Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Or they could paint the lines on the side of the road yellow rather than white;)
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Or they could paint the lines on the side of the road yellow rather than white;)
Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irel...tsbenefits.htm
That's old news, we are spreading it around the EEC now.
Not even a 'thank you Republic Of Ireland for sharing'.:eek:
Times have certainly changed when it takes the Republic to build the roads in the North.
Maybe the NI assembly should have asked us to build that M1 motorway exit to the Maze.
Ha ha your some sad *******:pQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
That's the way Europe works. We received help (mainly from the far stronger German economy rather than the UK) and now we are helping eastern European states and other impoverished regions.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Either lock the thread or move it to another forum, it's little or nothing to do with O'Neill's support for a united ireland team anymore.
From your reaction here to I can see why all the politicians keep it fairly quite about ROI contributions to the development of NI from Unionists. DUP certainly don't want you to know this. As far as I can remember, it was announced prior to the signing of St. Andrews Agreement that the Irish Gov. were willing to invest 4bn in NI. (a quarter of what British Gov. were offering). This money was mainly to go on infrastructure - presumably the building of an electricity station in Derry by the ESB, waterways, lighthouse management, Tourism marketing etc. and such like would be accounted for in this money. Other ROI funding would go to Irish Language Act, or the 5,000 jobs this week, or indeed the money that went recently to repair Orange Order Halls in border regions (grants would be applied for from OO HQ in NI). Due to obvious reasons you won't see the EU signs that we had to put up. By the way, it wouldn't be possible to say put the money intended for Irish Language Act into fixing up Windsor Park - you just won't get it so thats a few quid knocked off the 4bn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
No bother. See stuff on the ground for evidence as obviously some people in NI don't like taking gifts from the ROI.Quote:
Thanks for the Irish language/ history/ structure of the Oireachteas lesson.But it isn't giving the amount you claimed, or anything like it, and you can't offer any evidence that it is, despite repeated prompting.
NI football team is not representative of ALL the people of NI - thats how its relevant and an indicator is that you can only get 25K to an INTERNATIONAL in a city with around 1m people.And as I've pointed out before, I don't care where your stadium is.Quote:
You tell me. How is this relevant? We think we need a stadium for about 25,000, and we're confident we'll get it, despite Howard Wells' politicking and your helpful lobbying for the Maze. GAA gets impressive support? Great, good for you.
Well, maybe the plan is for the ROI to pay for the railway & road spur etc.Quote:
Belfast is where the huge majority of the fans want trhe stadium to be (this includes fans who live west of the Bann, btw). I'll recap why: there are no plans to make the Maze site more accessible with a railway or road spur (so almost everyone will have to drive in and out on one-lane farm roads). Similarly, there are no plans to provide any bars, restaurants or facilities comparable to those in the city centre. Such facilities wouldn't be commercially viable- not enough events at the stadium, no passing traffic.
But a bit more difficult to get to by those (from both sides of community) who just want to cause trouble on match days?Quote:
It isn't 'neutral', it's empty, thus the problems above. Given that Lisburn and the Lagan Valley is a strongly unionist area- nationalist parties got about 14% in recent elections- it isn't neutral at all. The workforce in the notional stadium would be predominantly unionist, ditto the neighbours.
Can they cater the crowd that the GAA draw (40k+). Will the stadium be large enough to hold some of the Olympic games in them that are planned?Quote:
NI as a whole remains polarised, so you could argue that nowhere is neutral. But NI fans are in favour in principle of at least two sites in the city centre (Ormeau Park and Maysfield) which are close to and reached from strongly nationalist areas.
Think for the National stadium to be financially viable you need the GAA games to be there. What other footballing country has a population of 1.2m by the way so that you can compare them - and do they have a national stadium and how developed are they?Quote:
We know it's a national stadium (that's planned). What's your point? if the three sports can agree, maybe they'll share it If not, each can make its arrangments. Any of which will cost less than the Maze plan.
Like I said, why don't you read what others say instead of throwing around irrelevance and random exclamation marks? I've told you repeatedly why I think 25,000 is a sensible capacity; that with such a capacity, there'll be occasional games with a much higher demand for tickets; that such a capacity and likely crowds compare favourably with many other European countries, if not with the entirely different sport of GAA.
