Debate contribution: Northern Ireland Football Fund: Performance Programme
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 15 September 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Northern Ireland Football Fund: Performance Programme
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5100165
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for his approach to the issue, because I know that there is bitter disappointment about what has happened. I know the work that he has put in. Last year, he invited me up to meet the club. I saw that for myself. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to ensure that there was a level playing field and that the same number of points were available to clubs that have their own home as to those that do not. I wanted to ensure balance there. I am more than happy to sit down with him, chat through the scoring process and provide my assurance that we will do everything that we can to move this forward for everybody. I believe that options are available to enable us to progress more clubs and ensure that those that are in that cohort can progress as well. I will certainly do everything that I can on that. I share the disappointment, believe you me. I know the impact that this can have on people, clubs and communities. I will do everything that I can to work with him to ensure that we deliver for Institute and other clubs that were unsuccessful, just like we are delivering for clubs that were successful.
I am sorry that I am unable to give the Member some of those timelines at present. We will need to see how things progress and how quickly we get through this cohort before we can decide whether more clubs can move up. We also need to explore issues around borrowing to see what other clubs are able to put in. If some of the clubs that have been successful can reduce what is there, that might open up more opportunities for other clubs. As I have said, I will leave no stone unturned because I see the value of this and the benefits that it brings. I want to work alongside those clubs. I want to work alongside Members as well. I want to see that progress. There is a way forward for us. I hope that others will join me in doing everything that we can to ensure that that happens.
As I have outlined a number of times, I believe that we have had a very robust process. As regards the scoring — the matrix — that was used, the fact that clubs were in favour and support of the criteria that were put in place, in the first instance, means that we have something that is very robust. Look: I get the disappointment and frustration that exists. Unfortunately, that was inevitable. Unless I was in the position where I could take everybody forward, there were always going to be those who were disappointed. I am pledging to work with all clubs, Members and Executive colleagues to ensure that we do everything that we can to meet that need.
It is important to note that selection was not based on footballing need alone. That was part of the criteria, but it was also based on finance and community benefits. There will be mechanisms in place to make sure of those as part of the due diligence checks and the other parts that come along, because, of course, we still have to go through business cases, and all that will be taken into consideration then.
Absolutely not. Nothing has been changed since the launch of the applications on 30 January 2025. The scoring matrix and guidance notes are still available on the Department's web page for anyone who wishes to see exactly what the criteria were for applicants and how their applications would be scored.
612 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.04 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.69).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.03 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.69 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.63 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.37 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:08 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.