What about the art of painting?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
http://nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr/img5/belf04.jpg
Printable View
What about the art of painting?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
http://nezumi.dumousseau.free.fr/img5/belf04.jpg
Info is scarce and anything I have heard is via chats and hearsay. However it is likely something was agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
We had 2 big disputes with the IFA in the early 50's. The first over the IFA picking an "All Ireland" side and the 2nd over the name Ireland. At
some stage an official from each association (most likely the presidents) shook hands on a "gentleman's agreement" to pick players only
from each other's terrirtory. The granny or even the parentage rule wasn't in vogue then and Shay Brennan circa 1965 became the
first player to play for us under the parentage rule.
Such an agreement was probably quickly forgotten and didn't apply in the 60's and 70's as the IFA lost interest in picking southern players.
The IFA in that period would have been much more powerful and influential in World Football. They had a seat on the Internatioanl Board that governs the laws of the game
(still have but I think FIFA call the shots now) a rotating Vice president of FIFA and were more successful than us for most of the period up until 1986. They also had
annual games with England and Scotland up until 1984 which were big events. It would have been seen as more presitgous to play for NI then.
NI born players would have been eligible for us from the 60's. In some ways it is a surprise that some of the better NI born players in the LOI at the time weren't
capped as they didn't get in the NI side but we capped much more domestic players then it seems (an observation of mine and if anyone wants to do the maths
and prove me right or wrong go ahead). However in reality then from a nationalist perspective there were 2 partitionist teams on the island (this was a
regular GAA jibe) and players chose the one they were born into and where they played their football. I'm not aware of anyone approaching or even claiming
they approached the FAI from a NI background until Alan Kernaghan (appreciate English born but grew up in NI). If they had I don't know what would
have happened.
Jack was the first manager we had to aggressively target non Irish born players and use the parentage and granny rule. We also then became much
more successful than NI.
I think any GA is long since forgotten as opposed to have been broken but it depends on your perspective I suppose.
I still don't believe the FAI are scouting or approaching NI players - the Brian Kerr call to Chris Baird is the only credible evidence I've seen (Chris claimed it and Brian
didn't confirm or deny it I understand). I know it is a very sensitive topic in the FAI but I think they are dead right to pick any players who want to play for
us and are eligible. They are very strong on the line that the player must make the first approach whereas approaching the likes of Jamie O'Hara et al is seen
as fair game.
Brian Kerr was quite active in approaching/ scouting NI born players to the point that an understanding was reached between the FAI and IFA that neither association would attempt to influence players on which team they lined out for. In other words, if NI born players wanted to play for us, they needed to make the first contact with the FAI rather than vice versa.Quote:
Originally Posted by gspain
It think the FAI found it impossible to continue ignoring/blocking the growing number of requests from six county born players who wanted to play for Ireland and it predates the Good Friday Agreement in 1988 and possibly also the appointment of Brian Kerr as technical director of our underage teams.( I think that was in December 96 when Kerr left Pats). I'm fairly sure that Mark McKeever was playing for Ireland prior to the appointment of Kerr. I also recall reading an article about the FAI being less than pleased and contacting an Irish coach at Sheffield Wednesday who was encouraging a 17-year-old Derry player John Morrison to declare for Ireland. I think the FAI were wairy of causing confrontation with the IFA at that time but clearly they could not ignore the approaches of increasing numbers of players.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
The four Northern born players who represented Ireland prior to the GFA
Ger Crossley from Belfast made his Ireland u16 debut in 1996 and progressed through the underage ranks, He played for the U16s in the 1996 European Championships in Austria, and went on to the win the UEFA title two years later in Cyprus alongside Robbie Keane and Damien Duff. He was called into Mick McCarthy's squad for the senior friendly against Mexico in `98.
Ger Doherty from derry was the Ireland u18 keeper in 1997.
Mark McKeever from Derry made his Ireland debut in 1995 and progressed to u21 level.
Tony Shields from Derry made his Ireland u18 debut in 1997. He went on to be capped at u19 and u21 level.
Obviously other guys followed post GFA like Andy Kilmartin, Brian Lagan,Saul Deeny, Nel McCafferty, Henry McStay etc.....
The ignorant and insular commemts of IFA personnel around the time probably only encouraged more players to opt for Ireland rather than the north, with comments like 'it's too easy for people in northern Ireland to obtain Irish passports' & 'they should play for their own country'.
Would this 'art' not also fall under the banner of what is modern day orangeism?
As you mentioned art, I must also add mural painting to any list of cultural traditions in Northern Ireland.
I will correct my original post by replacing the word 'any,' with 'many.'
