Eligibility Rules, Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

You are the one who mentioned the lack of some kind of notice that they had no future with the association as if it had some kind of meaning.

---

It means that nobody can ever say with any certainty whatsoever that one player is an international reject or no-hoper whilst another has a long, certain and fruitful international career in front of him with a particular association.

Say, Keith Andrews had a second nationality, would it have been fair to cast him as an FAI no-hoper and "fair game" for another association at the age of 26? Evidently not; since the age of 27/28 he's become an integral part of our midfield. Theoretically-speaking, for whatever reason, be it due to a late development spurt on the part of Bruce, a shortage of other worthy centre-backs or a spate of injuries to defensive regulars, who's to know how useful Bruce might have become for us at some point in the future?

Quote:

---

Bruce and Camp (and many others in this and other countries) have looked at their lack on involvement with the national teams (ROI and England), have looked at the number and quality of players which are ahead of them in the pecking order, and have come to the conclusion that they had only a very remote chance of a future in the national team. They were fortunate enough to have a back-up option due to citizenship, though Bruce has already burned that bridge in some fans' eyes.

---

The players came to such conclusions themselves, which is entirely their entitlement if they wish to weigh up their options. Their associations never indicated to them that they would be forever more surplus to the association's requirements, however. The argument looks at the issue from the persepctive of the associations' intentions. It goes that the FAI are "poaching" players wanted by another association whilst the IFA operate on a different principle. That argument doesn't stand as the likes of Bruce would always have been a viable option for us had he not declared for the IFA. The IFA don't operate on a different principle besides.

Quote:

---

The is clearly different from some of the players who've declared for the ROI who were obviously going to be involved with NI at international level.

---

Only if the players were willing to do so. Marc Wilson said he'd either play for us or no-one, for example.

Quote:

---

In my opinion, the best counter-argument to the claims of poaching would be to find a player who declared for NI after underage training/caps for another association who still considered the player a valuable player at senior level.

---

So, do you believe it is different in principle then? As if the IFA would have any qualms with selecting a player in whom a second association was also interested. They'd act to serve their own interests just like how any professional association would operate. Sure, wasn't Gerry Armstrong chasing after England under-21 international and senior hopeful Connor Wickham only a few months ago? You think NI fans would object to Wickham switching to the IFA despite the FA's obvious interest in the lad? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Say........ Theoretically-speaking............. who's to know............

---

We've had this debate before - while NI can point to a number of players whose immediate value to their team is obvious, on the other side there's nothing but 'who knows?'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

The players came to such conclusions themselves, which is entirely their entitlement if they wish to weigh up their options.

---

Indeed, and I'd say they didn't come to such conclusions lightly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Their associations never indicated to them that they would be forever more surplus to the association's requirements, however.

---

Because, as you've admitted, it never ever happens. But you keep mentioning it has like it some meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

So, do you believe it is different in principle then?

---

I wouldn't use the word principle in any situation where Alex Bruce is being discussed. But, as I've indicated earlier, I think that arguing that NI being happy to take Lee Camp while complaining about ROI 'poaching' is evidence of hypocrisy is missing the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Sure, wasn't Gerry Armstrong chasing after England under-21 international and senior hopeful Connor Wickham only a few months ago? You think NI fans would object to Wickham switching to the IFA despite the FA's obvious interest in the lad?

---

I haven't followed that story at all, but if what you say it true (and I've no reason to doubt you), then I'd say it's a far more relevant piece of evidence of NI hypocrisy than Lee Camp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

In my opinion, the best counter-argument to the claims of poaching would be to find a player who declared for NI after underage training/caps for another association that still considered the player a valuable player at senior level.

---

Not senior level but nonetheless ..

Quote:

---

The pair have represented Northern Ireland at both under-19 and under-21 level over the last 18 months and manager Steve Beaglehole has issued a strong ‘hands-off’ warning to the English.
“England have gone after Oliver Norwood trying to get him back and they’ve approached Lee Hodson looking for him to play for them as well,” revealed Beaglehole. “When we found out Norwood was eligible for us we were told that he hadn’t particularly enjoyed his experience with England, so we made our approach.
“Lee Hodson has never been involved with any England squad at any age. He’s been ignored and has been very proud to play for Northern Ireland.
“Both lads have come and played for us, been made to feel very welcome and have enjoyed it.
“It’s only now that England are looking for them after seeing that they are very capable players at international level.”

