Should Dublin Football be split?

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

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.

Yes, I did, I researched him properly, and I read his paper in full.

Nowhere in his paper does he make a link between GDF and funding. Why? Because there is none. If there was, Longford and Leitrim would be Dublin's closest challengers. They aren't.

Furthermore, and this is even more important, his paper makes zero conclusions about causation. If you understood the nature of research (which from your posts, you clearly don't), you would understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Mangan identifies a number of correlations that lead to success. However, he does not explicity ascribe causation to them. To give an example from another field, there is a well-established correlation between the number of pirates and global temperatures. However, this does not mean that you increase the number of pirates in order to decrease global temperatures as the model would suggest.

All of the graphs and tables you have posted are a heap of statistical bull****, with no link to reality.

As for Shane Mangan's "involvement" with the Gaelic Sports Science Centre, he is a student, not a member of staff.

http://www.it-tallaght.ie/gaelic-sports-research-centre

There are no academic publications listed in the area of funding and GAA performance, which means Mangan's research hasn't made the threshold for publication.

To sum up, you have taken the work of a student, twisted his findings into something he didn't say, and presented it as the work of a respected academic data analyst. And you expect to be taken seriously?

I started off looking into Mangan, thinking you might have had some substance to what you are saying, but have discovered there is absolutely zero to what you are saying.

blanch152

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.

You are calling other people liars when you are completely misrepresenting Shane Mangan's research. Your are a complete spoofer.

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

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.

So, GDF is really about how many CPOs can be hired in any given county. "The Games Development funding mostly pays for Games Promotion Officers".

The logical conclusion of this assertion would be that plotting GPO numbers on a per county basis, will show a massive imbalance in favour of Dublin. Would you disagree with this conclusion?

DONTMATTER wrote: »

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

So you would agree that counties with low playing percentages should receive more GDF then? I'm trying to understand your position on this, which hopefully will help me understand better the thrust of your argument.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

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.

You're behind the times. I've explained how the funding works. As you kindly point out, the difference in funding between most counties is quite small. The only difference is with Dublin who get a far higher amount.

I said from the start that I'm not sure if his numbers are correct but whatever numbers you use it shows Dublin are far ahead in funding allocation. Look at what the Dublin County Board accounts state:




So your numbers are wrong also. No matter what numbers you use though, it shows that Dublin are far ahead. Here's some more graphics:










How you can claim that Dublin don't receive significantly more games development funding is beyond me. Clearly Bertie economics at play. I haven't seen your numbers for 2010-2014?

Using any figures, including your own, it shows that Dublin are far ahead in receiving games development funding. I've already shown what this money has brought Dublin. 51 titles since the doping began.

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You're behind the times. I've explained how the funding works. As you kindly point out, the difference in funding between most counties is quite small. The only difference is with Dublin who get a far higher amount.

I said from the start that I'm not sure if his numbers are correct but whatever numbers you use it shows Dublin are far ahead in funding allocation. Look at what the Dublin County Board accounts state:




So your numbers are wrong also. No matter what numbers you use though, it shows that Dublin are far ahead. Here's some more graphics:










How you can claim that Dublin don't receive significantly more games development funding is beyond me. Clearly Bertie economics at play. I haven't seen your numbers for 2010-2014?

Using any figures, including your own, it shows that Dublin are far ahead in receiving games development funding. I've already shown what this money has brought Dublin. 51 titles since the doping began.

Stop repeating discredited nonsense and come up with a new argument.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You're behind the times. I've explained how the funding works. As you kindly point out, the difference in funding between most counties is quite small. The only difference is with Dublin who get a far higher amount.

I said from the start that I'm not sure if his numbers are correct but whatever numbers you use it shows Dublin are far ahead in funding allocation. Look at what the Dublin County Board accounts state:




So your numbers are wrong also. No matter what numbers you use though, it shows that Dublin are far ahead. Here's some more graphics:













How you can claim that Dublin don't receive significantly more games development funding is beyond me. Clearly Bertie economics at play. I haven't seen your numbers for 2010-2014?

Using any figures, including your own, it shows that Dublin are far ahead in receiving games development funding. I've already shown what this money has brought Dublin. 51 titles since the doping began.

You are spoofing now.

And you are providing blind evidence.

Take you graph and if you apply the ratio in Dublin to a certain year got a and the second highest was Leitrim, Fermanagh, Offaly, Monaghan, Dublin still wouldn't be getting more GDF per head of population.

We know at this stage not to trust any of your figures as they exclude provincial coaching allocations for GDF.

This is just getting funny now.

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

Yes, I did, I researched him properly, and I read his paper in full.

Nowhere in his paper does he make a link between GDF and funding. Why? Because there is none. If there was, Longford and Leitrim would be Dublin's closest challengers. They aren't.

Furthermore, and this is even more important, his paper makes zero conclusions about causation. If you understood the nature of research (which from your posts, you clearly don't), you would understand the difference between correlation and causation.

Mangan identifies a number of correlations that lead to success. However, he does not explicity ascribe causation to them. To give an example from another field, there is a well-established correlation between the number of pirates and global temperatures. However, this does not mean that you increase the number of pirates in order to decrease global temperatures as the model would suggest.

All of the graphs and tables you have posted are a heap of statistical bull****, with no link to reality.

As for Shane Mangan's "involvement" with the Gaelic Sports Science Centre, he is a student, not a member of staff.

http://www.it-tallaght.ie/gaelic-sports-research-centre

There are no academic publications listed in the area of funding and GAA performance, which means Mangan's research hasn't made the threshold for publication.

To sum up, you have taken the work of a student, twisted his findings into something he didn't say, and presented it as the work of a respected academic data analyst. And you expect to be taken seriously?

I started off looking into Mangan, thinking you might have had some substance to what you are saying, but have discovered there is absolutely zero to what you are saying.

As I've said, I'm not here to defend Mangan's work. In fact I doubted his numbers ages ago. His work is more credible than the Bertie economic enthusiasts we have around here.

His numbers and anyone's numbers shows a huge disparity in funding. That's the point. This huge gap exists and it's lead to 51 titles for Dublin since it began.

If you look at the figures for the time period since 2005 it's actually quite equal. The obvious exception is Dublin of course, who have paid strategic officers overseeing the work of their huge number of GDO's and GPO's. The results of this are there for all to see:

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

So, GDF is really about how many CPOs can be hired in any given county. "The Games Development funding mostly pays for Games Promotion Officers".

The logical conclusion of this assertion would be that plotting GPO numbers on a per county basis, will show a massive imbalance in favour of Dublin. Would you disagree with this conclusion?



So you would agree that counties with low playing percentages should receive more GDF then? I'm trying to understand your position on this, which hopefully will help me understand better the thrust of your argument.

There's other stuff as well but most of it covers the cost of GPO's and GDO's. There's one or two per club in Dublin for most clubs as I've said. Obviously the paid Strategic officers are something extra Dublin has.

I've said what I think should happen. The same structures should be put in place in all counties. Strategic officers with all other officers reporting to them. It'd be a fair and balanced system.

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

Stop repeating discredited nonsense and come up with a new argument.

You can add up the numbers if you wish. Nothing's been discredited.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

You are spoofing now.

And you are providing blind evidence.

Take you graph and if you apply the ratio in Dublin to a certain year got a and the second highest was Leitrim, Fermanagh, Offaly, Monaghan, Dublin still wouldn't be getting more GDF per head of population.

This is just getting funny now.

Oh so you've changed from:

"Dublin are receiving significantly more GDF then anyone. They arent, thus arent financially doped."

to

"Dublin still wouldn't be getting more GDF per head of population."

Beep Beep Beep!

DONTMATTER

I'm just putting up the 2nd and last games development table again, I've got the figure from 2014 now.

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

As I've said, I'm not here to defend Mangan's work. In fact I doubted his numbers ages ago.

More lies. Only a few pages ago, you were defending him, referring to him as a "highly qualified data analyst".

It was only when I pointed out that while qualified, he was not a "highly qualified data analyst", that you dropped your explicit dependance on him.

However, if you are now walking away from Mangan's work (not unexpected as he tells a very different story to yours), we are left with the incoherent ramblings of an unknown internet poster with nothing to back you up.

blanch152

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Oh so you've changed from:

"Dublin are receiving significantly more GDF then anyone. They arent, thus arent financially doped."

to

"Dublin still wouldn't be getting more GDF per head of population."

Beep Beep Beep!

If you have more kids playing the game, you need more GDOs. Simple statistics that seem to be beyond you.

That makes the GDF per head of population much more important, as was probably pointed out to you after your first post, but it seems you remain incapable of understanding the point.

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

There's other stuff as well but most of it covers the cost of GPO's and GDO's. There's one or two per club in Dublin for most clubs as I've said. Obviously the paid Strategic officers are something extra Dublin has.

GDF will pay for a maximum of half the cost of a single GPA (formerly referred to as GPOs). The other half is funded by the club. In the case of a second officer, 100% of their cost is funded by the club.

Citation: https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/we-can-all-take-lessons-from-dublin-winning-blueprint-403728.html

Doing the math on your statement:
"Most" Clubs have "one or two" GPOs.

Lets take it that 75% of clubs have 1.5 GPOs average. Exact numbers are hard to come by easily, but let's say Dublin have ~200 clubs.

So 75% of 200 = 150. Multiplied by 1.5 = Dublin having 225 GPOs. They actually have ~60.
Your assertion is inaccurate by a factor of 4. So, plainly incorrect.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

I've said what I think should happen. The same structures should be put in place in all counties. Strategic officers with all other officers reporting to them. It'd be a fair and balanced system.

I can't disagree with the opinion you offer, you are, as far as I am concerned, absolutely correct.

However, This has been the case since 2009.

Citation: http://www.gaa.ie/my-gaa/administrators/games-development-personnel

In 2015 (the latest data I can find easily), there were 300 Games Development Personnel nationwide, with approx 60 based in Dublin.

I don't see the imbalance. But maybe I'm missing something.

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

More lies. Only a few pages ago, you were defending him, referring to him as a "highly qualified data analyst".

It was only when I pointed out that while qualified, he was not a "highly qualified data analyst", that you dropped your explicit dependance on him.

However, if you are now walking away from Mangan's work (not unexpected as he tells a very different story to yours), we are left with the incoherent ramblings of an unknown internet poster with nothing to back you up.

You wish, you've spent this entire thread jumping from one argument to another trying desperately to make out that Dublin haven't bought success. Unfortunately for you, the facts are there. Dublin have bought success.

As I said, it doesn't matter what figures you use, including the discredited Bertie economics model, it shows Dublin are far ahead of any other county in games development funding.

munster87

Lads have ye no jobs? Or lives?!

DONTMATTER

blanch152 wrote: »

If you have more kids playing the game, you need more GDOs. Simple statistics that seem to be beyond you.

That makes the GDF per head of population much more important, as was probably pointed out to you after your first post, but it seems you remain incapable of understanding the point.

Ah no, as I've pointed out, the games development fund hasn't been split in terms of population. Look at the facts. Do Cork and Antrim get half of what Dublin has got?

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

GDF will pay for a maximum of half the cost of a single GPA (formerly referred to as GPOs). The other half is funded by the club. In the case of a second officer, 100% of their cost is funded by the club.

Citation: https://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/football/we-can-all-take-lessons-from-dublin-winning-blueprint-403728.html

Doing the math on your statement:
"Most" Clubs have "one or two" GPOs.

Lets take it that 75% of clubs have 1.5 GPOs average. Exact numbers are hard to come by easily, but let's say Dublin have ~200 clubs.

So 75% of 200 = 150. Multiplied by 1.5 = Dublin having 225 GPOs. They actually have ~60.
Your assertion is inaccurate by a factor of 4. So, plainly incorrect.



I can't disagree with the opinion you offer, you are, as far as I am concerned, absolutely correct.

However, This has been the case since 2009.

Citation: http://www.gaa.ie/my-gaa/administrators/games-development-personnel

In 2015 (the latest data I can find easily), there were 300 Games Development Personnel nationwide, with approx 60 based in Dublin.

I don't see the imbalance. But maybe I'm missing something.

