Shane Ferguson

[EalingGreen]

What "background noises" do you speak of? This is the RTÉ article you refer to: 'Pressure mounts on Staunton' (http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2007/1023/stauntons.html)(23rd Oct 2007)
"Meanwhile, though, the FAI have won the Darron Gibson battle with Northern Ireland - but lost the war over future qualification regarding the eligibility of players."
Note that there is no quote from Delaney.Thanks, but that is NOT the source to which I was referring. However, I consider it actually further substantiates my recollection, as follows.
For that article was published on a Tuesday i.e. apparently the day after Delaney's return. Iirc, Delaney was "doorstepped" by an RTE Reporter when he touched down in Dublin airport and, although both Associations were pledged to confidentiality by FIFA until the decision was formally announced, he let slip the "battle won, war lost" quotation, which the reporter quoted verbatim.
Of course, by the time RTE was preparing its sports news the following day, the Staunton story far superceded the Gibson story in i9mportance. therefore the article you cited led with Stan, with the Gibson story being appended almost as an afterthought.
In which case, have you ever wondered where RTE actually got the Gibson story? For in the entire article on Staunton, there is only one other individual specifically alluded to, a certain "John Delaney".
Or do you imagine RTE simply made it all up themselves?


Indeed, not long after that report, RTÉ ran this story:'FIFA propose solution to eligibility row' (http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2007/1106/fifa.html) (6th Nov 2007)Again, iirc, FIFA suddenly came out and informed (of their change of thinking) in favour of the FAI very soon after Delaney's "Battle won, War lost" quotation to RTE. Therefore 6 Nov allowed more than enough time for the Media to have updated their reporting.


Why, if the so-called "background noises" were pointing to a victory for the IFA, (as the seemingly conclusive RTÉ article erroneously reports), would FIFA decide to write a letter to both associations asking them to find a compromise? Quite simple, really. Having heard the submissions of both Associations, I believe FIFA were minded to come down in favour of the IFA, since they recognised that the one-way nature of the FAI's request was "unfair" on the IFA (as even Geysir now admits).
However, when something/someone persuaded FIFA that their rules as they stood would not permit them to disallow the FAI from selecting NI-born players, rather than dismantle the offending rules and replace them with something new, they took the easier* route of offering the suggested compromise to the IFA (i.e. as a form of "compensation").

* - I don't think it coincidence that FIFA had had to revise the Rules in a hurry not long previously in order to confound the Qatari/Brazilian situation, nor that the "compromise" specifically declared that it would only apply to the two Associations i.e. FIFA would brook no attempt by others to create a precedent.


You talk of honour as if you're an authority, when you are not one. In fact, you're the kind who stoops to the lows of defaming the character of both players and their families without foundation. Shane Duffy attempted to declare for the FAI aged 16/17 and actually attended a training camp with Sean McCaffrey, but Worthington singled the kid out for 'carrot caps', even putting the kid in the senior squad. Duffy declared for the FAI aged 18. That's right EIGHTEEN. You should let it go - you don't want to come across as being petty or bitter, do you?Nowhere have I claimed to be an "authority" on honour etc, merely to have an opinion.
Nor have my comments on Duffy been "without foundation". In fact, if you care to check, you'll see that when SD originally declared that he was opting for ROI, I actually wished him well on OWC. That was because I was taking his father Brian ("duffs") at face value when he posted on the site. That is, Brian said that as a Donegal man, he had always wanted Shane to play for ROI, even driving him down to Dublin for an FAI trial etc, but he realised that Shane only went along with the trial to please his Da etc. Indeed Brian went on to say specifically how much Shane enjoyed playing for NI and how well Worthington and Beaglehole were treating him etc.

However, very soon after this, both player and family gave interviews to the media, inc direct quotations, outlining how Shane had always wanted to play for ROI. Indeed in one interview (Derry Journal?), Shane himself actually said that "as a Catholic" [sic], it was only "natural" he would want to "play for his country" etc.

In other words, Shane/Brian were saying one thing to OWC/NW, whilst thinking something entirely different*. And I can only conclude that he/they were doing this in order to get as much experience etc as possible from the IFA (experience that Trap wasn't prepared to give him), before revealing his true intentions at the latest possible moment. In fact, if you really insist (and I can be arsed), I can look out the exact quotations for you, but so flatly contradictory are they, that I think you'll find them embarrassing.

Anyhow, that's my reading of the situation, I think Duffy and his Da's conduct in this affair was shabby and dishonourable and I am quite prepared to back that opinion up to anyone who cares to question it.

* - Btw, I also know someone who was at one of SD's last NI appearances (U-21 in Portugal), who saw at first hand exactly how much care/time the IFA were taking with him, inc eg Beaglehole phoning David Moyes directly with a progress report immediately after the game ended. There was also an account on OWC by a fan who was sitting alongside "duffs" on the flight back to NI after one of Shane's NI games. During the flight, duffs was more than effusive in his praise for the IFA/NI/NW/SB etc.


You should let it go - you don't want to come across as being petty or bitter, do you?Actually, you are the one who keeps bringing up your fellow Derryman in detail.
On the basis that his Da's from Donegal, I always accepted SD's right, both in principle and by the Rules, to represent FAI (as did the IFA, specifically and publicly, btw). In fact I still do; however, that should not preclude me from expressing an opinion when it subsequently emerged that the player and his family had been engaging in "double-speak", especially with religious overtones.

So on the basis that you should let it go, what are your views on Shane Ferguson, since he is the subject of this thread, after all? Considering he's almost 20, has already gained a senior NI cap plus several U-21 caps (inc currently) and is making sufficient progress on Tyneside surely to have come to the attention of the FAI etc, if he is privately* harbouring a preference to play for ROI, do you not think it's time he came out and said it?

Or would it be OK in your book for him to go on benefiting from representing the IFA for another while, before revealing his hand?

* - I have no idea whether he is or not, so he'll continue to get the benefit of the doubt from me; however, several people here (and on ybig) are claiming that his preference is decidedly for ROI, so it's a fit topic of discussion (imo).

[gastric]

Drivel, drivel and more drivel! We really care what John Delaney said and to who! You are part of the problem of NI, EG. Someone living in the past and not accepting the present realities. CAS IS HISTORY, Barton is history to NI and hopefully Ferguson too. How about you constructing a blueprint and present it to the IFA that nurtures and encourages players to play for NI, rather bringing up the past and dwelling on history. With the amount of energy you seem to have, this might be a hell of a lot more worthwhile than boring the pants off people who really don't care or can be bothered to continuallly read your drivel.

[SwanVsDalton]

He realised that Shane only went along with the trial to please his Da etc. Indeed Brian went on to say specifically how much Shane enjoyed playing for NI and how well Worthington and Beaglehole were treating him etc.


However, very soon after this, both player and family gave interviews to the media, inc direct quotations, outlining how Shane had always wanted to play for ROI.


In other words, Shane/Brian were saying one thing to OWC/NW, whilst thinking something entirely different*.

Where did Shane/Brian say he didn't want to play for the ROI? His happiness at the setup and experience hardly contradicts a desire to play for ROI one day. Unless you're assuming his happiness meant he was suddenly a die-harp Kop-ite down at Windsor Park?


I can only conclude that he/they were doing this in order to get as much experience etc as possible from the IFA (experience that Trap wasn't prepared to give him), before revealing his true intentions at the latest possible moment.

I believe this is the problem Predator has. Me too actually. 18 is hardly the last possible moment. And if it was, it was due to Worthington throwing out potential (in Predator's apt phrasing) 'carrot caps' to tie him.


Btw, I also know someone who was at one of SD's last NI appearances (U-21 in Portugal), who saw at first hand exactly how much care/time the IFA were taking with him, inc eg Beaglehole phoning David Moyes directly with a progress report immediately after the game ended.

Phonecall to his club manager, wowzers. Duffy must've positively teary eyed from all that love and care...


In fact I still do; however, that should not preclude me from expressing an opinion when it subsequently emerged that the player and his family had been engaging in "double-speak", especially with religious overtones.

I'm not sure what relevance this has. Is it simply because he used the dreaded 'C' word in a throwaway quote? Personally I don't think it makes a difference – he could've said nationalist, republican, altar boy or bog ball playing border monkey for all it matters. But focusing on it like you have in the quote above appears to imply blatant sectarianism on Duffy's part - it's an implication I would greatly resent.

[Predator]

In which case, have you ever wondered where RTE actually got the Gibson story? For in the entire article on Staunton, there is only one other individual specifically alluded to, a certain "John Delaney".
Or do you imagine RTE simply made it all up themselves?I imagine that it's more a case of poor journalism, in the sense that RTÉ carelessly reported something as fact, despite not having the facts of the matter. It's equally as plausible if not more so than your contention.



Nor have my comments on Duffy been "without foundation". Your comments both on here and on OWC's forum are downright ridiculous and resolutely without foundation, despite your protestations and attempts to justify them. You have cast aspersions on the kid's upbringing and family, suggesting that his 'genetic inheritance' is in some way suspect.



However, very soon after this, both player and family gave interviews to the media, inc direct quotations, outlining how Shane had always wanted to play for ROI. Indeed in one interview (Derry Journal?), Shane himself actually said that "as a Catholic" [sic], it was only "natural" he would want to "play for his country" etc.You're at it again. You misrepresent what was said in order to denigrate the character of Shane Duffy and of his family and shame on you for doing so. In the Irish Times interview with Paul Rowan, Duffy said that everyone knew that he was a Catholic and wanted to play for Ireland - that's it. And everyone did know that he was a Catholic who wanted to play for Ireland - like many kids from a similar background, he would bow his head during GSTQ (a harsh reality) and had shown indications that he'd like to play for the FAI (hence Worthington's 'fast-track' gamble). It was a completely harmless thing to say, but it's blown outrageously out of proportion by NI fans such as yourself who seek any reason to deride those who might not want to play for the IFA. It's easier for you to put the blame on a child than it is to look at the reasons why a player wants to change. Like I said, absolutely ridiculous.


In other words, Shane/Brian were saying one thing to OWC/NW, whilst thinking something entirely different*. And I can only conclude that he/they were doing this in order to get as much experience etc as possible from the IFA (experience that Trap wasn't prepared to give him), before revealing his true intentions at the latest possible moment.No, Shane Duffy made it clear on several occasions that he wanted to switch - Nigel Worthingon and Beaglehole busted their asses trying to persuade him to stay, supposedly laying a guilt trip on the kid and getting David Moyes involved in their favour (his ma's from Coleraine you know...). You present Duffy as a devious mercenary in the hue of Adam Barton, but it's not true in the slightest bit.


In fact, if you really insist (and I can be arsed), I can look out the exact quotations for you, but so flatly contradictory are they, that I think you'll find them embarrassing.Do what you wish. I don't care if you dig out these quotes, they matter little. Shane Duffy has declared for the FAI because of the reasons he gave in his interviews. Duffy was able to have enjoyed his time with NI and his relationships with his coaches at the IFA and also to have held the ambition of representing Ireland.


Anyhow, that's my reading of the situation, I think Duffy and his Da's conduct in this affair was shabby and dishonourable and I am quite prepared to back that opinion up to anyone who cares to question it.Your opinion is based on media and forum scraps and some of your musings on the character of Shane Duffy and his family are unwelcome.


* - Btw, I also know someone who was at one of SD's last NI appearances (U-21 in Portugal), who saw at first hand exactly how much care/time the IFA were taking with him, inc eg Beaglehole phoning David Moyes directly with a progress report immediately after the game ended. There was also an account on OWC by a fan who was sitting alongside "duffs" on the flight back to NI after one of Shane's NI games. During the flight, duffs was more than effusive in his praise for the IFA/NI/NW/SB etc.So what?


Actually, you are the one who keeps bringing up your fellow Derryman in detail.You brought him up in the context of "honour" and I challenged your implication.


On the basis that his Da's from Donegal, I always accepted SD's right, both in principle and by the Rules, to represent FAI (as did the IFA, specifically and publicly, btw). In fact I still do; however, that should not preclude me from expressing an opinion when it subsequently emerged that the player and his family had been engaging in "double-speak", especially with religious overtones.Here you go again. You present Duffy and his family as sinister, scheming individuals. The only 'religious overtones' in this scenario are the ones constructed by you and your cronies over on OWC. Shameful stuff.


So on the basis that you should let it go...HA!


...what are your views on Shane Ferguson, since he is the subject of this thread, after all? Considering he's almost 20, has already gained a senior NI cap plus several U-21 caps (inc currently) and is making sufficient progress on Tyneside surely to have come to the attention of the FAI etc, if he is privately* harbouring a preference to play for ROI, do you not think it's time he came out and said it?

Or would it be OK in your book for him to go on benefiting from representing the IFA for another while, before revealing his hand?I've given my view on Shane Ferguson. Shane Ferguson is a dual national and is completely within his rights to play for the FAI despite having a senior cap for the IFA. The IFA will and probably already have benefitted from the rules which allow this and you do not protest when this happens. I am content that the choice is there.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The media coverage suggests that quite a lot of people there do care, does it not?
Really?? I'm sure people in the North talk of nothing else....


The FIFA rules/ CAS criteria, straightforward as they are, are not the only factors which might determine whether FAI pick players from NI, particularly those who've already played for the full NI team.
So do please enlighten what other factors are involved??
(Actually, please don't!) :eek:
And as to why they shouldn't use that criteria.
Despite EG's reservations, until they're capped in a competitive game....they're all up for grabs. If they're willing, which at least half probably won't be.
Get over it.

[DannyInvincible]

First, they had not long before had to rewrite the Rules (in an emergency, btw), in order to forestall the Qatari/Brazilian situation etc.

You appear to make it seem as if FIFA, in a mad rush to deal with the Qatari passports issue, made a botched job of amending a set of unsatisfactory rules and unwittingly created a problem elsewhere; the beast that is the Irish eligibility issue to be precise. However, long before the rules were in their current state have northern-born Irish nationals been legitimately able to represent the FAI, and I'm not referring to Alan Kernaghan. Neither the 2004 rule changes or the most-recent rule changes have created or worsened this situation. FIFA have had plenty of time to amend their rules to suit the IFA's agenda since 2007 - when the IFA started grumbling - but, of course, they haven't.


Third, the offer to the IFA that they might be permitted to select ROI-born players was their attempt at "compensation" for a ruling which was unfairly working against the IFA. (Otherwise why would they make such an unprecedented offer, applicable, however, only in Ireland?)

If the situation was so problematic to FIFA's constitution, they would have amended the rules rather than offered a compromise for the purpose of appeasing IFA misgivings and putting an end to accusations of "poaching". The nature of the compromise offered - no clamping down on player movement between the IFA and FAI - also implied that preventing northern-born Irish nationals from representing Ireland would have been considered an unsuitable "solution".

Indeed, in a letter dated the 28th of December, 2007, FIFA wrote to both the FAI and the IFA outlining the following:


"[A]s well as having thoroughly considered the existing applicable provisions of the regulations of FIFA, the FlFA Executive Committee was of the opinion that the current regulatory framework is sufficient to properly cover also the situation at hand. As a consequence, it does not appear to be appropriate to make any changes to the existing regulations, in particular not to art. 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the FlFA Statutes. The Executive Committee therefore concluded to adhere to the status quo."

[DannyInvincible]

FIFA accepted that the IFA would be hard-done-by if the FAI were allowed to select NI-born players, but not vice versa.

That's because FIFA never offered an opinion on the "fairness" of a situation which would prevent Irish nationals with a right to citizenship through birth or heritage from representing their nation. In siding with the FAI during the Kearns case, possibly they even agreed or had no issue with the FAI's submission that:


"To deny Mr Kearns' entitlement to play for the FAI would constitute an infringement of his personality rights within the meaning of Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code."

Or, in other words, that it would be in some way unfair to infringe upon his right to play for Ireland.


I am not basing my argument on any amendment to the Rules in 2003 etc.

It was some years later (can't be arsed to dig out the exact docs), that FIFA suddenly realised that Qatar and Cape Verde were going to grant some Brazilians plying their trade in Europe a Passport etc, in such a way as would permit them to circumvent the existing (2003?) Rules. Consequently, FIFA issued an emergency diktat preventing this, later incorporated formally in their Articles.

Let me dig that up for you. The rules were amended in 2004 and the Qatari issue did not arise "some years later". It also arose in 2004.

From the Kearns judgment:

"Between 2004 and 2009, the eligibility to play for association teams was governed by one Article (Article 15 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the 2004 Statutes)....

In its Circular Letter No. 901, dated 19 March 2004, the FIFA explained to its member associations that the above provision appeared not to be operating satisfactorily as some players and associations tried to exploit to their advantage the apparent latitude of its first paragraph. In particular it was reported that a number of Brazilian players intended to assume the Qatari nationality in order to be eligible to play for the Qatari association....

On 1 July 2005, the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) came into force."
Or:


"To sum up, the following is the chronological order of the amendments to the regulations covering the eligibility of the players for international matches, to be deployed in aid of the historical interpretation of the current rules:

• In the beginning of 2004, Article 15 of the then-applicable 2004 Application Regulations was the only provision dealing with the matter of eligibility of players to be selected for representative teams of member associations. According to this provision, eligibility was dependent on the legal nationality of the player.

• On 19 March 2004, the above Article 15 was amended by the FIFA Circular Letter No. 901, which governed the situation of players acquiring a new nationality.

• On 1 July 2005, the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005) came into force and their Annexe 2 completed the then-applicable Article 15 with regard to players with multiple eligibilities because of their 'shared nationality'.

It appears that all the above amendments were incorporated in Articles 15 to 18 of the 2009 Application Regulations.

The exchange of letters between FIFA, the IFA and/or the FAI happened in 2007, i.e. long after the last amendment to the original Article 15."

[DannyInvincible]

Thanks, but that is NOT the source to which I was referring. However, I consider it actually further substantiates my recollection, as follows.
For that article was published on a Tuesday i.e. apparently the day after Delaney's return. Iirc, Delaney was "doorstepped" by an RTE Reporter when he touched down in Dublin airport and, although both Associations were pledged to confidentiality by FIFA until the decision was formally announced, he let slip the "battle won, war lost" quotation, which the reporter quoted verbatim.

"Until a decision was formally announced" or "until a decision was actually made", you mean? I remember something like this in the news at the time and have a feeling you provided evidence of Delaney saying something off-hand about winning the battle over Gibson but losing the general eligibility war before, so I'm prepared to believe he did make such a rash statement after stepping off a flight in Dublin airport. I don't know why you make such a big deal of it though. What difference does it make? Delaney's opinions or misguided perceptions have no legal weight or standing here, nor do they indicate with any clarity what was going on at FIFA. FIFA had clearly not yet come to a final decision and whoever Delaney dealt with might not even have been fully aware of the facts and issues in question. Even Delaney might well have been as confused about that matter as anyone else. He might well have assumed that FIFA's proposal was something more than a mere recommendation with no regulatory grounding in order to quell IFA discontent. That's why he has a legal team to deal with such complex matters on his behalf.


On the basis that his Da's from Donegal, I always accepted SD's right, both in principle and by the Rules, to represent FAI (as did the IFA, specifically and publicly, btw).

... Whilst also very publicly trying to exploit it for all its worth and tie it in with the general issue of "FAI poaching" of northern-born Irish nationals with no family link to the Irish state, as it were, in order to help launch a crusade of outrage that would end up in embarrassment in Switzerland.

If, say, Shane Ferguson was to declare for us tomorrow, would you accept his right both in principle and by the rules to do so?

[Not Brazil]

As for us and them, according to CAS hearing, the FAI were willing to reach a compromise with the IFA on the eligibility of playing assets. The 2 associations were given permission by FIFA to workout the terms of the cooperation similar to one the 4 UK associations have. The agenda of such an agreement was left up to the 2 associations. As we now know, the IFA refused all cooperation, preferring to argue that the existing rules supported their case.


Eligibility for British Citizens is dealt with under Article 16.

In line with that, the FIFA Legal Committee invited the FAI voluntarily to confine itself to selecting for its association teams Northern Irish players who meet one of the following requirements: a) the player was born in the Republic of Ireland, b) his biological mother or father was born in the Republic of Ireland, c) his grandmother or grandfather was born in the Republic of Ireland, or d) he has lived continuously, for at least two years, in the Republic of Ireland.

