Printable View
Would disagree that the North are our great rivals. I cheered on the North in Euro 2016 and applauded our fans when we sang ‘Stand up for the Ulstermen’ in a gesture of support after their tragic loss of a fan. I wish NI well and am particularly fond of Michael O’Neill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Straightstory
I believe most ROI fans are of a similar disposition.
Is having a dislike for a team that harp on like a lot of IFA supporters tend to do, sectarian? I'm almost certain it's not. Being an avowed Nationalist is also not sectarian!Quote:
Originally Posted by Straightstory
I'm glad the IFA team are out. And it annoyed me that they got through to Euro 2016. But I did feel a tiny pang of sorrow that it was a thoroughly awful Swiss team that did them in. A tiny pang that isn't there today.
I've read very little here over the years that could be considered nasty.
I would suggest you having a gander over on OWC to gauge "nasty" and maybe stall it back with your findings.
Despite living in the north and having to deal with some of the less savoury elements of their support I am better disposed towards them than I ever have been. Anything I've said has been in a geniune effort to talk out with a NI fan how we can get to a point where we can all live and let live and cheer each other on. In time I'd like my attitude towards them, which at a time was openly hostile, to be like it is towards another Ulster county once my own is out of the championship.
We're not quite there yet but people talking to each other is part of that. I work with a season ticket holder at Windsor Park and we both share football in common in what is a rugby dominated office. There is more that unites us than divides us.
Apologies to the mods for going off at tangent. Shall we take this to the Current Affairs section?
http://foot.ie/threads/178393-Discus...Ireland/page25
please do
Examples?Quote:
Originally Posted by Straightstory
People referring to Londonderry by its abbreviated version.
What's Londonderry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Maybe its a Ferry / a Road / air route !Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieShels
I think he means London Dairy, the ice-cream company. www.londondairy.com
It's just down the road from the Hawthorns actually. The wider area gets its name from a pub (now closed) which celebrated the Marquess thereof (sometime Brit PM aka Robert Stewart and Viscount Castlereagh). I believe James McClean drives past on the way to and from the ground ;)
PS did he really say "We shat ourselves" in the post-match interviews?
https://i.imgur.com/sNVNC7J.png
Balls.ie quoted him as having said that, but I'm pretty certain he said "we shot ourselves", as in "we shot ourselves in the foot". You can listen here: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/930552598536396800Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I think he said "We shot ourselves" but his thick nordie accent certainly made it sound like we shat ourselves. I think either is a fair assessment of Tuesday night...Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Why is the one side of the building lighter than that other side?
A Londonferry?Quote:
Originally Posted by seanfhear
Londonderry is very popular in the North-West of Northern Ireland. People love their association with London so much that they highlight the London part of every road sign in the area.
The less commonly seen road-signs where unionists have reacted to nationalists scribbling out the "London-" prefix by daubing over the "-derry" suffix always humour me.
https://frankiefootprints.files.word...land.jpg?w=900
https://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/soc...-leon-12042558
Quote:
The Football Association are aware that the Jamaican-born frontman qualifies for the Three Lions – two of his grand-parents hold British passports.
And Bailey – who has been scouted extensively by Manchester United, Liverpool and Spurs – is on the radar of England's recruitment team.
Another well researched article. Grandparents hold British passports because it was pre-1962. Having grandparents born in a Colony of the United Kingdom doesn't make a player eligible for England.Quote:
A Player who, under the terms of art. 5, 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 fulfils at least one of the following conditions:
a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association; ╳
b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association; ╳
c) One of his biological grandparents was born on the territory of the relevant Association; ╳
d) He has engaged in a minimum of five years education under the age of 18 within the territory of tHihe relevant association. ╳
Something that crossed my mind...
This was FIFA's eligibility rule from 1962 until 2004:
"Any player who is a naturalised citizen of a country in virtue of that country’s laws shall be eligible to play for a national or representative team of that country."
In January of 2004, there was an amendment, and the main rule then read as follows:
"Any person holding the nationality of a country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country. The Executive Committee shall decide on the conditions of eligibility for any Player who has not played international football in accordance with par. 2 below, and either acquires a new nationality or is eligible to play for the teams of more than one Association due to his nationality."
Shortly after that (in March of 2004), FIFA tightened the rules for naturalised players to prevent this rule being exploited (after Qatar attempted to naturalised talented Brazilian footballers). CAS summarised the development quite well in the Daniel Kearns case, so I'll quote that:
In its Circular Letter No. 901, dated 19 March 2004, the FIFA explained to its member associations that the above provision appeared not to be operating satisfactorily as some players and associations tried to exploit to their advantage the apparent latitude of its first paragraph. In particular it was reported that a number of Brazilian players intended to assume the Qatari nationality in order to be eligible to play for the Qatari association. In this context, the FIFA informed its member associations of the following:
“The first sentence of Article 15 par. 1 (…) means that if a player has never played for a national team, he may assume another nationality and play for the national team of the new country, irrespective of his age. However, this basic provision does not expressly provide for players being able to play without any impediment, for another national team for no obvious reason. If a player changes his nationality or if he accepts another nationality simply in order to be able to play for new national team, he is clearly breaching Article 2(e) of the FIFA statutes (…)
(…) on 16 March 2004, the FIFA Emergency Committee ruled as follows:
1. Any player who refers to the first sentence of Article 15, paragraph 1 (…) to assume a new nationality shall only be eligible to play for the new national team if he fulfils one of the following conditions:
a) the player was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
b) his biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
c) his grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
d) he has lived continuously for at least two years on the territory of the relevant Association.
2. The decision outlined in point 1 above enters into force immediately (…)”.
These criteria eventually became article 17 of FIFA's eligibility regulations, which is now article 7.
So, the questions I'd been pondering:
i) Did Qatar only attempt to naturalise talented footballers from elsewhere after the January 2004 rule-change and, if so, why?
ii) Why didn't Qatar try naturalising talented Brazilians before the January 2004 rule-change, considering the rule then in place explicitly permitted naturalisations?
iii) Did the January 2004 rule-change trigger something?
iv) Was it common for naturalisations of convenience (or naturalisations on football grounds, in other words) to occur before 2004 and, if not, why not?
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/43715839
I know nothing about this stuff but this seems interesting. if it goes his way would it open the door to the likes of grealish and mcguane and others coming back to us?