Adam Barton

[Predator]

I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the PNE player Adam Barton - the kid who has been called up by Worthington after previously withdrawing from a squad in order to remain eligible for England. Is he more deserving of a cap than say, a less talented player who is committed?

I just noticed that he is in the starting lineup.

[Gather round]

In my opinion, no. Worthy shouldn't have chosen him for this squad.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Understand the question, but why would it relate to the IL, except negatively?

Anyway, good to see the IFA have stopped being hypocrites, though as ever we should all be mindful people can always jump ship until they play a competitive game.
Am presuming AB would also be eligible for us, so another reason to keep his options open??
;)

[EalingGreen]

I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the PNE player Adam Barton - the kid who has been called up by Worthington after previously withdrawing from a squad in order to remain eligible for England. Is he more deserving of a cap than say, a less talented player who is committed?If he was, say, a Jamie O'Hara or an Owen Hargreaves, I might be more worried about him getting a second chance etc. But he's still only a teenager and who knows what influences he has been under (Agent, PNE etc)?
Also, we do not know exactly what has gone on between him and Worthington (or more accurately Beaglehole, who seems to have been most proactive in persuading him).

Had it been the last friendly before our next Euro Qualifiers, I'd have said it was the wrong time for us to be going the extra mile etc.

Or had we been coming down with even half-suitable other midfielders, then I might have made him wait. But he wasn't actually in the original squad i.e. he was only called up when we had 7 or 8 withdrawals. And even then I'm not sure he was expecting to start the game.

Some (many?) NI fans are indignant at the principle of our chasing players to cap, rather than the other way around, but in the circumstances, I'm not so bothered. After all, we have had entirely "native" players like George McCartney (Shankill Road born-and-bred) whose commitment has proven suspect. By contrast, we have had others with much more tenuous links (Maik Taylor) who've developed into absolute stalwarts.

Maybe with a wee bit of encouragement, Barton might prove to one of the latter. But if, instead, he's one of the former, what have we lost - a couple of caps in meaningless friendlies?


I just noticed that he is in the starting lineup.After the first wave of withdrawals, we called up some more players, including Barton. Then after the weekend's games, we lost some more, so we called up a second set of replacements. Two of the "second wave" (Little of Rangers and O'Connor of Scunthorpe) then picked up a virus in the camp: Little has been sent home again and O'Connor might only make the bench!
Quite honestly, we have had so many withdrawals (14?) it may have been between Barton or Worthington himself for the last place in the starting XI!

[EalingGreen]

Am presuming AB would also be eligible for us, so another reason to keep his options open??I am unsure whether he qualifies for NI via a parent, or via a grandparent. If it is the latter, then he's not eligible for ROI, if it's the former he might be, but I can't see that ever coming into play, somehow.


Anyway, good to see the IFA have stopped being hypocrites, though as ever we should all be mindful people can always jump ship until they play a competitive game.No hypocrisy at all, either formerly or now.

You see, we have only ever sought to pick players who were born within our territory, or had a parent/grandparent who was, or who qualified after suitable residency*.

Similarly, we have never objected at other Associations, including the FAI, who have followed the same principle.

What we have objected to is another Association being permitted to pick players who met none of the above criteria, by exploiting a legal technicality that was never intended to have anything to do with football, or its ethics.

Therefore, we would only be/have been "hypocrites" if we were, for example, to pick GB-born players without the requisite ancestry/residence, on the basis that they are British citizens etc, just the same as people from NI are.

In other words, it is only hypocritical when double standards are employed; you know, like these proud Irishmen who will do anything for a United Oireland except live in the bloody place.

Sound familiar, Adios?


* - Hasn't actually happened yet, afaiaa.

[Predator]

Understand the question, but why would it relate to the IL, except negatively?I've posted it here, because this is a forum devoted to so-called 'Norn Iron fans' and I was interested in the reaction to Barton. If I had posted it in the 'Ireland' section it would probably have been removed. Maybe not.


But he's still only a teenager and who knows what influences he has been under (Agent, PNE etc)?
Also, we do not know exactly what has gone on between him and Worthington (or more accurately Beaglehole, who seems to have been most proactive in persuading him).True enough.


