratio per head of population: 83 cent.

Population of Galway: 258,552, Games Development Funding: 178.400k Ratio per head of Population: 69 cent.

Population of Tyrone: 177.986k, Games Developmet Funding: 119k, Ratio per head of population: 66 cent.

Population of Monghan: 60,483k Games Devlopment Funding: 122.500k, Ratio per head of population: 1.99 euro.

Population of Cork: 542,196k, Games Development Funding: 249k, Ratio per head of population: 45 cent.

Population of Kildare: 222,130, Games Developemnt Funding: 226.428k, Ratio per head of population: 1 euro.

Population of Meath: 194,942, Games Development Funding: 267.421k, Ratio per head of population: 1.37 euro.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

No, it really isn't. You keep saying that it's financial doping but that is not what financial doping means in sports. You are using the word doping because of its associations with illegal medical and chemical supplements. Then the word has been tagged to financial to make it sound worse and tarnish Dublin's victories. Dublin aren't doping, either financially or otherwise. Dublin generates millions more in revenue too, but it is not up to Dublin to distribute a lot of that, it is up to the GAA and provincial councils, the official governing bodies of the sport.

Well doping in other sports usually leads to an increase in performance and an increase in medals/championships etc. Dublin have had a huge increase in titles at the same time as a huge increase in funding. That's why the term financial doping works.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Oops! Looks like someone doesn't want the full research shown, wonder why that is?

Thinking exactly the same thing. Or falsifying graphs.



Population of Dublin: 1.345 million, Games Development Funding: 1.298 million, Ratio per head of population: 96 cent

Population of Kerry: 140.600k, Games Development Funding 197.600k, Ratio per head of population: 1.40 euro.

Population of Mayo: 130k, Games Devlopment Funding: 127.98k, Ratio per head of population: 98 cent.

Population of Donegal: 158k, Games Devlopment Funding: 132.000K Ratio per head of population: 83 cent.

Population of Galway: 258,552, Games Development Funding: 178.400k Ratio per head of Population: 69 cent.

Population of Tyrone: 177.986k, Games Developmet Funding: 119k, Ratio per head of population: 66 cent.

Population of Monghan: 60,483k Games Devlopment Funding: 122.500k, Ratio per head of population: 1.99 euro.

Population of Cork: 542,196k, Games Development Funding: 249k, Ratio per head of population: 45 cent.

Population of Kildare: 222,130, Games Developemnt Funding: 226.428k, Ratio per head of population: 1 euro.

Population of Meath: 194,942, Games Development Funding: 267.421k, Ratio per head of population: 1.37 euro.

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Another infographic as an answer to my question. OK, let's look at this one then, and see what it is telling us.


But what is this graph actually trying to point out? What does €274 Euros per registered player in Dublin mean, when compared to say €22 in Mayo, or €56 in Carlow?

Is it stating that a registered player in Dublin has €274 spent on them, but their Mayo counterpart only has €22? What *exactly* is the correlation between a paid up member of the GAA and money spent of Games Development?

Let me boil it down to a single question: Should high participation rates within the GAA in a county mean that proportionally more funding for Games Development should be made available to that county?

Surely the inverse holds true? Others may disagree.

Comparing absolute numbers of paying members of the GAA with the relative amounts of funding designed to get more people playing within the GAA, is well, an apples and oranges comparison. If player participation percentages were factored in (relative vs relative), or total population (absolute vs absolute), then the infographic looses alot of it's shock value. The disparity would still exist, and still be obvious. But this is to be expected, Dublin were being targeted with funding at the time.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Well doping in other sports usually leads to an increase in performance and an increase in medals/championships etc. Dublin have had a huge increase in titles at the same time as a huge increase in funding. That's why the term financial doping works.

Doping relates to the source of the funding not its extent or impact.
It is not financial doping because some teams gave higher budgets than others.

Even if Dublins improved performance was down to extra funding, and I am not at all convinced that it is given the inherent potential of the county, it would not be financial doping.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Thinking exactly the same thing. Or falsifying graphs.



Population of Dublin: 1.345 million, Games Development Funding: 1.298 million, Ratio per head of population: 96 cent

Population of Kerry: 140.600k, Games Development Funding 197.600k, Ratio per head of population: 1.40 euro.

Population of Mayo: 130k, Games Devlopment Funding: 127.98k, Ratio per head of population: 98 cent.

Population of Donegal: 158k, Games Devlopment Funding: 132.000K Ratio per head of population: 83 cent.

Population of Galway: 258,552, Games Development Funding: 178.400k Ratio per head of Population: 69 cent.

Population of Tyrone: 177.986k, Games Developmet Funding: 119k, Ratio per head of population: 66 cent.

Population of Monghan: 60,483k Games Devlopment Funding: 122.500k, Ratio per head of population: 1.99 euro.

Population of Cork: 542,196k, Games Development Funding: 249k, Ratio per head of population: 45 cent.

Population of Kildare: 222,130, Games Developemnt Funding: 226.428k, Ratio per head of population: 1 euro.

Population of Meath: 194,942, Games Development Funding: 267.421k, Ratio per head of population: 1.37 euro.

Did you look at the research? You can also look up Shane Mangan on twitter from 2016 if you need any other questions answered.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Did you look at the research? You can also look up Shane Mangan on twitter from 2016 if you need any other questions answered.

Ive read both before, neither contain the graph you are posting on population and GDF from 2010-2014.

Why won’t you post the source and rationale, is the graph false, have you tampered it?

If not post the source.

The only conclusion in your reluctance is you have posted false and likely tampered with information and your credibility is shot.

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

Another infographic as an answer to my question. OK, let's look at this one then, and see what it is telling us.


But what is this graph actually trying to point out? What does €274 Euros per registered player in Dublin mean, when compared to say €22 in Mayo, or €56 in Carlow?

Is it stating that a registered player in Dublin has €274 spent on them, but their Mayo counterpart only has €22? What *exactly* is the correlation between a paid up member of the GAA and money spent of Games Development?

Let me boil it down to a single question: Should high participation rates within the GAA in a county mean that proportionally more funding for Games Development should be made available to that county?

Surely the inverse holds true? Others may disagree.

Comparing absolute numbers of paying members of the GAA with the relative amounts of funding designed to get more people playing within the GAA, is well, an apples and oranges comparison. If player participation percentages were factored in (relative vs relative), or total population (absolute vs absolute), then the infographic looses alot of it's shock value. The disparity would still exist, and still be obvious. But this is to be expected, Dublin were being targeted with funding at the time.

You should look up the research and Shane Mangan also. Bertie economics won't cut it as I said.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

Doping relates to the source of the funding not its extent or impact.
It is not financial doping because some teams gave higher budgets than others.

Even if Dublins improved performance was down to extra funding, and I am not at all convinced that it is given the inherent potential of the county, it would not be financial doping.

Maybe not in other sports but here it's financial doping.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Ive read both before, neither contain the graph you are posting on population and GDF from 2010-2014.

Why won’t you post the source and rationale, is the graph false, have you tampered it?

If not post the source.

The only conclusion in your reluctance is you have posted false and likely tampered with information and your credibility is shot.

You obviously haven't read both before. For this reason your credibility is shot.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You obviously haven't read both before. For this reason your credibility is shot.

You tampered the graph didn’t you?

Why won’t you post the source of the graph?

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Did you look at the research? You can also look up Shane Mangan on twitter from 2016 if you need any other questions answered.

That was before the 2017 figures corrected the situation. No more financial doping, as you call it, taking place, Dublin are now disadvantaged compared to other counties, you can call off the campaign, you have won.

/close thread.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

You tampered the graph didn’t you?

Why won’t you post the source of the graph?

I've told you where to find it. You've lost all credibility by claiming you researched this while clearly you haven't.