PS - sorry if the exclimation marks upset you:confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
I'd have no problem with signs thanking the EU and Germany. They have been very good friends to Ireland.
The Spanish & Norwegian fishing fleets could probably have "Big Thank You" signs to Ireland . It hasn't been a one way street you know, like the way its south->north here. :)
Probably went down this route because it would seem that a lot of people might think the same way as O'Neill & Jennings about the team as they really should be able to attract more supporters to games than what they are getting now.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Janey, I hope you'll accept my apology for accusing you of dishonesty above. Bit out of order, that.
Ditto for calling As-I-say a halfwit.
This may be generally true of unionists, but I hope I have an open mind. I'm certainly in favour of mutual economic co-operation between North and South. I didn't even bother to check the figures with the DUP, a party I've long mistrusted and never supported. That's why I quoted from the Republic's government's official sources. Effectively I was quoting Bertie and Biffo, not Robinson and Dodds.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
Probably not. But all I'm asking you to do is quote a source for the €4 billion, as it's not in the Agreement nor the latest RoI Budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
It's not relevant because it's quoting the wrong figures. NI football is obviously representative of all who support it. That number is much greater than 25,000 which- as I have to keep repeating ad nauseam- is what we see as a sensible capacity, not the greatest conceivable demand for tickets for a one off basis. Similarly, I'm sure you'd agree that the support base in the South is much greater than the 80,000 who might fill Croke- itself much greater than the capacities of Lansdowne before and after, and indeed Dalyer where I;ve watched a couple of games in the dim and distant.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
Earlier this season, NI played an international in Riga, a rather larger city in a similar-sized country. Riga's national stadium (built only in 2000) has a capacity of 10,000, less even than the current Windsor. Our plans are sensibe, if modest, and comparable to many other nearby countries.
You do seem to be unnaturally interested in how large or small our (planned) stadium is, even though we've explained it at length.
You're stirring again. There are no plans for a road spur, which just reflects the arrogance and poor planning of the Maze lobby, and goes a long way to explain why the plan will be abandoned.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
I've explained how it'll be more difficult for almost everyone. to get there.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
Both plans have envisaged about 25,000. If the GAA want to use that, fine in principle, if not equally so. 25,000 all-seated is a step up from their current facilities- almost everyone watching at Casement has to stand, in the open. As I've said above, this isn't a dig at the GAA. They can make up their own mind; if they need a much bigger ground than Casement, there's always Croke.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
I assume the Olympics reference is a joke. In the unlikely event of NI getting any events, the likely demand for tickets to watch foreign U-21 teams will be at best comparable to the Milk Cup. Much of it is played on park pitches in Coleraine and the surrounding towns.
Political and financial viability are different. If Windsor- or a new build in Belfast city- had 25,000 seats, it would be financially viable. Windsor isn't at the moment, because we are turning away income. Ravenhill is still financially viable- the Ulster branch isn't losing money playing there. Maze would be financially unviable, as NI football and Ulster rugby crowds would probably fall, based on supporter survey. If it would be viable for the GAA to use alone, fine. Although that would be to consider just running costs- there'd still be the £200 million plus to build it and surrounding infrastructure. A waste of money, they could put thousands of seats in Casement for far less.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
I've quoted Latvia above. Estonia and Slovenia are also comparable. Both national stadia are smaller than current Windsor.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
They're mildly irritating, mainly because they seem to be there to impress that your posts are indisputable and self-evident.Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
They aren't.
Mind you, Geysir found my boldfaced quotes a pain, so fair enough ;)
At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.
The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...enda_47752.pdf
With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.
Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.
Typical EG. Let it go. Why do you have to depict this dispute in terms of a war (even if as you claim you are referencing someone else on the other side of the trenches)? It's not a war or battle ffs it's a relatively minor dispute between two football associations over the elligibility of players.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Anyway your information I'd say is sh*te. There's not a chance that FIFA will prevent NI born players with Irish nationality from playing for the Republic. Even if they do attempt to change the rule then this will be open to be challenged by the FAI. The only way I could ever see such a restriction being imposed is if the FAI agree to some compromise on the matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
gutted if true EG but i reckon this is far from over...
