Eligibility proposal

[kingdomkerry]

im 100% an Irishman and 100% a Kerryman, well maybe 90% cause i was born in Cork (the shame). Ones my county and ones my country. Come to think of it im 100% European too. Its a continent.

Point here is you cant be 100% related to one country (Ireland) and 100% related to another country (Britain).

[Stuttgart88]

Can you be 100% from Europe and 100% Irish?

I know its a bit different but the point is being Irish and British dont necessarily have to contradict each other(unless your being pedantic and saying NI isnt actually in Britain-we'l say UKish).

He is 100% Irish as he lives and was born on the island of Ireland, similarly I am 100% Irish as I was born and raised here. Also I am 100% European as my country is part of Europe....Remember those Venn diagrams we did in junior school? They could come in useful here.

[Blanchflower]

I still consider that you jumped the gun, reacting what you thought was being alluded to. In the context of what was being debated, Jayneymac's questions were fair game, they were cultural not political and was missing just one word to make that crystal clear.

"Here is a question that might help (me)to figure out how 'Irish' you are?"
in the post
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=819133&postcount=657

I still don't see that the inclusion of that additional word makes any difference, nor whether she is using political or cultural criteria (even if those two can be completely disentangled, which I'm not sure that they necessarily can). Janeymac is still using political/cultural criteria to work out where to place someone on a scale of Irishness. I object to that. And I don't see how it is "cheap and nasty" for me to object to it - on the contrary, surely using criteria to place someone on a scale of Irishness is "cheap and nasty".

[Drumcondra 69er]

I still don't see that the inclusion of that additional word makes any difference, nor whether she is using political or cultural criteria (even if those two can be completely disentangled, which I'm not sure that they necessarily can). Janeymac is still using political/cultural criteria to work out where to place someone on a scale of Irishness. I object to that. And I don't see how it is "cheap and nasty" for me to object to it - on the contrary, surely using criteria to place someone on a scale of Irishness is "cheap and nasty".

Well that's your problem so, you by your own admission can't differenciate between policits and culture.

Best to agree to differ on it rather then go round in circles.

[Blanchflower]

You're lying again! You brought up the 'identity crisis' (post # 538) remark in response to someone saying that they knew 2G and 3G people born in England who consider themselves Irish.
I wasn't lying because I believed that someone else used the phrase first: I was apparently mistaken, but certainly not lying. And I wasn't lying again because I have not lied previously therefore it would not be possible for me to have lied again.


I think we should look at the identity crisis you clearly have then, if you are going to start insulting us.
I have no intention of insulting you, and I have no identity crisis, therefore the above makes no sense.


This is exactly what you stated in (post # 538). To remind you: 'I find it strange that someone with 3 English grandparents and 1 Irish grandparent would consider himself "100% Irish" and have no affinity with Britain. Such a person must be very poor at arithmetic or have some kind of identity crisis.'

Unfortunate use of percentages there, which is where the confusion has arisen, but the point being made was that the person in question - as I understood - considered himself Irish to the exclusion of other identities, even though he had 3 British grandparents and only 1 Irish grandparent. Hence, to claim he was 100% Irish but not at all British would seem very strange, and possibly indicate an identity crisis manifesting itself in a denial of his British heritage.


I don't accept you as an authority on who is or who isn't Irish.
Good. I wouldn't expect or want you to. Each person has the right to determine his own identity - neither you nor me has the right to tell someone what he or she is or isn't. Unfortunately on this thread, though, you have been posing as such an authority.


If you are going to hold such views then so will I.
Then you will have to change your views as I believe that each individual may determine his own identity.


You insinuated as much in post #538.
No I didn't. Just because I found it strange that someone with 3 British grandparents and 1 Irish grandparent would declare Irishness to the exclusion of Britishness in no way insinuates that I don't think the person should be entitled to an ROI passport! If he's entitled to one, then he's entitled to one - simple as.


If you are going to add the foreign born children and grandchildren of Ireland in the Irish population, then what about the foreign born children and grandchildren of the English. How did Owen Hargreaves qualify to play for England? How did Zola Budd run for Britain?
There's no way there have been as many foreign-born English footballers than ROI.