I'll make it easier for you, look up Shane Mangan's tweets on 5th October 2016.

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

That was before the 2017 figures corrected the situation. No more financial doping, as you call it, taking place, Dublin are now disadvantaged compared to other counties, you can call off the campaign, you have won.

/close thread.

Desperately trying to censor this topic. I'm afraid the financial doping began in 2005 so figures from 2005 till now must be used.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I've told you where to find it. You've lost all credibility by claiming you researched this while clearly you haven't.

I'll make it easier for you, look up Shane Mangan's tweets on 5th October 2016.

You have lied mate.

Your credibility is shot.

Post the link to the source of the graph and it’s ratonelle to conclusion, it’s the link to the graph, it’s that simple to prove you haven’t tampered with the graph and posted lies?

Do it, prove you are not a liar?

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

You have lied mate.

Your credibility is shot.

Post the link to the source of the graph and it’s ratonelle to conclusion, it’s the link to the graph, it’s that simple to prove you haven’t tampered with the graph and posted lies?

Do it, prove you are not a liar?

What is this? I've directed you to the graph. You are making a show of yourself here. Go look it up.

DONTMATTER

I'll just link it before this fella totally loses the plot.



https://twitter.com/Shane_Mangan/status/783635599706169344

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You should look up the research and Shane Mangan also. Bertie economics won't cut it as I said.

But are these infographics not derived from this data? Are we actually not already discussing the research?

I'm not questioning the numbers, I'm asking questions about what has been inferred from the data presented.

For both graphs presented, I have a question on each. I'll reask them in the most clear way I can.

* One graph shows that Leitrim is being Financially Doped to an even greater degree than Dublin. Why then should Leitrim not be treated in the same manner as Dublin, seeing as the data presented would draw the conclusion that an even greater bias exists with that county's funding?

* The second graph correlates GDF with Registered Player counts. What value or insight does this comparison provide? Is the purpose of GDF to improve player participation rates, or is it aimed at already registered players? Should counties with low playing penetration percentages receive more in GDF, or less?

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I'll just link it before this fella totally loses the plot.



https://twitter.com/Shane_Mangan/status/783635599706169344

At last, thank you,

Shane’s figure are incorrect, Dublin would have to receive 8.6million in games development between 2010 - 2014, which would be 2.150 million a year in game development funding to have a spend per head of 5.9 euro. That’s different from the GDF figures you post and the GAA accounts.

He also ignores the provincal grants Dublin ont receive that raises every other counties coaching funds.

Poor piece of research

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Desperately trying to censor this topic. I'm afraid the financial doping began in 2005 so figures from 2005 till now must be used.

But the "financial doping" has finished, Dublin are now treated worse than other teams.

If Dublin's funding is cut further, it will be the kids, the 8 year olds, the 9 year olds, who will lose out. Is that your real agenda?

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

But are these infographics not derived from this data? Are we actually not already discussing the research?

I'm not questioning the numbers, I'm asking questions about what has been inferred from the data presented.

For both graphs presented, I have a question on each. I'll reask them in the most clear way I can.

* One graph shows that Leitrim is being Financially Doped to an even greater degree than Dublin. Why then should Leitrim not be treated in the same manner as Dublin, seeing as the data presented would draw the conclusion that an even greater bias exists with that county's funding?

* The second graph correlates GDF with Registered Player counts. What value or insight does this comparison provide? Is the purpose of GDF to improve player participation rates, or is it aimed at already registered players? Should counties with low playing penetration percentages receive more in GDF, or less?

I've already explained the first question and a bit of the second one goes into it as well. Games Development funding involves paying for coaches etc So there will be a minimum spend no matter what. That is why Leitrim are on such a high number in that graph.

