O'Neill gives his backing for a United Ireland team

[RogerMilla]

No. Neither Israel nor Germany extends it citizenship laws arbitrarily to the former USSR. And neither state wishes to annex the former USSR.

neither does our state wish to annex yours and our extension of citizenship is far from arbitrary.

you are annoyed because i state the obvious but the fact is that so do you , you have no interest in the substance of the discussion , you just want to make unsubstantiated claims about this states designs on the six counties and vent steam on FAI claims to players from the six counties. Enjoy , i will leave you to it.

[RogerMilla]

I am "native Irish"....so that's the end of that nonsense.

Anyway, I think Blanchflower has the right track on this....in short, any young player born in Northern Ireland, has a choice to play for the Republic Of Ireland or Northern Ireland.

I don't think anything has really changed in that regard since last week following the tweaking of the Eligibility Rules wordings.

Agreed on your irishness and agreed on blanchflowers interpretation , sorry EG but i just cant face that tract above, going to leave this thread alone until something develops.

[Blanchflower]

neither does our state wish to annex yours and our extension of citizenship is far from arbitrary.

Yes it does - and the citizenship law extends extra-territorially to include everyone born in the coveted piece of territory to your north.


you are annoyed because i state the obvious but the fact is that so do you , you have no interest in the substance of the discussion ,
.
I do have an interest in the substance of the discussion ... that's why I've been discussing its substance:eek: other than simply making statements of the obvious.

[ifk101]

Yes it does - and the citizenship law extends extra-territorially to include everyone born in the coveted piece of territory to your north.

Covet? :D

[Blanchflower]

Covet? :D
Yes. :mad:

[Lionel Ritchie]

[INDENT]

http://www.hoganstand.com/general/Identity/stories/ulster.htm

Read this and educate yourself

Reads like the liner notes of a Wolfe Tones album and probably about as impartial and fact based. Either way ...has no place in this thread.

[Blanchflower]

Reads like the liner notes of a Wolfe Tones album and probably about as impartial and fact based. Either way ...has no place in this thread.
Well said.:ball:

[Not Brazil]

Reads like the liner notes of a Wolfe Tones album and probably about as impartial and fact based. Either way ...has no place in this thread.

Hear hear.

[cheifo]

Reads like the liner notes of a Wolfe Tones album and probably about as impartial and fact based. Either way ...has no place in this thread.

Well said Lionel, KK, posting a link to such tribal nonsense and then saying "educate yourself" is comical.
Your posts suggest you have a narrow, stereotypical view of all people who might be considered Unionist.
The great thing about these enlightened times is that these views-no matter what side they come from- are seen as downright backward.

[ifk101]

Yes. :mad:

By who(m)?

I remember voting on something a few years ago ......

[EalingGreen]

Reads like the liner notes of a Wolfe Tones album and probably about as impartial and fact based. Either way ...has no place in this thread.

Well said indeed, LR

P.S. I would have addressed this sooner, except that I was busy confiscating corn from the Irish family at the end of the street. The ungrateful wretches had the cheek to complain and all. Any more of their lip and I might just evict them....;)

[ifk101]

P.S. I would have addressed this sooner, except that I was busy confiscating corn from the Irish family at the end of the street. The ungrateful wretches had the cheek to complain and all. Any more of their lip and I might just evict them....;)

Aren't we all Irish EG ;)

[dahamsta]

Crap moved here (http://foot.ie/showthread.php?t=92327). Leave the political rubbish at home, this is a football forum.

[Blanchflower]

By who(m)?

I remember voting on something a few years ago ......
By the people of the South, who elect parties into office whose stated aim is to annex NI, and who voted for a constitution which states:

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. Until then, the laws enacted by the Parliament established by this Constitution shall have the like area and extent of application as the laws enacted by the Parliament that existed immediately before the coming into operation of this Constitution.

[ifk101]

That's not how I'd define the word "covet" Blanchflower.

[Blanchflower]

That's not how I'd define the word "covet" Blanchflower.
Well it says in my dictionary "to long to possess something belonging to another" - seems a pretty accurate word to use.

[eelmonster]

But Art 16(2) - like Art 16 generally - only applies to "Associations sharing a common nationality" - the IFA and FAI don't share a common nationality.