This was conveyed to the FAI by letter dated 7th March 2007.

In its letter, FIFA emphasised the fact that the above proposal was only a recommendation, not based on regulatory considerations but on selfimposed restrictions, which “would not only be appropriate to ensure that the players joining [FAI’s] association teams are actually linked, in a closer manner with the Republic of Ireland, but that this would put an end to all accusations of ‘poaching’ of players raised by the [IFA]”.

On the 5th November 2007, FIFA informed the IFA, in writing, that the FAI rejected this proposal.

A second suggestion was then made by FIFA - every player born on the territory of Northern Ireland, holding the UK nationality and being entitled to a passport of the Republic of Ireland or born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA], under the condition that all other relevant prerequisites pertaining to player’s eligibility for a specific Association team are fulfilled”.

This was rejected by the IFA on the 8th November 2007. It was subsequently accepted by the FAI on 20th November 2007.

What is quite remarkable is that the IFA were incapable of taking the hint ie. for their case to be won, they needed to have rules changed.

Right up to the Kearns ruling, the IFA argued on the basis that FIFA rules should be upheld.

At utter embarrassment - and a costly one at that.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Maybe, though not if you believe certain of your, er, compatriots.

[Not Brazil]

Maybe, though not if you believe certain of your, er, compatriots.

"Maybe" what?

[geysir]

Eligibility for British Citizens is dealt with under Article 16.
Yes indeed, it should be noted that Article 16 is a replica of the UK agreement signed in 1993? and annexed to FIFA rules at that time, formally brought into the statutes in 2008 as Article 16.


In line with that, the FIFA Legal Committee invited the FAI voluntarily to confine itself to selecting for its association teams Northern Irish players who meet one of the following requirements: a) the player was born in the Republic of Ireland, b) his biological mother or father was born in the Republic of Ireland, c) his grandmother or grandfather was born in the Republic of Ireland, or d) he has lived continuously, for at least two years, in the Republic of Ireland.

This was conveyed to the FAI by letter dated 7th March 2007.
No way would the FAI or Nationalists in the North accept that Irish citizens born in the North were not eligible for the FAI, unless they fulfill residency or other requirements down South.
Similar to the FIFA passport/id impasse, this was not a runner.

[Not Brazil]

No way would the FAI or Nationalists in the North accept that Irish citizens born in the North were not eligible for the FAI, unless they fulfill residency or other requirements down South.


I accept that, however, it challenges your earlier assertion that "the IFA refused all cooperation". In this instance, it was the FAI who rejected the proposal to operate on a similar basis to the British Associations re: eligiblity.

[geysir]

I accept that, however, it challenges your earlier assertion that "the IFA refused all cooperation". In this instance, it was the FAI who rejected the proposal to operate on a similar basis to the British Associations re: eligiblity.
I don't expect that FIFA automatically understand the Irish situation, sometimes like the passport/id thing, the Irish situation has to be spelt out for them.

I also wrote that the basis for compromise is that both associations understood the rules as they stand.
The IFA not only did not understand the rules but insisted with a vehement stubbornness that they were right.
It is nigh impossible to negotiate with another party who think they are absolutely right when in fact they are totally wrong.
Not only was the first FIFA offer completely out of whack but the IFA were not in a 'good place'.
Technically you can say the FAI refused the first compromise, but that would be rigidly simplistic in the extreme.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Not only was the first FIFA offer completely out of whack but the IFA were not in a 'good place'.
Technically you can say the FAI refused the first compromise, but that would be rigidly simplistic in the extreme. I'm by no means the most bullish on this issue but I'd argue the first compromise was no compromise at all. It appeared to ask the FAI to deny itself access to a cohort of players they were perfectly entitled to select from for no other reason than peace and quiet.

[geysir]

Like a motley crew of irregulars asking for an unconditional surrender from an organised force who were in a vastly advantageous position.

[Paddy Garcia]

If this site has not produced a couple of immigration lawyers by now, then its a crying shame.

[seanfhear]

If the lad wants to come and play for us I would welcome him with open arms. If you and your family had supported Ireland (republic) all your life then it would be a no-brainer for me

[Wangball]

I think people get too caught up in the whole "poaching our players" guff, fact is its the player's choice and it has to be respected

If he wants to play for us then great and if he doesn't I hope he turns out to be an excellent player for the North

[ArdeeBhoy]

"Maybe" what?

As in they don't seem to universally share your pessimism....see numerous posts passim.

And in a vein of conciliation as suggested above, in the absence of a UI team, if they want to play for the North, then so be it.

[ArdeeBhoy]

If this site has not produced a couple of immigration lawyers by now, then its a crying shame.

Refer you to the three posters I mentioned previously, in this thread or similar.

[Not Brazil]

As in they don't seem to universally share your pessimism....see numerous posts passim.

And in a vein of conciliation as suggested above, in the absence of a UI team, if they want to play for the North, then so be it.