That is why all graphs must be used, not just one measurement is taken into account. The purpose is to improve both and it should be fairly spread.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

At last, thank you,

Shane’s figure are incorrect, Dublin would have to receive 8.6million in games development between 2010 - 2014, which would be 2.150 million a year in game development funding to have a spend per head of 5.9 euro. That’s different from the GDF figures you post and the GAA accounts.

He also ignores the provincal grants Dublin ont receive that raises every other counties coaching funds.

Poor piece of research

At last? You lost all credibility accusing me as a liar and not doing your own research.

I think I'll take the research of a highly qualified data analyst over an advocate of Bertie economics who's lost all credibility.

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

But the "financial doping" has finished, Dublin are now treated worse than other teams.

If Dublin's funding is cut further, it will be the kids, the 8 year olds, the 9 year olds, who will lose out. Is that your real agenda?

Justin Gatlin was caught twice for doping. He returned to run even faster times. Research has concluded that the benefits of doping cannot be reversed, they will always have an advantage.
It's the same in Gaelic Games, this financial doping lasted for a decade. This added to other advantages mean it can't be reversed.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

At last? You lost all credibility accusing me as a liar and not doing your own research.

I think I'll take the research of a highly qualified data analyst over an advocate of Bertie economics who's lost all credibility.

Ah I didn’t say you weren’t posting lies and you are posting twitter links as credible sources with no maths just a graph, wasn’t that his undergraduate research at Tallaght IT? Not knocking Tallaght. But essentially he is a student, I think he still is.

Anyway I’m not here to insult, simple Maths tell us that for Dublin to have had a spend of 5.9 euro to, to 98 cent in 7 years their funding would have had to be cut by almost 500%, we know this isn’t true. His figures are wrong.

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

At last? You lost all credibility accusing me as a liar and not doing your own research.

I think I'll take the research of a highly qualified data analyst over an advocate of Bertie economics who's lost all credibility.

Shane Mangan isn't a highly qualified data analyst.

http://www.punditarena.com/author/smangan/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shane_Mangan



He is a graduate of IT Tallaght in Sports Science and Health.

https://www.it-tallaght.ie/index.cfm/page/course?id=265

There is very little if any data analysis involved the course.

I have some legal qualifications but I am not a lawyer, let alone a highly qualified lawyer.

Shane Mangan appears to have some qualifications in data analysis, but he is not a highly qualified data analyst.

Like everything else, it seems you are exaggerating again.

Finally, I have read Shane Mangan's paper in full "A Rating System For Gaelic Football Teams: Factors That Influence Success". You can download it from here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308516324_A_Rating_System_For_Gaelic_Football_Teams_Factors_That_Influence_Success

Absolutely nowhere in the paper does he suggest a correlation between Games Development Funding and results. He finds a link between population and performance, between previously successful underage teams and performance, but there is no connection identified by him between GDF and performance. Even in relation to commercial income he finds only that "Moderate correlations were observed between total commercial income from the GAA and Elo points." In contrast, he finds "Strong and very strong correlations were observed respectively between the number of U21 provincial finals won since 1986 and Elo points." Similarly, previous success at senior level is a strong predictor of future success.

In short, you are misrepresenting Shane Mangan, a sports scientist, as a data analyst, and then you are further misrepresenting his research as saying something it doesn't.

Calling your posts on this issue disingenuous would be overly kind.

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Justin Gatlin was caught twice for doping. He returned to run even faster times. Research has concluded that the benefits of doping cannot be reversed, they will always have an advantage.
It's the same in Gaelic Games, this financial doping lasted for a decade. This added to other advantages mean it can't be reversed.

Absolute rubbish, like everything else you have posted that I have disproved.

Even if Dublin get 5, 10 or even 15 players from the non-existent "financial doping" that I have shown elsewhere Shane Mangan doesn't think affects performance, they won't be around for ever.

So link to your research about doping. I would guess that you will try to hide it once again.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Ah I didn’t say you weren’t posting lies and you are posting twitter links as credible sources with no maths just a graph, wasn’t that his undergraduate research at Tallaght IT? Not knocking Tallaght. But essentially he is a student, I think he still is.