That article backs up everything I've been saying! How Dublin succeeded was down to money but also down to the structures the GAA put in place for them. The paid strategic officers are vital to all of this. The planning was there from 2005 and they've just added to it.
"Their work within schools and clubs, although unheralded, has also helped funnel elite younger players towards their development squads where they start to focus on playing together in the Dublin jersey."
This part was being denied on this very thread. Developing elite athletes through the enormous funding has been the main area where success has come from.

Onto the point of half funding the development officers. This is not possible in any other county in Ireland. The pure size, population and economic realities make it so.

Your next maths can't be backed up. I've said before that most have one and some have two in the medium to big clubs. Many smaller clubs have one also.

So the development officers only became available to all in 2009, Dublin began in 2005. As I said, the amount spread around 31 counties has been even enough and well below 240 up to 2015. That's why the money spend in those 31 counties on Games Development has been pretty similar.
There's only one county with a far higher rate of Games Development Funding and a far higher rate of development officers as you've pointed out.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Oh so you've changed from:

"Dublin are receiving significantly more GDF then anyone. They arent, thus arent financially doped."

to

"Dublin still wouldn't be getting more GDF per head of population."

Beep Beep Beep!

Haha the first line was me paraphrasing your argument.

Maths must be done for the day now we are on to English.

Thats brilliant editing though!

Your some man to spoof!

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

That article backs up everything I've been saying! How Dublin succeeded was down to money but also down to the structures the GAA put in place for them. The paid strategic officers are vital to all of this. The planning was there from 2005 and they've just added to it.
"Their work within schools and clubs, although unheralded, has also helped funnel elite younger players towards their development squads where they start to focus on playing together in the Dublin jersey."
This part was being denied on this very thread. Developing elite athletes through the enormous funding has been the main area where success has come from.

Are you saying that GDF was designed to benefit the senior levels of play? That would be a fairly startling position to take, and one not really supported by the article.

"Their work within schools and clubs, although unheralded, has also helped funnel elite younger players towards their development squads where they start to focus on playing together in the Dublin jersey."

I would make the assertion that it was a secondary effect of getting more young players involved in the game, rather than a concerted effort to simply create a better Senior team. You may disagree with this.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Onto the point of half funding the development officers. This is not possible in any other county in Ireland. The pure size, population and economic realities make it so.

Are you making the assertion that nowhere else in Ireland, outside of Dublin, can afford to subsidise GPOs?

DONTMATTER wrote: »

Your next maths can't be backed up. I've said before that most have one and some have two in the medium to big clubs. Many smaller clubs have one also.

These are not my maths, they are an attempt to place specifics on your general statements, in an effort to determine the quality of the statement. I assert that you have tried to overstate the number of GPOs involved in the Dublin setup using generalisations. When numbers are introduced, these generalisations don't stack up.

Even if less than half the clubs in Dublin had only 1 GPO, that would still work out at considerably more GPOs then are actually employed in Dublin.

The statement "There's one or two per club in Dublin for most clubs as I've said." is patent falsehood. There is no data to support it.

DONTMATTER wrote: »

So the development officers only became available to all in 2009, Dublin began in 2005. As I said, the amount spread around 31 counties has been even enough and well below 240 up to 2015. That's why the money spend in those 31 counties on Games Development has been pretty similar.
There's only one county with a far higher rate of Games Development Funding and a far higher rate of development officers as you've pointed out.

In order top determine the accuracy of the first part of this, we'd need to plot GPO numbers and distribution year on year. I haven't seen this data.

As for the second part, development officer numbers in Dublin is currently on a par with the rest of the country, and has been as thus in recent years. If it has always been like that historically, I don't know - I don't have the data to hand.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Haha the first line was me paraphrasing your argument.

Maths must be done for the day now we are on to English.

Thats brilliant editing though!

Your some man to spoof!

This first part is you paraphrasing my argument ""Dublin are receiving significantly more GDF then anyone." You disagreed stating; "They arent, thus arent financially doped."
When you seen that I had shown that in fact, they actually have received significantly more, you backtracked furiously.
"Dublin still wouldn't be getting more GDF per head of population."

Your argument is a busted flush, just like all Bertie economics.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

This first part is you paraphrasing my argument ""Dublin are receiving significantly more GDF then anyone." You disagreed stating; "They arent, thus arent financially doped."
When you seen that I had shown that in fact, they actually have received significantly more, you backtracked furiously.
"Dublin still wouldn't be getting more GDF per head of population."

