Aye, but you know it's true. Even If they never said it, they'd be thinking so.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Printable View
Aye, but you know it's true. Even If they never said it, they'd be thinking so.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
He must have seen my post and elaborated on it (post # 301). Might become a journalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomkerry
Yet another article that misses the point in terms of understanding the FIFA Articles.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdomkerry
you know, it's equally possible that you, Mr Parker, have misinterpreted the FIFA articles, and these multiple journalists are correct in their interpretation?
Nope. My take is the same as FIFA's, and afterall it is theirs that counts. http://www.irishleaguesupporters.com...s/thumbsup.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
"Equally possible" only in your mind Tets because most likely you have a difficulty to determine a certainty about the Fifa articles in relation to the citizenship laws.
Because the citizenship laws exist, then the footballers qualify to be eligible.
But the citizenship laws by themselves do not give a person a civil right to play for a country.
What gives a footballer the right, is the text of the Fifa statute.
The FIFA statute 15 could easily have been formulated to read that a footballer must be born inside the boundaries of a federation's territory in order to be automatically eligible.
What then? That would be a normal enough eligibility rule.
FIFA statute 17, (the Granny rule) only refers to being a descendant from parent or grandparent who was born inside the territory of the federation.
Certainly one situation influences another. Because that automatic citizenship exists for footballers born outside a federation, so FIFA accommodated that in the rule 15.
If the GFA had not that constitutional article over citizenship then I doubt that FIFA would have written article 15 in the way they did.
The constitutional context for that FIFA text is just about restricted to Ireland.
Maybe I'm missing something when I peruse OWC but I'm actually amazed that one of the mods on that site and someone who is virulenty and bitterly opposed to NI players switching to the south is actually born and bred in the south (or as south as Donegal can be given it's location). Is this not utter hypocrisy to reject where you are from to support a "foreign" state so to speak yet still blow a gasket about kids who want to do the very same in reverse?
Personally I am all for civil liberty and the right of the individual to choose within reason. If someone has ties to NI and wants to support or play for them then all power to them but you can hardly complain when it goes the other way. I thought the whole problem of the "north" was some people trying to tell other people what they should be rather than accepting and respecting the diferences between them.
Maybe there should be some cut off age before kids have to decide who they want to play for but they shouldn't be hounded for the choice they make. Most of these lads are 15, 16 or 17 and hardly know their arse from their elbow at that age. It's a bit much to expect them to make a final decision when they are still learning to tie their own boots but maybe for clarity's sake we need them to decide their future earlier.
slightly off topic, is there any official connection between the IFA and OWC?
As in, do the IFA recognise it as an official supporter's group?
I'm not sure if there is an official connection with the forum as such, but they do at least legitimise it by using it as a vehicle themselves eg the IFA Announcements & Marketing section.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Some of the IFA staf are registered on that site, but some fans are so paranoid on there, they're probably p*ssing in the wind.
Article in the Independent today from John O'Brien who suggests that Kerr's criticism of selecting NI born players wasn't strong enough. Rambles on about 'honour' at the end of the article.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/othe...n-2091424.html
Another article relating to Givens' poor record with the U21s concludes by saying we're 'stealing' players: http://www.independent.ie/sport/othe...s-2091397.html
.....
The IFA recognises supporters clubs both individually and as part of the wider amalgamation. IFA elected officials and staff post there because it's the most representative forum for NI fans. Many of whom are in the official supporters clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
So only indirect connection then.
Aye, it's legitimate targetted niche marketing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Parker
OWC sources tell me Mr Bhoy of Ardee is about to cease posting there. He's thrown the moderators off the scent by pretending to be from Andersonstown, it seems.
Aye as legitimate as the time the IFA maketing department were promoting sex toys. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
I would hazard a guess that that chap is of Ulster Scots extraction and probably feels more at home with his "brethren" supporting their little part of the world. Which is fair enough, I suppose, unless he's bleating on about the same in reverse; northern-born nationalists supporting or playing for Ireland. Of course, I don't know if he is; I don't really have the required cognitive capacity to follow the particular coming together of "minds" that is exhibited on there, after all, but didn't FIFA agree on a compromise that would allow people of his ilk to declare for Northern Ireland if they so wished? Actually, you say he is against northern-borns switching, so I guess that makes him a hypocrite. Indeed. Maybe he has family from the north. Who knows? Who cares?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maroon 7
I think he's primarily concerned with the FAI viewing it as a long-term solution or "easy way out" in the place of nurturing talent themselves, which is fair enough. Accusations of moral bankruptcy don't really stand, however. What is honour anyway? It's not as if these players are being coerced into playing for us. They wouldn't play for us if they didn't want to. And they do possess Irish ancestry, after all, which we're all constitutionally-bound to cherish, right? He pussyfoots around and is fairly ambiguous on the morality of the policy when it comes to the African teams and even mentions that he can "understand" it, but then seems fairly happy to be critical and accusatory when it comes to us. Why the apparent contradiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
At the end of the day why shouldn't we use the rule to our advantage every other country does it? i mean look at france..zidane should have really played for algeiria, henry,vieira were from surinam or something then theres the obvious ones deco, eduardo(very croatian sounding name) senna for spain i could go on in fairness, now that i think any decent brazillians left in gort?
Hehe, maybe you should have a scan through your research on those. They're all French-born, bar Vieira, who was from Senegal. I think you have Edgar Davids in mind. Anyhow, your point that other associations see no problem in playing fully by the rules still stands.Quote:
Originally Posted by briancool21
How did Vieira actually qualify to play for France, by the way? Residency or something? Or was French citizenship open to those in former colonies or what?
WTF are you on about? My sources in Beal-feirste are mainly from the Short Strand and The Falls. Just pity their wider occupation by patronising fools....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Agree with the Hypocrisy angle. Not to mention Paranoia, with anything that upsets the 'status quo' or is perceived to be different from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
No wonder Nats struggle to 'represent' these people.....
A remarkably ill-informed piece of writing. I assume that he's talking about Cascarino when he mentions an 'illegal player' when, despite there being no bloodline with CAS due to his mother's adoption, he was still legally qualified as her citizenship rights were the same as an adopted child of an Irishman as if she'd been naturally born to that family. James Lawton actually mentioned that in his article on the subject on Friday here. http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...n-2089573.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by Predator
O'Brien then goes on to trot out the old chesnut about Giggs sticking with Wales instead of declaring for England which is an urban myth oft repeated by bar stool pundits with no idea about the game. Although Giggs went to school in England and therefore qualified for and represented England schoolboys he was born in Wales to Welsh parents and didn't ever qualfiy for England beyond schoolboy level once qualification moved beyond what school a player went to.
Shockingly bad journalism and editing but I'd expect no more from that rag.
http://www.independent.ie/sport/othe...e-2091394.html
Yet another reason why not to buy that rag
Apart from the moronic last line, I'd agree with some of what was said.Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
Another reason to snub the IFA?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/su...#ixzz0hXSzvxm6
The word 'bitter' (and *****) springs to mind.
I'd be stunned if that even figured in the IFA's reasoning - like a lot of people, they just seem to be under the insane opinion that video technology is bad (which is they've never signed a multi-million pound deal with Sky).
I've noticed a lot of the Telegraph's non-editorial coverage of the story has been ludicrously partisan - obviously their opinion pages can be as biased they like, but they can't even hack out a basic objective news report.
BelTel article is spurious pub chat garbage.
Read John O'Briens Indo article ...or much of it at any rate. Going right back to Hot Press giving him his first gig ruining a very fine column popularised by Declan Lynch I've never understood how this ManU barstooler ever secured gainful employment from spouting unironic, wind-up, troll fodder that'd get him sanctioned on even half arsed message boards.
...was also very disappointed with Eamonn Sweeneys article about the reasoning behind playing Brazil in London rather than Dublin. Rubbished the match and our performance but his particular bugbear was football denying the GAA a few more bucks. This when he doesn't contend that the GAA were able to tender to have it in Croker and had the most expensive of all four quotes.
I'll indulge a bit of speculation of my own that if it had been 12 other venues pitching then Croker would've finished 13th. They've done very well out of having the last two campaigns played there.
In fairness, that is one of the worst-written articles I've ever seen. No direct quotes from anybody, and it's not even a logical suggestion that the IFA would do it to spite the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
First off nats continue to represent our team with no difficulty. Secondly no player who has been tapped by the Dark Side has said politics was a reason for doing so. As someone here pointed out you only say it's true because you want it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Now about this 'hypocrisy'.
No one is saying you cannot support whoever you like. There are no rules (why should there be?) - it's a free world do what you want.
Playing and supporting are completely separate issues. In the same way the 3 fundamental eligibility criteria and the concept of citizenship are. Citizenship is not a license to do what you want. Irish citizens resident in NI cannot vote in the Republic. Does this mean the Dublin government is also guilty of the discrimination the IFA has been accused of supporting? No, the fact is citizenship is quite a loose term (made looser still in this case by the ignorance of national borders).
And the ranting about citizenship is a moot point anyway as FIFA is not a political organisation. It did not sign up to the GFA. FIFA can make up whatever rules it likes. Having said that the current consensus is that the rules as they stand require change to prevent the cannibalisation of member associations and to protect vulnerable association's authority over their own jurisdiction.