Sometimes your instincts are sharp :)Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
FIFA do no propose any change to the eligibility criteria that Irish citizens - born on the wrong side of the border - use to declare for the Republic.
Permanent Irish nationality is given to Northern born and it is not dependent on residency.
We have always used article 15.
New text for Article 15
'15. Principle
1 Any person holding a
permanent nationality
that is not dependent
on residence in a certain
country is eligible to play
for the representative teams
of the Association of that
country.'
You see this bit
the proposed new article 16
16 Nationality entitling
players to represent more
than one Association
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality, may play in
an international match for
one of these Associations
only if, in addition to having
the relevant nationality, he
fulfi ls at least one of the
following conditions:
Article 16 Does not apply because Irish nationality does not entitle one to play for the North.
Irish Nationality only allows a player to play for the Republic.
Why have the eligibility posts been dumped into this useless defunct thread?
Put them in a new thread
name it "New FIFA Proposals"
or
OWC go here - New FIFA Proposals, aka OWC RRS again!
There's a surprise.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
There has been a recent new development within FIFA which may affect the eligibility situation vis-a-vis the FAI and IFA. This is of interest to fans both of NI and ROI and since it had not been picked up upon by anyone else, i sought to post details on here. But if you are not interested, then you should let it go, not me.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Why not direct that question to the CEO of your Association, seeing as it was he who introduced the metaphor (usefully, imo) into the debate?Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
It may be a "relatively minor dispute" for you, and maybe even your fellow ROI fans, but it counts for rather more than that for the other side to the dispute.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
There is a world of difference between a rant and a logically constructed argument, the former usually constituting sh ite (if I may borrow one of your terms).Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Any chance of an example of the latter from you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Derry Born players will still be eligable for ROI then:D
Really? Your argument is that by virtue of having been born in e.g. Derry, a footballer is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, therefore should be entitled to represent the ROI, without any other qualifying criteria needing to be applied.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
But by exactly the same token, such an individual is also automatically entitled to UK citizenship, and must therefore be entitled to represent the appropriate British Association (in this case the IFA) whether he chooses to, or not.
Therefore by Article 16, mustn't such an individual actually be "eligible to represent more than one Association", and so must meet at least one of the four specified conditions in order to represent his chosen Association?
I did actually start a new thread for this, before someone (Mod?) lumped it in with this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
You may be joking, Krstic, but imo, "the territory of the relevant Association" is the key phrase in this seeming new development from FIFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krstic
That is, whilst various Governments/Politicians/Institutions/Courts etc might disagree over whether a piece of land "belongs" to one country/Nation/jurisdiction etc or another, FIFA is quite clear what constitutes "territory" from a footballing point of view.
And as far as the two Irish Associations go, the FAI's "territory" extends to the 26 counties (only), whilst the IFA's territory covers the 6 counties (all of them, that is!).
I personally don't think FIFA's choice of wording is coincidental; in fact, I'd say it was precisely chosen for its clarity and unambiguity.
the new Article 16 seems to state that if a player is eligible to represent 2 (or more) associations (as a player born in NI would obviously be) then the conditions set out in article 15 are no longer the only conditions by which eligibility will be judged. Further criteria will be imposed.Quote:
16 Nationality entitling
players to represent more
than one Association
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality, may play in
an international match for
one of these Associations
only if, in addition to having
the relevant nationality, he
fulfi ls at least one of the
following conditions:
What are the 'following conditions'.......could anybody fill me in?
Focus a bit here,Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
tell me
how do you read that from
Article 16
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality....
Where does it say "born" ?
it doesn't, it says nationality.
Irish Nationality is not the same as being born in NI.
Irish Nationality alone does not entitle you to play for another federation.
Am I right in saying that a person born in Northern Ireland would be given Irish nationality but would also have NI nationality?
Would that not give the person 2 nationalities?
I read them rulesQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
FIFA statute 15
- permanent citizenship is given without residency qualification
Read the rule it says, whose nationality entitles them to play for another federation.Quote:
But by exactly the same token, such an individual is also automatically entitled to UK citizenship, and must therefore be entitled to represent the appropriate British Association (in this case the IFA) whether he chooses to, or not.
