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 5100187
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I understand the strength of feeling out there, and it is important to note first that there was a facility for those clubs to demonstrate footballing need, with separate scoring for those that had a ground and those that did not. There was an opportunity, which many clubs took up, to talk about their potential and say, "If we had our own ground, here is what we could do and what we would be able to achieve". That was taken into consideration in the scoring. That is why it is important that we meet the clubs, hear their concerns and make sure that we all work together to make sure that the need is met. I get that for Ards; I get that for Institute and others. You have, in me, a Minister who is willing to work with whoever I need to work with to make sure that we get this done. That is my assurance today.
I hope that I have set out the approach that I intend to take to the clubs that were not successful. For those that were successful, it is impossible for me to say when funding will be released. First, that will be done in stages. There will be an opportunity for clubs to draw down funding to help with business cases, for example, and other work that might be needed. The exact quantum of that and of what would be needed for construction cannot be identified at this stage, because, as I outlined in my statement, we need to go through the business case and make sure that it shows value for money and that there are no other sources of funding that could be available to the club. All those things need to be taken into consideration. Another reason why I over-planned is that we do not know whether the amount that the clubs have said that they need will ultimately be the amount that they need or will be able to spend on their project. We do not know exactly when some of the match funding — partnership funding — will become available. However, I am committed to making sure that we move this forward as quickly as possible. We have waited far too long for this, and I want to make sure that there is no hold up as far as the Department is concerned.
Yes, I am more than happy to meet the Member and his constituency colleague, Mr Kingston, along with Crusaders. He asked a very pertinent question about how many more projects could be taken forward. That is hard to quantify, because it would depend exactly on the sums involved. If we look at the estimates, however, based on construction inflation over the past 14 years, I believe that the fund has probably lost about half of its value. That is absolutely shameful. It is a shame that that has happened. How many more projects would we have been able to take forward had that not been the case? More than that, think of the projects that would already have been in place and the benefits that they would already be delivering in their communities. Fourteen years — Mr Durkan is shaking his head, but it is the case that the funding was held up for 14 years. I am in post, and, in 14 months, I have taken it —
He does not seem to like that, so I will say it again. In 14 months, I have taken this further forward than it has been at any stage over the past 14 years. I am getting on with it. I am delivering on my promise. Just think what we would have been able to do had the funding been in place from 2011.
629 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: 0.05 (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 (0.80).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.80 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.05 | 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 | 0.65 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.35 |
| 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 13:10 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.