---

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14748583.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ifk101

Not senior level but nonetheless ..


http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14748583.html

---

Even the bit you've quoted says that Hodson never played at England at any level, so I don't think he meets the criteria for the kind of example I was talking about.

In Norwood's case, did he come to the conclusion that he had no future with England (at senior level at least) which convinced him to look to his chances with NI? Seems like there was about 19 months between his last underage England cap and his first NI underage cap - for how many matches was he overlooked in the meantime, and behind how many different other goalkeepers? Or was he 'convinced' by NI? I don't know enough about him and the circumstances of his switch, but he might be an example of NI hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Indeed, and I'd say they didn't come to such conclusions lightly.

---

I wouldn't doubt that, but is it relevant?

Quote:

---

Because, as you've admitted, it never ever happens. But you keep mentioning it has like it some meaning.

---

Doesn't it mean that it is impossible to assume, as some NI fans like EG attempt to do, the future plans and intentions of an association with regard to any player, assuming he'd be willing and able to line out for them in the first place? Johnny Gorman participated in both the FAI's and IFA's set-ups within the same year, for example. Did he become a certain FAI reject and "fair game" for the IFA all of a sudden at some point during that short space of time?

Anton Rodgers and Sean Scannell are other players registered with the FAI whom IFA figures (Armstrong and O'Neill, respectively) have expressly declared an interest in pursuing and selecting. Scannell last lined out for our under-21s at the end of July, which was after O'Neill's interest in him first came to light, so there was no indication or reason to assume that the player was ever surplus to FAI requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I wouldn't doubt that, but is it relevant?

Doesn't it mean that it is impossible to assume, as some NI fans like EG attempt to do, the future plans and intentions of an association with regard to any player, assuming he'd be willing and able to line out for them in the first place?

---

It does, and if you want to hypothesise about the value of a player like Alex Bruce to Ireland or Lee Camp to England in the event of what would have to be an extraordinary sequence of injuries or other events making players unavailable for a particular game, I'll agree that, however unlikely, it is possible that ROI might be in dire need of Alex Bruce at some point in the future.

My point is that the players themselves have come to the conclusion that their future opportunities with the associations are so remote that they're effectively giving up and moving on to plan B. Therefore I think it is very relevant that they don't come to this conclusion lightly.

The switch of a player like Lee Camp (for example)with underage caps for England, which presumably happened after he came to the conclusion that England would never need him is different from the switch of a player like James McClean (for example) with underage caps for NI, who couldn't have come to that conclusion regarding his future with NI.

This is why I think the argument that the two are like for like and that NI are being hypocritical misses the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Anton Rodgers and Sean Scannell are other players registered with the FAI whom IFA figures (Armstrong and O'Neill, respectively) have expressly declared an interest in pursuing and selecting. Scannell last lined out for our under-21s at the end of July, which was after O'Neill's interest in him first came to light, so there was no indication or reason to assume that the player was ever surplus to FAI requirements.

---

Couldn't find out much about Rodgers, but Scannell has numerous and (as you point out) recent underage caps, so NI attempting to 'poach' him could be an example of the hypocrisy I talked about earlier, unless there is other information to take into consideration. Has anybody ever dared mention him on OWC or other message boards as an example of NI double standards, and if so what has the response been?

Don't see what your point is.

These and hundreds of players eligible for more than one international side, until they play a competitive game are always in the position where they can pick and choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Couldn't find out much about Rodgers, but Scannell has numerous and (as you point out) recent underage caps, so NI attempting to 'poach' him could be an example of the hypocrisy I talked about earlier, unless there is other information to take into consideration. Has anybody ever dared mention him on OWC or other message boards as an example of NI double standards, and if so what has the response been?

---

There was a thread on Scannell and his brother Damian urging O'Neill to call them up! (Granted, Damian Scannell has never played for us at any level, to the best of my knowledge.)

Some choice comments:

Quote:

---

Its all about two things...

1) Increasing our player pool
2) Getting one over our Southern enemies

what harm can it do...

Alex Bruce same situation.

---

Quote:

---

To be fair, it's more than a bit disingenuous for people to be talking about getting Sean Scannell to play for NI, whilst at the same time complaining about ROI poaching players capped at underage level by NI. When considered in the context of the approaches made to Jonny Gorman, Alex Bruce and Anton Rodgers, it doesn't leave NI with any moral highground.