Maybe with a wee bit of encouragement, Barton might prove to one of the latter. But if, instead, he's one of the former, what have we lost - a couple of caps in meaningless friendlies?I agree to an extent, in the sense that it's not the end of the world, although I get the impression that Worthington is almost desperately trying to sell 'Brand Norn Iron' to Barton by starting him, perhaps yielding to pressure from an agent or otherwise. In general though, I feel it's best to leave the player to fulfill their own desires i.e. don't waste time trying to persuade them to stick around when they're stalling or have made their decision.

[ifk101]

You see, we have only ever sought to pick players who were born within our territory, or had a parent/grandparent who was, or who qualified after suitable residency*.

Similarly, we have never objected at other Associations, including the FAI, who have followed the same principle.

What we have objected to is another Association being permitted to pick players who met none of the above criteria, by exploiting a legal technicality that was never intended to have anything to do with football, or its ethics.

Therefore, we would only be/have been "hypocrites" if we were, for example, to pick GB-born players without the requisite ancestry/residence, on the basis that they are British citizens etc, just the same as people from NI are.

Have the IFA found that Gentleman's Agreement yet?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Predator,
Should have left this **** in the 'Eligibility thread!



No hypocrisy at all, either formerly or now.

You see, we have only ever sought to pick players who were born within our territory, or had a parent/grandparent who was, or who qualified after suitable residency*.

Similarly, we have never objected at other Associations, including the FAI, who have followed the same principle.

What we have objected to is another Association being permitted to pick players who met none of the above criteria, by exploiting a legal technicality that was never intended to have anything to do with football, or its ethics.

Therefore, we would only be/have been "hypocrites" if we were, for example, to pick GB-born players without the requisite ancestry/residence, on the basis that they are British citizens etc, just the same as people from NI are.

In other words, it is only hypocritical when double standards are employed; you know, like these proud Irishmen who will do anything for a United Oireland except live in the bloody place.

Sound familiar, Adios?

Would those be the same double standards that see people claiming to support the North living in W.London?? ;)

As for the rest, need to refer to the responses to certain ill-informed nonsense in the 'Eligibility' thread. And realise even the IFA accept the CAS ruling et al.

Also need to check out the roots of some of the people who have played for the North, have been approached or who the IFA want to play in the future.
At least they are now being pragmatic, unlike some delusional purists I know.

Finally, the oblique Spanish reference, typically makes no sense.

[dantheman]

Have the IFA found that Gentleman's Agreement yet?

No they havent.
Mind you this imaginary "gentlemans agreement" kind of guff comes from the same type of NI Unionist who thinks he is about to bale out the ROI with his taxes, unaware of the multi-billion pounds worth of English taxpayers money it takes to keep his little Ulstertopia running every year!!

[Predator]

Predator,
Should have left this **** in the 'Eligibility thread!Probably... :p

[EalingGreen]

I agree to an extent, in the sense that it's not the end of the world, although I get the impression that Worthington is almost desperately trying to sell 'Brand Norn Iron' to Barton by starting him, perhaps yielding to pressure from an agent or otherwise. In general though, I feel it's best to leave the player to fulfill their own desires i.e. don't waste time trying to persuade them to stick around when they're stalling or have made their decision.NW enlarges upon his thinking in this interview. I've enboldened the bit I thought most interesting:



Worthington will hand a first cap to Preston midfielder Adam Barton as he attempts to lure the player away from England.

The 19-year-old, who is eligible for both countries, rejected a competitive call-up last month in order to keep open the option of representing England.

Playing in a friendly, however, would not prevent him changing allegiance at a later date and, after he agreed to join up, Worthington is determined to make him feel welcome.

He said: "We have got to have respect for the young lad and his decision.

"We invited him in a month ago and somebody talked to him to say don't go. "But we do what we do best, we keep chipping away, encouraging.

"All we can do is make him feel welcome, show him what we have got, sell ourselves in the best light.

"If that is good enough at the end of the day, great. If for whatever reason he or anybody should go elsewhere, good luck to them.

"We are doing our work to unearth young players - that is the way it has got to be.

"We have got to look at every possible opportunity to see who is available. "We haven't got sufficient numbers in this country or are we producing players on a regular basis to maintain where we want to be."
http://www.teamtalk.com/northern-ireland/6511641/Brunt-set-for-NI-hole-role

[EalingGreen]

Would those be the same double standards that see people claiming to support the North living in W.London?? ;)I don't support "the North" [sic], I support Northern Ireland, since that is where I was born. The fact that I live outside NI is no more relevant than that 95%+ of the NI players also do so, including Adam Barton, for instance.
This is replicated with many international teams, including ROI.

