Maybe FIFA could enflame the tensions between India and Pakistan too,
and vapourise us all in a nuclear holocaust, afterall thats what it's for :D
Printable View
Maybe FIFA could enflame the tensions between India and Pakistan too,
and vapourise us all in a nuclear holocaust, afterall thats what it's for :D
Using precedents wont anyone born in Soviet Union (or whose parent grandparents were born in Soviet Union) be eligible for all Soviet teams (or just Russia?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
The problem we are now getting is people with grandparent born post partition, but I'd have thought they have another 50 years
I see David O'Leary's nephew is now playing for Scotland at underage. He plays for Kilmarnock.
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Where does FIFA say anything about the jurisdictions of a federation member being more important in Article 15 ?
Where did you get that statement from?
Art 15
"Any person holding the nationality of a country is eligible to
the representative teams of the Association of that country."
And as pointed out I am not talking about political views I am talking about constitutional rights which are infinitly stronger when they harmonize with FIFA's existing statutes.
Part of the constitutional right is automatic citizenship, which is recognised by Article 15. So obviously the full constitutional rights that allow anybody born on the Island full unconditional citizenship is the context for my reference and it mates perfectly with FIFA statutes..Quote:
No-one's saying that those "full constitutional rights" should be affected in any way.:eek:
Carefull now.Quote:
Nonsense. NI players are eligible for the South simply because of the South's citizenship laws. If you're trying to suggest that FIFA drew up its statutes in order to fall into line with the citizenship laws of one individual member, I think you're off your rocker.
NI born are entitled to declare for the Republic because FIFA´s statutes allow them to do so. FIFA statutes recognise the full unconditional citizenship that the Republic grant to all Island born as being fully compliant with FIFA law and the spirit of the Law.
Do you think that a law is just a jumble of letters which appear to fit and look nice?
The spirit of the Annex criteria is make sure that new citizens have proper ties to their new nation.
Why do you think that was brought in? because the spirit of what existed before was being violated not the rules themselves.
"Ireland" may be the name of a country (as well as an island) but it is NOT the name of an International Association Football team, so your argument doesn't stand up. Nor does your point about e.g the Republic of France or Kingdom of Denmark, since there is only one team called "France" or "Denmark"Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
There are two international football teams in Ireland and have been since 1923(?). For a period, the newer of these (i.e. that of the FAIFS) attempted to claim the name "Ireland", which the IFA had been using for their team since 1880.
To be honest, it didn't matter a great deal in the early years, until both teams began to express an interest in playing in the World Cup. Obviously, as far as FIFA were concerned, it would have been silly to have two teams both calling themselves "Ireland", so in 1950(?) they issued an instruction that for World Cup matches (and later for European Nations games) the FAI team must be called "Republic of Ireland" and the IFA team "Northern Ireland". This is the official designation to be used e.g. on programmes and scoreboards etc.
(Interestingly, however, the IFA was still allowed to use the name "Ireland" for non-WC or Euro games, e.g. for British Championship games, a practice they followed until around 1970)
Of course, it can hardly be objectionable should fans of either team use the term "Ireland" in everyday circumstances. However, people who wilfully use it wrongly, presumably in order to prove some sort of petty point, merely expose their prejudice - especially since in written form, "ROI" and "NI" are by far the easiest to type (as well as being correct)
http://bp3.blogger.com/_BIS_R7_5YVU/...eland+Away.jpg
http://www.fifa.com/associations/ass...untryInfo.html
Don't know. Who said they did?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
What statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Of course it "mates perfectly" with FIFA statutes - I've already said that NI players are eligible for the SOuth. I'm arguing for a CHANGE to the statutes!Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Yes, I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Yes, I know. I've said that several times and have been saying it for weeks.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
No. Do you?:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Indeed. Hence the rules needed to be changed. Same as now - the South's citizenship laws being extra-territorial in nature create a disadvantage for one of FIFA's members, and potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Why do they need to be changed? So the IFA can prevent people from playing football for what they consider to be their national team to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in some way? I don't think the South's citzenship laws are the problem here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Tbh I find it hard to feel too sorry for the IFA now that they are worried that they are going to lose some players since they have for a long time promoted a team that has only represented one part of the political divide in Northern Ireland. Yes things have improved recently but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North. What right now, therefore do the IFA have to complain if a few of those same Nationalists want to play for a team that they feel more so represents them as Irish people.