You say my opinion is vitriolic. Of course it is, you'd be hard pressed to find an NI fan who isn't incensed by the FAI's arrogant behaviour. Particularly in the wake of Football For All. Particularly after the FAI themselves complained about the exact same behaviour from the IFA 60 years previous.
From my own personal view, I was educated in NI. I live here. I'm comfortable in the mixed society and recognise football as one of the few things here people have the opportunity to unite around. Small steps and all that. To see that dynamic being single-handedly destroyed by an outside organisation makes me sick to the pit of my stomach.
Hope that provides some insight from this particular Irish citizen.
I think you're being a bit dramatic. It's not the FAI's job to make Northerners feel warm and fuzzy inside.
These are all players who are open to the idea of playing for the Republic and qualified to do so under the rules as they are currently interpreted. To say the FAI is "single-handedly" destroying the unity of Northern football is nonsense - do the players not have any personal responsibility at all? If they wanted to play for Northern Ireland, they would, but they've made a decision to opt for a team they identify more with.
With all due respect if I was approached by Pele tomorrow I'd find a surprisingly strong personal identification with Brazil.
Professional footballers do what is necessary for their careers, including opting for the perceived best option with regard to international football. The "I've always felt [x nationality] and proud of it" media circus thereafter is mere PR window dressing for the fans. It's also predictable guff that happens to fill copy for the media. Win win. Duffy was on record as saying he was proud to represent NI too. If a reporter asks you a question, you're not going to say "yeah to be honest I'm not really arsed one way or the other" are you?
On it's not the FAI's job to make us feel warm and fuzzy - presumably they didn't feel so circumspect in the 50s?
What did he say and when?Quote:
Originally Posted by fhtb
What current consensus?Quote:
Originally Posted by fhtb
The IFA are trying to play the victim card over the eligibility issue, yet have no qualms about tapping up England u16 & u17 internationals like Norwood & Dudgeon. Where is the consistency when Worthington is approaching players from other associations to change their international team. Did the IFA inform the English FA that they were approaching Manchester United academy players (and others), trying to persuade them to switch to the North? I think not.
I’m still not sure how this football for all idea works. Is it football for all as long as the players and supporters are happy to stand to the English national anthem at all international levels? Is it football for all as long as players and supporters are happy to be represented by the old unionist Stormont flag?Quote:
Originally Posted by fhtb
I don’t really see how a football for all campaign can be coordinated by a football president who is a member of an openly sectarian organisation like the Orange Order. I’m sorry, but It’s a bit like Nick Griffin being in charge of the Kick It Out campaign.
Players will always have their own reasons for choosing their international future, it may be selfish, it may be political, it may be because it’s easier to get a game with a team. whatever the case, players in the North have the choice under FIFA rules and that will remain.
Hi fhtb ...consensus amongst whom? I acknowledge your frustration and that of many NI supporters but that's the only quarter in which I've seen real consensus that the rules as they stand require change.Quote:
Originally Posted by fhtb
I suspect this might just be an uncirclable square because It strikes me that the only solution that'd make a fair chunk of NI support and the IFA happy is one that simply blocks off the option of the ROI for Irish citizens born in the IFA jurisdiction. FIFA don't do local derrogations -which is what'd it take (a specific rule that states Irish citizens born in the jurisdiction of the IFA are inelligible for selection by the FAI). They do one size fits all rules or they'd do nothing else but ajudicate regional squables about who's entitled to pick who. The current situation is probably hard on the IFA -But the solution that'd satisfy the IFA would be hard on the FAI -and would be downright unfair on those lads born in the IFA jurisdiction who are as entitled to play for ROI as I am. If someone has to be disenfranchised -I'd rather it was you lot. That may sound stone cold but I hope my honesty is appreciated. As I say it may be an uncirclable square.
The middle way is a local deal between the two associations -a revised version of the 'Gentlemans Aggreement'. I don't see much appetite for the strict jurisdictional application as it's only the FAI who forego players eligible to represent it in that deal. But there might be something locally negotiable on players having to decide before accepting a call up to the U21s where their future lies. (some say on the players 18th birthday but a player might have to decide before they ever get near the U18 setup in that scenario.) I can't help thinking though this might actually cost NI even more players -as lads who might otherwise have been inclined to stick it out and be "wooed", if you like, by the IFA decide to hedge their bets til later in case they make it onto the FAI radar.
The other option is the status quo. As you say yourself, players from nationalist backgrounds do and will continue to play for NI and best of luck to them.
The one that allows the FAI to believe they're allowed to pick players who do not meet the standard 3 criteria set out in the FIFA rulebook.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
Because the IFA are the victims. Note they are not pursuing CAS on players like Duffy (although having got to senior squad level it is clear he had a bright future with NI) but those who do not meet the 3 criteria. Norwood, Dudgeon also meet these criteria.Quote:
The IFA are trying to play the victim card over the eligibility issue, yet have no qualms about tapping up England u16 & u17 internationals like Norwood & Dudgeon.
Maik Taylor, before some brightspark mentions him, was brought in under different rules no longer applicable to the Home Nations.
It's actually a British national anthem but we'd like to see (and the IFA are working on this) a specifically Northern Irish one. Either way FFA is about leaving your politics at the gate. Some people can some can't. We recognise those who can't are divided in two camps - those that can't and seek to carry their politics into the ground and those that can't and won't go near the gate in the first place. The idea is to try to educate and reassure both.Quote:
Im still not sure how this football for all idea works. Is it football for all as long as the players and supporters are happy to stand to the English national anthem at all international levels?
I've only ever read that on here. Either way as big an eegit as he is I've no reason to believe he's made sectarian decisions in his time at the IFA - if you know any details go ahead an post them or else it's not really a point.Quote:
I don't really see how a football for all campaign can be coordinated by a football president who is a member of an openly sectarian organisation like the Orange Order.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. Football in Northern Ireland is a diverse entity - it reflects all aspects of society here.Quote:
Yes - we are seeking a change, in much the same way the FAI did 60 years previous, and similarly what happened with the Qatar issue more recently.Quote:
whatever the case, players in the North have the that choice under FIFA rules
Interesting point. I think a generalised rule is necessary, because long term it will affect the Balkan region equally for example. Either FIFA make a determined effort to protect the interests of vulnerable members or they effectively deny their alleged ambivalence to politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
At present I think FIFA put their hands over their ears and just allowed the most proactive association, in this case the FAI, to get on with it. A galling lack of leadership but given the ridiculous outcry over Henry I don't doubt they just thought if they deny a problem existed the whole thing would go away. The IFA for it's part has slowly put the wheels in motion but to be honest proactive is not a word normally associated with them.
Still, the ball is in play and CAS has given us something. Of course you're right, the FAI could fall back on some form of gentleman's agreement but likely it will not go anywhere near enough for us and I doubt the belligerents in Merrion Sq (?) would budge from their current position of we don't give a **** anyway.
By the 'Dark Side', presumably you mean 'Ireland'? And you claim to be an "Irish citizen". Hmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by fhtb
And as for Nats. 'switching', well the clue is how they define themselves in their sense of Irishness as they've rejected the massively restricted version only available in the North where they're a minority in their own country!
This is the same 'mixed society' which has 100's, if not thousands of foreign flags flying round it every summer, people with an archaic obsession with the the 17th century playing their tunes of triumphalism and a phobia with an representation of real Irishness be it something as bland as the Irish rugby team, being somehow symptomatic of Irish 'republicanism'.
Why would any Irish nationalist want to be tied to such sanctimonious dinosaurs? Try entering the 20th century, let alone the 21st and we might take them more seriously?
As I said, if you're not capable of leaving your politics at the gate it is not our responsibility to change to accommodate this. We have a diverse country - those on the extremities on either side will never be happy. We don't pretend to offer anything to either edge of the political spectrum. We have some quite extreme political groupings here and it would be madness to attempt to be all things to all people. At some point, each and every member of the GAWA makes a compromise with their own political beliefs and chooses football over politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
That's all we ask.
No the IFA isn't seeking a change to anything. The IFA want FIFA to uphold the eligibility statutes as the IFA interpret them. The FAI didn't seek to change anything 60 years or so ago either. FIFA intervened because players were togging out for two associations. The FIFA intervention was necessary because (a) the IFA had joined FIFA and (b) the IFA had their own (and incorrect) interpretation of FIFA rules and relegations regarding player eligibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by fhtb
That's fair enough.
But to remove politics from sport in any region of conflict is unfortunately naive. The IFA et al want to maintain their 'status quo', Nationalists naturally want more freedom to represent what they feel represents them. That is the 'Green-white-and-gold', as opposed to 'Red-white-and-blue'.
If all the North's fans were all apolitical fair enough, but have only ever met one person ever from there who had no strong feelings about who should govern the North. Even the Alliance Party has more voters FFS.
The unionists' 'mates' in the Brit.establishment created this 'Divide-and-rule' mentality, so maybe break off yer yokes of, er, slavery and blame them! ;)
That's why Irish nationalists are reluctant to accept their satellite presence on the island. That and the small matter of 800 years!!
As said elsewhere, come back in maybe a couple of generations? That's your only hope.
Regarding wanting the current rules changed I was speaking from a personal povQuote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Sorry but I'm sure you'll find it was the FAI who had most recently joined FIFA - and in any case it's the effect that is the same - players from one jurisdiction opting for another despite not meeting any of the 3 fundamental criteria. It's these 3 cases which must be protected, not the incorrectly perceived 'right' that political citizenship should grant players a by ball.