Because I have his business card at work and I don't go back to work until Tuesday. The gate money was from a recent u19 match between Gib and IRL; we were entitled to half but declined to take it.
Printable View
Because I have his business card at work and I don't go back to work until Tuesday. The gate money was from a recent u19 match between Gib and IRL; we were entitled to half but declined to take it.
I'm sure he can't wait...
:rolleyes:
Not that he's liable to tell us the truth.
And half the gate money of an U-19 match; a €100?
Attendance of 1,500 @ £5 a pop = £7,500/2 = £3,750 - whatever proportion of the crowd were kids, still works out at a couple of grand and nothing to be sniffed at for a small FA with a legal bill to service.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Politically, the FAI should have no choice in not voting in Gibraltar, If they did, they are beyond stupid. It is almost the exact same position as Northern Ireland, ie, occupying a land that is not theirs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Huh? The FAI isn't a political organisation, and the state of Ireland no longer has a claim over Northern Ireland.
And Gibraltar isn't and never will be a country...
Sound familiar?
:rolleyes:
I believe both Northern Ireland and Gibraltar were gained by the UK in legally-negotiated treaties, agreed on by both sides, democratically in favour of being ruled by the UK, and have been so for the past several generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoss
Whatever about their ancestors, unionists today have a right to live in Northern Ireland, and decide their own fate, without it being forced on them by over-zealous Republicans. Same as Gibraltar.
Interestingly, Gibraltar was in Spanish hands for only 200 years (1501 to 1704, after the Moors were pushed out, and before the Treaty of Utrecht), it's been in British hands, populated by British people, for the past 300.
I would have thought Irish people would know better than to suggest that territory should automatically belong to the nearest large power simply because of geographical location.
Even if the 'native' population there was based on illegal settlement there and subsequent archaic colonialism.
When that happened 400 years ago, yes. Current unionists living in Northern Ireland today should not be exiled or have a Dublin government undemocratically imposed upon them because of how their great-great-grandparents got there. Ireland has as much "historical" claim to the North as Connacht and Breifne do to being independent kingdoms. The people of Northern Ireland should be able to freely, fairly and democratically decide their status, without interference from London or Dublin. That's as true now as it was in 1971.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Well yeah, but on the same pretext in 400 years time the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank will be 'legal' just because they were taken by force...
Unfortunately, yes. Which is why it's so disappointing that the world doesn't want to do anything about them now.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
That's largely down to the U.S....
It's gas that Spain objects to Gibraltar but has no problem with Ceuta, which is a very similar issue on the other side of the straits.
Well, exactly. Good point. They should give up that spot also.
This was a good thread until a couple of days ago.
Why, what's wrong with it now?
http://kassiesa.net/uefa/forum/view....0524141349.xml
Dont know if thats known here - but news to me!!! Jesus who is next? kosovo, greenland, isle of man?
Transylvania? Lolz...
Seriously, Flanders could be a bet in the next decade...
We were talking about Gibraltar on the previous page.
Kosovo is on the way to UEFA/FIFA recognition, and I think it will benefit from the precedent that Gibraltar has now set in regards objections from neighbouring associations of a political nature. But it needs the UN to recognise it, and its difficult to see that happening in the near future thanks to Russian objections. Greenland is looking for it, but I think they still lack the required infrastructure. I think the Isle of Man, like the Channel Islands, briefly flirted with the idea of application but never went for it properly.
If Belgium does separate into Wallonia and Flanders, I see no reason why both would not be recognised as nations by the UN, UEFA or FIFA.
As an autonomous constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark, doesn't Greenland share a status identical to that of the Faroe Islands?
I believe so, but I think the the big issue, last I read, was that there was no pitch/stadia at all that would come close to the minimum standards.
This is a good, if slightly out of date, article on some of the complications thst severely effect how countries get on in the recognition process (and why Kosovo may not benfit from any precedent that Gibraltar has set, unfortunetly): http://nextfifapresident.blogspot.ie...-and-fifa.html
"Thus we have Kosovo, recognized by FIFA as a nation that may play other FIFA nations, but not allowed to join UEFA; Greenland, unable to join UEFA but having received FIFA assistance; Gibraltar, desperate to join both UEFA and FIFA but opposed by Spain and a hastily written rule; and the Faroe Islands, fully fledged UEFA and FIFA members."
I would say Greenland could get entry if they make the most of the financial assistance, but Kosovo remains in a diplomatic limbo.
Heard Greenland have one astro' pitch but it appears not?
Kosovo appear to have more of a legitimate claim as it this stage it should really only be independent sovereign states, not dependencies or colonial theme parks...
The terrain and pitches pictured do look kind of astronomical...Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Kosovo isn't recognised as an independent, sovereign state though. If Faroe's can be members, then legally speaking Greenland should be too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
It's just they don't have the capability to do so. I was just reading back on that "Outcasts: The Lands FIFA Forgot" book, which has a chapter on Greenland. They can only play outdoor football three months out of the year, and their league has to be regionalised since the road network isn't safe enough to allow anything else. The grand final switches locations every year, and a while ago it was in a place that required the competing teams to take a week long boat journey to and from. A few years, three players
travelling on a boat to play in such a fixture went missing and were later found frozen to death.
They play on sand pitches, lacking grass, but have enough funding now to have built an Astroturf pitch that Blatter approved off. Coca Cola had a sponsorship deal with the national team for a while at least, since Greenland is one of the few places on Earth they don't have a dominant share in the soft drink market.
The Football Association of Greenland (Yup, FAG) did make moves to apply for FIFA membership, but claim Blatter and co went cold on them after some promising early discussions. Their chairman suggests it was, as always, to do with worries over places like Kosovo, Gibraltar and others using such moves as precedent.
AFAIK, the difference between the Faroes and Greenland is that the Faroes applied for (and got) FIFA membership before a rule came in which would have said they couldn't get membership. Gibraltar applied for membership before the rule came in too; it was just blocked till now, which is why they've finally been allowed in. Same won't hold for Greenland.
Kosovo you'd have to imagine will be members in due course, even if they're politically controversial.
You'd imagine Kosovo will become a UN member sooner rather than later. Serbia are still angling for EU membership, which is probably dependent on recognising Kosovo's sovereignty, and you'd imagine Russia's opposition to Kosovo's membership is based purely on their designs on keeping Serbia within their own sphere of influence. Once Serbia and Russia reach some sort of compromise over EU membership, the barrier to Kosovo's independence will gradually fade.
Greenland's membership will be much more problematic and may come through entering another association before UEFA eventually relaxes its UN rule.
The one thing Greenland does have in its favour is that it's hard for their clubs to compete in the Danish league given the distances involved. That's basically how come Tahiti are in FIFA despite not being a country; can't expect their clubs to compete in the French league.
On that exact point, the officials quoted in the book I mentioned before opposed this idea, on the grounds that they weren't interested in one two-legged play-off against some Caribbean team once every two years. They wanted what the Faroe's have - regular football which has enhanced the sport (relatively speaking) on the islands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
They may have to settle for second best though. I can't imagine too many UEFA members would be thrilled about having to go to Greenland for a qualifier.
Yes. But the Faroes are members under old rules. If they were to apply today they may not be accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
EDIT: As His Royal Pineappleness said.
They'd play in CONCACAF surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Ha . And yes.
His Royal Pineppleness (sic)!Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
Hmm...
I could get used to that, I think!
I see Martinique beat Canada in the Concacaf Gold Cup the other day. They're in Concacaf but not part of FIFA.
With this cracking last-minute winner, no less:Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrostars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGBlxi2rI8I
TBF Canada are absolute muck
I would have thought by now that Canada would have seen come improvement with 3 MLS teams but it looks like they've gone backwards.
Article about managing the minnows in current When Saturday comes:
http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/z...psf3e736d5.jpg