[QUOTE=Blanchflower;812921]Don't know. Who said they did?
What statement?
This statement
This statement had nothing of relevance to my post or anything I wrote and nothing of relevance to the FIFA statute I was talking about. It is constructed like a statement, a declaration of fact. The use of the word actual confers statement value.Quote:
The actual jurisdictions of each FIFA member is more important than the political views of individual people within those jurisdictions
I was strictly referring to a highly relevant constitutional right not a belief.
Go back and read what you wrote in reply and the context of your reply instead of engaging with a silly "what statement? " reply
So that one FIFA member no longer has all the players from another FIFA member to choose from as well as its own players.[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Clearly they are, for they are the reason that the South is able to have all NI players as well as its own.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
I think that's a very unfair statement given recent developments.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Are you suggesting there should be religious quotas in the NI team?Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Are you suggesting that NI managers discriminate against RC players when picking their teams? This is an outrageous insinuation.:mad:
It's a statement of the obvious. Which do you think FIFA is more concerned about: the integrity of its member organisations, or the individual political beliefs of individual players?:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
If you want to be taken serious you make a statement of the obvious where it is obviously relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
In its context it demonstrated that you couldn't tell the difference in importance between a political viewpoint and a right enshrined in the constitution which FIFA fully endorse because it is a constitutional right.
It also imo belittles that constitutional right to a mere political belief.
You wrote this:Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles.
Thus implying that when FIFA drew up its eligibilty rules they did so having studied Southern Ireland's constitution.:eek:
Absolute nonsense. FIFA wrote its statutes for all its members and not for individual members' constitutions or citizenship laws; and not because they were so hurt at the thought of the poor oppressed Irishmen's land:eek: having been divided:eek: against their wishes!
The wishes of individual players, and the constitutions and laws of individual states are not FIFA's main concern. FIFA's main concern is to run international football on as fair a basis as they can and make rules on that basis.
Hence my comments.
Now I see the beginnings of why you got so hysterical.
No I seriously doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting their eligibility criteria :)Quote:
Thus implying that when FIFA drew up its eligibilty rules they did so having studied Southern Ireland's constitution.
Rather I mean't that the Irish citizenship situation in a divided country is something which fell effortlessly under the umbrella of FIFA Article 15.
Do you have any argument to present as to why FIFA should switch the whole bias of their eligibility critera from supporting the players to supporting the federation?
Have you got an argument other than fear which would support this?
Except that some of these countries (Bosnia excluded) put preconditions (learning the language) to citizenship - something the EU is seeking to address - for ethnic Russians gaining citizenship, so that would have been a pointless excersise. Mind you, as with Gather Round's hypothetical non-citizen Irish born footballer, I'm sure that a passport would be presented if a footballer was deemed good enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Oh spare us the mock indignation. F*ck off back to ourweeminds if you going to come all high and mighty about this subject. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
So, on the one hand, you doubt that FIFA had Ireland in mind when constituting its eligibility criteria, but on the other hand: "As our land has been divided and northern nationalists against their will found themselves eventually outside the boundaries of a Republic in 1948, their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles".Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Right.:confused:
Only because of the South's extra-territorial laws - possibly unique in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Sorry - don't know what point you're making.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Young Irish said "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. He is clearly alleging discrimination in the selection of teams.:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Sorry - I do now after re-reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
I think Ealing Green 'corrected' it adequately later down the thread. In FIFA/UEFA parlance there is the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, no Ireland and no Southern Ireland.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
As you so eloquently put it earlier, I think you know the point I was making.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Yeah sure, I really believed FIFA had a pre release copy of Dev´s constitution before they formulated Article 15. and based all their thinking on it. Probably the beneficial rewards from having sleeper Fenians all over the continent in all high places.
Eligibility criteria? I have said it´s weighed in the player´s favour, look at the terms for those players who qualify:, This is the reality,
they have a right to choose and a right to change, a right to reside elsewhere and play for the new country.
A right to change up to the age of 21.
It is the player who must submit a written request if he wants to declare for another country and his choice is free from any kind of obstacle being placed in his way by the association he is currently playing for.
FIFA will also interfere if a countries type of "citizenship" does not offer the player the full rights accorded to other citizens.
The UK Agreement is stifling in comparison.
Is there any sign of a support for the argument from you that FIFA should change their proven sound Statutes?
The following oddbits do not stand up to closer scrutiny.