'gspain'; cheers for all that. I found this piece written by Kerr from the Irish Time in March, before our friendly with Brazil at the Emirates:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...265432025.html
I think I recall it making a bit of a stir at the time as "Duffygate" hysteria must have been at its height, but it mentions something about Kerr's thinking on the matter being influenced by the GFA. Maybe he was using a bit of "journalistic licence", as I'm just noticing 'co. down green' has highlighted a few players who played for us prior to the GFA.
I don't think I agree with anything Kerr has to say on the matter, mind. Is he just having a go at the FAI even if it does make him look a bit hypocritical? That's the way it appears.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Kerr
Well, players born south of the border weren't eligible to play for the north anyway, so, as with the previous gentlemen's agreement, this was a completely one-sided affair in that it didn't bind the IFA to anything. It amounted to a voluntary gesture of good will on the part of the FAI more than anything else. It was agreed in 1999, however. 'EalingGreen' posted up the text from a short article quoting IFA kingpin, Jim Boyce, on the matter a few days ago. I'm not sure which page it is on now as turnover has been relatively brisk in this thread during the past week with the CAS case being last Monday, but it shouldn't be too far back if you missed it and want a look. Essentially, the FAI had agreed that it would continue to choose northern-born Irish nationals if they wanted to play for Ireland, but that it wouldn't make initial contact with these players. Chris Baird seems to be the only instance - documented or made public, at least - where the FAI seems to have been in "breach" of their promise. That's not to say there weren't more instances. For what it's worth, I know that, contrary to the claims of some on OWC, the FAI most certainly did not contact Shane Duffy first. Sean McCaffrey was very reluctant to contact the player despite his obvious interest in wanting to play for Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Edit: The post featuring the short article on Jim Boyce to which I was referring: http://foot.ie/threads/132063-Should...=1#post1378270
Jim Boyce was quoted from the same meeting, referred to by EG as saying "It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the IFA could do unless FIFA was to change legilation".Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
So there was an acceptance by the IFA back in 1999 that players born in the North were fully eligible for Ireland under FIFA rules.
FAI chief executive Bernard O'Byrne is also quoted from the same meeting "Any player that opts to declare for the Republic of Ireland and notifies the FAI of this will be considered for selection."
As far as i'm aware, the FAI have honoured their agreement with the IFA in 1999 and players have to contact the FAI should they wish to make themselves available for selection for Ireland. This was the case with Tony Kane and Michael O'Connor (the 2 players who left the north for the FAI before being tempted back by the IFA) who had to formally inform the FAI by letter of their intention to seek selection for Ireland.
The below quotes are taken from the Mirror :D in Jan. 1999.
Note the wording "strengthened" in the context of what follows below.Quote:
THE FAI and the IFA believe they have strengthened a Gentleman’s Agreement
to kerb the free movement of players between the associations.
Note Boyce is "extremely happy" after strengthening a supposed Gentleman’s Agreement.Quote:
They have also agreed that from next season a new cross-border cup competition will be staged between the European entrants of the Irish league and the National League.
The IFA last week admitted it was concerned by the loss of several Northern Ireland born youngsters who were opting to play for the Republic.
After a meeting of soccer's Irish governing bodies in Belfast yesterday, IFA President Jim Boyce said he was "extremely happy," with the outcome of all items on the agenda.
Note the last three sentences; "there was little the FAI could do" - "that,we accept" - "But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen." (Very odd - what about this supposed Gentleman's Agreement from the 1950's that dealt with this issue????? Aren't these comments in conflict with the original and supposed Gentleman's Agreement from the 1950's??? Is this cause for Boyce to be "extremely happy"??? and how does this strengthen the supposed Gentleman's Agreement??? Doesn't this weaken it from an IFA perspective??? After all they are now acceptant that NI born players can represent the FAI - despite being "concerned" about this issue the week before???)Quote:
Last week, Derry-born Leeds United player Brian Lagan revealed he'd been asked by an IFA official if his religion had any influence over his decision to join Brian Kerr's under 17 squad and the Republic.
Northern Ireland under 21 manager Roy Millar expressed his concern over the loss of players such as Lagan, Mark Hicks and Gerard Crossley, a Belfast born member of his U18 UEFA UEFA Union of European Football Associations
"The issue of Northern Ireland's eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI," said Boyce.
"It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the FAI could do unless FIFA was to change legislation. That, we accept. But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen.''
What? No bitterness despite the FAI supposedly breaking a Gentleman's Agreement dating from the 1950's????Quote:
FAI chief executive Bernard O'Byrne claimed there was no bitterness on either side when the matter was discussed.
"There was a very positive atmosphere about this meeting and we look forward to sitting down with the IFA again within the next six months," said O'Byrne.
Quote:
In a statement released last night, the FAI claimed the Association is the "first to recognise the extensive development programme of the IFA and congratulate them on their progress to date.
"The FAI acknowledge that this is a cross-community scheme and undertook to continue its policy of not approaching players born in Northern Ireland for the Republic of Ireland international teams.
Selection
"However, any player that opts to declare for the Republic of Ireland and notifies the FAI of this will be considered for selection."
The letter sent to Brian Lagan by the IFA's recently appointed community relations officer Shane Maguire asked the player if he felt his religion influenced his move.
Lagan claims he was overlooked by the IFA on three occasions.
Boyce admitted that the wording of the letter, exposed on the same day the IFA received a FIFA Fair Play accolade, caused "embarrassment.''
"We admit that it was somewhat naive to have mentioned religion in the letter to Brian Lagan. But I want to stress that there was nothing malicious in the wording.
"Of course we want to know why the player made the move but I will deeply contest anyone who suggests that we (the IFA) are not concerned with religion or politics.
"I would be offended if any player was to accuse me or the association of having a sectarian policy.''
Next season the FAI National League champions and cup winners, will compete in a tournament with the Irish League champions and Irish Cup winners.
Arrangements for the Omagh Trust Fund international at Lansdowne Road on May 29 between Northern Ireland and the Republic were confirmed.
The FAI will allocate an initial 3,400 tickets for distribution through the IFA for the fixture.
With the GFA a citizen of NI may declare himself or herself British or Irish and is entitled to dual-citizenship.
If it is the wish of a NI born player to represent Ireland then his or her wish should be honored.
As for recruiting, the FAI for years has recruited English & Scottish born players to play for Ireland, why should they treat the 6 counties any differently?
Indeed. It only serves to legitimise the IFA's case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Qwerty
So thats that settled then. Short and sweet which everyone can understand. Thanks very muchQuote:
Originally Posted by Qwerty
Once again,props to all who've bothered to drag through the Irish soccer history stats. Must confess to having never heard of Brian Lagan but credit for the details. Once again Brian Kerr doesn't seem to come out again too well but even he and others will probably have to eventually accept the GFA....
Ha Ha.*Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
There are indeed two nations, one is part of Britain, the other is Ireland, but in no way is this two countries, FFS. Two football teams granted.
And your 'self evident' experience again as confirmed earlier this week, is wholly different from the reality that most unionists don't see themselves as, er, 'Irish' but British!
However only a moron, or possibly an Ulster unionist, would claim to be '100%' * equally as belonging to two different countries.
Do the math. 50%, maybe of each.
Contrary to your assertion, it's entirely contradictory to claim otherwise.
WTF?Quote:
You are mistaken- see above, I don't recognise one as a sub-set of the other. As far as I can make out, your difficulty follows from the ingrained sense that one Irishness isn't merely different, but superior to the other. Northern Irish is quite accurate as you say, but it isn't any MORE acurate than Irish as a description of me.
Accepting the dubious (as in not defined in the GFA) premise of 'Northern Irish' as highlighted up thread, it's entirely different in its description from how the 'mainstream' Irish see themselves, particularly when you consider those wish to aspire to this definition who are mainly unionist in outlook.
Except the FIFA Numpties are probably right on this one.Quote:
The same, I'm consistent. I don't think FIFA should have changed the rules, nor that French U-21 internationals should then be able to play for Algeria. In practice, I suspect few in France were bothered, but if the trade had been the other way, the Algerians might have been. If Zidane had been capped by France after Algeria, say.
Up until anyone gets a competitive cap, they're "open" to offers if they have dual or more eligibility.
And that opening line there is incredibly pompous in tone, again!
Don't encourage him, Please!Quote:
Originally Posted by janeymac
If you haven't worked this out by now....
If Britain was a federation, it might stand a chance,but 'semi-autonomous region' might be closest. But a 'nation', er, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
And see GFA's lack of mention on the issue.
So not another TH tribute then! Seriously, those clowns could do with a visit to their local B & Q (They have the right colour scheme??) or similar.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Though as Fly mentioned, a discussion of murals would be more pertinent?