---

I suspect the above post and others from the same poster (Terry) that raised some awkward questions for the regulars came from an account masquerading as a NI fan. No way of saying for sure, but either way, the same admin who dished out my eight-year ban was soon on the scene to inform him he was on a "fine line" before instigating a suspension:

Quote:

---

Top tip: Next time you come on spent a bit more time posting on 'bland' subjects, 2 posts about the new kit wasn't really enough. The Irish Olympic team, GAA and digs at Rangers sort of gave it away.

See ya

---

Some others:

Quote:

---

Scannell, Gorman, Bruce and Rodgers all qualify to play for Northern Ireland by the usual conventions that govern all other FIFA members bar one and are not discriminatory to other associations.

Gibson, McClean, O'Kane, Wilson etc do not.

This is where we (but maybe not you, Terence?) have the moral high ground

---

Quote:

---

You're right, CAS did look at the current situation. They described it as unfair. That should tell you all you need to know about where the FAI stand in relation to the moral high ground.

And with these players listed above, which ROI team is being disrupted by approaching them?

---

Quote:

---

I can definitely see where you are coming from Terry but I would see the difference between Duffy and Scannell being that Scannell is English and has not rejected his home association as Duffy has. I'm sure if England came knocking that Scannell wouldn't entertain the notion of playing for anyone else.

If the IFA were to approach a Southerner, one with a good chance of making the senior team, and persuade him to play for NI instead of ROI then accusations of hypocrisy would be valid.

But trying exploit the rules to secure the services of an Englishman is a different matter entirely.

---

Yet our selection of Adam Barton was an example of "poaching" from the IFA? :confused:

Quote:

---

Approaching another countries current international players with promises full of lies is the problem. Poaching or stealing is its name and thats the difference between this and ROI's thieving game.

---

Quote:

---

The only defector to start a competitive game for ROI is Gibson and even Trap knows hes rubbish and rarely plays him. ROI are approaching our young players filling their heads with false promises and lies, not to boost their squads but to steal them from NI and stop playing for us.

---

Quote:

---

The difference is that ROI tap-up and approach another nations current players. NI considers players for selection that are not currently playing for their home nation, not to steal them from another association.

---

A piece on Worthington approaching Connor Wickham two years ago: http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news...cle556215.html

Quote:

---

Ipswich striker Connor Wickham has emerged as a target for Northern Ireland boss Nigel Worthington.

The 17-year-old is currently out of action with a foot injury and helped England Under-17 side to the European Championship crown this summer. But he qualifies for Northern Ireland through his father Stefan, and former Norwich manager Worthington is keen to secure his future at international level.

Worthington said: "The question has been asked about Connor Wickham. There's potential there. We have done our homework and offered him the opportunity to further his international career with Northern Ireland."

He added: "Hopefully, he will follow young Oliver Norwood from Manchester United and throw in his lot with a squad he can help go places."

---

OWC's thread on Wickham saw most contributors advocating any possible selection of Wickham whilst admitting that seeing him line out for NI was an unfortunate unlikelihood. Not one saw any potential hypocrisy in such a move.

Leon Best is another example.

Read first post in his thread.

http://foot.ie/threads/83189-Leon-Best

Not sure why anyone is surprised.

Some of those people are seriously warped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

It does, and if you want to hypothesise about the value of a player like Alex Bruce to Ireland or Lee Camp to England in the event of what would have to be an extraordinary sequence of injuries or other events making players unavailable for a particular game, I'll agree that, however unlikely, it is possible that ROI might be in dire need of Alex Bruce at some point in the future.

My point is that the players themselves have come to the conclusion that their future opportunities with the associations are so remote that they're effectively giving up and moving on to plan B. Therefore I think it is very relevant that they don't come to this conclusion lightly.

The switch of a player like Lee Camp (for example)with underage caps for England, which presumably happened after he came to the conclusion that England would never need him is different from the switch of a player like James McClean (for example) with underage caps for NI, who couldn't have come to that conclusion regarding his future with NI.

This is why I think the argument that the two are like for like and that NI are being hypocritical misses the point.

---

Have been thinking a bit more about this. I acknowledge that McClean would have been of immediate utility or value to the IFA when he switched to the FAI - he was called into their senior squad to play the Faroes and then withdrew shortly before citing his interest in holding out for a call-up from the FAI - whereas there was no indication that Lee Camp was of immediate value to the FA when he opted to switch to the IFA, whatever about his potential future value to them (if the fact a player might be of immediate value even creates a moral distinction so long as he'd always have been an option for the association with whom he was originally registered), but, either way, what difference should that make with regard to the selection process of the FAI so long as McClean, like Camp, made a free decision as to his own international career path? Are you suggesting the FAI should have turned down McClean's advance and should ignore other players who may be interested in representing us simply because the IFA might have immediate or future plans for them? I would argue that there is no place for sentiment in the running of a professional international football association. There are rules in place and so long as they are adhered to, crying foul just sounds like playing the victim. And worse, for the IFA to be evidently engaged in the very same game about which they and their fans complain when it comes to FAI activity is downright hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin

Personally I'd have more time for Stephen Ireland than somebody who pulls on the green shirt to pad their CV. At least he's not taking an honour from somebody who would really treasure it.

---

That's assuming Stephen Ireland ever really treasured it? Plenty of evidence to suggest he didn't. Point is most ROI eligible footballers appear prouder and more willing to represent us than [BonnieShels friendly edit] Stevie Manchester.

But I was exaggerating. I should've said 'Mark Noble/Jermaine Pennent < Stephen Ireland <<<<<<<<<<<<< any other ROI eligible footballer'. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton

That's assuming Stephen Ireland ever really treasured it? Plenty of evidence to suggest he didn't. Point is most ROI eligible footballers appear prouder and more willing to represent us than Ireland.

---

That sentence nearly broke my brain.
Who else would "us" be SvD? :P
Be kind and edit that to contain the word Stephen lest you start a war.

Consider your brain eased. I refuse to use the just the familiar 'Stephen' though and already said 'Stephen Ireland' in the par, so settled on a compromise...

Does anybody have any update on Ryan McLaughlin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bungle

Does anybody have any update on Ryan McLaughlin?

---

Playing well in next gen for pool. not in our 19s squad this week so has not switched yet although paperwork does take time i think

He is in the norths under 19s this week

Here's an update on Adam Hammill for anyone interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-19874062

Quote:

---

A footballer has been arrested and bailed after a paramedic was allegedly assaulted in Liverpool city centre.

Adam Hammill, 24, was taken into custody after an incident on Temple Court in the early hours of Sunday.

Mr Hammill is a Wolverhampton Wanderers player but is currently on loan at Huddersfield Town.

Merseyside police said a man, 24, from Bootle, had been arrested on suspicion of common assault. He has been released on bail pending further inquiries.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liamoo11

Playing well in next gen for pool. not in our 19s squad this week so has not switched yet although paperwork does take time i think

He is in the norths under 19s this week

---

I see McLaughlin's name bandied about on the forum a bit. Where's the indication that he actually does intend to play for Ireland? I've only seen the jubilant tweets after our qualification for Euro 2012.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liamoo11

Playing well in next gen for pool. not in our 19s squad this week so has not switched yet although paperwork does take time i think

He is in the norths under 19s this week

---

Is this tongue in cheek? First I've heard of him switching. Great if he does.

Would p!ss off the OWC brigade no end, no doubt. A young lad in around Liverpool's first team squad. A bitter pill to swallow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I acknowledge that McClean would have been of immediate utility or value to the IFA when he switched to the FAI - he was called into their senior squad to play the Faroes and then withdrew shortly before citing his interest in holding out for a call-up from the FAI - whereas there was no indication that Lee Camp was of immediate value to the FA when he opted to switch to the IFA, whatever about his potential future value to them

---

This is my point in its entirety - that using the example of Lee Camp or players in a similar situation as an argument for hypocrisy by NI (fans and/or IFA itself) misses the point.

As you've shown with quotes from OWC, the responses to the comparison with Sean Scannell are examples of real hypocrisy (and delusion also, though I think most people would have formed that opinion about the majority of the posters on OWC already).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Are you suggesting the FAI should have turned down McClean's advance and should ignore other players who may be interested in representing us simply because the IFA might have immediate or future plans for them?

---

Not at all, I'm baffled as to how you could have inferred that from anything in my posts. Can you point out any post where you think I've suggested this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

And worse, for the IFA to be evidently engaged in the very same game about which they and their fans complain when it comes to FAI activity is downright hypocrisy.

---

Agreed, but as I've mentioned, I don't think the examples of Bruce and Camp are 'the very same game'. Scannell, from what you've shown me so far, is a much better agrument to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scooby Doo

Is this tongue in cheek? First I've heard of him switching. Great if he does.

Would p!ss off the OWC brigade no end, no doubt. A young lad in around Liverpool's first team squad. A bitter pill to swallow.

---

Liamoo expressed hope that he might join us and he is the guru on underage football on here! Don't know if he knows something the rest of us don't. From the reports I have read and O'Neill's attempts to cap him early at senior level, he could a damn good footballer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

This is my point in its entirety - that using the example of Lee Camp or players in a similar situation as an argument for hypocrisy by NI (fans and/or IFA itself) misses the point.

...

Not at all, I'm baffled as to how you could have inferred that from anything in my posts. Can you point out any post where you think I've suggested this?

---

No worries; merely enquiring further. :)

The reason I ask is because I'm not entirely sure if it makes a great deal of difference so long as no second association is forcing a player (who offers his original association the option of his selection so long as he's registered to them and willing to play) to declare for the second association against their volition. Does/should it make a difference whether he's of immediate value to a first team or offers an option down the pecking order, or whether he may be of hypothetical value in the future? You appear to be implying it does make some difference. All talk of the future is speculative in a sense - plenty of footballers are "late bloomers" - and then there's the likes of Marc Wilson who was pretty clear that it was either us or no-one. He's of no value to the IFA ultimately because he had no interest in representing them, irrespective of whether the FAI wish to select him or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I'm not entirely sure if it makes a great deal of difference so long as no second association is forcing a player (who offers his original association the option of his selection so long as he's registered to them and willing to play) to declare for the second association against their volition. Does/should it make a difference whether he's of immediate value to a first team or offers an option down the pecking order, or whether he may be of hypothetical value in the future? You appear to be implying it does make some difference.

---

It makes a difference if you think it makes a difference.

If somebody thinks that a player's immediate value to the football association which he's leaving is irrelevant, then that person will see no difference between the contexts of Camp and McClean's switches of association.

However, a person who sees a player's value to the association as relevant will see a difference between those two contexts.

Thanks for the update on Ryan McLaughlin lads. Really hope he declares for us. He is supposed to be a phenomenal talent and with Rodgers showing that he is not afraid to give young talent a go, he could be in the first team squad by the end of the year at Liverpool. A few of my mates that go to the Liverpool youth games all reckon he's as big a talent as Suso and Sterling. Given how good they look, he must be half decent!!

If there is actual substance to the speculation regarding McLaughlin, it will be interesting to see what position Brendan Rodgers takes. Will he persist with the "Northern Irish boys should play for Northern Ireland" stance or revert back to his original position that saw his son Anton declare for Ireland in the first place, before his cousin Nigel Worthington became the NI manager? I haven't heard anything more about Anton Rodgers in relation to NI, interestingly. He seems to be getting himself into the news for the wrong reasons of late though.

Interesting parallel to the issue nationalist players have taken with God Save the Queen etc.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf...d-3253773.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

It makes a difference if you think it makes a difference.

If somebody thinks that a player's immediate value to the football association which he's leaving is irrelevant, then that person will see no difference between the contexts of Camp and McClean's switches of association.

However, a person who sees a player's value to the association as relevant will see a difference between those two contexts.

---

I suppose it comes down to how you define "value" or even "immediate value". Would you say that Alex Bruce was of no value whatsoever to the FAI when he opted to declare for the IFA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olé Olé

Interesting parallel to the issue nationalist players have taken with God Save the Queen etc.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf...d-3253773.html

---

McIlroy's been pretty clear that he sees himself as "more British than Irish" and views the 'Ulster Banner' as his flag. Although, as is hinted at in the article, he may see carrying the Irish tricolour as an incentive, not because he necessarily identifies with it, but simply in order to raise his profile and garner greater publicity and exposure as a flag-bearer, similar to how a footballer from a nationalist background may opt to play for the IFA for career-enhancing reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I suppose it comes down to how you define "value" or even "immediate value". Would you say that Alex Bruce was of no value whatsoever to the FAI when he opted to declare for the IFA?

---

Haven't you just said that the issue of value makes no difference?