My "pessimism" merely stems from the belief that I feel the IFA made gross errors of judgement in their quest to see FIFA UPHOLD their own rules - their (the IFA and their legal representatives) lack of understanding not only of FIFA Statutes, but also of the irredentist Citizenship laws of the Republic Of Ireland, was quite staggering. Aside that, I shudder to think the money wasted on the whole charade which could have been better spent.

By the way, as I have pointed out to you previously, there is a de facto "UI team" - it is that which is operated by the FAI.

I acknowledge that you respect and uphold the right of choice for those players, eligible also to play for Northern Ireland, to play for Northern Ireland.

[DannyInvincible]

the irredentist Citizenship laws of the Republic Of Ireland


Erm...

[geysir]

Since the last century, that old irredentist bogey has been well and truly buried, buried in concrete.

That is of course, for people who understand what it means.

[paul_oshea]

an "historic" claim on the territory based on previous possesion of said territory? I certainly amn't offended by the term.

[Gather round]

the irredentist Citizenship laws of the Republic Of Ireland

I can understand nationalists being irritated by the term, but as long as the South's constitution says "it is the firm will of the Irish nation...to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland", it'll continue to be used. You can't really win of course, because dropping the clause entirely would prompt howls of anguish from northern nationalists.


Since the last century, that old irredentist bogey has been well and truly buried, buried in concrete. That is of course, for people who understand what it means

Except it hasn't, as above. It means literally 'unredeemed' and politically, seeking to annex part of another country (which needn't necessarily have been part of the first country).


an "historic" claim on the territory based on previous possesion of said territory? I certainly amn't offended by the term

Fine, but if you were-say- a Pole living in Gdansk, Wroclaw, Poznan or Szczecin (all cities now in Poland but which had majority German-speaking and identifying populations for centuries) you might be a tad urinated off if Berlin declared you part of the Fourth Rei...er, Federal Republic of Germany.

[EastTerracer]

When Saturday Comes (http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/6876/38/) appear to have joined the debate as well. Tactical capping is their proposed solution.

[SwanVsDalton]

When Saturday Comes (http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/6876/38/) appear to have joined the debate as well. Tactical capping is their proposed solution.

Wouldn't say it's being proposed as a solution - seems to be saying it's a bit of a shame but that's the way it'll inevitably go. Fairly fluffy, simplistic piece, but at least it refrains from ranty condescension.

[ifk101]

Terrible article.

The most obvious and simple solution would be for the IFA to read and understand the eligibility statutes.

The IFA is already engaged in tactical capping btw. So are we.

[EastTerracer]

Terrible article.

The most obvious and simple solution would be for the IFA to read and understand the eligibility statutes.

The IFA is already engaged in tactical capping btw. So are we.

I never suggested the article was any good!

Given how little attention this subject gets in Britain and how poor the level of understanding is, I just thought it was interesting that this is what the average football fan in Britain will read.

[SwanVsDalton]

I never suggested the article was any good!

Given how little attention this subject gets in Britain and how poor the level of understanding is, I just thought it was interesting that this is what the average football fan in Britain will read.

Pretty much anyone can write for WSC online. I actually know the guy who wrote it, he's an NI based NI fan.

[ifk101]

I never suggested the article was any good! .

I didn't suggest that you were suggesting otherwise ;)


Given how little attention this subject gets in Britain and how poor the level of understanding is, I just thought it was interesting that this is what the average football fan in Britain will read.

Can the average football fan in Britain read? ;)

[Not Brazil]

I actually know the guy who wrote it, he's an NI based NI fan.

I sense he is still a tad confused by FIFA Eligibility Statutes.

[SwanVsDalton]

I sense he is still a tad confused by FIFA Eligibility Statutes.

Same as but, to give credit, he didn't attempt any real kind of analysis or exploration. Can't say I blame him tbh. Maybe that's just cos I know him though...

[Gather round]

the enduring effect his tenure will have on the national team of Northern Ireland

I'm no fan of Blatter, but there's little point blaming him for the spat between NI and RoI. The latter have simply argued that international eligibility should follow nationality; as they offer that nationality to many beyond their borders (including pretty much everyone in NI), the playing pool is similarly extended.


there is a growing clamour for Northern Ireland to “tactically cap” players in competitive matches before they are approached by the South

It's hardly a clamour. Many others have suggested we pick the best side available; given our small size and modest playing record we simply can't afford to bulk out the squad with kids who aren't ready yet.

Anyway, it's not very imaginative (not to mention childish). International football isn't a press gang- you can't force people to play. There must be a chance that they'll sulk off regardless.

Most players eligible and good enough for NI youth and senior teams will probably continue to be picked for them, for practical reasons. Representative football is helpful in getting professional contracts in Britain; NI's teams are easier to get into; individual players may want to stay with their mates. And (unfortunately) some of the NI support and media are likely to continue making a fuss, particularly if the player has already turned out for our full or U-21 teams, like Barton or Duffy.

But let's not get carried away. Two current English Prem players have moved. Fine, their choice. It doesn't threaten our independence in international football, as some more hysterical NI fans have said.


Many fans, however, in the absence of a genuine left-back would rather see Newcastle’s Shane Ferguson called into the squad to replace the injured Steve Davis

Ferguson has, variously

a) played only a handful of first team games- hardly a preparation for international qualifiers

b) turned out mainly a midfielder or winger

c) been happy to turn out for our youth sides (plus one appearance in a scratch side friendly in Italy). I'm happy to take that as evidence of his commitment.


To see another promising player switch allegiance would be a devastating blow to the association

Er, it wouldn't. It would be someone who wasn't committed walking away. Better then than during a game, like.


this kind of selection may soon become commonplace

I doubt it. If we field a(n even more) rag-tag side in crucial games, we'll tend to lose them. Rather making the whole exercise pointless.

There is an alternative. Ignore the current FIFA statutes- they aren't going to change in our favor while lobbies in Africa and elsewhere argue for even more flexibility. Instead, the IFA could seek a deal with the FAI where neither picks players who've already appeared for the other's teams as adults. Over to you, lads.


Pretty much anyone can write for WSC online

One predictable exception continues to be banned, alas...

[EalingGreen]

Unfortunately I don't have time to return the correspondence from all my many fans on here at the mo (nor am not likely to do for a few days, you can maybe guess why), so I'll just leave you with this:

http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/189673_10150438280465357_780725356_17873843_767459 8_n.jpg

[SwanVsDalton]

Think NI are trying compensate for something with that humongous scarf.

[Gather round]

Unfortunately I don't have time to return the correspondence from all my many fans on here at the mo (nor am not likely to do for a few days, you can maybe guess why)

Dank U Wel, EG (the big man and I, and NB were hoping to meet up by the Danube for a few slivovitzes this weekend, but our Serbian friends' antics in Genova put paid to that). Never mind, another time.

[DannyInvincible]

I can understand nationalists being irritated by the term, but as long as the South's constitution says "it is the firm will of the Irish nation...to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland", it'll continue to be used. You can't really win of course, because dropping the clause entirely would prompt howls of anguish from northern nationalists.

Let me quote that clause in its entirety:


"It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."

Sure, dropping the clause would prompt howls of anguish from northern nationalists, but it clearly isn't the remotest bit irredentist for quite a number of reasons that should be obvious to people over a decade after the Good Friday Agreement came into force. I'll outline them and maybe explain the term for those who still wish to erect straw men if needs be. The same applies to Irish citizenship law.

[DannyInvincible]

Northern Ireland suffer following FIFA rule change

What "rule change" is the title referring to?


In England he will forever be the physical embodiment of the corruption which is blamed for England’s failed 2018 World Cup bid; for teams such as Italy and Spain – eliminated from the 2002 World Cup after ludicrous refereeing decisions – he is the staunch opponent of video technology; while for fans of woman’s football his pièce de résistance remains his infamous hotpants remark.

Much less publicised, however, is the enduring effect his tenure will have on the national team of Northern Ireland.

Like Italy and Spain, and to follow his logic, it could be argued Blatter's tenure was detrimental to our hopes of qualifying for the 2010 World Cup, but I suppose it wouldn't suit the narrative if he was to evoke sympathy for the FAI before even getting started on his primary concern.* Besides, Blatter never made any decision regarding the issue anyway, nor did FIFA for that matter; they merely had been applying their rules throughout all of the rigmarole and reiterating that this was the case when the IFA had a rumble. CAS made a decision on the merits of a case brought before them by the IFA - promptly throwing it out the window - but that's about it.

*In fairness, the rest of the article doesn't descend into characterising the FAI as child snatchers.


FIFA rules state player can only play for a country if he or his parents or grandparents were born in that particular nation or if he has lived for two years continuously on the territory of the relevant association.

I genuinely can't fathom how some Northern Ireland fans and Belfast Telegraph journalists with a critical and concerned interest in this issue have failed to take the time to actually look at the statutes in question, or, even better, have a brief skim through the Kearns judgment. Are they unaware of its existence or something? It's a simple Google search away if needs be, good grief.


...with Northern Irish-born players such as Darron Gibson, Marc Wilson and Shane Duffy all now free to turn out for the Republic

Lazy and careless lumping. Duffy would always have been free to turn out for us anyway even had the IFA got their way.


Michael Kane

A monstrous Michael O'Connor-Tony Kane mish-mash combining the talents of both might actually have been useful had he stuck with us...

Not the greatest piece I've ever read now, I will admit.


http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/189673_10150438280465357_780725356_17873843_767459 8_n.jpg

The wonders of Photoshop. ;)

[Gather round]

Let me quote that clause in its entirety

Go ahead. I quoted the bit that was relevant (to why unionists generally still get irritated, and some though not me call it irredentist).

It's quite simple. For the "Irish Nation" to have a "firm [implicitly, broadly agreed] will" on this issue, either unionists are aren't part of the Irish nation, or the Constitution is inventing support which isn't there.

In the last general elections covering Ireland in 2010 and 2011, 58% of the poll in NI (and thus about 14% of that across Ireland) declined the chance to vote for parties supporting, however nominally, the reunification of Ireland. Those voters don't share that firm will, do they?


it clearly isn't the remotest bit irredentist for quite a number of reasons

I'll repeat. As long as it aspires to get rid of the border it meets the basic criterion to be irredentist, as simply defined above. Regardless of how formal the GFA, how great its popularity, or how obvious the widespread feeling that the Irish Republic's political institutions and most of its electorate haven't the remotest intention of following it up.


maybe explain the term for those who still wish to erect straw men if needs be

I've given a simple, widely accepted definition for the term. It's not a straw man, just an aside to explain why NB's use of it is broadly justified.


