QuoteThat’s some kicking the Cork lads in the shed end have given their own seats!
https://x.com/declancarey/status/189...101322288?s=46
Sure as it is in that new away section if you’re in one of the seats in the corner, you can’t see about a quarter of the pitch because the side of the stand and it’s non transparent windows blocking your view. I recall the cup game up there last season lads in the corner shouting “what’s happening?” And having others commentate to them if pats won a corner and who was taking it etcOriginally Posted by A N Mouse
Paaatrick's Agletic
That’s some kicking the Cork lads in the shed end have given their own seats!
https://x.com/declancarey/status/189...101322288?s=46
Paaatrick's Agletic
At the beginning if February, DCFC's CEO said he was "optimistic" that the club would get a big share of Ł36m for football stadia in NI which has been knocking around in Stormont for well over a decade. And he understood that under this scheme, Councils applying for a stadium which they owned would have to match-fund to the tune of 40% (for clubs owning the stadium, it's 5%):
https://www.derryjournal.com/sport/f...ub-ceo-4976036
Anyhow, when Derry & Strabane Council considered this at a recent meeting, they were outraged, claiming that this was "discrimination" against Derry by Themmuns (the current Sports Minister is DUP, in the post for a year, after over 10 years of SF and SDLP Ministers). They were also annoyed that they had already set their budgets for this financial year, so would struggle to raise anything. (Though they've been expecting a grant from this funding for years now).
Anyhow, someone must have mentioned to them that it's nothing against Derry/DCFC per se, since it also applies to Ballymena U and Carrick Rgrs, both owned by the same (Unionist) Council.
So now they've dropped the Discrimination claims and are merely asking for an extension of the application deadline:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgp8v21j97o
Though as that last article points out: "Similar funding schemes, such as Sport NI's Multi Facility Fund and the IFA's Grassroots Facilities Fund, require councils to provide at least 40% match funding.", so it shouldn't have been too much of a surprise.
The Council did not claim discrimination. Council passed a motion, unanimously, asking for the deadline to be extended.
Council undertook a business case, funded by DfC, that was based on the 5% contribution. They obviously got this figure from DfC, so why the change?
Council hadn't budgeted for 40%, hence the need for more time.
I also believe that the work paid for by the club on the new stand can't count towards the 40%.
There has been no explanation of the 40% requirement for councils. It seems quite high, compared to the 5% required by clubs. It's essentially preferring state subsidy for private enterprise over keeping the money in public ownership.
As for the motives behind the 40%. I don't know.
The councillor interviewed suggested that some may view it as discrimination, which is true. Based on long-running issues and this minister's record, plenty will assume it is. There are also ways and means that he can use to fund other clubs affected by it, if he so chooses.
Last edited by brendy_éire; 05/03/2025 at 4:28 PM.
Correct, the Council itself may not have, since it has representatives from every community. But as for certain Councillors...
From 'Derry Now':
Sinn Fein’s Christopher Jackson believes that the Minister’s decision that local councils must match up to 40% of funding for completion of the project is unrealistic and potentially ‘deliberately discriminatory.’
and
People Before Profit’s Shaun Harkin also supported the proposal, insisting that a case had to be made to the Minister that this decision was an ‘injustice’.
"Obviously?" Or misunderstood/assumed?
Just the same as applies to other clubs who've invested in their stadia eg Coleraine or Crusaders.
However, the whole exercise is points-based and there are points scored for clubs that have invested in new facilities in the last six years.
As for why it should be so, if you think about it, as well as having had to come up with the purchase price, clubs which own their own grounds have continually to invest in it for maintenance, upgrades and H&S requirements etc. Whereas clubs playing in municipal grounds can expect the Council to look after that. So it's not that Councils have to stump up "more" - and they do get central-government funding for sports and recreation btw - rather it's more "credit" towards clubs which own their own stadium and pay rates on it etc.
As I said earlier, this 40% requirement is hardly unknown, applying eg to IFA funding or Sports Council NI funding, which latter at least you might have expected a Council to be aware of. And afaik, similar principles apply throughout the UK eg:
UK sports funding for individuals, organisations and teams
This briefing provides an overview of the funding available for sport in the UK, including which organisations offer funding for different sports, the criteria for applicants to be eligible for funding, and the processes of applying for funding.
This includes the funds available for community teams and clubs as well as for individual athletes.
UK sports councils
There are four primary bodies that have responsibility for promoting grassroots sport across the four nations of the UK. Each organisation distributes government and National Lottery funding to achieve this goal:
• Sport England
• Sport Scotland
• Sport Wales
• Sport Northern Ireland
Typically, these organisations fund projects that look to increase participation, or improve pre-existing community sports facilities.
Each body may also offer ‘match funding’ for crowdfunding campaigns. This is when a grant giving organisation agrees to contribute to an applicant’s fundraising efforts.
For example, it might offer to top up the remaining 40% of a project if the first 60% of the goal is reached through crowdfunding.
https://researchbriefings.files.parl...2/CBP-9852.pdf
Some may view the moon and consider it to be made of green cheese. That doesn't mean that a Councillor should be giving air time to matters which patently aren't true.
There are plenty who will assume anything you like. Or more accurately, anything they like. Doesn't make them right.
Really? You do appreciate that he unveiled an objective, points-based process to assess the merits (or otherwise) of each individual application?
So that if he tried to deviate from it eg in favour of some other Council owning a stadium, but against D&S Council, he'd be challenged in the Courts before you could say "Judicial Review".