Since when does Irish nationality alone allow one to play for 2 teams?
It doesn't.
No.Quote:
Therefore by Article 16, mustn't such an individual actually be "eligible to represent more than one Association", and so must meet at least one of the four specified conditions in order to represent his chosen Association?
Article 16 is for players whose nationality entitles them to play for 2 federations. Irish nationality does not alone entitle you play for NI.
Remember the terms of the compromise proposal?
The IFA could have negotiated for all Island of Ireland born to be eligible to play for NI.
They were not interested.
The situation remains unchanged
Irish born Nationals are not eligible to play for NI.
Article 16 should not apply.
There is no such thing as NI nationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
There is such a thing as as British nationality.
A British national is not eligible to play for the Republic.
An Irish national is not eligible to play for NI.
Article 16 clearly states that it is for a player whose nationality allows him to play for another country.
It does not refer to a player whose place of birth allows him to play for 2 different countries.
Would a person born in Northern Ireland not be a British national as well as an Irish national?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
You seem very confident on this, so I'm wondering if I've got it wrong, but would a person not hold dual nationalities by virtue of being born in NI, and thus fall under article 16?
A person who is born in the North who avails of their right to Irish CitizenshipQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
is defined as a multiple citizen.
Article 16 refers to nationality - not dual nationality - not place of birth.Quote:
You seem very confident on this, so I'm wondering if I've got it wrong, but would a person not hold dual nationalities by virtue of being borh in NI, and thus fall under article 16?
It refers to a Nationality that qualifies a player to declare for 2 federations.
Irish nationality does not qualify you to play for the North.
British Nationality does not qualify you to play for the Republic.
The conditions that Article 16 seeks to impose do not apply to Irish citizens.
Article 15 Eligibility applies to NI born Irish citizens, permanent citizenship without residency conditions.
It's just another case of premature OWC ejaculation.
FIFA with their proposals are clarifying the situation using more clear language.
[QUOTE=geysir;955061]It's just another case of premature OWC ejaculation.QUOTE]
Thats the best quote I have ever used on this forum. Absoloutely brilliant :D
This statement was used by me when referring to your usage of the far more severe (imo) terms of war and battle in your original post but if you don't believe this dispute to be relatively minor in comparison to the darkest periods of mankind's history when man acts in his most inhumane and cruel manner towards his fellow man then we'll have to agree to disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Personally I would consider it relatively minor in comparision to World War II for instance.
As for your point about the CEO of our association let me just say that if you think it's ok to use inflammatory language just because John Delaney, a well known colossal tool on both sides of the border has also chosen to do so then that's your perjogative. He doesn't post on here though to my knowledge so you probably should have mailed him directly if, as you state, he even used such words.
As for your so called "victory" I wouldn't start celebrating VE day just yet.
It doesn't say "born" - just as it doesn't anywhere specify that e.g. Qatari Nationals have to be born in Qatar, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
It is quite clear, however, that where a Qatari citizen has been born, say, in Brazil, that that "Qatari" also has to satisfy one of the four conditions set out in Article 16.
From my reading of the new rules - specifically article 15, when read in conjunction with article 16 - it appears that all dual nationals have to comply with one of the four conditions to be eligible for their chosen Association, regardless of whether one or more of their nationalities was acquired by birth, or by some other means. And as such, people born within NI are "dual nationals" within FIFA's understanding, since they automatically qualify for both British and Irish nationality*.
I do not see anything which exempts the FAI from such an interpretation. Rather, by FIFA's studied use of the phrase "...the territory of the relevant Association", I think the clear implication therein actually strengthens the IFA's case.
After all, one might argue over political concepts like 'Nationality', or 'Irishness' etc, but i have no doubt that for FIFA's purposes, the "territory" of the IFA encompasses six of the counties in Ireland, and the "territory" of the FAI the other 26.
* - Whether e.g. an NI Unionist declines to take up his Irish nationality, or a Six Counties Nationalist declines to take up his British nationality is neither here nor there to FIFA, so long as he doesn't try to play for both Irish teams at the same time, and/or that he complies with Article 18, should he decide to switch from one to the other.