I still don't care who you pick.
I know - you already said that. And it still doesn't alter the fact that, in my view, NI shouldn't pick players with no connection to NI, and, therefore, it is not inconsistent for me to have the same opinion about ROI. Therefore your claim that I was being inconsistent was false.

[Blanchflower]

Just don't stop Irish nationalists playing for their country.
I don't have the power to stop anyone playing for any team. But I do have the right to express an opinion on eligibility criteria and I will continue to do so, regardless of the fact that others like yourself might disagree.


It doesn't alter the fact that you picked players with no connection to the territory of the IFA before we did.I wasn't aware that I had said otherwise.


You've pointed out a lot of things that have been b*locks.
Such as?


Ironically it is known as a British passport even to the people that issue it.
How is that ironic? It is a British passport! And Northern Ireland, part of the UK, is British, and part of Ireland, is Irish. So Ealing's British passport is also an Irish passport, in the sense that it relates to part of Ireland. Just as an ROI passport is an Irish passport. There are two passports for Ireland: a British one for NI and an ROI one (known as an “Irish passport”) for ROI.


I rest my case.
What case?


(BTW, my passport says 'Ireland', not 'Republic of Ireland' )

I know what it says, but in reality it is a ROI passport. The passport is issued by the ROI.


http://www.ukpassportsadvice.com/index4.html
This page is for British citizens and provides information only on British passports, as well as some helpful advice on the application processes.

And?


http://www.britishembassy.ie/textonly/Passports/passport_qualifynew.htm
Do I qualify for a British Passport?
I don't know anything about you, so I'm afraid I don't know.


Blanchflower and EG: Please post anything referring to Northern Irish citizenship. I'd be interested in reading it.
NI is part of the UK, so in terms of legal citizenship, our citizenship is that of the UK, i.e. British citizenship. We are, however, in a political or social sense, citizens of NI, just as someone in Scotland is a citizen of Scotland, etc.

[Drumcondra 69er]

Unfortunate use of percentages there, which is where the confusion has arisen, but the point being made was that the person in question - as I understood - considered himself Irish to the exclusion of other identities, even though he had 3 British grandparents and only 1 Irish grandparent. Hence, to claim he was 100% Irish but not at all British would seem very strange, and possibly indicate an identity crisis manifesting itself in a denial of his British heritage.


No I didn't. Just because I found it strange that someone with 3 British grandparents and 1 Irish grandparent would declare Irishness to the exclusion of Britishness in no way insinuates that I don't think the person should be entitled to an ROI passport! If he's entitled to one, then he's entitled to one - simple as.




That's obviously a misunderstanding so, it was me who brought up people I know who are 2nd and 3rd generation Irish and don't consider themselves British, I never said that they only had a single grandparent, that was your assumption. The people in question would have Irish parents or second generation Irish parents born and raised in England within the Irish communities in London, Birmingham etc . I also have a very good firend born in England to 2 Irish parents who moved back over here nearly 20 years ago at 14 but still identifies with an Irish but also an English identity having been born there. That's his perogative.

[paul_oshea]

most of my mates over here are plastics, even if some of them only have 1 parent or even grandparent. Funny things is though, I dont htink they actually fully know what it means to be Irish. Anyhow, it reminds me of an ex when she was asked where she was from and she used to reply "Irish Sea". Summed it up for me really. Also reminds me of when my uncle met her in Ireland and he says " we spent 800 years getting them out, and in 2 years you start bringing them back". Most people in Ireland wouldn't understand the idea that someone born in England could see themselves as Irish.

[antrimgreen]

Speak for yourself Blanch, i am a legal citzen of Ireland, work it up your bangle, i have a passport to prove it, 1 passport 1 nationality, none of this crap, half british half Irish a bit UK also a British republican like the Scottish, Jesus christ you have covered all bases haven't you.

[Blanchflower]

I reckon he means he'd like to see a Republic of Britain as opposed to a monrachy. Quite how Scotland and Wales would view this I don't know given that it's the kingdom that unites britain at present.



If the UK became a republic, it would simply become the UR. Such a decision could only be made by the Parliament of the UK and would affect the whole of the UK/UR.

If Scotland and Wales felt differently, they would need to declare independence and proclaim the Queen as their head of state.