Anyway I’m not here to insult, simple Maths tell us that for Dublin to have had a spend of 5.9 euro to, to 98 cent in 7 years their funding would have had to be cut by almost 500%, we know this isn’t true. His figures are wrong.

You actually said; "you have lied mate' and you were saying I tampered with the graph! Your credibility here is shot.
He's worked with Dublin hurlers and other GAA teams. We're going to have to go with his numbers over someone who's been using Bertie economics I'm afraid.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Justin Gatlin was caught twice for doping. He returned to run even faster times. Research has concluded that the benefits of doping cannot be reversed, they will always have an advantage.
It's the same in Gaelic Games, this financial doping lasted for a decade. This added to other advantages mean it can't be reversed.

Please find me the research into the effect of allocation of development funding in a geographic, amateur sport.

You are talking about research into the biological effects of illegal substances.

Unless your contention is that Dublin are secretly funding some sort of EPO lab, to pivot from that research to the Dublin scenario with a comment that it's "the same in Gaelic Games" is a statement without connection to reality or logic.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You actually said; "you have lied mate' and you were saying I tampered with the graph! Your credibility here is shot.
He's worked with Dublin hurlers and other GAA teams. We're going to have to go with his numbers over someone who's been using Bertie economics I'm afraid.

It doesn't matter if he's played in an All Ireland, what's that got to do with anything. Numbers are numbers. If he hasn't included the provincial grants that Dublin don't receive, the numbers are wrong.

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

Shane Mangan isn't a highly qualified data analyst.

http://www.punditarena.com/author/smangan/

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shane_Mangan



He is a graduate of IT Tallaght in Sports Science and Health.

https://www.it-tallaght.ie/index.cfm/page/course?id=265

There is very little if any data analysis involved the course.

I have some legal qualifications but I am not a lawyer, let alone a highly qualified lawyer.

Shane Mangan appears to have some qualifications in data analysis, but he is not a highly qualified data analyst.

Like everything else, it seems you are exaggerating again.

Finally, I have read Shane Mangan's paper in full "A Rating System For Gaelic Football Teams: Factors That Influence Success". You can download it from here:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308516324_A_Rating_System_For_Gaelic_Football_Teams_Factors_That_Influence_Success

Absolutely nowhere in the paper does he suggest a correlation between Games Development Funding and results. He finds a link between population and performance, between previously successful underage teams and performance, but there is no connection identified by him between GDF and performance. Even in relation to commercial income he finds only that "Moderate correlations were observed between total commercial income from the GAA and Elo points." In contrast, he finds "Strong and very strong correlations were observed respectively between the number of U21 provincial finals won since 1986 and Elo points." Similarly, previous success at senior level is a strong predictor of future success.

In short, you are misrepresenting Shane Mangan, a sports scientist, as a data analyst, and then you are further misrepresenting his research as saying something it doesn't.

Calling your posts on this issue disingenuous would be overly kind.

I assume you bothered to research him properly? He is involved in the Gaelic Sports Research Centre. One of the few places in Ireland to do many research projects into GAA. You can go look at their work if you like.

On the link between games development and results. Let's look into it closely. What does it pay for. In 31 of the counties it basically pays for between 1 and 5 games promotion officers. You will actually find there's not much difference in the spending between these 31 counties over the period since 2005.
There is only one county that is way ahead in the games development spending rates and that's Dublin, you're probably not surprised to hear that. And in researching the link between games development and results, only Dublin prove the theory. Which is obvious because they're the only outlier in spending.

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

Absolute rubbish, like everything else you have posted that I have disproved.

Even if Dublin get 5, 10 or even 15 players from the non-existent "financial doping" that I have shown elsewhere Shane Mangan doesn't think affects performance, they won't be around for ever.

So link to your research about doping. I would guess that you will try to hide it once again.

You've disproved nothing!