As for my living in W.London, as a British citizen, I support the principle of a United Kingdom. As such, I have always lived, worked and paid my taxes etc in the UK - I have never wanted to live anywhere else, despite having other opportunities.

I believe as an Irish citizen you support* a United Ireland... :rolleyes:

* - I use the term "support" in the theoretical sense, not in any practical sense.


Finally, the oblique Spanish reference, typically makes no senseDon't worry, perhaps it makes sense in other parts, say Andytown?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except it does represent the North of Ireland, so it's hardly [sic] but accept you do use that funny 'official' name. ;)
Not sure what wanting to be a British citizen and residing there, has to do with being a fan of that team, either? Or is it now a pre-requisite??

As for a 'united Ireland', am a supporter of the cricket team which was ever thus. And take a passing interest in the two rugby teams, the boxing & hockey teams who are quite happy to be declared such. So what?

Finally, as ever, no idea about the usual cryptic reference, in this instance to Beal-feirste....
Any chance of any translation??

[AnnaghRed]

No they havent.
Mind you this imaginary "gentlemans agreement" kind of guff comes from the same type of NI Unionist who thinks he is about to bale out the ROI with his taxes, unaware of the multi-billion pounds worth of English taxpayers money it takes to keep his little Ulstertopia running every year!!

Whats your point caller?

[AnnaghRed]

I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on the PNE player Adam Barton - the kid who has been called up by Worthington after previously withdrawing from a squad in order to remain eligible for England. Is he more deserving of a cap than say, a less talented player who is committed?

I just noticed that he is in the starting lineup.

He can f#ck right off if he wants to play for england, but we'll welcome him if he opts for us......same with the youth players you "southerners" poached

[ArdeeBhoy]

Think Dan's point was the one of Hypocrisy, not to mention 'paranoia' ....

And 'Southerners' is a quaint concept they seem to use across the water!

[AnnaghRed]

I used "southerners" in a completely different context to that which you imagine.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Yeah obviously, please do 'enlighten' us ??

[Predator]

He can f#ck right off if he wants to play for england, but we'll welcome him if he opts for us......same with the youth players you "southerners" poachedThat's very kind of you, I'm sure he'll appreciate that. However, it doesn't appear to be a sentiment that is very widely held. In fact, I think that the issue has IFA fans in two camps. Some, like EG and yourself, happily welcome any boost to the playing pool, whereas I've read of others, such as the ever vociferous Owen Polley, expressing severe unease on the issue.

"Southerners"? That's a weak, badly veiled dig if ever I've seen one. Do you mean the Football Association of Ireland?
With regard to your use of the term 'poaching', I can only express weariness, for its use has become increasingly tiresome. I thought that IFA fans were beginning to see the big picture, especially after the CAS case, but no, some people continue to feel that players born with dual nationality are somehow the property of one association.

[third policeman]

I am unsure whether he qualifies for NI via a parent, or via a grandparent. If it is the latter, then he's not eligible for ROI, if it's the former he might be, but I can't see that ever coming into play, somehow..


Either way he is eligible. A grandparent born in any part of Ireland estblishes right to citizenship and also ROI qualification. I am pretty sure this is how Jason McAteer qualified for ROI through belfast born grand parent.

[ArdeeBhoy]

And the same then for Lee Camp, who earlier this season, wanted to play for The North on the basis of his Beal-feirste born grandfather even though he's never been there!
;)

More seriously, am unsure of the late grandfather's cultural heritage which would be a more important factor??

[EalingGreen]

Think Dan's point was the one of Hypocrisy, not to mention 'paranoia' ....Dear oh dear.

As Night follows Day, or Bust follows Boom, any reference by anyone about anything to do with NI sees Adios Andyt.... sorry, ArdeeBhoy follow with his tired old "paranoia' jibe - even when it adds precisely nothing to the debate.

Which is rather ironic, considering the only "paranoic" Irish people I ever come across is the occasional Plastic who speaks with an English accent and is afraid that he might be mistaken for an Englishman....