"one FIFA member claims all the players of another FIFA member as its own by virtue of an extra-territorial citizenship law"
Fear that somehow this FIFA proposal be "potentially a dangerous precedent elsewhere".
So why did you say that "their enshrined constitutional rights measure up to as part of the thinking in the way FIFA have constituted their articles"?:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
And? I know what the rules are ... My point is the rules should change.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I've no idea. I'm not a delegate to FIFA. I also doubt whether the IFA has done any lobbying. (By the way, the statutes are modified regularly.)Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I was replying to this 'statement' you made, It doesn't read as a proposal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Quote:
The eligibility criteria aren't about "supporting the players": they're about deciding who is and also who isn't eligible.
Statutes are modified, I don't know how often, I can imagine in a rapidly changing Football enviorment that some do.Quote:
I've no idea. I'm not a delegate to FIFA. I also doubt whether the IFA has done any lobbying. (By the way, the statutes are modified regularly.)
There would have to be a good reason.
I do not see any argument of substance to change good Eligibility Statutes :)
Is lobbying a roundabout way of scratching backs in order to exert external influence on to the FIFA legal department.?
It would be helpful for the purposes of discussion if you quoted the statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I should have thought that goes without saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Nor me. But there have been, and no doubt will continue to be substantial arguments for modifying statutes to deal with anomalies and unforeseen consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
I don't doubt that sort of thing goes on.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Nope and I'm sure you're aware Blanchflower that I never suggested anything as such. But surely with GSTQ as an anthem and a flag based on the St George's cross it's easy to clearly identify the leanings of the team more towards the Unionist than the Nationalist community. Also no matter how much good work is done to make the team's fans more representative of the cross community (and I praise such work) there still remains IMO a secterian element to the support (perhaps a small one but it's there) no matter how much the average NI fan would like it to go away. Such secterian elements surely discourage nationalist fans (and some players) from being associated with the team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
I see you've got what I was pointing out, but for others this is what I was saying. Estonia (at least) are in trouble with the EU for basing citizenship on the ability to speak Estonian. This discriminates against some people whose family has lived in Estonia for centuries if not millenia. Therefore, with such a policy they have no right to complain if these people play for another country. Secondly, governments are astute at fast-tracking or bypassing citizenship applications to enable sportsman to represent their country. Estonia, as an example, I'd doubt would not consider an Estonian - Russian (or a descendant) citizenship if he was a gifted footballer who spoke no Estonian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
Elsewhere, citizenship laws have been based, without exaggerating, on race. Germany's until recently would not grant - apart through a long winded and often unsuccessfull process - citizenship to Germans born of foreign nationals. However they would grant citizenship to Soviets (Russians and Kazahks) of German ethnic background, even though the German born ancestors left in the 18th and 19th century. This was stopped a few years after the fall of the Soviet Union because of the mass influx of people claiming German ancestry, but prior to this the odd defector needed only a family nazi party card, from the German occupation of the Western USSR, to gain citizenship.
Young Irish never mentioned religion and never mentioned that the team did not have enough of any particular religion, or that the IFA picked players by religion. He said it was not equally representative of both communities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
To me this means that NI being a British 'country' and that the symbols representing nationalists are absent: e.g. The Irish flag and Irish national anthem. The same is argued of the Irish rugby team, or any 6C Gaelic football team being not equally representative of unionists, even though rule 21, despite being perceived as anti-Unionist was primarily anti Catholic (Catholic policemen and soldiers). You will no doubt counter that these are foreign symbols. That's your opinion, but as someone has already said this stance displays a total lack of understanding of your neighbours identity.
You're welcome to argue about rule changes - I would have argued the same if FIFA ruled against us - but the problem is that, to a certain extent, the rights of the players will remain paramount. There are huge differences between the 'Qatar case' and ethnic Russians, Hungarians and Bosnian Serbs as the citizenship laws are different. The first is centred just on ability, the latter either denies or grants citizenship to all ethnics born outside the present state. Russia grants citizenship to all 'stateless citizens' who were former USSR citizens or those within the former USSR who speak Russian. This means that Russia - whose FA has far more clout than the FAI or IFA within FIFA - will be liable to the same FIFA rulling as Ireland.
http://www.legislationline.org/legis...591&less=false
You said: "but nobody could claim that the NI football team is anywhere near equally representative of both the Nationalist and Unionist communities in the North" and therefore the IFA had "no right" to complain if "nationalists" wanted to play for the South. There is a clear insinuation in those comments that there is discrimination in the selection of teams.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
First, I would ask you to stop peddling lies about the NI flag, which is not "based on the St George's Cross": it is based on the cross in the Ulster provincial banner.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Second, the "leanings of the team" can in no way be ascertained by the flag and anthem: the players have no input to either of these emblems.