In the end, this money has been depreciating in some account at Stormont for well over a decade. During this time the Ministers responsible for Sport, both SF and SDLP, proved unable (unwilling?) to release this money, while they grappled instead with the thorny issue of Casement's funding. While Lyons, who's been in the post for barely a year, has managed to unlock the process, which will be open to applications from football clubs throughout every part of NI.
Last edited by EalingGreen; 05/03/2025 at 5:49 PM.
Id say this one is straight forward enough, if like Dept of Sport funding here, its that the vast majority of clubs as small private companies there is no way they could raise 40% of a capital project so funding would never be drawn down. Councils and maybe NGBs in theory should have access and councils can apply for additional funding for specific projects from DoLG.
Except the fact that clubs which own their own stadium have a sizeable asset which could be used to raise finance against.
Bit late seeing this and replying to it but this is essentially what's happening on the Connaught Street side in the current plan for Dalymount:
(probably a better image somewhere)
https://i2-prod.dublinlive.ie/incomi...HrEO-1jpeg.jpg
I wonder is that a little more expensive than the more standard build like the new stand in Derry? I don't know if Derry would even have to it or maybe could do it in a less pronounced way. As far as I remember the plans for that stand in Dalymount goes from as few as 2 rows on one end to something like 18 on the other. Whatever it is, it is quite pronounced.
There is a real reluctance to borrow to finance a clubs proportion of a grant. Even with Clan Credo st up for this very purpose and offering very competative credit clubs seem to not want to risk it. Its changing, but one GAA example I encountered in the past was 30k for training lights and were freaking out over the 10% draw down requirement and freaked out even more when the Clan Credo option was suggested. Most clubs in LoI (I say most but could be perception) have their grounds in seperate ownership traditionally to protect that aspect of the club if it went to the wall, then there is the council, local association ownerships. I wondered, apart from the hard work done by Sligo, if owning their own ground directly helped pave the way for proper capital grant funding.
The asset also needs to be able to generate income to repay the collateral of the ground used, bar income would make it very doable but for some if it was just gates eg Longford, it could be a struggle to manage regular repayments (out of season especially) and everything else.
I get all that and agree with it. I was just pointing out that there IS a way that clubs who own their own ground could raise significant capital if required. The idea that clubs with an asset are as a rule in some sort of weak financial position just isn't true. Clubs without a stadium own nothing except player contracts (given that most teams here don't have their own physical academies). They're the ones in the worst financial situation.
A club can be asset rich and not have a pot to pish in, for a well read fan of Irish football you only have to look as far as our beloved governing body - owned 3 LoI grounds, Abbotstown, and a % of a national stadium for a set period, you could add a prime building on Merrion Square previously.
Yip - but they still own SOMETHING. It shouldn't need spelling out, but it's better to have assets and no money than to have none of either.
But owning something is a good bit away from a club with an asset meaning the idea of a weak financial position isnt true. A Bohs fan would tell you that....twice!
I was trying to explain to my sister at the Drogheda game, that the stadium would be rotated, with the goals now at the Jodi and Connaught side. Came up when we were looking at St Peter’s Church and wondering what the view would be like when the stadium is redeveloped.
But that just proves my point. Bohs were in a position to use their asset to raise some finance. If they hadn't had that asset, they wouldn't have got that money. So would clearly have been worse off. And if they didn't have Dalymoiunt then it's extremely unlikely that anyone would be building a stadium for them now.
Of course there are always a few exceptions, but generally in life owning something of value is always a better posiiton to be in than ownng nothing.
So to restate your claim above, clubs with an asset will not be in a weak financial position - so Longford, Athlone, even Sligo over the years all have assets so hence werent or wont be in weak financial positions? Bohs didnt end up a financial basketcase that took years to sort though using that example was more tongue in cheek where the same asset sold twice couldnt evade a weak financial position. Shels didnt have almost a couple of decades in the doldrums. Cobh tried to leverage St Colemans to no avail. I get what you are saying about having assets in general and that in theory a club could look ok in the old accounts. but owning a ground etc hasnt meant a lack of financial weakness of LoI clubs, to suggest otherwise is naive. Dundalk's sale of Hiney Park is the only example I can think of where an asset was used to bolster finances and that was a last play to fund a new pitch, ground works and clear debt but the asset itself didnt mean no weak finances. So as a rule LoI clubs with an asset just in itself not having weak finances just isnt true!
Last edited by Nesta99; 07/03/2025 at 4:36 PM.
When is the terrace at the Brandywell due to be open now? Last I read was that the Bohs game was due to be the pilot of 50% before full capacity opening and if not the Waterford game, but both of those targets were missed
Paaatrick's Agletic
Cork at home early next month looking the most likely date at this point.
A solution for the funding application for the Brandywell looks a step closer.
Thinking is to give the club a long-term lease on that Brandywell, on the way to becoming owners.
Sounds good, though I'd ideally like the land protected by the covenant that's in place already (basically, it can't be sold/used for non-sporting purposes).
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2gp0e1pzgo
It would be great to have something sorted out. The situation at The Brandywell hasn't always allowed Derry to capitalise on support and develop things (the other side of that coin is that it also wasn't sold as part of a liquidation process and turned into a carpark, which is good, I suppose).
Would be class to own it and develop it, but yeah, I'd also be keen to see it remain a community asset in some way. Fundamentally, I'm a supporter of Derry City Football Club, I'm not a doggie man nor do I have any affiliation with any other group who has used the space, but I think it would be right and proper that other interests are taken care of.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks