Printable View
1. It has been modified by way of annex not only to deal with players granted citizenship not by way of birth, but also to deal with dual nationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
2. I know it doesn't apply. I've said so many times.:mad:
3. I'm arguing for a new annex to deal with this situation. And have been clearly doing so for days - try reading people's posts before making irrelevant comments.:mad:
There are numerous other examples of ROI fans booing Rangers players, e.g. Lovenkrands, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
The reports I read described anti-Semitic shouts and chants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
Fully supportive. But I wouldn't have agreed with, say, racist shouts or chants against South African players.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
Can I choose one of the Scandinavian Associations, then? I don't have any connection with them and don't have (or want) Danish/Swedish/Norwegian etc Nationality, but their women are hot...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
Anyhow, to be serious, when and why a player may switch between two Associations which he is eligible to represent is one thing, but my point precedes that. That is, irrespective of his eligibility via Nationality etc, at the time he was first picked for the ROI, Darron Gibson had no connection whatever with the FAI.
And since FIFA is a Member Association-based organisation, which ought to treat its Member Associations fairly and equally, I consider the IFA's case to be founded on the fact that another Association should not be allowed to select players from our Association's jurisdiction, if those players do not have any prior connection with that other Association, either by birth or residence, or by a parent or grandparent's birth. Otherwise, many smaller Associations risk being "exploited" by larger or more wealthy neighbouring Associations, whose Governments pursue a policy over Nationality/Passports which cannot be influenced by the Government of the smaller Association.
Of course, DG has Irish Nationality, but that is only because the Government of another State accords him this for political, not sporting, reasons. And for all those who contest that that makes him as "Irish" as e.g. a Dubliner, Galwegian or Corkonian, does this really stand up?
Does the Irish Government also give him a vote to their Parliament? Do they correspondingly make him liable to pay taxes? Is he eligible for Health, Social Security and Educational services on exactly the same grounds? Will he receive a State Pension the same as they do?
Curiously enough, his rights and responsibilities from the British Government are exactly the same as those of somneone from e.g. Aberdeen, Cardiff or, ahem, Finchley. So just as it was the IFA which first introduced him to orghanised football, it was a British Government who provided the hospital he was born in, educated him at school and which is now taxing him for his earnings in England. But that's if you want to play the political card, which I don't
This is because in the end, it is impossible for every Football Association to accommodate every political aspiration which the inhabitants of its jurisdiction may possess and it is impossible for FIFA to accord all such aspirations exactly equal treatment, either - if for no other reason than that there are more Football Associations/International Teams than there are Nationalities.
Instead, as I see it, there are two intyernational football teams in Ireland, one with footballing jurisdiction over one part of the island and the other with footballing jurisdiction over the other part of the island. Therefore, if you were born within the territory (jurisdiction) of one, that is who you may represent, and if born within the other, then they are who you play for.
Finally, for all those who consider that one of these two Irish teams (i.e. NI)should remove all symbols of its own identity (flag, anthem etc) and replace them with something suitably neutral, are they also going to require the same of the other Irish team (ROI)? That is, no Tricolour or Soldiers Song, since it may not "represent" all of the very many minorities which now inhabitat the 26 counties, or indeed those players they might pick from the 6, who may be Unionist in their politics?
So you want a new annex that conflicts with the article its attached to? Would love to see the wording of that one, what exactly did you have in mind? Feel free to post a form of words here. I have read your posts and i'm sorry you consider my comments irrelevant but I guess your argument is so weak that you must resort to that type of commentQuote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
No because you are not entitled to citizenship by birth of any of the Scandinavian countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
It wouldn't conflict with it. Just like the other annexes don't conflict with it. They provide for particular situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
Rather obviously it would say that a player would have to have necessary connections to a country in order to play for it, i.e. citizenship in the first instance, but also birth, or parentage, or grandparentage, or residence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
Sectarianism and politics are two different things. However you've conveniently lumped them as one. Not surprising really, but there you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Two answers. I don't agree with booing a player because of his religion. I'd be mortified if it was one of my own. I wouldn't in any way cover this up or claim that it's X years now, that is irrelevent.
Politics is different, and it depends on the circumstances. What if you had a player who promoted openly racism, nazi ideology or homophobia? If you think that its OK to stay quiet for the sake of PC, then gfys! Equally, I'm sure you'd be telling all the WP boys if there was a Republic player promoting a more extreme version of SF politics. Yeah I can see that one alright.:rolleyes:
Rather obviously you have not thought this through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Not necessarily. Indeed, often sectarianism can be political sectarianism. Or sectarianism can have political motivations or be politically-inspired.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
So do you condemn the booing of Rangers players by ROI fans, or do you play it down? If the latter, do you play down the booing of Celtic players by NI fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Well, the empty response by yourself would indicate quite the opposite: you have not thought it through, hence your inability to respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
True but the question was specifically about fans booing their own players. I find the booing of Rangers players pretty childish personally but there is a sense of pantomine about it, it's not particulalry agressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
I'd suggest the reports were wrong and sensationalist.
Fair enough, what about a protest against the regime outside of the ground and the waving of the flag of the people they were opressing by fans inside the ground?
On the day itself there was silence during the Israeli anthem although a lot of people held up Palestinian falgs for teh duration but that was as far as the 'anti-semitism' went unless booing players for cheating falls into that category....
None of these apply to people born outside the state with Irish citizenship and an ancestral connection with the 26C.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
In fact none of this applies if you leave the state, despite being born there. So what is your point here?
There is little point in responding since you consider my comments irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
And my point was that sectarian booing is wrong against your own players and also against other players. Sectarianism is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
Fair enough - I wasn't there so I don't know what happened, and I was going by the press reports and blogs. Would you accept that reports from the "Night in November" were also wrong and sensationalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
What about them? If they were peaceful and didn't involve any anti-Semitism, then such demos are legitimate expressions of freedom of speech.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
It was reported that anti-Semitic chants and shouts were made from the crowd. I accept that the reports may not be accurate. But I also accept that it is possible that people in the crowd did make such anti-Semitic chants and shouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumcondra 69er
You'll have no problem accepting football eligibility not applying to those born outside the state (and with parents and grandparents born outside the state) with Irish citizenship, then?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Dont you think FIFA have already heard this unfair bit mentioned every in every line of the IFA submission?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
FIFA also measure up a players rights. The proposal is their answer.
Their response so far since the issue came to light would not fill me with any hope that they would go any furthur. Ie if I was a person who had a hope that they would go any furthur.
Your comments were based on an assumption that I thought that the statutes made NI players ineligible for the ROI. That assumption was wrong and hence those comments were irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy
It does not follow that because a person makes an irrelevant comment that all his comments must be irrelevant.
I note your ongoing inability to engage in discussion and your childish attempts to disengage from discussion. Such attempts merely serve to suggest that it is you who doesn't understand the arguments, rather than those with whom you are unable to argue.
No. Because all the media reports say that the IFA was arguing that the statutes as currently drafted made Gibson ineligible. I have said all along that they do not, and that the IFA should have been arguing for a new annex to deal with this unfair situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
It's not. It is merely a suggestion they have asked both FAs to comment upon. Presumably the IFA will reject it.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Nor me. But that does not alter the fact that the current situation is unfair and the rules should be modified to remove the unfairness.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Well spotted! I'd agree to that in NI, particularly on the nationalist side. However, as oppostion to Israel - either as a state or its treatment of Palestinians - has substantial support amongst Jews, and this is what we are discussing, most of what happened in June 2005, was political, not sectarian (i.e. anti-Semitic).Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Have you seen me post anything 'playing this down' or claiming this is not sectarianism? What about you: Do you or have you ever supported Glasgow Rangers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Sorry, I don't understand your point here. Could you elaborate it please?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
I am sure that most of it was. That, however, does not mean that all of it was.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I'm afraid I've lost track of how this argument arose and don't really have the patience to read back. All I know for sure is that some on these boards have attempted to play down sectarian booing by ROI fans on grounds of "it wasn't against our own players".Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
No, on both counts. Why do you ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I should have thought it was plain.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
If you accept that citizenship alone doesn't entitle you to many of the "rights" and privileges of citizenship (e.g. voting, receiving public services, paying taxes, etc.), and many of these require birth and/or residence, then surely you could accept a situation whereby citizenship alone doesn't entitle you to play for the football team.