Third, there is no evidence of any players refusing to play for NI because of a flag or anthem, or of players not being picked due to their religion or political beliefs. On the contrary, NI teams have always included players from both traditions, and continue to do so.
That may be the case, but that does not provide evidence in discrimination in the picking of teams.:mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Zzzzzzzz. Like you don't know that each "community" is largely defined by religious affiliation.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Why on earth would the IFA fly the flag of another, rival country at its matches. What nonsense.:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Have you been to an NI match in the last five years, YI? I would guess almost certainly not; as someone who has attended half of our games (H & A) during that period, I can tell you that your opinion is both wrong and misleading.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
The phrase "there remains a sectarian element" [amongst the support] implies that this is manifested in the behaviour of that support at matches. This simply is not so - in my experience, not my opinion. I could also cite the experience of the two Catholics (one English-born) whom I roomed with in Latvia two months back.
Of course, if you were to say that amongst the NI support there are people who hold sectarian views, no reasonable person would disagree - it would be a miracle if there weren't.
But that is no different from saying that those many ROI fans who live in NI must also include a sectarian element amongst their number. Yet I would never characterise the ROI support in the way you do the NI support, nor dare suggest that no Protestant, from ROI or NI, could support the ROI team for fear of experiencing sectarianism, even despite the ugly abuse which a Danish player, mistaken for a Glasgow Ranger, experienced a while back. Nor would I suggest that no Jew could follow the ROI team either, despite the disgraceful anti-Semitic abuse, as reported on this site, when the Israeli team visited Dublin recently.
The fact is, what is important is how the fans behave at matches and the behaviour of NI fans at games these days is no bar to any Catholic (or Nationalist, for that matter) attending and enjoying the game. Just as such behaviour is no bar to any Catholic/Nationalist player representing his country. And above all, it should be noted that this happier situtation exists amongst other reasons precisely because the average fan wants it to be so.
P.S. On a technical point, you are also wrong about the NI flag. It is NOT based on the St.George's Cross. When originally designed by the Ulster King of Arms in Dublin in 1924(!), it was based on the old provincial flag of Ulster. As such, it incorporates not just the Red Hand, but also the De Burgh Cross (the De Burghs having been Earls of Ulster at one stage). This cross is coincidentally similar, but not identical to, St. George's Cross, which is noticeably thinner.
Therefore, it is thought that the UKofA took the old Ulster provincial flag and added a crown (UK) and six-pointed star (i.e 6 counties) for NI, but changed the background colour to white to make it distinctively different from that on which it was based.
Blanchflower if I gave the impression that the IFA disriminated in any way when picking Nationalists for the team then I apologise as this was not the point I was trying to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
As for the flag and anthem I think you realistically must admit that they both only serve to obstruct more Nationalists from identifying with and therefore playing for the team. Would you rather play for an Ireland team playing Amhrán na bhFiann as an anthem and using the tricolour as a flag or another Ireland team playing GSTQ as an anthem with the Union Jack and Ulster Banner (St George's Cross) waving in the stands? I rest my case your honour.
As for the Ulster Banner, it is based on a combination of the St George's Cross on the English flag and the flag of the province Ulster as far as I'm aware. Maybe someone can back me up on this though so I don't have to search the internet though I'm open to being proven wrong.
I now just have to go and prove EG wrong on both his main points just for the sole reason that he says things with so much conviction that he's right (he even convinces the less gifted on here amongst us) even when they are 100% incorrect.
Read that batman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_banner
Or to summarise:
The flag is taken from the coat of arms granted in 1924 which is based on the flag of England[1][2][3] and the flag of the Irish province of Ulster [4], with the addition of a crown to symbolise the loyalty of Ulster unionists to the British Monarchy.
Not very pro Nationalist is it?
And have a look that this. Not 5 years ago is it?
http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...&search=Search
As an Irish Nationalist and Catholic from the South I don't find that support very welcoming. Maybe the sound was added later though (I'm sure you'll claim it was).