I think it comes down to how the players themselves define immediate value. Bruce and McClean clearly knew their respective values to the assciations from which they were switching, and the associations clearly valued them differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

McIlroy's been pretty clear that he sees himself as "more British than Irish" and views the 'Ulster Banner' as his flag. Although, as is hinted at in the article, he may see carrying the Irish tricolour as an incentive, not because he necessarily identifies with it, but simply in order to raise his profile and garner greater publicity and exposure as a flag-bearer, similar to how a footballer from a nationalist background may opt to play for the IFA for career-enhancing reasons.

---

That's the parallel to which I was referring. It's a completely careerist carrot that is being dangled in front of McIlroy, in the same way that one was dangled in front of Patrick McEleney and co. I'm somewhat disappointed that the honour of bearing the flag is being demeaned for such purposes. Clearly, the powers that be feel it is a small sacrifice in order to entice McIlroy's declaration, even though he feels British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Haven't you just said that the issue of value makes no difference?

---

That's true. I don't think it does so long as the decision to switch is at the player's behest. If a player decides he no longer wishes to play for a particular association, any future hopes or plans that association had for him are subsequently of no consequence. Besides, for argument's sake and as I've been saying, you could argue that a player is always of value to an association so long as he offers them an option for selection. If you accept that argument then would you accept that Bruce was still of value to the FAI when he opted to switch to the IFA? Perhaps he wouldn't have been as valuable as McClean would have been to the IFA when he opted to switch to the FAI, but Bruce still offered something of value as part of the FAI's available international player pool, no?

Quote:

---

I think it comes down to how the players themselves define immediate value. Bruce and McClean clearly knew their respective values to the assciations from which they were switching, and the associations clearly valued them differently.

---

But it's the FAI who NI fans accuse of "poaching". How the players view themselves doesn't enter the equation. How the associations and the fans themselves view the players in terms of value is prioritised.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

If you accept that argument then would you accept that Bruce was still of value to the FAI when he opted to switch to the IFA? Perhaps he wouldn't have been as valuable as McClean would have been to the IFA when he opted to switch to the FAI, but Bruce still offered something of value as part of the FAI's available international player pool, no?

---

Of course, in the event of a very unlikely series of injuries, or a case of mass food-poisoning, it's better for the FAI to have him available than not. I accept that completely.
But yet again, although Alex Bruce knows there is this possibility, he's chosen not to wait for it to be realised.

Quote:

---

But it's the FAI who NI fans accuse of "poaching". How the players view themselves doesn't enter the equation. How the associations and the fans themselves view the players in terms of value is prioritised.

---

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Whose equation? Prioritised by whom?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Whose equation? Prioritised by whom?

---

NI fans and members of the IFA who cry foul; whilst you look at how the players value themselves, they look at player value from the perspective of the association rather than how the players have weighed up their options.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

whilst you look at how the players value themselves, they look at player value from the perspective of the association rather than how the players have weighed up their options.

---

The two perspectives on value are interlinked.

You don't think there is any connection between Alex Bruce's decision to switch and his not getting a game for Ireland for 4 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olé Olé

Interesting parallel to the issue nationalist players have taken with God Save the Queen etc.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf...d-3253773.html

---

Hickey is a slimeball. John Delaney to the power of 1000.

Apparently carrying the Irish flag at the Olympics will make him one of the most recognisable faces in the world. Because that's what everyone's looking out for at the Olympic ceremony.

Carrying the Irish flag will give him the kind of stardom that a couple of major tournaments and the world number 1 spot doesn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

The two perspectives on value are interlinked.

You don't think there is any connection between Alex Bruce's decision to switch and his not getting a game for Ireland for 4 years?

---

I see what you're saying and he most likely did take that into consideration. I suppose I'm saying it's none of their business as far as a player's decision as to his own international value is concerned. It's not for the fans to assume anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Carrying the Irish flag will give him the kind of stardom that a couple of major tournaments and the world number 1 spot doesn't?

---

Hehe, indeed.

From the article:

Quote:

---

McIlroy, already well established as one of golf's true superstars, will be aware of the incentive that flag-bearing would carry.

---

In already recognising that McIlroy is undoubtedly a golfing superstar, it's difficult to fathom how one could view carrying a flag at the opening ceremony of the Olympics as much of a bonus of any great significance, assuming the motive would simply be to raise his own profile. McIlroy is already a household name across the globe.