Well, article 2 of the Irish Constitution legally bestows Irish citizenship (with certain conditions) upon any individual born on the island (Ealing knows rightly the Qatari scenario is not analogous), in the exact same way that any person born in Northern Ireland is a UK/British citizen. Therefore, the IFA share a common nationality with the FAI, thus raising the question of whether the FAI -- in FIFAland -- reciprocally share that nationality with the IFA; or to put it in less obfuscatory terms, does article 16 now entitle anyone born on the island of Ireland to represent the IFA!?

The more I read articles 15 and 16, the more I'm inclined to believe that they will, indeed, apply to Ireland. For the sake of those born in NI who aspire to represent the ROI but do not meet these conditions, I hope this is not the case.

[Blanchflower]

Well, article 2 of the Irish Constitution legally bestows Irish citizenship (with certain conditions) upon any individual born on the island (Ealing knows rightly the Qatari scenario is not analogous), in the exact same way that any person born in Northern Ireland is a UK/British citizen. Therefore, the IFA share a common nationality with the FAI, thus raising the question of whether the FAI -- in FIFAland -- reciprocally share that nationality with the IFA; or to put it in less obfuscatory terms, does article 16 now entitle anyone born on the island of Ireland to represent the IFA!?

The more I read articles 15 and 16, the more I'm inclined to believe that they will, indeed, apply to Ireland. For the sake of those born in NI who aspire to represent the ROI but do not meet these conditions, I hope this is not the case.
Unfortunately, you are wrong. There is no "common nationality" between NI and ROI - to play for NI you must be a UK national and to play for ROI you must be an ROI national. It doesn't matter that the ROI grants citizenship to people in NI - that citizenship only entitles them to play for the South - it does not entitle them to play for NI.

[eelmonster]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. There is no "common nationality" between NI and ROI - to play for NI you must be a UK national and to play for ROI you must be an ROI national. It doesn't matter that the ROI grants citizenship to people in NI - that citizenship only entitles them to play for the South - it does not entitle them to play for NI.

I wish you were right, I admire your adamance, but I would ask you this: how many players registered with the IFA (across all representative teams) have Irish passports (passports granted based on their inherent right to Irish citizenship/nationality)? And is it not the case that the IFA, admirably, lobbied successfully on behalf of these players' right to hold Irish passports? To my mind, these players -- and those yet to represent either association -- share a 'common nationality' with those born in the Republic.

[Blanchflower]

I wish you were right, I admire your adamance, but I would ask you this: how many players registered with the IFA (across all representative teams) have Irish passports (passports granted based on their inherent right to Irish citizenship/nationality)?
I'm sure quite a few do. But having an ROI passport does not mean that you are not a UK citizen!


And is it not the case that the IFA, admirably, lobbied successfully on behalf of these players' right to hold Irish passports?
They did - for identification purposes - not eligibility.


To my mind, these players -- and those yet to represent either association -- share a 'common nationality' with those born in the Republic.
They do indeed have the same nationality as Southerners, but they are also UK nationals and hence have dual nationality - their Southern nationality entitles them to play for the South and their UK nationality entitles them to play for NI.

[eelmonster]

They do indeed have the same nationality as Southerners, but they are also UK nationals and hence have dual nationality - their Southern nationality entitles them to play for the South and their UK nationality entitles them to play for NI.

We'll have to agree to differ, my reading is that it is precisely because of their 'dual' nationality status that article 16 would have to be enforced. This will only be resolved by FIFA, definitively, when the FAI select another player born in NI who does not meet the criteria set out in art. 16 and the IFA challenge that selection.

[Blanchflower]

We'll have to agree to differ, my reading is that it is precisely because of their 'dual' nationality status that article 16 would have to be enforced.
No, mate - Article 16 doesn't deal with dual nationality - it deals with players whose nationality (singular) entitles them to play for more than 1 country, e.g. a UK national who - by nationality alone - could play for England, Scotland, Wales or NI. Or a Danish national who could play for Denmark and the Faroes.


This will only be resolved by FIFA, definitively, when the FAI select another player born in NI who does not meet the criteria set out in art. 16 and the IFA challenge that selection.
FIFA has already spoken, mate - and "Darron" Gibson has already been capped. The new rules have changed nothing - they're just a consolidation effort.