Come on, the abuse that that Danish lad got was pure tounge in cheek comedy booing, as soon as the stadium announcer corrected his mistake the lad (Peter Madsen) started getting cheered every time he got the ball. There were Irish players getting booed for tackling him, in no way was it ugly and the media hyped it up beyond recognition to try and make a story of it. Maybe the media didn't get the joke but it was obvious that good natured banter was all it was in the crowd.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
As for the anti Israel feelking at the game, I'd suggest that that was more down to the politics that country involves itself in (hence the number of Palestine flags at the game) and the constant play acting of their team, in particular their keeper, rather then any specific anti semitism.
All just a bit of crack.:)
Wikipedia is not a credible source. Anyone could have written that, including you.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
What's the story with NI supporters and their crazy, Fox Mulder style conspiracy theories?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
EG stop trying to compare a handful of anti-Israeli elements amongst a crowd of 45 thousand supporters with the 1938 Nuremberg rally. It's foolish. Anyway it's not the same as the North's problem considering we don't have a large Jewish population in the South as far as I recollect or a history of conflict with them.
As for the booing. Pure pantomine. If an ROI player played for Rangers he'd be cheered like anyone else in the team. We don't have a history of secterianism amongst our support though I know you'd like to think we do. I've never heard IRA or rebel songs at an Ireland match.
Are you going to retract your insinuations about discrimination against RCs in the NI team?
What utter sh*te! It's an England flag with a crown and red hand on it. If it was just the Ulster flag etc. - or whatever other boll*cks you're waffling on about - why change the colour? Why make 'it distinctively different' to use your turds...sorry words, from the Ulster flag? The crown on top would suffice to prove that NI was now 'crown property'?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
YoungIrish, although EG has stated that he thinks I'm stoopid - fair enough! - it appears that he thinks that all the other Fenians on here are stoopid as well.
For an impartial history of the NI flag see http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/images/symbols/flags.htm which states that This flag is based upon the St. George's Cross (see above) and has similarities to the Province of Ulster Flag (see above). However this particular flag of Northern Ireland is seen as staunchly Loyalist because of the Crown, the Star of David, and the Red Hand of Ulster. A number of other flags were based upon this design (see the alternative 'Ulster' flag below).
Of course, and this goes for all the other muppets sucking up to EG on here, you can either take the word of a respected academic service...or the lies of some tosser on an internet forum.
Blanchflower: Wikepedia may not be a reliable source but it's certainly more reliable than either you or any other members of ourweeminds on here, and if you or EG think otherwise, you are a couple of sad cookies.
Grow up Blanchflower. You're making yourself look like someone whose cojones have years to go before they drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
It's not. Why on earth would it be an England flag??:eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I should imagine it was to make it distinct from the 9-county version.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Why use an England flag? Makes even less sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
If, by "crown property", you mean within the realm of the British sovereign, NI was "crown property" for many centuries before the design of the flag.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
Claiming the flag is based on the England flag is a common misconception, repeated by many ill-informed sources. CAIN is an example of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
I'm curious for more clarity on the anti-Israel actions.
There was a protest march along Baggot Street before the match but that was a political march, in no way sponsored or endorsed by any fan group.
During the game there was continental style whistling when Israel was in possession (rarely) but this was classic "intimidate the away team" stuff, not in the remotest sense could it have been construed as anti-semitic.
Was there anything else? My instinct is that some NI fans here are just looking for an excuse to identify an element in our support that exists - or certainly existed - in theirs.
I agree with D69er about the pantomime nature of the Rangers player booing, especially the Peter Madsen / Lovenkrands episode. Didnt Torre Andre Flo see the "humour" in it too at one stage? It was stupid and obviously attracted bad publicity but to call Irish fans sectarian as a result was miles wide of the mark. Our own media have no clue about crowd behaviour, just as they completely misinterpreted booing of Ralph Keyes during the rugby in the 90s. On that occasion the crowd were booing the tactic of consistently hoofing the ball forward when we had one of the world's most exciting wingers getting frostbite across the pitch. The reaction? A disgrace to boo the player.
Show us where I said that and I'll gladly retract it. If you can't find it will you admit you're a bit insane and you think that everything any ROI fan says must revolve around papist influenced, religious intolerance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanchflower
It is not I who needs to grow up: I am not making unfounded insinuations and failing to back them up when challenged.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez