Pretty much anyone can write for WSC online. I actually know the guy who wrote it, he's an NI based NI fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastTerracer
Printable View
Pretty much anyone can write for WSC online. I actually know the guy who wrote it, he's an NI based NI fan.Quote:
Originally Posted by EastTerracer
I didn't suggest that you were suggesting otherwise ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by EastTerracer
Can the average football fan in Britain read? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by EastTerracer
I sense he is still a tad confused by FIFA Eligibility Statutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwanVsDalton
Same as but, to give credit, he didn't attempt any real kind of analysis or exploration. Can't say I blame him tbh. Maybe that's just cos I know him though...Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
I'm no fan of Blatter, but there's little point blaming him for the spat between NI and RoI. The latter have simply argued that international eligibility should follow nationality; as they offer that nationality to many beyond their borders (including pretty much everyone in NI), the playing pool is similarly extended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Bradley
It's hardly a clamour. Many others have suggested we pick the best side available; given our small size and modest playing record we simply can't afford to bulk out the squad with kids who aren't ready yet.Quote:
there is a growing clamour for Northern Ireland to “tactically cap” players in competitive matches before they are approached by the South
Anyway, it's not very imaginative (not to mention childish). International football isn't a press gang- you can't force people to play. There must be a chance that they'll sulk off regardless.
Most players eligible and good enough for NI youth and senior teams will probably continue to be picked for them, for practical reasons. Representative football is helpful in getting professional contracts in Britain; NI's teams are easier to get into; individual players may want to stay with their mates. And (unfortunately) some of the NI support and media are likely to continue making a fuss, particularly if the player has already turned out for our full or U-21 teams, like Barton or Duffy.
But let's not get carried away. Two current English Prem players have moved. Fine, their choice. It doesn't threaten our independence in international football, as some more hysterical NI fans have said.
Ferguson has, variouslyQuote:
Many fans, however, in the absence of a genuine left-back would rather see Newcastle’s Shane Ferguson called into the squad to replace the injured Steve Davis
a) played only a handful of first team games- hardly a preparation for international qualifiers
b) turned out mainly a midfielder or winger
c) been happy to turn out for our youth sides (plus one appearance in a scratch side friendly in Italy). I'm happy to take that as evidence of his commitment.
Er, it wouldn't. It would be someone who wasn't committed walking away. Better then than during a game, like.Quote:
To see another promising player switch allegiance would be a devastating blow to the association
I doubt it. If we field a(n even more) rag-tag side in crucial games, we'll tend to lose them. Rather making the whole exercise pointless.Quote:
this kind of selection may soon become commonplace
There is an alternative. Ignore the current FIFA statutes- they aren't going to change in our favor while lobbies in Africa and elsewhere argue for even more flexibility. Instead, the IFA could seek a deal with the FAI where neither picks players who've already appeared for the other's teams as adults. Over to you, lads.
One predictable exception continues to be banned, alas...Quote:
Originally Posted by Swan vs Dalton
Unfortunately I don't have time to return the correspondence from all my many fans on here at the mo (nor am not likely to do for a few days, you can maybe guess why), so I'll just leave you with this:
http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot..._7674598_n.jpg
Think NI are trying compensate for something with that humongous scarf.
Dank U Wel, EG (the big man and I, and NB were hoping to meet up by the Danube for a few slivovitzes this weekend, but our Serbian friends' antics in Genova put paid to that). Never mind, another time.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Let me quote that clause in its entirety:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
"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."
Sure, dropping the clause would prompt howls of anguish from northern nationalists, but it clearly isn't the remotest bit irredentist for quite a number of reasons that should be obvious to people over a decade after the Good Friday Agreement came into force. I'll outline them and maybe explain the term for those who still wish to erect straw men if needs be. The same applies to Irish citizenship law.
What "rule change" is the title referring to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Bradley
Like Italy and Spain, and to follow his logic, it could be argued Blatter's tenure was detrimental to our hopes of qualifying for the 2010 World Cup, but I suppose it wouldn't suit the narrative if he was to evoke sympathy for the FAI before even getting started on his primary concern.* Besides, Blatter never made any decision regarding the issue anyway, nor did FIFA for that matter; they merely had been applying their rules throughout all of the rigmarole and reiterating that this was the case when the IFA had a rumble. CAS made a decision on the merits of a case brought before them by the IFA - promptly throwing it out the window - but that's about it.Quote:
In England he will forever be the physical embodiment of the corruption which is blamed for England’s failed 2018 World Cup bid; for teams such as Italy and Spain – eliminated from the 2002 World Cup after ludicrous refereeing decisions – he is the staunch opponent of video technology; while for fans of woman’s football his pièce de résistance remains his infamous hotpants remark.
Much less publicised, however, is the enduring effect his tenure will have on the national team of Northern Ireland.
*In fairness, the rest of the article doesn't descend into characterising the FAI as child snatchers.
I genuinely can't fathom how some Northern Ireland fans and Belfast Telegraph journalists with a critical and concerned interest in this issue have failed to take the time to actually look at the statutes in question, or, even better, have a brief skim through the Kearns judgment. Are they unaware of its existence or something? It's a simple Google search away if needs be, good grief.Quote:
FIFA rules state player can only play for a country if he or his parents or grandparents were born in that particular nation or if he has lived for two years continuously on the territory of the relevant association.
Lazy and careless lumping. Duffy would always have been free to turn out for us anyway even had the IFA got their way.Quote:
...with Northern Irish-born players such as Darron Gibson, Marc Wilson and Shane Duffy all now free to turn out for the Republic
A monstrous Michael O'Connor-Tony Kane mish-mash combining the talents of both might actually have been useful had he stuck with us...Quote:
Michael Kane
Not the greatest piece I've ever read now, I will admit.
The wonders of Photoshop. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Go ahead. I quoted the bit that was relevant (to why unionists generally still get irritated, and some though not me call it irredentist).Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
It's quite simple. For the "Irish Nation" to have a "firm [implicitly, broadly agreed] will" on this issue, either unionists are aren't part of the Irish nation, or the Constitution is inventing support which isn't there.
In the last general elections covering Ireland in 2010 and 2011, 58% of the poll in NI (and thus about 14% of that across Ireland) declined the chance to vote for parties supporting, however nominally, the reunification of Ireland. Those voters don't share that firm will, do they?
I'll repeat. As long as it aspires to get rid of the border it meets the basic criterion to be irredentist, as simply defined above. Regardless of how formal the GFA, how great its popularity, or how obvious the widespread feeling that the Irish Republic's political institutions and most of its electorate haven't the remotest intention of following it up.Quote:
it clearly isn't the remotest bit irredentist for quite a number of reasons
I've given a simple, widely accepted definition for the term. It's not a straw man, just an aside to explain why NB's use of it is broadly justified.Quote:
maybe explain the term for those who still wish to erect straw men if needs be
Not really the same thing. If you want to offer me RoI citizenship, fine. I'm not interested but don't mind you offering. The constitution is a bit more irritating because itQuote:
The same applies to Irish citizenship law
a) keeps going on about unity by consent when there's no realistic chance of that happening in the foreseeable future
b) ignores the likelihood that even a notional 50%+1 nationalist majority in NI is unlikely to be widely accepted as consent to a united Ireland, or perceived as fair/ achievable beyond Ireland
c) is implicitly self-contradicting as above: if FG and FF and their supporters were that bothered you might have expected them to seek electoral support in NI sometime in the last 85 years. But they haven't.
d) It also doesn't take into account all the immigrants who have children who will dillute the ones for a United Ireland.
Not a factor for me, Paul. Regardless of how keen or not second-generation Poles or Nigerians in RoI (or NI) are on a united Ireland, there will still be a significant proportion in NI who aren't. Ergo, unlikely united Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Was he coerced into that photo? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Have a good time on your journey. I expect you to retract your nonsense about Duffy when you return.
re-Jonathan Bradley, the WC voting process was certainly deficient, but it recently came to light that England was up to the same tricks as other countries, to some extent anyway.
Despite his stupid remarks about women's attire, Blatter's tenure has seen substantial development of the women's game. The Times is now subscription only so I can't post the link, but Patrick Barclay wrote a good article to this effect a couple of weeks ago.
Regarding governance, the UK's own sports minister has called football the "worst governed sport in the country" and has established a parliamentary commission to investigate its governance. This commission has so far heard testomony that the FA's governance is shambolic and riddled with conflicts of interest, the FA is bullied quite aggressively by the EPL, the EPL has sat idly by while crooks and human rights abusers buy English football clubs, that football clubs are in financial peril and owe the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds he is unlikely to ever see, that football's own financial rules subordinate the taxman to football creditors, and so on. The real power in English football, the EPL, is openly hostile to international football. England is hardly whiter than white when it comes to governance so has no moral high ground to take whatsoever. England does have good cause to complain that "spreading the game to new territories" was never sufficiently emphasised at the pre-bid stage.
wrt refereeing errors, video evidence will solve little unless it's applied to goalline related issues. How can you legislate for a video adjudication on a foul? Some are clear-cut, far more are simply a subjective judgment made on the spot. We need better refereeing, not videos.
Just letting off steam...
I'm sure NB can speak for himself but he stated that Irish citizenship laws were irredentist. They are not irrendentist. That claim is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
If the Irish constitution irritates you the GFA must stick in the throat.Quote:
Not really the same thing. If you want to offer me RoI citizenship, fine. I'm not interested but don't mind you offering. The constitution is a bit more irritating because it keeps going on about unity by consent when there's no realistic chance of that happening in the foreseeable future
b) ignores the likelihood that even a notional 50%+1 nationalist majority in NI is unlikely to be widely accepted as consent to a united Ireland, or perceived as fair/ achievable beyond Ireland
The GFA recognises the inherent identity of nationalists in the North and it was voted for in a general referendum in the North. The GFA itself states unity with the rest of ireland is achievable by consent of a simple majority. The GFA has constitutional status in the North.
Is the GFA irredentist by your interpretation?
Ealing Green - you're obviously a NI supporter and fair play to you. But didn't it ever cross your mind how good an Irish representative team would be with the best of the North and South combined? I really think we could do some damage. Obviously I'm a ROI supporter but I'm really getting excited about the influx of the likes of Shane Duffy and Shane Ferguson not to mention Darron Gibson. It may be beyond both our controls but we could be looking at something very close to an all-ireland team in the next few years.
http://forums.multiplay.co.uk/images...s/emot-can.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
I fixed that pic for you Ealing G :)
http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3...sonireland.png
I love the attention to detail at the left end of the scarf.
I take it you're refering to the motto on the coat of arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I suppose it could raise a few eyebrows. ;)
Whether unionists (somewhere around 14 per cent of the population of the island of Ireland, as you say) were to be considered part of the Irish nation or not, either way, I would still argue that broad agreement exists within the Irish nation for unity. To be considered part of the Irish nation, however, wouldn't unionists be first expected to accept their birthright entitlement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I generally understand the term to possess negative connotations of unilateral coercion or aggression whereas the clause outlines that unity can "be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people" in both jurisdictions on the island. Thus, unity would be a bilateral decision and unionists should have nothing to be irritated about so long as they support the democratic process.Quote:
I'll repeat. As long as it aspires to get rid of the border it meets the basic criterion to be irredentist, as simply defined above. Regardless of how formal the GFA, how great its popularity, or how obvious the widespread feeling that the Irish Republic's political institutions and most of its electorate haven't the remotest intention of following it up.
Besides, a significant majority of unionists did vote in favour of the GFA, after all, which is where the clause finds its roots. The territorial claim was "demoted" to an aspiration following mutual agreement with the NI electorate and the UK government. Furthermore, the GFA even describes the aspiration as the "legitimate wish of a majority of the people of the island of Ireland for a united Ireland".
If a referendum on Irish unity ever comes around in your lifetime and you happen to be on an electoral register north or south of the border, you'll also be offered a vote on the matter. You'll be perfectly entitled to vote against it.Quote:
Not really the same thing. If you want to offer me RoI citizenship, fine. I'm not interested but don't mind you offering.
Depends on what you deem the "foreseeable future", although the further away the realisation of unity appears to be would surely do anything but irritate unionists. Not that any time-frame, realistic or otherwise, ought to be placed upon something like that anyway against which its worth, legitimacy or validity as an aspiration be adjudged. Some form or other of complete Irish independence from Britain or repeal of the Act of Union has been an aspiration held by many in Ireland for centuries. I suppose it could prevail for another few if needs be, to be entirely speculative.Quote:
The constitution is a bit more irritating because it
a) keeps going on about unity by consent when there's no realistic chance of that happening in the foreseeable future
That's arguable, considering harmony, friendship and peace appear to be over-riding concerns in achieving consent. Either way, it's in line with the GFA which stated that "it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people".Quote:
b) ignores the likelihood that even a notional 50%+1 nationalist majority in NI is unlikely to be widely accepted as consent to a united Ireland, or perceived as fair/ achievable beyond Ireland
I must ask you though why a theoretical democratic majority of 51 per cent in favour of unity wouldn't be considered fair or acceptable, considering those were the terms to which the NI electorate signed up? Democracy's ethos seeks consensus, but not absolute agreement from each and every one of its subjects, so whilst the view that unity would be unacceptable might be widespread within NI, so long as the view was held by no more than 49 per cent of the electorate, it would be of little consequence, in theory at least. And I'm not sure what the perception of those beyond Ireland would have to do with anything so long as the Irish state/electorate, the UK and the NI electorate were in agreement. I'd imagine that international opinion would follow suit - it would be rather uncustomary and indecorous for it not to - so long as the UN or whoever you're referring to exactly were confident that the referendum was conducted in a method that was above board.
I don't profess to be a supporter of either party so more shame to them for being hypocritical, I suppose. I don't think it means that the constitution is self-contradicting, however. Would unionists rather they did contest elections in NI then in the interests of being faithful to their word?Quote:
c) is implicitly self-contradicting as above: if FG and FF and their supporters were that bothered you might have expected them to seek electoral support in NI sometime in the last 85 years. But they haven't.
It most certainly does. Have another read of the particular clause we're discussing if you wish. Their opinion will also be taken into account.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Hehe, steady on. Ferguson hasn't switched. Just yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
There's a lot of assumptions being posted on this thread, about him being an ROI fan, etc etc.
All that is known as fact is that he has represented us at all levels except senior quite happily, and he has not made any noises about wanting to declare for the ROI.
Was speaking to a lad today who is from his neck of the woods and he says that the area Ferguson is from is more likely to be Northern Ireland supporting than ROI (though admittedly this means nothing).
Was actually referring to the deletion of the letters "ERN" from the vertical text as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
A Northern Ireland fan engaging in speculative profiling?! ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
He's from Eglinton or thereabouts, as far as I know, which wouldn't really provide any indication as to who he might have supported growing up. The area has a very slight unionist majority.
Good gaelic footballer that Ferguson lad. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by awec
http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/sport/new...10-27439091/2/
EG is "away" for a few days, but as a Northern Ireland supporter, I'll give you my thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark12345
There already is a de facto All Ireland representative side - it is that operated by the FAI.
Any player born in Northern Ireland has to choice to play for the FAI representaive side - that choice was hard won.
Players who do not wish to play for the FAI, have the choice to play for the IFA representative side.
Perhaps you should respect that choice, and appreciate that many, many, players are proud to play for Northern Ireland, and that Northern Ireland supporters intend supporting them playing for Northern Ireland long into the future.
The word around Eglinton is that he confessed to his priest after Sunday Mass the other week that he harboured ambitions of playing for us. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
I think Mark's just saying he'd love to see an AI team, just like in rugby and cricket. I don't think he's ignoring cultural or identity issues, or not respecting choice. It's a valid view, just as yours is.
Mark will be delighted he can watch one then - everytime the FAI field a representaive side.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Our Captain tomorrow night is from good GAA stock.Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapAPony
Quis separabit?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Well, the FAI, of course.
Ferguson ‘too good to lose to Republic’
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-15132049.html
I'd take everything published by the Belfast Telegraph with a pinch of salt but the rumours seem to be gathering pace.
still the same old rubbish about shane duffy who would qualify through his father even if the rules didnt allow northern born players with no family connection to the roi to declare for us.
Well I did warn that it was the Belfast Telegraph :)
If he does go then I'll be kicking Nigel Worthingtons door down and demanding that he explains why he is messing about the useless, grey haired prat
Why would you blame Worthington? Would you have had Ferguson capped to secure him? Just curious.
"You win some. You lose some.", should be the attitude at this stage. It's time to wise up and get over it.