I've just explained the games development scenario for you.

I linked all research and informed everyone on where to find it. Here's some more reading for you:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131027205618.htm

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

Please find me the research into the effect of allocation of development funding in a geographic, amateur sport.

You are talking about research into the biological effects of illegal substances.

Unless your contention is that Dublin are secretly funding some sort of EPO lab, to pivot from that research to the Dublin scenario with a comment that it's "the same in Gaelic Games" is a statement without connection to reality or logic.

I've explained the games development situation. How Dublin receive so much more and what it's spent on.

That the imbalance lasted for a long time has to have an effect. Like the study I just linked above, even short term doping can have permanent effects.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

It doesn't matter if he's played in an All Ireland, what's that got to do with anything. Numbers are numbers. If he hasn't included the provincial grants that Dublin don't receive, the numbers are wrong.

Oh his numbers may be wrong. He was just using the GAA accounts. He'd need to use each county boards accounts really but, his research still shows a huge imbalance. The Bertie economics crew still haven't come back with there numbers.

odyssey06

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I've explained the games development situation. How Dublin receive so much more and what it's spent on.
That the imbalance lasted for a long time has to have an effect. Like the study I just linked above, even short term doping can have permanent effects.

The study you linked to is titled: "Brief exposure to performance-enhancing drugs may be permanently 'remembered' by muscles."

Fascinating stuff, it could be used to justify permanent suspensions for doping.

But it doesn't say a single thing about financial doping.

DONTMATTER

odyssey06 wrote: »

The study you linked to is titled: "Brief exposure to performance-enhancing drugs may be permanently 'remembered' by muscles."

Fascinating stuff, it could be used to justify permanent suspensions for doping.

But it doesn't say a single thing about financial doping.

I was asked "So link to your research about doping". So I did.

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I've already explained the first question and a bit of the second one goes into it as well. Games Development funding involves paying for coaches etc So there will be a minimum spend no matter what. That is why Leitrim are on such a high number in that graph.

That is why all graphs must be used, not just one measurement is taken into account. The purpose is to improve both and it should be fairly spread.

So Leitrim shouldn't be split, as there are mitigating factors in play that are not represented by the Infographic. Do I misunderstand what you are saying? It seems a reasonable conclusion.

On the second point, I'm still not understanding the relationship of GDF versus registered player numbers, and what is being portrayed by this graph. I would assert that counties with low playing penetration percentages receive more in GDF. Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

So Leitrim shouldn't be split, as there are mitigating factors in play that are not represented by the Infographic. Do I misunderstand what you are saying? It seems a reasonable conclusion.

On the second point, I'm still not understanding the relationship of GDF versus registered player numbers, and what is being portrayed by this graph. I would assert that counties with low playing penetration percentages receive more in GDF. Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?

As I've pointed out a few times to you now. The Games Development funding mostly pays for Games Promotion Officers. All counties get a few of these. Dublin are the only one's to get more than a few. They have one and sometimes two per any medium to big club and many small clubs. This isn't the case in any other county.

No, that's not the case. Excluding Dublin, the gap between top and bottom in total funding is quite small. Fermanagh are the lowest so it's not on playing penetration percentage anyway. Cork are the highest but other totals show it's not on population basis either, although that has some effect.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You actually said; "you have lied mate' and you were saying I tampered with the graph! Your credibility here is shot.
He's worked with Dublin hurlers and other GAA teams. We're going to have to go with his numbers over someone who's been using Bertie economics I'm afraid.

I did posting the wrong numbers is lying to my mind to prove an unjustified agenda.

I couldn't be less bothered if you think im credible or vice versa likely im only interested in being honest and shooting down poor evidence. Ive posted the actual numbers that have not been rebutted and have corrected Shanes.

Lets be kind and call the numbers you are posting as errors really. I think we have discount all Shanes graphs if you accept his numbers are wrong.