[ifk101]

Well it says in my dictionary "to long to possess something belonging to another" - seems a pretty accurate word to use.

My dictionary must be broken then.


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

Or maybe not?


They do indeed have the same nationality as Southerners, but they are also UK nationals and hence have dual nationality - their Southern nationality entitles them to play for the South and their UK nationality entitles them to play for NI.

Your geography book is broken though.

[Blanchflower]

Or maybe not?


Yeah, they recognise that consent may not be given, but they still want to annex it. They want us to consent to it (their firm will!)!

[geysir]

Yes it does - and the citizenship law extends extra-territorially to include everyone born in the coveted piece of territory to your north.

I do have an interest in the substance of the discussion ... that's why I've been discussing its substance:eek: other than simply making statements of the obvious.
Many of your posts are condescending trivia on political issues.
If you have opinions on citizenship laws, then take it to Other Topics.
That has no relevance here.
You are not welcome to pursue a personal political agenda on this football forum.

What is relevant on this thread, as has been stated ad nauseum by me before, is that FIFA recognise that the citizenship the Irish state bestows onto (almost) all people born on the Island, as falling under article 15 of the Eligibility Statutes.
That is indisputable.

[Blanchflower]

If you have opinions on citizenship laws, then take it to Other Topics.
That has no relevance here.

Citizenship laws are irrelevant to a discussion about eligibility for international football (which is based primarily on citizenship)???:eek:

Are you sane?



What is relevant on this thread, as has been stated ad nauseum by me before, is that FIFA recognise that the citizenship the Irish state bestows onto (almost) all people born on the Island, as falling under article 15 of the Eligibility Statutes.
That is indisputable.
Er, yeah, I know - that's what I've been arguing all along! Try reading my posts before you start embarrassing yourself.:o

[seanfhear]

having surfed through many of these postings i have come to the observation that some on both sides "doth protest too much" and should get together and make beautiful music.Heres hoping that ye know who ye are

[kingdomkerry]

The arrogance stupidity of some sections of the northern press is dumbfounding. Again today articles in unionist papers are claiming victory Headlines such as "Dublin must play by the rules" and "Hands off NI Players, FIFA tells Republic".

Are the fools who write this able to read?

[Blanchflower]

The arrogance stupidity of some sections of the northern press is dumbfounding. Again today articles in unionist papers are claiming victory Headlines such as "Dublin must play by the rules" and "Hands off NI Players, FIFA tells Republic".

Are the fools who write this able to read?
The standard of journalism up here is pretty poor. Especially when it comes to sport.

[Maroon 7]

This eligibility stuff is nearly as bad as the Lisbon treaty.:D

[Newryrep]

This eligibility stuff is nearly as bad as the Lisbon treaty.:D

and the IFA got involved as well:)

[Not Brazil]

If you have opinions on citizenship laws, then take it to Other Topics.
That has no relevance here.


You what?:eek:

On a thread pertaining to eligibility rules?:eek:

[EalingGreen]

No, mate - Article 16 doesn't deal with dual nationality - it deals with players whose nationality (singular) entitles them to play for more than 1 country, e.g. a UK national who - by nationality alone - could play for England, Scotland, Wales or NI. Or a Danish national who could play for Denmark and the Faroes.


Blanchflower,
You and those who share your opinion essentially base your case on the above analysis of Article 16.

And I accept in a technical sense, the language of the Article supports your interpretation.

However, I think we are all in danger of failing to see the wood for the trees. To go back to first principles, it seems to me obvious - indeed it is stated by FIFA in their Preamble etc - that the insertion of Article 16 (plus the re-working of Article 15) is specifically designed by FIFA to address not the Irish situation, but the Cape Verde/Qatari-Brazilian situation.

We know that must be so, since all this activity, Resolutions, re-drafting etc by FIFA was prompted by those cases. Therefore, the first step in understanding exactly what FIFA means with its new Articles MUST (imo) be to put everything in that context, not ours.

And if you try to apply your interpretation of Article 16 (above) to e.g. a Qatari-Brazilian, it simply doesn't work. That is, whether you consider such a player Brazilian, or whether you consider such a player Qatari, neither definition makes him someone whose "nationality (singular) entitles [him] to play for more than 1 country"

That is, how is your average Qatari entitled to play for more than one country (Association)? Or your average Brazilian? Quite simply, they are not.
Therefore, the only way in which Article 16 can extend its four conditions to these Qatari-Brazilians is if we interpret the word "nationality" (singular) actually to mean "nationalities" (plural).