[Blanchflower]

Well that's your problem so, you by your own admission can't differenciate between policits and culture.



I said they can't necessarily be separated. Which is true. Culture can be, and often is, political.

[Blanchflower]

That's obviously a misunderstanding so, it was me who brought up people I know who are 2nd and 3rd generation Irish and don't consider themselves British, I never said that they only had a single grandparent, that was your assumption. The people in question would have Irish parents or second generation Irish parents born and raised in England within the Irish communities in London, Birmingham etc . I also have a very good firend born in England to 2 Irish parents who moved back over here nearly 20 years ago at 14 but still identifies with an Irish but also an English identity having been born there. That's his perogative.
In that case, as you say, there was a misunderstanding, so you can disregard my comments.

[Blanchflower]

Speak for yourself Blanch, i am a legal citzen of Ireland, work it up your bangle, i have a passport to prove it, 1 passport 1 nationality, none of this crap, half british half Irish a bit UK also a British republican like the Scottish, Jesus christ you have covered all bases haven't you.
Are you from Antrim? Were you born in NI? Then you're almost certainly a UK citizen, too.

[EalingGreen]

It's probably contrary to all the Rules of Forum Etiquette and convention etc to quote oneself, but I posted something a few days back which seems to have been ignored in the midst of all this Nationality/Citizenship debate.

Which I feel is a bit of a shame, really, since it was a sight more relevant to the thread than 95% of what has been posted since. Therefore, has anyone any view on the following:

"Namely, there are two Football Associations, and therefore two international football teams, in Ireland. Each is/should be equally valid and each should respect the other.

Consequently, playing for NI does not make someone either "more British" or "less Irish", it merely means that when someone pulls on the Emerald Green Shirt with the Celtic Cross Badge, he's a Northern Irish footballer - no more, no less. What he does away from the game is no business or interest of mine.

Therefore, I believe if you are born within one part of the island (NI), you should represent the IFA team and if you are born in the other part (Irish Republic), you should represent the other Association team, FAI/ROI (unless you have a suitable connection - parent/grandparent/residence - with another Association, when you may choose).

This is basically how it works for everyone of the other 208 Associations and minor, non-footballing quibbles over anthems, flags etc notwithstanding, I see no valid reason why it should not apply to the two Irish teams"

[RogerMilla]

Therefore, I believe if you are born within one part of the island (NI), you should represent the IFA team and if you are born in the other part (Irish Republic), you should represent the other Association team, FAI/ROI (unless you have a suitable connection - parent/grandparent/residence - with another Association, when you may choose).
[/I]

And I disagree completely and fundamentally with this EG. I would imagine a fair proportion of people born in the Six Counties do too and it certainly looks like FIFA do as well.

and as for quoting yourself ? I can't say I'm surprised!

[Blanchflower]

Anyone know why it is only now that the FAI is trying to take NI players when they have hitherto respected the previous "gentlemen's agreement" not to?

[ifk101]

I think FIFA is viewing Ireland as an extension to the "special case" of the home nations and is waiting for the IFA/FAI to come forward with a "gentleman's agreement".


Anyone know why it is only now that the FAI is trying to take NI players when they have hitherto respected the previous "gentlemen's agreement" not to?

Yes. It is of benefit to the FAI if no "agreement" exists.

[Blanchflower]

Yes. It is of benefit to the FAI if no "agreement" exists.

And it wasn't of benefit in the past?:confused:

[Drumcondra 69er]

I said they can't necessarily be separated. Which is true. Culture can be, and often is, political.

And often is not. And I don't think it was in this instance. Like I say, agree to differ.

[Drumcondra 69er]

Anyone know why it is only now that the FAI is trying to take NI players when they have hitherto respected the previous "gentlemen's agreement" not to?

It's not only now and it generally began when it became unpleaseant in certain instances for nationalists to represent NI. I'm sure the Lennon situation for example encouraged youth players and the like to want to represent what they percieve as their country. Plus a number of them approached Brian Kerr when he was underage manager and given that he understood where they were coming from seeing as his father was from Belfast he decided to pick them. Plus at the time the Irish team's stock was considerably higher then NI's. The situation in the 90's was a lot different to when Pat Jennings et al were playing youth football.

[ifk101]

And it wasn't of benefit in the past?:confused:

Who knows.

I suppose it started with Brian Kerr. Maybe he didn't accept the balance of this "gentleman's agreement". After all it's of much more benefit to the IFA than to the FAI.

But you can ring him up and ask if you like. I don't speak for Brian Kerr or the FAI.

[Dodge]

Anyone know why it is only now that the FAI is trying to take NI players when they have hitherto respected the previous "gentlemen's agreement" not to?

There have been several underage lads from Northern ireland represent the Republic in the past 15 years or so.

Why is it only now that the IFA are complaining?

[jmurphyc]

There have been several underage lads from Northern ireland represent the Republic in the past 15 years or so.

Why is it only now that the IFA are complaining?

Probably because they feel that this particular lad has the potential to be a lot better than the rest of these lads and worried that more like this may slip through the net. ;)

[Blanchflower]

I suppose it started with Brian Kerr. Maybe he didn't accept the balance of this "gentleman's agreement". After all it's of much more benefit to the IFA than to the FAI.


How's that?

[Blanchflower]

There have been several underage lads from Northern ireland represent the Republic in the past 15 years or so.

Why is it only now that the IFA are complaining?

Didn't realise this went back 15 years.

The answer to the second question might simply be that the IFA is slightly more competent/has more balls now than it did in the recent past.

[ifk101]

How's that?

Well ask yourself why are you so upset with the eligibility proposal? Is it because the potential pool of players for the Northern Ireland will decrease or is it because the potential pool of players for Ireland will increase?

[EalingGreen]

And I disagree completely and fundamentally with this EG. I would imagine a fair proportion of people born in the Six Counties do too and it certainly looks like FIFA do as well.

and as for quoting yourself ? I can't say I'm surprised!

Talk of "Stating the Bleedin' Obvious"!

We all know that you and "a fair proportion of people born in the Six Counties [sic]" disagree with what I am saying.

But what I was trying to get at is why you think that my thesis doesn't stand up? I don't like a lot of things in life, but I have to accept that they are so, and the reasons why. Therefore, if you think my reasoning is faulty, tell me why, rather than just banging on about how much it annoys you.

P.S. I can do without your sneering about my quoting myself, since it was only an attempt to drag a thread about football, on a football forum, back to a discussion about matters footballing, it having been hijacked by posters like yourself who seem to prefer to harp on about politics. Why don't you post on a politics message board? From what little I've seen of them, they seem to have sneering down to a fine art, so you should feel at home.

[EalingGreen]

Well ask yourself why are you so upset with the eligibility proposal? Is it because the potential pool of players for the Northern Ireland will decrease or is it because the potential pool of players for Ireland will increase?

Speaking for myself, any fan of a team is bound to be upset when he sees his team's potential pool of players dry up, for reasons which he perceives to be contrary to the principles behind international eligibility.

Where those players go is irrelevant: I would be just as opposed/angry/disappointed etc if we were losing NI-born players on unfair grounds e.g. to England (or anywhere else for that matter)

[Drumcondra 69er]

Didn't realise this went back 15 years.

The answer to the second question might simply be that the IFA is slightly more competent/has more balls now than it did in the recent past.

No, I think it's because they didn't have a leg to stand on (as eligibility was purely down to citizenship regardless of how it was aquired) until the change in regulations following the Qatar situation. Once that change came in they thought they had a case hence the challenge.

Remember this challenge was because the thought we were breaking the rules by picking 6 county players with 'born' citizenship' rather then looking for a change to the rules.

The gentlemans agreement was irrelevant and a distant memory at that stage.

[ifk101]

Speaking for myself, any fan of a team is bound to be upset when he sees his team's potential pool of players dry up, for reasons which he perceives to be contrary to the principles behind international eligibility.

Where those players go is irrelevant: I would be just as opposed/angry/disappointed etc if we were losing NI-born players on unfair grounds e.g. to England (or anywhere else for that matter)

Of course - I totally accept and understand that.

But that's, in this particular instance, not our problem.

[Blanchflower]

No, I think it's because they didn't have a leg to stand on (as eligibility was purely down to citizenship regardless of how it was aquired) until the change in regulations following the Qatar situation. Once that change came in they thought they had a case hence the challenge.