And 'Southerners' is a quaint concept they seem to use across the water!Whereas "the North" is a quaint concept they use in, ahem, "the South".

[EalingGreen]

That's very kind of you, I'm sure he'll appreciate that. However, it doesn't appear to be a sentiment that is very widely held. In fact, I think that the issue has IFA fans in two camps. Some, like EG and yourself, happily welcome any boost to the playing pool, whereas I've read of others, such as the ever vociferous Owen Polley, expressing severe unease on the issue.At the latest count, a Poll question on OWC records the following results (152 votes cast to date):

Qn. Is Nigel right to give Barton extra time before committing to NI?

A. What is there to lose? We need all the players we can get: 99 Votes = 65.13%

B. No, there is an important principle at stake here: 28 Votes = 18.42%

C. Not Sure, so will leave it to the Manager as he sees fit: 25 Votes = 16.45%

Btw, Re. Owen P: He's been digging at me over Barton (and other topics) since I called him on something he posted on OWC. I don't let him get to me, myself, but I suspect he'll be pleased to have got under your skin (if the way you keep citing him is anything to go by)!


With regard to your use of the term 'poaching', I can only express weariness, for its use has become increasingly tiresome. I thought that IFA fans were beginning to see the big picture, especially after the CAS case, but no, some people continue to feel that players born with dual nationality are somehow the property of one association.Then you must have been particularly "weary" when a former ROI manager used the term himself, alongside "unfair", "seedy" and (ahem) "predatory"!

[EalingGreen]

Have the IFA found that Gentleman's Agreement yet?Did the FAI ever find any NI-born players between 1950 and 2007 who were good enough to play for their senior international team?

Or at least better than Darron Gibson?

Or was there some other reason why eg Pat Jennings, Martin O'Neill, Gerry Armstrong, Neil Lennon, Jim Magilton, Michael Hughes, Gerry Taggert etc etc etc were not selected?

(I might have added the likes of George Best or Norman Whiteside to the above list, but I suspect I know one other reason why they'll not have been approached/poached...)

[EalingGreen]

Either way he [Lee Camp] is eligible. A grandparent born in any part of Ireland estblishes right to citizenship and also ROI qualification. I am pretty sure this is how Jason McAteer qualified for ROI through belfast born grand parent.Dunno the specifics re. Jason McAteer, but the eligibility criteria have substantially changed more than once since he was first recruited.

Anyhow, re your general point, I feel you are incorrect.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, a person who is born outside of Ireland, but with a parent who was born anywhere in Ireland, is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship/nationality from birth. Therefore he/she is entitled to represent ROI under FIFA Article 15.

Whereas, someone born outside Ireland whose closest Irish ancestor is a grandparent is not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship/nationality. He/she may, however, apply for it and expect to be successful. However, such applicants do not come within FIFA Article 15.

Rather, they are covered by FIFA Article 17 - "Acquisition of a new nationality". And Article 17 states:

"Any Player who refers to Art.15 par.1 to assume a new nationality... ... shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the following conditions:
(a ) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(b ) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(c ) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(d ) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.

I personally cannot see how NI may be interpreted as being part of the "territory" of the FAI (though I wouldn't put it past a reptile like Delaney to try...)

[EalingGreen]

And the same then for Lee Camp, who earlier this season, wanted to play for The North on the basis of his Beal-feirste born grandfather even though he's never been there!
;)
"The North"? Come, come, surely you should have used lower case...

As for your reference to Beal-feirste [sic], I never understand some peoples habit of randomly throwing in the odd Irish term into an English language medium, especially when it takes longer to type.

And if nothing else, I at least expect them to get the Irish version right...

Anyhow, why not go the whole hog and type your posts entirely in Irish?


More seriously, am unsure of the late grandfather's cultural heritage which would be a more important factor??I don't expect that Camp is in the least part concerned by what you (delicately) term his "late grandfather's cultural heritage", at least not when deciding to throw in his lot with the IFA.
And I have absolutely no doubt that no-one at the IFA, or amongst the NI support, gives a flying one about it.
Therefore why are you interested in it?

[dantheman]

How are the Glens doing these days EG?

[EalingGreen]

How are the Glens doing these days EG?
Onfield - OK
Off-field - Shambolic.

Why do you ask?