And if we do that, then in the absence of either a specific exemption for the FAI, or a distinction between automatic birth nationality and suddenly granted nationality (neither of which exists), then I feel Article 16 MUST also be applied to those NI-born players who automatically have both UK and Irish Nationality from the moment of their birth. In which case, the four conditions also apply.

Otherwise, by their re-working of Article 15 and insertion of Article 16 (plus 17 and 18), FIFA will be failing to stop e.g. Qatar giving out Nationality (singular) to people born outwith Qatar from having to comply with one of the four conditions. And we know that FIFA's intentions in this area are the exact opposite!

All of which will explain for me the most puzzling aspect of this whole affair, namely the way the IFA and the FAI are both each confident their case has prevailed. That is, the FAI is relying on a narrow, technical interpretation of the Articles. Whereas the IFA understands, presumably from discussions with FIFA, that these Articles are intended to be applicable to all individuals who have more than one nationality, however acquired, including those born in NI.

Indeed, I am further persuaded by the IFA's case by two lesser aspects of this matter. First, Article 15 is re-drafted with an unusual English construction (imo), namely, "holding a permanent nationality that is not dependant on residence in a certain country". Qatari nationality is presumably not dependent on residing in Qatar for any period (otherwise we wouldn't have this problem of the Brazilians etc in the first place). And as we know, Irish nationality does not depend on living in any certain country, either.
Second, I do not think it coincidental that FIFA chose to frame their birthplace condition (the first of the four Article 16 conditions) with the phrase "born in the territory of the relevant Association". As such, this neatly sidesteps any problem with defining a country/nation/jurisdiction etc. Indeed, it allows them to retain absolute control over this, since it is they who determine what an Association is and what territory it covers.
As such, this reflects their policy always to maintain equally the integrity of each Association over every other, including the small or weak against the large, strong or, ahem, "covetous" ;)

Over to you.

[Blanchflower]

Blanchflower,
You and those who share your opinion essentially base your case on the above analysis of Article 16.

And I accept in a technical sense, the language of the Article supports your interpretation.

Well, we are dealing with technicalities, after all!

And - in a practical sense - FIFA has actually stated that the legal position hasn't changed as a result of the new articles!


However, I think we are all in danger of failing to see the wood for the trees. To go back to first principles, it seems to me obvious - indeed it is stated by FIFA in their Preamble etc - that the insertion of Article 16 (plus the re-working of Article 15) is specifically designed by FIFA to address not the Irish situation, but the Cape Verde/Qatari-Brazilian situation.

Er, first principles are that international teams are restricted to players with the nationality of that team.


And if you try to apply your interpretation of Article 16 (above) to e.g. a Qatari-Brazilian, it simply doesn't work. That is, whether you consider such a player Brazilian, or whether you consider such a player Qatari, neither definition makes him someone whose "nationality (singular) entitles [him] to play for more than 1 country"

The Qatari situation is dealt with by Article 17 (Acquisition of a New Nationality).


Otherwise, by their re-working of Article 15 and insertion of Article 16 (plus 17 and 18), FIFA will be failing to stop e.g. Qatar giving out Nationality (singular) to people born outwith Qatar from having to comply with one of the four conditions. And we know that FIFA's intentions in this area are the exact opposite!

Article 17 stops them doing that.

[geysir]

Citizenship laws are irrelevant to a discussion about eligibility for international football (which is based primarily on citizenship)???:eek:

Are you sane?


Er, yeah, I know - that's what I've been arguing all along! Try reading my posts before you start embarrassing yourself.:o
Condescending príck of a post.
Discuss the citizenship laws amongst yourselves.
In fact would be more fiting to go back to your OWC caves to dicuss the Republic's constitution there.

All you OWC wits are just drooling at the opportunity to discuss the Republics Constitution :D

The FIFA Eligibility discussion is done and dusted.
It's a wrap.

[ifk101]

As you've stated that "the language seems quite clear and unambiguous", why the need to "interpret" word(s) to suit your preferred understanding of the FIFA text EG?

[paul_oshea]

As you've stated that "the language seems quite clear and unambiguous", why the need to "interpret" word(s) to suit your preferred understanding of the FIFA text EG?

maybe he doesn't like to be wrong?! :confused:

[kingdomkerry]

maybe he doesn't like to be wrong?! :confused:

Sure we all know Ealing Green is never wrong!:rolleyes::eek:

[kingdomkerry]

EG is right about one thing, the wording IS clear and unambiguous.


http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affeder ... _47752.pdf (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/fifa_congress_08_agenda_47752.pdf)

13.2 REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES
13.2.1 Eligibility to play for representative teams

'The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisions within the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legal situation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, circular no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and circular no. 1093 dated 21 June 2007). Under the proposal approved by the Executive Committee, all relevant provisions have been summarised and added to the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes. Accordingly, art. 15 in the chapter “Eligibility to play for representative teams” of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes should be amended and new art. 16 to 18 should be included.'

The new articles 16, 17 and 18 don't apply to northern born players because they qualify under article 15.



It cant be made any clearer than that. Nothing has changed.

End of discussion.

[gspain]

Blanchflower,
You and those who share your opinion essentially base your case on the above analysis of Article 16.

And I accept in a technical sense, the language of the Article supports your interpretation.

However, I think we are all in danger of failing to see the wood for the trees. To go back to first principles, it seems to me obvious - indeed it is stated by FIFA in their Preamble etc - that the insertion of Article 16 (plus the re-working of Article 15) is specifically designed by FIFA to address not the Irish situation, but the Cape Verde/Qatari-Brazilian situation.

We know that must be so, since all this activity, Resolutions, re-drafting etc by FIFA was prompted by those cases. Therefore, the first step in understanding exactly what FIFA means with its new Articles MUST (imo) be to put everything in that context, not ours.

And if you try to apply your interpretation of Article 16 (above) to e.g. a Qatari-Brazilian, it simply doesn't work. That is, whether you consider such a player Brazilian, or whether you consider such a player Qatari, neither definition makes him someone whose "nationality (singular) entitles [him] to play for more than 1 country"

That is, how is your average Qatari entitled to play for more than one country (Association)? Or your average Brazilian? Quite simply, they are not.
Therefore, the only way in which Article 16 can extend its four conditions to these Qatari-Brazilians is if we interpret the word "nationality" (singular) actually to mean "nationalities" (plural).

And if we do that, then in the absence of either a specific exemption for the FAI, or a distinction between automatic birth nationality and suddenly granted nationality (neither of which exists), then I feel Article 16 MUST also be applied to those NI-born players who automatically have both UK and Irish Nationality from the moment of their birth. In which case, the four conditions also apply.

Otherwise, by their re-working of Article 15 and insertion of Article 16 (plus 17 and 18), FIFA will be failing to stop e.g. Qatar giving out Nationality (singular) to people born outwith Qatar from having to comply with one of the four conditions. And we know that FIFA's intentions in this area are the exact opposite!

All of which will explain for me the most puzzling aspect of this whole affair, namely the way the IFA and the FAI are both each confident their case has prevailed. That is, the FAI is relying on a narrow, technical interpretation of the Articles. Whereas the IFA understands, presumably from discussions with FIFA, that these Articles are intended to be applicable to all individuals who have more than one nationality, however acquired, including those born in NI.

Indeed, I am further persuaded by the IFA's case by two lesser aspects of this matter. First, Article 15 is re-drafted with an unusual English construction (imo), namely, "holding a permanent nationality that is not dependant on residence in a certain country". Qatari nationality is presumably not dependent on residing in Qatar for any period (otherwise we wouldn't have this problem of the Brazilians etc in the first place). And as we know, Irish nationality does not depend on living in any certain country, either.
Second, I do not think it coincidental that FIFA chose to frame their birthplace condition (the first of the four Article 16 conditions) with the phrase "born in the territory of the relevant Association". As such, this neatly sidesteps any problem with defining a country/nation/jurisdiction etc. Indeed, it allows them to retain absolute control over this, since it is they who determine what an Association is and what territory it covers.
As such, this reflects their policy always to maintain equally the integrity of each Association over every other, including the small or weak against the large, strong or, ahem, "covetous" ;)

Over to you.