Get a life EG nothing has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
If "the situation remains unchanged", why is FIFA seeing fit to alter the wording of Articles 15 and 16?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Why do they wish to introduce the phrase "within the territory of the relevant Association"?
Why, when the Qatari/Brazilian situation is so vexed, are they not making a clear distinction between people born outwith the jurisdiction of their nationality and those born within, as well as a distinction between those who have Nationality by birth (anywhere) and acquired, or new, Nationality?
My reading of this whole affair is that as a basis for footballing eligibility, the situation whereby a country could grant nationality to someone who was neither born within their jurisdiction, nor had parents/grandparents so born, was almost unique to Ireland. (Most countries restrict nationality, not widen it)
And although this created a "loophole" within FIFA's Rules which the FAI could exploit, for a long time it wasn't really a problem for the "aggrieved" party (IFA), initially whilst the Gentlemens' Agreement was equally observed by both parties and latterly, when it was only a few nondescript teenagers who were involved.
However, the case of Darron Gibson brought it up the Agenda for the IFA, coincidentally at the same time as the Qatari case did so for FIFA. And as I read things, the basic principle as far as FIFA were concerned, was that whilst the FAI might formerly have been entitled to pick NI-born players, there was no technical reason why they should qualify for an exemption from the new "Qatari" conditions (birth/parent/grandparent/residence) which FIFA now feels compelled to introduce.
Which would explain why the FAI imposed a moratorium on their managers picking NI-born players whilst FIFA were considering the issue, also why, after the final submissions by the two Associations to FIFA, the IFA seemed confident their case had prevailed, and the FAI seemed to accept that theirs hadn't (see Delaney's reported comment from Dublin Airport on RTE).
Of course, there was then the statement by the FAI that they they had "won", and their resumption of selection of NI-born players. However, I now suspect that they were taking advantage of an interim period, during which FIFA were making their final effort to satisfy everyone with their suggested "compromise".
So that when this compromise was rejected by the IFA, and the Sydney Congress came round, FIFA could fudge the issue no longer, hence the new Articles. And the more I read these, the more optimistic I am that FIFA has come up with a form of wording which means that the mere holding of nationality, whether by birth or by acquisition, is not enough to establish international eligibility for any given Association i.e. a player must also demonstrate compliance with one of the four Article 16 conditions.
Are they though? Legally, people born in Northern Ireland are Irish (article 15 applies), British (article 15 applies), or dual (in which case article 16 would apply) nationals.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
If all you're concerned about is my borrowing of a metaphor from one of the centrally involved figures, then I will gladly replace "battle" and "war", with "sprint" and "marathon" (or whatever else non-militaristic phrase you prefer). Hell, I'll even throw in an unconditional apology for my injury to the sensitivities of all the untold millions who've suffered in warfare in the history of mankind. OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
P.S. Have you anything substantive to add to the debate, following these new developments in Sydney? :rolleyes:
The old Ealing Green had died and a new one has been rebornQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
as one
who claims he can now read FIFA rules,
and that his wishes are somehow transformed into a rational interpretation of FIFA rules by rubbing extra hard on his "genie".
OR
its the same old Ealing Green and that when he writes "it appears", that actually means in the biblical "Angel Gabriel" sense of appearances.
OR
and that when he writes "I do not see anything" he thinks that everybody else is blind.
OR
That when he writes "i have no doubt that for FIFA's purposes" he is clearly delusional and should be sectioned along with Gazza.
The North are lucky to even have a team;they should just accept the minority of their population who actually want to play for them....
And it's not as if you can blame any Nationalists/'catholics' (Regardless of whether or not, Irish citizens) for not wanting to play for a team, they haven't any affiliation to!
Clear as mud then!
FAI dont seem to concerned:
A spokesman for the FAI added: 'We do not believe there has been any change to FIFA's stated position that any player from Northern Ireland is eligible to play for either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.'
Can you post the link for this please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Juanace
i actually cant believe some people are thinking this would be a great idea???? are ye mad in the head, i wouldnt want to support My country Ireland and have the unionist northerens flying their brit flags. not a hope. and give up national anthem aswell? its already a disgrace that the rugby does it.
Republic Of Ireland.KEEP IT THAT WAY.