[ifk101]

Did the FAI ever find any NI-born players between 1950 and 2007 who were good enough to play for their senior international team?

Or at least better than Darron Gibson?

Or was there some other reason why eg Pat Jennings, Martin O'Neill, Gerry Armstrong, Neil Lennon, Jim Magilton, Michael Hughes, Gerry Taggert etc etc etc were not selected?

(I might have added the likes of George Best or Norman Whiteside to the above list, but I suspect I know one other reason why they'll not have been approached/poached...)

So that's a no then?

[EalingGreen]

So that's a no then?By its very definition, a Gentleman's Agreement is not written down, so there will be no piece of paper to find. Duh!

Instead, one is forced to rely on the account of the two "gentlemen" involved and if that should subsequently differ, look at the evidence to determine which one is telling the truth and which one is not.

In this case, the issue was that following a complaint by the FAI that the IFA was picking Southern-born players, the IFA agreed to desist from doing so, on condition that the FAI ceased picking Northern-born players.

From 1950, the IFA ceased doing so entirely, despite their having done so on numerous occasions prior to then.

Similarly, the FAI ceased selecting Northern-born players for any of their teams until the mid 1990's (or 2007 for the senior team).

Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?

Any thoughts, ifk?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Think you doth protest too much, EG! ;)

You never did explain the cryptic reference to your favourite? W.Beal-feirste Mexican??

As for the 'P' word, you obviously missed the edited, er, 'highlights' of the DUP conference last w/e.
Even if you're not, they have some way to go!!

And agree, Good Ironic point about the North, down south.
Though have heard locals of the former refer to it in rather more disparaging terms....

You should also let the Diaspora acknowledge their roots if you wish. The same happens up North, as otherwise they'd have never have come up with 'Ulster-Scots'!


As Night follows Day, or Bust follows Boom, any reference by anyone about anything to do with NI sees Adios Andyt.... sorry, ArdeeBhoy follow with his tired old "paranoia' jibe - even when it adds precisely nothing to the debate.

Which is rather ironic, considering the only "paranoic" Irish people I ever come across is the occasional Plastic who speaks with an English accent and is afraid that he might be mistaken for an Englishman....

Whereas "the North" is a quaint concept they use in, ahem, "the South".

Hmm, last time I looked, that was the correct spelling, though that's not a universal attribute on here!!!

And was just reminding you of the Irish spelling of your largest city, as you are after all Irish?? Or would you deny that's the native language now....

As for Mr.Camp, presuming dual-eligibility, was wondering if he had particular 'local knowledge', which has helped him to be so decisive.
To be fair though, he declared his interest before the CAS ruling, so he might want to re-think his options...




As for your reference to Beal-feirste [sic], I never understand some peoples habit of randomly throwing in the odd Irish term into an English language medium, especially when it takes longer to type.

And if nothing else, I at least expect them to get the Irish version right...

Anyhow, why not go the whole hog and type your posts entirely in Irish?

I don't expect that Camp is in the least part concerned by what you (delicately) term his "late grandfather's cultural heritage", at least not when deciding to throw in his lot with the IFA.
And I have absolutely no doubt that no-one at the IFA, or amongst the NI support, gives a flying one about it.
Therefore why are you interested in it?

[ifk101]

By its very definition, a Gentleman's Agreement is not written down, so there will be no piece of paper to find. Duh!

Such is the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.


Instead, one is forced to rely on the account of the two "gentlemen" involved and if that should subsequently differ, look at the evidence to determine which one is telling the truth and which one is not.

Such is also the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.


In this case

.... we need to first establish if we are dealing with a Gentleman's Agreement.


.... the issue was that following a complaint by the FAI that the IFA was picking Southern-born players, the IFA agreed to desist from doing so, on condition that the FAI ceased picking Northern-born players.

The part highlighted in bold never happened.


From 1950, the IFA ceased doing so entirely, despite their having done so on numerous occasions prior to then.

Yes the IFA were forced to comply with the same rules and regulations governing all other members when they chose to re-join FIFA.


Similarly, the FAI ceased selecting Northern-born players for any of their teams until the mid 1990's (or 2007 for the senior team).

Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?

Any thoughts, ifk?