However your point still boils down to somebody born in NI automatically getting UK nationality. Now I appreciate they are entitled to UK nationality but the GFA allows for somebody born in NI to be considered British or Irish or both.

Therefore my interpretation would be that any NI born person CAN claim to be Irish (as in Roi nationality) and only Irish even if they live all their lives in NI and pay their taxes to Her Majesty's Government.

This would imply that Article 15 only applies and they can play for the RoI.

I don't think it is an open and shut case btw. i've heard reference to "football nationalities" and jurisdiction of Football Associations however Article 15 makes no reference to these.

[Blanchflower]

However your point still boils down to somebody born in NI automatically getting UK nationality. Now I appreciate they are entitled to UK nationality but the GFA allows for somebody born in NI to be considered British or Irish or both.

The GFA is irrelevant for 2 reasons:

1. It is UK law which determines UK nationality, not the GFA.

2. Being able to "identify" as "Irish only" is not the same as having only ROI citizenship. It's a meaningless "right" that we enjoyed before the GFA and would continue to enjoy if there were no GFA.


Therefore my interpretation would be that any NI born person CAN claim to be Irish (as in Roi nationality) and only Irish even if they live all their lives in NI and pay their taxes to Her Majesty's Government.

They can claim whatever they want, but the reality is that they are a dual national.


This would imply that Article 15 only applies and they can play for the RoI.

They can play for ROI under Article 15 as a dual national. They don't have to be one or the other.

[youngirish]

maybe he doesn't like to be wrong?! :confused:

You think he'd be used to it by now. I've never known him to be right in any of his posts.

[Scooby Doo]

god, all the OWC nordies lurking in the shadows waiting to get their say in. i cringe at this stage when i see a thread related to the north.

[geysir]

This eligibility stuff is nearly as bad as the Lisbon treaty.
There are Government ministers who don't know whats in the Lisbon treaty.
So I checked out the FIFA post congress press conference to hear what Sepp Blatter has to say.
Sepp has said that the eligibility of dual nationals is not affected by the changes to the Eligibility Chapter in the rule book. Dual National eligibility is the same as before.
In case some prack decides to tell me that Sepp Blatter's word is not law, I know.
But I found it reassuring all the same :) You never know with these guys.

On the contrary
It appears that the IFA and most supporters do not know what the status of Norther Ireland is.
It hasn't sunk in that Northern Ireland is British or what it means to be an integral part of the United Kingdom.

What was the war all about? :D
And they complain that FIFA hasn't made it clear for them.

I suppose FIFA did take that one for granted, that an association like the IFA would have realised that Irish citizenship does not qualify you to play for NI.
Maybe FIFA also presumed that the IFA would know that NI is British, it is an integral part of the UK and you have to be a British National to qualify to play for Northern Ireland.
That being born in NI makes you an automatic British National.

And they mocked us when we poked fun at their identity crisis.:D

[lopez]

god, all the OWC nordies lurking in the shadows waiting to get their say in. i cringe at this stage when i see a thread related to the north.I agree.

I thought this thread was about Martin O'Neill's views on an all-Ireland team but we see the usual suspects banging on about the FIFA's decision that the FAI can carry on 'poaching' :rolleyes: their players. Some people (not me obviously) would have some sympathy with them if 50% of NI's players were 'defecting' but the number either willing AND good enough is er, just two in the past 40 odd years since the criterior was changed, and one of those couldn't play for NI because the IFA's rules (not FIFA's) prevented him from playing for them.

Still, keep putting the whinge back into our whinging country (sic.). :D

[Gather round]

god, all the OWC nordies lurking in the shadows waiting to get their say in. i cringe at this stage when i see a thread related to the north

We feel your pain, Scooby.

Ye could always ignore the threads of course. Just a thought, like.

While I realise the thread has moved on, it's original theme was clear enough. You can hardly be surprised that a few NI fans chose to argue that our team shouldn't be abolished.

Bring on the Slovaks.

[Qwerty]

The rules are straighforward and clear and don't need to be haggled over here.

The only thing which isn't clear is whether the FAI is involved in recruiting in NI which would be wrong, and whether the IFA will in future try and block players with a genuine desire to play for the ROI which would equally be wrong.