To be fair the comments on there are not as one-sided as you might think.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman
Are you aware of anybody the FAI ignored or blocked from NI that wanted to play for the RoI on any grounds other than not being good enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janey Mac
Isn't that a threesome of questions? Anyway,
1) There's an international border between them, ergo they are both separate nations. But they both share the island of Ireland, ergo they are both Irish
2) You've answered your own question, surely? So yes. Of course in international relations no two situations are identical, I'm not claiming an exact (38th) parallel
3) Whichever he prefers. In practical terms, he has a choice of two passports, or to carry both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fly
I perceive there to be two nations in Ireland, separated by a border. I've never claimed, and don't consider Northern Ireland to be a an independent sovereign nation. It's part of the British nation, which- by obvious dint of including part of Ireland- is also an Irish nation. I doubt this contradicts whatever commonly accepted definition you prefer.
For practical purposes in international football, Northern Ireland counts as a country. I'm not applying that status to any other field where it clearly doesn't apply.
Quote:
Northern Ireland does not have it's own distinct, unique, indigenous language. There is no Northern Irish language, which stands direct in contrast to the other three constituent parts that make up the United Kingdom
True, but so what? Nor do Austria, Belgium or (arguably) Switzerland. Incidentally, as you probably know Scottish Gaelic is spoken by only about 50,000, or 1% of the population there. It's an endangered language. But if it disappears entirely, there will still be a Scottish nation.
I'd be quite happy if Orangeism was to disappear, it's an embarrassment. But if it did, Northern Ireland/ Ulster unionists/ Irish Prods would still have a cultural tradition. Even if that overlapped with the British. or the Catholic/ nationalist, or whatever. I think the uniqueness thing is a bit over-rated.Quote:
I do feel though, that one would struggle to name many further cultural traditions in addition to 'orangeism'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Indeed. I thought I'd addressed the point head-on, actually. On your second point, why can't they all be equally legitimate? None of them threatens anyone else or their legitimacy, surely?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GSpain
Aye. It's clearly gone, whatever its background, mutual recognition or otherwise. From my perspective, we (NI fans/ the IFA) need deal in future, along the lines I've mentioned repeatedly on this and similar threads. If no such deal proves possible, I expect continued bad feeling- compromising future games between us, or other co-operation- plus likely financial losses.
Except that the name of one of those countries makes no reference to the North (or Ireland!), and barely even acknowledges its other constituent parts. So yes, it is contradictory (and wrong) to claim there are two Irish 'nations', two different nations granted though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
.
Not been to Osterreich but met enough Swiss & German people to tell you that Swiss-German is a pretty different language from mainstream Deutsch, the Belgians speak Flemish as a distinct national language which again is different from Dutch and unless all the residents of the Western Isles die off there will always be Scots Gaelic speakers.Quote:
Nor do Austria, Belgium or (arguably) Switzerland. Incidentally, as you probably know Scottish Gaelic is spoken by only about 50,000, or 1% of the population there. It's an endangered language. But if it disappears entirely, there will still be a Scottish nation.
And as you should know,the latter of course is an officially recognised regional language.
Which two nations are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Let you work that one out, Mr.O!
A nation is not necessarily synonymous with a state or political unit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Ok, a few then!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
No, I haven't answered my own question. I would regard the two Korean as the same people superficially divided into two states. I was hoping you would explore other similarly divided people like the division of India & Pakistan (into Hindu & Muslim states) or Cyprus (Turkish / Greek).Quote:
1) There's an international border between them, ergo they are both separate nations. But they both share the island of Ireland, ergo they are both Irish
2) You've answered your own question, surely? So yes. Of course in international relations no two situations are identical, I'm not claiming an exact (38th) parallel
The choice is just an accommodation really. The India division was based on religion and generally has worked within each country (not between them) and of course there are still land disputes over Kasmir. While a lot of people say now what religion you are isn't important - there are huge cultural differences between catholics & protestants which rub off on us and make us different.Quote:
3) Whichever he prefers. In practical terms, he has a choice of two passports, or to carry both.
With regard to Austria & German speaking the same language and yet are separate countries - I'd guess that most of northern Europe became protestant and southern Europe remained catholic. Bavaria (where the present Pope was born) is still very catholic and from what I've seen, has more in common with (catholic) Austria than its northern neighbours. From being on a couple of skiing holidays in Austria, I was always facinated at how religious the Austrians (from the Tyrol anyway) were - the churches were always full for mass and they are quite conservative.Quote:
True, but so what? Nor do Austria, Belgium or (arguably) Switzerland. Incidentally, as you probably know Scottish Gaelic is spoken by only about 50,000, or 1% of the population there. It's an endangered language. But if it disappears entirely, there will still be a Scottish nation.
I wonder when India was being partitioned that seeing how it wasn't working in NI, they just created two muslim states and moved people there. Very painful at the time, but it has worked.