Let’s first establish the existence of a gentleman’s agreement before speculating about the FAI selection policies. With reference to the Daniel Kearns’ ruling, I assume you have a copy and have read it, the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is not once used in a 27 page ruling. If the FAI was adhering to an agreement in the period 1951 – mid 1990’s, why is there zero mention of a “gentleman’s agreement” in this 27 page ruling? Surely this would form a cornerstone in the IFA defence?

To answer my own question, the reason as to why there is no mention a “gentleman’s agreement” is because there never was an agreement. Indeed what people like you previously assumed to exist in the form of a gentleman's agreement, became factual overnight as the “1950 FIFA ruling”. But unlike how you define a gentleman’s agreement to which I agreed with, this “1950 FIFA ruling” was/is in paper. Unfortunately, and although the IFA were not uncertain to its form, the IFA seemed to have misplaced it which seems slightly odd given the amount of other documents the IFA were able to produce. I was hoping if you could inform me if the IFA has found the "1950 FIFA ruling" as it obviously sounds like a document of extreme historically and modern day significance. Has it been found yet?

[EalingGreen]

Think you doth protest too much, EG! ;)

You never did explain the cryptic reference to your favourite? W.Beal-feirste Mexican??

As for the 'P' word, you obviously missed the edited, er, 'highlights' of the DUP conference last w/e.
Even if you're not, they have some way to go!!

And agree, Good Ironic point about the North, down south.
Though have heard locals of the former refer to it in rather more disparaging terms....

You should also let the Diaspora acknowledge their roots if you wish. The same happens up North, as otherwise they'd have never have come up with 'Ulster-Scots'!



Hmm, last time I looked, that was the correct spelling, though that's not a universal attribute on here!!!

And was just reminding you of the Irish spelling of your largest city, as you are after all Irish?? Or would you deny that's the native language now....

As for Mr.Camp, presuming dual-eligibility, was wondering if he had particular 'local knowledge', which has helped him to be so decisive.
To be fair though, he declared his interest before the CAS ruling, so he might want to re-think his options...
Utter drivel.

Whatever the merits (or otherwise) of their posts, the likes of ifk and Predator etc are at least trying to engage in intelligent debate.

Therefore until such time as you have something sensible and relevant to say, I shall spend my time addressing their posts.

[dantheman]

Why is no-one talking about the "Gentleman's Agreement" from the IFA and OWC fans to accept that anyone born in the 32 counties of Ireland to play for the ROI international team and stop moping about it?

True, it never existed. But sure, if we talk about for long enough amongst ourselves, it can become accepted fact. We can then deluded ourselves into to thinking it existed all along!

[EalingGreen]

Such is the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.



Such is also the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.



.... we need to first establish if we are dealing with a Gentleman's Agreement.



The part highlighted in bold never happened.



Yes the IFA were forced to comply with the same rules and regulations governing all other members when they chose to re-join FIFA.



Let’s first establish the existence of a gentleman’s agreement before speculating about the FAI selection policies. With reference to the Daniel Kearns’ ruling, I assume you have a copy and have read it, the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is not once used in a 27 page ruling. If the FAI was adhering to an agreement in the period 1951 – mid 1990’s, why is there zero mention of a “gentleman’s agreement” in this 27 page ruling? Surely this would form a cornerstone in the IFA defence?

To answer my own question, the reason as to why there is no mention a “gentleman’s agreement” is because there never was an agreement. Indeed what people like you previously assumed to exist in the form of a gentleman's agreement, became factual overnight as the “1950 FIFA ruling”. But unlike how you define a gentleman’s agreement to which I agreed with, this “1950 FIFA ruling” was/is in paper. Unfortunately, and although the IFA were not uncertain to its form, the IFA seemed to have misplaced it which seems slightly odd given the amount of other documents the IFA were able to produce. I was hoping if you could inform me if the IFA has found the "1950 FIFA ruling" as it obviously sounds like a document of extreme historically and modern day significance. Has it been found yet?Answering your own question must be very tempting, but is there any chance of your answering my question first (from post #30)?

In case you've forgotten, it was:

"Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?"

[ifk101]

Answering your own question must be very tempting, but is there any chance of your answering my question first (from post #30)?

In case you've forgotten, it was:

"Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?"

By establishing that there never was a gentleman's agreement, you'll need to re-phrase your original questions as they are drawn and based on the assumption that a gentleman's agreement was being adhered to.

[osarusan]

I think EG's point is the fact that the FAI stopped picking NI players for a certain period of time, despite the fact that some of them were obviously of a calibre that would have improved our team, hints at the fact that there was a reason for them not picking them. Otherwise they FAI simply refused to select some talented players for no reason at all.

[ifk101]

I think EG's point is the fact that the FAI stopped picking NI players for a certain period of time, despite the fact that some of them were obviously of a calibre that would have improved our team, hints at the fact that there was a reason for them not picking them. Otherwise they FAI simply refused to select some talented players for no reason at all.

The IFA wasn’t a member of FIFA for a period of approx. 25 yrs. – which basically coincided with the first 25 yrs of the FAI’s existence. The FAI stopped selecting “IFA players” once the IFA re-joined FIFA as the transfer of players between member associations was regulated. In 1946 the FAI complained to FIFA about the IFA acting as all-island association and not abiding by the rules and regulations governing the transfer of players between FIFA members. This complaint had a two fold objective; (a) to stop the IFA’s poaching and, more importantly, (b) to establish and legitimise the FAI’s football jurisdiction. At this time international recognition and acceptance within the footballing community was of paramount importance to the FAI, all the more so with the Home Nations now back in the FIFA fold. Given the power and influence the Home Nations commanded at this point in time, the FAI, which broke away from the IFA, (an IFA that continued to operate as an all-island association), perhaps feared for its future. By "complaining" to FIFA at this date in time demonstrates an urgency within the FAI to legitimise its very existence. To establish and legitimise the its football jurisdiction, the FAI approached FIFA on the basis of “place of birth” – i.e. if born in the Free State or whatever it was called at that point in time, that player was only eligible for the FAI’s representative sides. FIFA confirmed that in this specific instance that this was the case.

[EalingGreen]

The IFA wasn’t a member of FIFA for a period of approx. 25 yrs. – which basically coincided with the first 25 yrs of the FAI’s existence. The FAI stopped selecting “IFA players” once the IFA re-joined FIFA as the transfer of players between member associations was regulated. In 1946 the FAI complained to FIFA about the IFA acting as all-island association and not abiding by the rules and regulations governing the transfer of players between FIFA members. This complaint had a two fold objective; (a) to stop the IFA’s poaching and, more importantly, (b) to establish and legitimise the FAI’s football jurisdiction. At this time international recognition and acceptance within the footballing community was of paramount importance to the FAI, all the more so with the Home Nations now back in the FIFA fold. Given the power and influence the Home Nations commanded at this point in time, the FAI, which broke away from the IFA, (an IFA that continued to operate as an all-island association), perhaps feared for its future. By "complaining" to FIFA at this date in time demonstrates an urgency within the FAI to legitimise its very existence. To establish and legitimise the its football jurisdiction, the FAI approached FIFA on the basis of “place of birth” – i.e. if born in the Free State or whatever it was called at that point in time, that player was only eligible for the FAI’s representative sides. FIFA confirmed that in this specific instance that this was the case.In short, what you are saying is that the 1946 action by the FAI established that only they (FAI) could select Free State-born players.

Fine.

That does not, however, address the situation of NI-born players.

And my point is that if there was/is nothing in FIFA's Regs to prevent the FAI from selecting such players, and the IFA was/is powerless to prevent the FAI from doing so, how do you explain the fact that the FAI did not select one single such player* at senior "A" level for 57 seven years (or at any level for 45-odd years)?


* - There is a case for arguing Alan Kernaghan, were it not for the fact that the IFA declined to select him (though entitled), leaving him to approach the FAI as his second choice, with the tacit "blessing" of the IFA. Therefore he is "the exception who proves the rule" imo.

[ifk101]

how do you explain the fact that the FAI did not select one single such player* at senior "A" level for 57 seven years (or at any level for 45-odd years)?

Simple. Ignorance.

We're talking about an association that made it's first senior manager appointment in 1969. And it wasn't until the arrival of Jack Charlton in 1986 that the FAI actively became aware of the potential player pool offered by the parentage rule.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Utter drivel.

Erm, except I was replying to points raised by some poster called 'Ealing Green'. Suggest if the content is too painful to respond to, they why raise the points in the first place? Or maybe you don't like the answers.

And we thought you were an expert in the 'comedic', what with all those witty banners and all!

[Predator]

At the latest count, a Poll question on OWC records the following results (152 votes cast to date):

Qn. Is Nigel right to give Barton extra time before committing to NI?

A. What is there to lose? We need all the players we can get: 99 Votes = 65.13%

B. No, there is an important principle at stake here: 28 Votes = 18.42%

C. Not Sure, so will leave it to the Manager as he sees fit: 25 Votes = 16.45%Would you say OWC is a fair enough indicator of the NI fan demographic? I always got the impression that it was full of 'hardcore' fans :p Anyway, that's interesting. What's the poll stand at now?


Btw, Re. Owen P: He's been digging at me over Barton (and other topics) since I called him on something he posted on OWC. I don't let him get to me, myself, but I suspect he'll be pleased to have got under your skin (if the way you keep citing him is anything to go by)!Polley hasn't exactly got under my skin on this issue. However, I did find his desire to play the so-called "tolerant card", as if he was pulling a sly one, on the eligibility issue to be quite contentious.


Then you must have been particularly "weary" when a former ROI manager used the term himself, alongside "unfair", "seedy" and (ahem) "predatory"!Actually, my reaction to Kerr's words was initially one of surprise, if only for the sheer hypocrisy of his sentiment.

[EalingGreen]

Would you say OWC is a fair enough indicator of the NI fan demographic? I always got the impression that it was full of 'hardcore' fans :pNo, I wouldn't claim that OWC members represent the NI fanbase as a whole. If nothing else, the fanbase consists of several (often fairly distinct) "constituencies", many of whose members never go near the owc website.

However, insofar as you are correct that the Membership is "hardcore" in a non-perjorative sense (and I think that that is so), I do believe that OWC represents one of the biggest constituencies. That is, over the last 30-odd years, a number of factors (Troubles, crappy stadium, politics, crappy team etc) have seen us lose many of the casual fans who would occasionally boost our attendances hugely for big games etc, thereby making the hardcore relatively so much bigger.

Moreover, I would contend that this hardcore is often more "important" (influential) than other constituencies, since it is vocal, active and campaigning, and/or includes fans who are such in other contexts (FFA, Amalgamation, Govt/Civil Servants etc).


Anyway, that's interesting. What's the poll stand at now?The thread/Poll has fizzled out. Last post was in November, with only five more votes added since my last summary (above), similarly distributed.


Actually, my reaction to Kerr's words was initially one of surprise, if only for the sheer hypocrisy of his sentiment.There is no doubt that Kerr's new-found perspective includes a clear element of hypocrisy (though tbf to him, he freely acknowledged that). I suspect it also incorporates a helping of sour grapes at the FAI sacking him (which he does not acknowledge).

But neither must inevitably invalidate the essential truth (imo) of what he was saying, otherwise there would never be a place for whistleblowers* or sacked former employees to have a say on such matters.

* - Bradley Manning anyone? Julian Astrange perhaps?

[Predator]

Moreover, I would contend that this hardcore is often more "important" (influential) than other constituencies, since it is vocal, active and campaigning, and/or includes fans who are such in other contexts (FFA, Amalgamation, Govt/Civil Servants etc).If the OWC members have more influence, then I worry.Clearly note that I do not intend to tar the entire forum with the one brush, but I came across quite a number of objectionable characters on the forum, many displaying a complete lack of integrity or reason, simply because I voiced an opinion that was contrary to theirs. My unwarranted banning consolidated this view



There is no doubt that Kerr's new-found perspective includes a clear element of hypocrisy (though tbf to him, he freely acknowledged that). I suspect it also incorporates a helping of sour grapes at the FAI sacking him (which he does not acknowledge).

But neither must inevitably invalidate the essential truth (imo) of what he was saying, otherwise there would never be a place for whistleblowers* or sacked former employees to have a say on such matters.

* - Bradley Manning anyone? Julian Astrange perhaps?There is no apparent truth in Kerr's words. It is a warped opinion. The fact that the FAI welcome all Irish nationals regardless of creed or colour, is neither "seedy", "unfair", or "predatory". The notion of "poaching" is a disastrous concept and does nothing to help the IFA's case. It sometimes makes me laugh out loud. As a poster put it earlier in the year (geysir I think), players are not the property of an association.