Your argument is a busted flush, just like all Bertie economics.

Exactly i was disagreeing with points, they are stating the same opinion and dispelling your assumption per ratio. Both sentences are congruent to my point.

Its really quite easy.

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

Are you saying that GDF was designed to benefit the senior levels of play? That would be a fairly startling position to take, and one not really supported by the article.

"Their work within schools and clubs, although unheralded, has also helped funnel elite younger players towards their development squads where they start to focus on playing together in the Dublin jersey."

I would make the assertion that it was a secondary effect of getting more young players involved in the game, rather than a concerted effort to simply create a better Senior team. You may disagree with this.



Are you making the assertion that nowhere else in Ireland, outside of Dublin, can afford to subsidise GPOs?



These are not my maths, they are an attempt to place specifics on your general statements, in an effort to determine the quality of the statement. I assert that you have tried to overstate the number of GPOs involved in the Dublin setup using generalisations. When numbers are introduced, these generalisations don't stack up.

Even if less than half the clubs in Dublin had only 1 GPO, that would still work out at considerably more GPOs then are actually employed in Dublin.

The statement "There's one or two per club in Dublin for most clubs as I've said." is patent falsehood. There is no data to support it.



In order top determine the accuracy of the first part of this, we'd need to plot GPO numbers and distribution year on year. I haven't seen this data.

As for the second part, development officer numbers in Dublin is currently on a par with the rest of the country, and has been as thus in recent years. If it has always been like that historically, I don't know - I don't have the data to hand.

It was designed to support all levels, why else would an elite pathway be built into it? The identification and development of elite talent was a major part of the financial doping. The plan was to increase playing numbers AND create elite talent.
Of course increasing the playing pool will obviously increase standards also. This heavily funded plan has had huge results across the board. At club level the number have titles has increased 4 fold in football and hurling. Underage titles in football and hurling has increased to 27 in the last 13 years. And obviously the knock on effect has been felt at senior level with 24 titles in 13 years between football and hurling.

Nowhere outside Dublin can afford to subsidise it to the level of Dublin, that's fairly obvious.

Where are you getting the total number of clubs in Dublin? I've pointed out that I meant there's a development officer in most clubs and two in some. I have said this previously.

Yes, it would be nice to get all the data but going on Games Development Funding as seen here:





It's clear that the imbalance was huge up to 2015. The difference in numbers of development officers available to Dublin v the rest is quite extraordinary.
I don't know where your getting that second part from? How is Dublin on a par exactly? If we take the numbers you've given, Dublin have a far higher amount of development officers. Do Cork have 30? Everyone else has in and around an equal amount each.
This is of course ignoring one of the most intrinsic parts of the plan. The paid Strategic officers. It's not just development officers alone, they had to report to people who were making plans and utilising the data.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Exactly i was disagreeing with points, they are stating the same opinion and dispelling your assumption per ratio. Both sentences are congruent to my point.

Its really quite easy.

You disagreed that Dublin have received significantly more GDF than anyone else, this is clearly untrue. Dublin have received far more, using anyone's numbers.

Of course when this was pointed out, you backtracked.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

You disagreed that Dublin have received significantly more GDF than anyone else, this is clearly untrue. Dublin have received far more, using anyone's numbers.

Of course when this was pointed out, you backtracked.

Monetarily from a certain perspective of course they have but its like saying Cork and Galway are well funded as well. As per funding per head of population year on year its debatable as i haven't seen county specific comparative figures like i posted for 2017.

For example if Leitrim or Monaghan are getting 250k for a population in the double thousands in 2016 and Dublin 1.4 for 1.4 miliion people. Clearly Leitrim and Monaghan are better funded.

ArielAtom

Dropping back in, Ewan quoting his fanboy Mangan, you couldn’t make it up😂😂😂😂😂. DM, the gift that keeps giving.

DONTMATTER

High Fidelity wrote: »

Monetarily from a certain perspective of course they have but its like saying Cork and Galway are well funded as well. As per funding per head of population year on year its debatable as i haven't seen county specific comparative figures like i posted for 2017.

For example if Leitrim or Monaghan are getting 250k for a population in the double thousands in 2016 and Dublin 1.4 for 1.4 miliion people. Clearly Leitrim and Monaghan are better funded.

We've already established this. The money is spread out pretty evenly between 31 counties. There's no big gap between top and bottom. In these 31 counties, everyone is getting a fair chunk of the pie. The money has not been divided using rank of population.
There's one county who county who's getting funding that dwarfs the rest. Unsurprisingly that county is Dublin. They're getting multiples of what everyone else is getting and it's been happening since 2005.
There will be a brand new table unveiled later today. I'm sure that's excited my avid fans.

TrueGael

I guess there is an explanation for why the Blue Juggernaut will get 2 home games guaranteed every year in the Super 8 as opposed to every one else getting 1?

Also the Ulster winner is forced to play 2 away games to appease said Juggernaut, I'm sure there is a reason to explain that this isn't blatant favouritsm, right lads????!

salmocab

TrueGael wrote: »

I guess there is an explanation for why the Blue Juggernaut will get 2 home games guaranteed every year in the Super 8 as opposed to every one else getting 1?

Also the Ulster winner is forced to play 2 away games to appease said Juggernaut, I'm sure there is a reason to explain that this isn't blatant favouritsm, right lads????!

Yes there is a reason it’s because the big stadium happens to be in Dublin.

DONTMATTER

TrueGael wrote: »

I guess there is an explanation for why the Blue Juggernaut will get 2 home games guaranteed every year in the Super 8 as opposed to every one else getting 1?

Also the Ulster winner is forced to play 2 away games to appease said Juggernaut, I'm sure there is a reason to explain that this isn't blatant favouritsm, right lads????!

They haven't had an away game since 2006. They don't even know what an away game is. So HQ are making sure they don't get too upset by guaranteeing them two home games in the super 8's.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We've already established this. The money is spread out pretty evenly between 31 counties. There's no big gap between top and bottom. In these 31 counties, everyone is getting a fair chunk of the pie. The money has not been divided using rank of population.
There's one county who county who's getting funding that dwarfs the rest. Unsurprisingly that county is Dublin. They're getting multiples of what everyone else is getting and it's been happening since 2005.
There will be a brand new table unveiled later today. I'm sure that's excited my avid fans.

Ok a chara population has nothing to do with a distribution of funds hahaha. Maybe if we brought this to the GAA we could help them with this critical peice information to assist with GDF distribution.

Ill just leave this here again:

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.

High Fidelity

TrueGael wrote: »

I guess there is an explanation for why the Blue Juggernaut will get 2 home games guaranteed every year in the Super 8 as opposed to every one else getting 1?

Also the Ulster winner is forced to play 2 away games to appease said Juggernaut, I'm sure there is a reason to explain that this isn't blatant favouritsm, right lads????!

Do you want two games in Killarney?

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

We've already established this. The money is spread out pretty evenly between 31 counties. There's no big gap between top and bottom. In these 31 counties, everyone is getting a fair chunk of the pie. The money has not been divided using rank of population.
There's one county who county who's getting funding that dwarfs the rest. Unsurprisingly that county is Dublin. They're getting multiples of what everyone else is getting and it's been happening since 2005.
There will be a brand new table unveiled later today. I'm sure that's excited my avid fans.

GDF Per Head of Population, per county:

Leitrim - €6.37
Cork - €0.77

That works out at in excess of 8 times the funding difference. That is in direct contradiction to your assertion that distribution is even in the 31 counties.

The rest of the post is borderline trolling. I see the call for fair and even tempered discourse will not be reciprocated.

Jaden

DONTMATTER wrote: »

They haven't had an away game since 2006. They don't even know what an away game is. So HQ are making sure they don't get too upset by guaranteeing them two home games in the super 8's.

I see you are discounting the league. Doing so does suit a certain narrative, maybe that is to be expected.

TrueGael

Jaden wrote: »

GDF Per Head of Population, per county:

Leitrim - €6.37
Cork - €0.77

That works out at in excess of 8 times the funding difference. That is in direct contradiction to your assertion that distribution is even in the 31 counties.

The rest of the post is borderline trolling. I see the call for fair and even tempered discourse will not be reciprocated.

It makes absolute sense that Leitrim and similar counties get a higher rate than the likes of Cork as they are disadvantaged from numerous vantage points (population, economy, sponsorship opportunities etc) In order to try and level the playing field this is logical and fair

What doesn't make sense is the financial and population behemoth getting way higher funding using either GAA member or population metrics than everybody by miles

High Fidelity

TrueGael wrote: »

It makes absolute sense that Leitrim and similar counties get a higher rate than the likes of Cork as they are disadvantaged from numerous vantage points (population, economy, sponsorship opportunities etc) In order to try and level the playing field this is logical and fair

What doesn't make sense is the financial and population behemoth getting way higher funding using either GAA member or population metrics than everybody by miles

Kerry get more per head of population then Dublin though.

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.

Jaden

TrueGael wrote: »

It makes absolute sense that Leitrim and similar counties get a higher rate than the likes of Cork as they are disadvantaged from numerous vantage points (population, economy, sponsorship opportunities etc) In order to try and level the playing field this is logical and fair

This sounds *alot* like "Financial Doping", or would you disagree?

TrueGael

Jaden wrote: »

This sounds *alot* like "Financial Doping", or would you disagree?

No it doesn't it sounds like trying to level the playing field unless you're referring to the Juggernaut

Imagine having the gall to use Leitrim and make it seem that they are getting favourable treatment from the GAA, only Dublin 'fans'

salmocab

TrueGael wrote: »

No it doesn't it sounds like trying to level the playing field unless you're referring to the Juggernaut

Imagine having the gall to use Leitrim and make it seem that they are getting favourable treatment from the GAA, only Dublin 'fans'

He doesn’t think Leitrim are getting favorable treatment he was making a point about using figures on there own because they suit ones own argument

blanch152

TrueGael wrote: »

No it doesn't it sounds like trying to level the playing field unless you're referring to the Juggernaut

Imagine having the gall to use Leitrim and make it seem that they are getting favourable treatment from the GAA, only Dublin 'fans'

This goes to the heart of Mangan's work, which our OP has been ranting about for pages.

If finances equal success, then Leitrim, Longford and Kerry would be Dublin's nearest challengers. Only one of those is near to challenging Dublin and as a result Mangan, in his paper, (despite the repeated bleating from DontMatter) does not find a correlation between GDF funding and success.

There are other reasons for Dublin's success - primarily a group of outstanding players coming together at the same time under the management of Jim Gavin.

Jaden

TrueGael wrote: »

No it doesn't it sounds like trying to level the playing field unless you're referring to the Juggernaut

Imagine having the gall to use Leitrim and make it seem that they are getting favourable treatment from the GAA, only Dublin 'fans'

"Making it seem" is disingenuous, I'm quoting figures supplied. If you come to one conclusion for one County, and a different conclusion for another County, using exactly the same dataset, then you have to question the value of the data in that context.

Do you at least see my point?

Here's the bad news.
You can never, ever level the playing field. The Inter County model is intrinsically unfair. It has never been fair, it will never be fair.

You can make it fairer, to a certain extent, but you can't fix it in terms of fairness, by any reasonable definition of the term.

You could cut Dublin's funding to zero, and give Leitrim 2 million a year for the next 10 years, and Dublin would still beat them by 10 points.

You can have a completely equitable championship, or you can have an intercounty championship.

Pick one.

TrueGael

blanch152 wrote: »

This goes to the heart of Mangan's work, which our OP has been ranting about for pages.

If finances equal success, then Leitrim, Longford and Kerry would be Dublin's nearest challengers. Only one of those is near to challenging Dublin and as a result Mangan, in his paper, (despite the repeated bleating from DontMatter) does not find a correlation between GDF funding and success.

There are other reasons for Dublin's success - primarily a group of outstanding players coming together at the same time under the management of Jim Gavin.

Well Kerry have a significantly bigger population than either of them and would attract more sponsorship than either so Kerry should be ahead of them that doesn't mean the GAA should abandon them just because they are disadvantaged

TrueGael

Jaden wrote: »

"Making it seem" is disingenuous, I'm quoting figures supplied. If you come to one conclusion for one County, and a different conclusion for another County, using exactly the same dataset, then you have to question the value of the data in that context.

Do you at least see my point?

Here's the bad news.
You can never, ever level the playing field. The Inter County model is intrinsically unfair. It has never been fair, it will never be fair.

You can make it fairer, to a certain extent, but you can't fix it in terms of fairness, by any reasonable definition of the term.

You could cut Dublin's funding to zero, and give Leitrim 2 million a year for the next 10 years, and Dublin would still beat them by 10 points.

You can have a completely equitable championship, or you can have an intercounty championship.

Pick one.

Why can't we have a championship as equal as possible? Nobody ever said it was possible to have 32 counties having a equal chance every year, it is feasible however to have at least 10-12 having a serious chance to win the big one rather than a boring monopoly trampling over the rest

Jaden

TrueGael wrote: »

Why can't we have a championship as equal as possible? Nobody ever said it was possible to have 32 counties having a equal chance every year, it is feasible however to have at least 10-12 having a serious chance to win the big one rather than a boring monopoly trampling over the rest

I 100% agree with this statement. It is quite possible to have a championship with 10-12 (I would say 8-10 myself though) teams realistically competing for top honours.

Reset the structures, layout strict funding and spend caps, enforce playing and backroom quotas, and in 10 years the Sligo/Leitrim/Roscommon Falcons would give the North Dublin Vikings a stern test in the Irish GAA Football championship played at Toyota Park in Fairview.

It would be alot fairer (in fairness).

DONTMATTER

So as we discussed yesterday, the games development fund is not split on rank of population. Like the number of development officers, if Dublin have 60, do Cork have 30? As I've said, the truth is that it's a fairly equal spread across 31 counties. If we take away the one outlier, no one could have any complaints really. No one has a huge number of development officers compared to other counties. So if there was no Dublin, you would have to say it was a fair and balanced system. As promised, here's a brand, spanking new table:






They are the figures from 2007 to 2017. In 2005 Dublin received 1.35 million and in 2006 they got 1.3 million. We don't have the figures for other counties but it was very little. So the table doesn't even show the total imbalance. Still you can see what I've been saying.
All counties are pretty equal. Then you have Dublin way ahead.

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

GDF Per Head of Population, per county:

Leitrim - €6.37
Cork - €0.77

That works out at in excess of 8 times the funding difference. That is in direct contradiction to your assertion that distribution is even in the 31 counties.

The rest of the post is borderline trolling. I see the call for fair and even tempered discourse will not be reciprocated.

I explained it to you already yesterday and my new table backs up what I've been saying.

High Fidelity

DONTMATTER wrote: »

So as we discussed yesterday, the games development fund is not split on rank of population. Like the number of development officers, if Dublin have 60, do Cork have 30? As I've said, the truth is that it's a fairly equal spread across 31 counties. If we take away the one outlier, no one could have any complaints really. No one has a huge number of development officers compared to other counties. So if there was no Dublin, you would have to say it was a fair and balanced system. As promised, here's a brand, spanking new table:






They are the figures from 2007 to 2017. In 2005 Dublin received 1.35 million and in 2006 they got 1.3 million. We don't have the figures for other counties but it was very little. So the table doesn't even show the total imbalance. Still you can see what I've been saying.
All counties are pretty equal. Then you have Dublin way ahead.

Can you post your sources for these figures mo chara, they dont look right to me. Thanks.

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

I see you are discounting the league. Doing so does suit a certain narrative, maybe that is to be expected.

The league hasn't anything to do with Dublin playing none of their championship games away since 2006! It's really is shocking when you think about it.

DONTMATTER

TrueGael wrote: »

It makes absolute sense that Leitrim and similar counties get a higher rate than the likes of Cork as they are disadvantaged from numerous vantage points (population, economy, sponsorship opportunities etc) In order to try and level the playing field this is logical and fair

What doesn't make sense is the financial and population behemoth getting way higher funding using either GAA member or population metrics than everybody by miles

Exactly, there's other factors at play.

DONTMATTER

Jaden wrote: »

This sounds *alot* like "Financial Doping", or would you disagree?

How is trying to make things fair financial doping?

Financial doping is where you pump millions upon millions into a county who already have the huge population advantage, already have the huge sponsorship advantage, already have the facilities advantages and so on.