The correct GDF spend is:

Population of Dublin: 1.345 million, Games Development Funding: 1.298 million, Ratio per head of population: 96 cent

Population of Kerry: 140.600k, Games Development Funding 197.600k, Ratio per head of population: 1.40 euro.

Population of Mayo: 130k, Games Devlopment Funding: 127.98k, Ratio per head of population: 98 cent.

Population of Donegal: 158k, Games Devlopment Funding: 132.000K Ratio per head of population: 83 cent.

Population of Galway: 258,552, Games Development Funding: 178.400k Ratio per head of Population: 69 cent.

Population of Tyrone: 177.986k, Games Developmet Funding: 119k, Ratio per head of population: 66 cent.

Population of Monghan: 60,483k Games Devlopment Funding: 122.500k, Ratio per head of population: 1.99 euro.

Population of Cork: 542,196k, Games Development Funding: 249k, Ratio per head of population: 45 cent.

Population of Kildare: 222,130, Games Developemnt Funding: 226.428k, Ratio per head of population: 1 euro.

Population of Meath: 194,942, Games Development Funding: 267.421k, Ratio per head of population: 1.37 euro.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

I did posting the wrong numbers is lying to my mind to prove an unjustified agenda.

I couldn't be less bothered if you think im credible or vice versa likely im only interested in being honest and shooting down poor evidence. Ive posted the actual numbers that have not been rebutted and have corrected Shanes.

Lets be kind and call the numbers you are posting as errors really. I think we have discount all Shanes graphs if you accept his numbers are wrong.

The correct GDF spend is:

Population of Dublin: 1.345 million, Games Development Funding: 1.298 million, Ratio per head of population: 96 cent

Population of Kerry: 140.600k, Games Development Funding 197.600k, Ratio per head of population: 1.40 euro.

Population of Mayo: 130k, Games Devlopment Funding: 127.98k, Ratio per head of population: 98 cent.

Population of Donegal: 158k, Games Devlopment Funding: 132.000K Ratio per head of population: 83 cent.

Population of Galway: 258,552, Games Development Funding: 178.400k Ratio per head of Population: 69 cent.

Population of Tyrone: 177.986k, Games Developmet Funding: 119k, Ratio per head of population: 66 cent.

Population of Monghan: 60,483k Games Devlopment Funding: 122.500k, Ratio per head of population: 1.99 euro.

Population of Cork: 542,196k, Games Development Funding: 249k, Ratio per head of population: 45 cent.

Population of Kildare: 222,130, Games Developemnt Funding: 226.428k, Ratio per head of population: 1 euro.

Population of Meath: 194,942, Games Development Funding: 267.421k, Ratio per head of population: 1.37 euro.

Well clearly you are a liar then! You said you were going to produce the figures for the same period of Shane's graphics, yet you have failed to do so. You have instead continued to use selective figures, Bertie economics as I've said. That's why you've lost all credibility.

I'm not here to defend Shane Mangan's numbers. His graphs show a huge imbalance in funding. This reflects reality. His numbers may be wrong, for example he hasn't used the actual Dublin county board accounts. This doesn't change the fact that Dublin have received a far higher level of funding than any other county, no matter what figures you use.

Edit: Actually your numbers back up my point. You're using the lowest amount Dublin have received since the financial doping began and the highest amount every other county has received but as you can see, apart from Dublin, the gap between lowest and highest is not that big. The amount of Games Promotion Officers in all counties is at a similar level, obviously this excludes Dublin who have one or two for most clubs.

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

As I've pointed out a few times to you now. The Games Development funding mostly pays for Games Promotion Officers. All counties get a few of these. Dublin are the only one's to get more than a few. They have one and sometimes two per any medium to big club and many small clubs. This isn't the case in any other county.

No, that's not the case. Excluding Dublin, the gap between top and bottom in total funding is quite small. Fermanagh are the lowest so it's not on playing penetration percentage anyway. Cork are the highest but other totals show it's not on population basis either, although that has some effect.