Remember this challenge was because the thought we were breaking the rules by picking 6 county players with 'born' citizenship' rather then looking for a change to the rules.

Yes, you could be right, although it wouldn't be as a result of the Qatar situation, but as a result of the "Qatar criteria" being applied to situations concerning a player whose nationality entitled him to play for more than one team.


The gentlemans agreement was irrelevant and a distant memory at that stage.
Hardly, given that the gentlemen's agreement was that NI players weren't eligible for ROI!

[Drumcondra 69er]

Yes, you could be right, although it wouldn't be as a result of the Qatar situation, but as a result of the "Qatar criteria" being applied to situations concerning a player whose nationality entitled him to play for more than one team.


Hardly, given that the gentlemen's agreement was that NI players weren't eligible for ROI!

My God that first comment is pedantic. I didn't feel the need to spell it out, I would've thought that was obvious! :D

I'm saying the gentleman's agreement wasn't being adhered to for years at underage level before the current situation, since at least the early to mid 90's.

[EalingGreen]

Probably because they feel that this particular lad has the potential to be a lot better than the rest of these lads and worried that more like this may slip through the net. ;)

As as been repeated ad nauseum, Gibson himself is not the issue; rather it is a principle which is at stake here. Gibson's case merely brought the issue greater urgency, since he was the first in line (Alex Bruce excepted?) for a senior cap which would tie him to the ROI/exclude him from NI.

[Besides, Gibson may be better than some of the others who we consider may have been selected improperly by the FAI; that's not the same as saying he's better than the players who remain loyal to the IFA. In fact, on current form, Gibson would be 5th or 6th on the list of candidates vying for the two NI central midfield berths. At best. Indeed, I daresay he wouldn't have been much higher up the ROI pecking order, had you had a manager who knew his arse from a hole in the ground!]

[EalingGreen]

Of course - I totally accept and understand that.

But that's, in this particular instance, not our problem.

No, but you are our problem! (FAI, that is, not you personally)

[Blanchflower]

My God that first comment is pedantic. I didn't feel the need to spell it out, I would've thought that was obvious!

It's obvious to me (and apparently to you), but not to many others.


I'm saying the gentleman's agreement wasn't being adhered to for years at underage level before the current situation, since at least the early to mid 90's.
I see what you're saying now.

[Drumcondra 69er]

No, but you are our problem! (FAI, that is, not you personally)

I think FIFA is more your problem, the FAI are simply following the rules as advised to them on numerous accasions by FIFA.

[EalingGreen]

I'm saying the gentleman's agreement wasn't being adhered to for years at underage level before the current situation, since at least the early to mid 90's.

True, but it wasn't such a problem, either, since the players involved were almost all U-21 and representing the ROI's under-age teams. Therefore, if they did look as though they might have been good enough* to represent us at senior level, we still had some hope of getting them back, as with Tony Kane and Martin O'Connor.

Gibson was different, because Staunton was looking to cap him for your seniour team, meaning he would be lost to us permanently.

Anyhow, what you must remember is that the IFA in the 80's and 90's was so incompetent and badly administered it made the FAI look like Microsoft! That is, there were so many other things going wrong that a few teenagers from Derry playing under-age tournaments in Cork or Cairo (or wherever) never even made their radar. Had the IFA had any radar. Or even electricity to power it. :eek:

[jmurphyc]

As as been repeated ad nauseum, Gibson himself is not the issue; rather it is a principle which is at stake here. Gibson's case merely brought the issue greater urgency, since he was the first in line (Alex Bruce excepted?) for a senior cap which would tie him to the ROI/exclude him from NI.

[Besides, Gibson may be better than some of the others who we consider may have been selected improperly by the FAI; that's not the same as saying he's better than the players who remain loyal to the IFA. In fact, on current form, Gibson would be 5th or 6th on the list of candidates vying for the two NI central midfield berths. At best. Indeed, I daresay he wouldn't have been much higher up the ROI pecking order, had you had a manager who knew his arse from a hole in the ground!]

I'm aware of that, it was a partly tongue in cheek remark. Hence the wink at the end.

Besides, it is abundantly clear that Staunton was capping him merely to stick his fingers up at the IFA (something which I wasn't happy with) as Gibson was clearly completely the wrong player to bring on in that game from a tactical point of view.

[EalingGreen]

I think FIFA is more your problem, the FAI are simply following the rules as advised to them on numerous accasions by FIFA.

The IFA, after identifying what they consider to be an inconsistency between FIFA's Rules on eligibility and the Principles* behind those Rules, have now tossed the problem to FIFA.

And FIFA, despite their having the (unchallenged) authority to make a quick and clear determination that the present Rules must stand in this case, have declined to do so, suggesting instead a "compromise", which appears designed to avoid having to make a determination.

And assuming the IFA rejects this "compromise" (which I'm sure they will), the problem will revert back to FIFA.

And in the meantime, theFAI will continue to instruct its managers not to select NI-born players who cannot also demonstrate a parent/grandparent/residential connection to the FAI, which is a problem, of sorts, for you.



(* - I.e. you play for the Association within whose jurisdiction you were born, unless you can establish a legitimate footballing connection with another Association)

[Dodge]

(* - I.e. you play for the Association within whose jurisdiction you were born, unless you can establish a legitimate footballing connection with another Association)

So of they played for Derry City they'd be OK

[Drumcondra 69er]

True, but it wasn't such a problem, either, since the players involved were almost all U-21 and representing the ROI's under-age teams. Therefore, if they did look as though they might have been good enough* to represent us at senior level, we still had some hope of getting them back, as with Tony Kane and Martin O'Connor.

Gibson was different, because Staunton was looking to cap him for your seniour team, meaning he would be lost to us permanently.

Anyhow, what you must remember is that the IFA in the 80's and 90's was so incompetent and badly administered it made the FAI look like Microsoft! That is, there were so many other things going wrong that a few teenagers from Derry playing under-age tournaments in Cork or Cairo (or wherever) never even made their radar. Had the IFA had any radar. Or even electricity to power it. :eek:


True but it's also that fact that the IFA could do nothing about it as at that time there was no confusion as to FIFA's position (ie) if you held a passport for a country you were entitled to play for that country. The IFA might have been the best run organisation at that stage but they couldn't have done anything. Teh reason they tried now was because they thought since the Qatar criteria was introduced they may have a case.

There was at least one 6c player playing in thr Under 20 Woprld Cup we came 3rd in in 1997 ** who great things were expected of and there was no fuss made over him. He didn't make it beyond and wound up playing in the eircom league (with Galway?) mind you but he was well thought of at the time. Someone tell me his name please, it's on the tip of my tounge and it's doing my head in that I can't remember it!

** May actually be thinking of Ger Crossley here who was with the Under 18 Euro Champions rather then the U 20 WC team.

[Drumcondra 69er]

And in the meantime, theFAI will continue to instruct its managers not to select NI-born players who cannot also demonstrate a parent/grandparent/residential connection to the FAI, which is a problem, of sorts, for you.




No, FIFA had advised that the status quo remains the same for the time being and we are entitled to select anyone born on the island.

[EalingGreen]

So of they played for Derry City they'd be OK

Hardly! Players may move back and forth between different clubs in different countries, but that doesn't mean they may change their international eligibility at the same time. :rolleyes:

Besides, if you want to use that criterion, it doesn't help you much with Gibson, since he was developed not by Derry City, but by Institute FC, via the NISFA and the (IFA's) NI U-16 team, before he ever elected to represent the FAI.

Which is another reason why the IFA is angered by this whole situation (even if it doesn't directly affect his eligibility or otherwise under the Rules)

[EalingGreen]

No, FIFA had advised that the status quo remains the same for the time being and we are entitled to select anyone born on the island.

That's not as was reported in papers etc on both sides of the border. Nor would it explain why Kane and O'Connor reverted to NI, or why Ruari Higgins was "de-selected" from the ROI U-23 squad.

I think you'll find the status quo ante only obtains for those players such as Gibson, who had represented the ROI before the (Qatar/Brazil) Annex was introduced.

[Drumcondra 69er]

That's not as was reported in papers etc on both sides of the border. Nor would it explain why Kane and O'Connor reverted to NI, or why Ruari Higgins was "de-selected" from the ROI U-23 squad.

I think you'll find the status quo ante only obtains for those players such as Gibson, who had represented the ROI before the (Qatar/Brazil) Annex was introduced.

Kane and O'Connor reverted before the last FIFA pronouncment and ditto for Higgins. It was certainly reported over here that the FAI were free to pick players from all 32 counties following that. That doesn't follow that it's correct but it was definitely reported.

[eelmonster]

Hardly! Players may move back and forth between different clubs in different countries, but that doesn't mean they may change their international eligibility at the same time. :rolleyes:

Besides, if you want to use that criterion, it doesn't help you much with Gibson, since he was developed not by Derry City, but by Institute FC, blah blah blah


Firstly, it's your criterion - Derry City play under the aegis of the FAI (jurisdiction and whatnot). Secondly, even I, though I hold no license in law, nor any other parasitical profession, though I've been called to the bar, can see that this and the other Irish 'footballing' (as you so pertinently put it) anomalies - like the specific case of Irish dual citizenship and nationality, say - are enough to have the FIFA big-wig-wigs trembling in their wigs and collars and shouting: let it stand. Or enough.

This thread and its useless, coninical repetaitions are mostly boring but on occasion enraging. Just out of curiousity, Ealing, what precisely are you insinuating when you [jocularly, no doubt] refer (not here, one would hope you'd be banned) to the Republic as 'beggars', or 'tarmaccers'? Despite your eloquences, you're a hypocrite - and (if you consider the [Catholic - I presume] Irish and Irish travellers another race) a repulsively bigotted, sectarian & racist hypocrite to boot.

[EalingGreen]

Firstly, it's your criterion - Derry City play under the aegis of the FAI (jurisdiction and whatnot). Secondly, even I, though I hold no license in law, nor any other parasitical profession, though I've been called to the bar, can see that this and the other Irish 'footballing' (as you so pertinently put it) anomalies - like the specific case of Irish dual citizenship and nationality, say - are enough to have the FIFA big-wig-wigs trembling in their wigs and collars and shouting: let it stand. Or enough.


The fact that Derry City play in the Eircom is utterly irrelevant to the question of player eligibility. You don't need a lawyer to confirm this, just anyone with greater understanding of such matters than a goldfish. Or eel.


This thread and its useless, coninical repetaitions are mostly boring but on occasion enraging. Just out of curiousity, Ealing, what precisely are you insinuating when you [jocularly, no doubt] refer (not here, one would hope you'd be banned) to the Republic as 'beggars', or 'tarmaccers'? Despite your eloquences, you're a hypocrite - and (if you consider the [Catholic - I presume] Irish and Irish travellers another race) a repulsively bigotted, sectarian & racist hypocrite to boot.

Try Slugger O'Toole - they've always room for one more Mope.

[micls]

im 100% an Irishman and 100% a Kerryman, well maybe 90% cause i was born in Cork (the shame). Ones my county and ones my country. Come to think of it im 100% European too. Its a continent.

Point here is you cant be 100% related to one country (Ireland) and 100% related to another country (Britain).

Why not? Does that mean English people cant be 100% British and 100% English. Is it 50/50?

[osarusan]

Why not? Does that mean English people cant be 100% British and 100% English. Is it 50/50?

The argument is, I think, that as England is a region of Britain, is is possible to be both 100% English and British, as the two are not mutually exclusive (as it is possible to be both 100% Corkonian and Irish).

But is it possible to be 100% of two entirely different countries, which Ireland and Britain are?

Personally, I don't give a crap, and what it has to do with eligibility criteria I don't know.

This thread should be locked until FIFA/UEFA make their decision.

[micls]

The argument is, I think, that as England is a region of Britain, is is possible to be both 100% English and British, as the two are not mutually exclusive (as it is possible to be both 100% Corkonian and Irish).

But is it possible to be 100% of two entirely different countries, which Ireland and Britain are?

But is NI not a region of Britain(UK) in the same way England is. And NI is on the island of Ireland therefore he is both 100% and 'UKish'.


Personally, I don't give a crap, and what it has to do with eligibility criteria I don't know.

This thread should be locked until FIFA/UEFA make their decision.

Il agree with you there