The same applies to Irish citizenship law

Not really the same thing. If you want to offer me RoI citizenship, fine. I'm not interested but don't mind you offering. The constitution is a bit more irritating because it

a) keeps going on about unity by consent when there's no realistic chance of that happening in the foreseeable future

b) ignores the likelihood that even a notional 50%+1 nationalist majority in NI is unlikely to be widely accepted as consent to a united Ireland, or perceived as fair/ achievable beyond Ireland

c) is implicitly self-contradicting as above: if FG and FF and their supporters were that bothered you might have expected them to seek electoral support in NI sometime in the last 85 years. But they haven't.

[paul_oshea]

d) It also doesn't take into account all the immigrants who have children who will dillute the ones for a United Ireland.

[Gather round]

d) It also doesn't take into account all the immigrants who have children who will dillute the ones for a United Ireland.

Not a factor for me, Paul. Regardless of how keen or not second-generation Poles or Nigerians in RoI (or NI) are on a united Ireland, there will still be a significant proportion in NI who aren't. Ergo, unlikely united Ireland.

[Predator]

Unfortunately I don't have time to return the correspondence from all my many fans on here at the mo (nor am not likely to do for a few days, you can maybe guess why), so I'll just leave you with thisWas he coerced into that photo? :)
Have a good time on your journey. I expect you to retract your nonsense about Duffy when you return.

[Stuttgart88]

re-Jonathan Bradley, the WC voting process was certainly deficient, but it recently came to light that England was up to the same tricks as other countries, to some extent anyway.

Despite his stupid remarks about women's attire, Blatter's tenure has seen substantial development of the women's game. The Times is now subscription only so I can't post the link, but Patrick Barclay wrote a good article to this effect a couple of weeks ago.

Regarding governance, the UK's own sports minister has called football the "worst governed sport in the country" and has established a parliamentary commission to investigate its governance. This commission has so far heard testomony that the FA's governance is shambolic and riddled with conflicts of interest, the FA is bullied quite aggressively by the EPL, the EPL has sat idly by while crooks and human rights abusers buy English football clubs, that football clubs are in financial peril and owe the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds he is unlikely to ever see, that football's own financial rules subordinate the taxman to football creditors, and so on. The real power in English football, the EPL, is openly hostile to international football. England is hardly whiter than white when it comes to governance so has no moral high ground to take whatsoever. England does have good cause to complain that "spreading the game to new territories" was never sufficiently emphasised at the pre-bid stage.

wrt refereeing errors, video evidence will solve little unless it's applied to goalline related issues. How can you legislate for a video adjudication on a foul? Some are clear-cut, far more are simply a subjective judgment made on the spot. We need better refereeing, not videos.

Just letting off steam...

[geysir]

I've given a simple, widely accepted definition for the term. It's not a straw man, just an aside to explain why NB's use of it is broadly justified.
I'm sure NB can speak for himself but he stated that Irish citizenship laws were irredentist. They are not irrendentist. That claim is ridiculous.


Not really the same thing. If you want to offer me RoI citizenship, fine. I'm not interested but don't mind you offering. The constitution is a bit more irritating because it keeps going on about unity by consent when there's no realistic chance of that happening in the foreseeable future

b) ignores the likelihood that even a notional 50%+1 nationalist majority in NI is unlikely to be widely accepted as consent to a united Ireland, or perceived as fair/ achievable beyond Ireland
If the Irish constitution irritates you the GFA must stick in the throat.
The GFA recognises the inherent identity of nationalists in the North and it was voted for in a general referendum in the North. The GFA itself states unity with the rest of ireland is achievable by consent of a simple majority. The GFA has constitutional status in the North.
Is the GFA irredentist by your interpretation?

[mark12345]

Ealing Green - you're obviously a NI supporter and fair play to you. But didn't it ever cross your mind how good an Irish representative team would be with the best of the North and South combined? I really think we could do some damage. Obviously I'm a ROI supporter but I'm really getting excited about the influx of the likes of Shane Duffy and Shane Ferguson not to mention Darron Gibson. It may be beyond both our controls but we could be looking at something very close to an all-ireland team in the next few years.

[The Fly]

Ealing Green - you're obviously a NI supporter and fair play to you. But didn't it ever cross your mind how good an Irish representative team would be with the best of the North and South combined? I really think we could do some damage. Obviously I'm a ROI supporter but I'm really getting excited about the influx of the likes of Shane Duffy and Shane Ferguson not to mention Darron Gibson. It may be beyond both our controls but we could be looking at something very close to an all-ireland team in the next few years.

http://forums.multiplay.co.uk/images/smilies/emot-can.gif

[co. down green]

I fixed that pic for you Ealing G :)

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/371/shanefergusonireland.png

[DannyInvincible]

I love the attention to detail at the left end of the scarf.