Ah, I get what you are saying now. The fact that Dublin have 60 GPOs versus say Mayos 6 is an unfair and biased imbalance?

On the second point, your assertion is that GDF should *not* be allocated using playing penetration percentages. Is that correct of me to state that?

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

Ah, I get what you are saying now. The fact that Dublin have 60 GPOs versus say Mayos 6 is an unfair and biased imbalance?

On the second point, your assertion is that GDF should *not* be allocated using playing penetration percentages. Is that correct of me to state that?

It's the huge number of GPO's in Dublin yes but I think more importantly it's the paid Strategic Programme Manager, Regional Development Officers as well as the hurling development officers and the GPO's. Having these structures in place is the reason Dublin's success has been so stark. This is something that needs to be spread to all counties, throwing GPO's alone at it won't work in most cases.

I didn't say that, I said how the money has been allocated and it isn't under playing penetration percentages.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Well clearly you are a liar then! You said you were going to produce the figures for the same period of Shane's graphics, yet you have failed to do so. You have instead continued to use selective figures, Bertie economics as I've said. That's why you've lost all credibility.

I'm not here to defend Shane Mangan's numbers. His graphs show a huge imbalance in funding. This reflects reality. His numbers may be wrong, for example he hasn't used the actual Dublin county board accounts. This doesn't change the fact that Dublin have received a far higher level of funding than any other county, no matter what figures you use.

Edit: Actually your numbers back up my point. You're using the lowest amount Dublin have received since the financial doping began and the highest amount every other county has received but as you can see, apart from Dublin, the gap between lowest and highest is not that big. The amount of Games Promotion Officers in all counties is at a similar level, obviously this excludes Dublin who have one or two for most clubs.

I didnt i said i would correct them which i have, if Shanes figures were true Dublin would have to have had a 400% cut in GDF which we know isnt true, its 11 %.

Glad you acknowledge that Shanes figures are false, thus we can exclude and dismiss any of his info graphs.

My 2017 figures are correct and show that there is no inequality in GDF funding for the accusation you make i.e. Dublin are receiving significantly more GDF then anyone. They arent, thus arent financially doped.

If posting actual figures and maths is Bertie economics im happy to be guilty, ive produced all my work all you have done is copy and pasted someone else's which is false. I would welcome you to back up your assertion that Dublin have recived significantly more GDF then any other county, by doing the comparitive figures to the counties i have from 2010 -2014 to back your accusation else wise its speculation? I would actually say 10-13 would be your best bet that is when Dublins funding began to be cut.

But how is that a bad thing? Surely that makes thing equal? Surely thats what you want? Surely that highlights the need not to split from a financial perspective? It highlights Dublin success isnt financially prompted? Its all very odd your point of view and entrenched position despite overwhelming evidence.

The correct GDF spend is:

Population of Dublin: 1.345 million, Games Development Funding: 1.298 million, Ratio per head of population: 96 cent

Population of Kerry: 140.600k, Games Development Funding 197.600k, Ratio per head of population: 1.40 euro.

Population of Mayo: 130k, Games Devlopment Funding: 127.98k, Ratio per head of population: 98 cent.

Population of Donegal: 158k, Games Devlopment Funding: 132.000K Ratio per head of population: 83 cent.

Population of Galway: 258,552, Games Development Funding: 178.400k Ratio per head of Population: 69 cent.

Population of Tyrone: 177.986k, Games Developmet Funding: 119k, Ratio per head of population: 66 cent.

Population of Monghan: 60,483k Games Devlopment Funding: 122.500k, Ratio per head of population: 1.99 euro.

Population of Cork: 542,196k, Games Development Funding: 249k, Ratio per head of population: 45 cent.

Population of Kildare: 222,130, Games Developemnt Funding: 226.428k, Ratio per head of population: 1 euro.

Population of Meath: 194,942, Games Development Funding: 267.421k, Ratio per head of population: 1.37 euro.