I didn't see/have time to respond to your earlier, lengthy post which, inter alia, referred to me and since then, GR and NB have responded pretty much as I would have done.
However, a few particular points from your follow-up need to be answered, as below.
I am entirely in favour of seeing GSTQ being replaced by something peculiarly "Norn Iron".Originally Posted by dantheman
And before you start excoriating members of OWC, after exhaustive debate(!), in two separate polls receiving hundreds of votes, a clear 2:1 majority wanted to see GSTQ replaced (fwiw).
Anyhow, despite my own, clear stance on this, I also recognise that it is a hugely divisive and emotive issue, which should not be addressed blithely or insensitively.
The Report commission by the IFA was one move in that direction, but even there, from the extract you quoted, they did NOT appear to say GSTQ must be abolished; rather they suggested a public competition be held to see if there was a more widely acceptable alternative.
I would like to see that pursued, but in the meantime, I would ask all those opposed to GSTQ (like myself), to do what I did when I used to go down to Lansdowne for Ireland rugby internationals and had to suffer the SS (twice!):
"Stand Up. Shut Up. Now get on with the bloody Game"
On which point, in order to be consistent, shouldn't the FAI replace the SS before ROI matches? After all, every ROI fan I've ever heard has insisted that any Irish player, North or South, Protestant or Catholic, Unionist or Republican etc, should (post-Gibson) be eligible to play for their team, without any barrier or discouragement etc.
If GSTQ is "unacceptable" to Northern Nationalists at NI games, surely the SS is "unacceptable" to Northern Unionists at ROI games?
(Btw, I am NOT proposing that the FAI replace the SS at their games, merely making the point to expose the double-standards of our critics)
As the poster in question, I would suggest you go back and read what I actually posted. I did NOT complain about the lack of objectivity on this Board.
Rather, I said I was disinclined to continue posting because of a perceived lack of objectivity of "some of the Mods" (two, actually).
The distinction is key, since only an idiot would join a football fans' website and expect to meet with widespread objectivity.
As for what I posted on OWC, this was a spoof on a song composed by Scottish fans following Maradona's handball vs England, so fans of one team ripping the p ish out of their neighbours is hardly new to football, is it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOO42...om=PL&index=10
That said, I will apologise unreservedly if you can assure me that you and your fellow ROI fans have never engaged in a touch of Schadenfreud on occasion...
On this point, I disagree fundamentally with GR on the topic of "compensation".
For me, representing your country should never be about financial considerations, neither should any hint of a "transfer market" be allowed to develop. In the end, FIFA's Regulations should decide how/when a player may switch Nationality on purely principled grounds, otherwise minor countries like eg Liberia would be tempted to develop the next George Weah for the highest bidder, and he might be tempted to comply, in the knowledge that he would not otherwise be able to play at the highest level for his native country.
Thereafter, the only country which would benefit would be whichever one (Spain? France? Italy? England?) which paid the most "compensation" for a player - wrong, wrong, wrong.
As for Gibson, you can keep him; speaking personally, I wouldn't want your money any more than I would the player himself.
P.S. If compensation were payable in such cases, never mind any present economic difficulties, the ROI would still be struggling to pay the English, Scottish and Welsh FA's compensation for the Jack Charlton era!
Three points about "poaching".
1. I, for one, have no problem with the FAI approaching the likes of Duffy or Wilson, since both have a parent/grandparent from the ROI, so must be perfectly entitled to play for the FAI team, should they choose;
2. However, when it comes to discrimination (true sense of the word, that is), it is the FAI who presently have more of a case to answer than the IFA (imo).
For it is notable that of all the players they have approached, none has ever been from the Unionist community.
Therefore, it is their recruitment policy which is leading to a de facto politicisation, even sectarianising, of football in Ireland, not that of the IFA who, after all, are only objecting to losing Nationalist kids whom they might select alongside their Unionist neighbours;
3. As to the extent of FAI poaching, if you read some more of OWC, you'd see one account by a poster of an incident a couple of years back. Basically, an Australian schoolboy team (U-16) was touring the UK and arranged a game against an NI Schoolboy team along the way.
This was to be played with an afternoon kick-off in midweek in Ballinamallard, when the weather intervened. At the last minute, it was switched to a Council pitch in Irvinestown, where it was played in the pouring rain.
By kick-off I would be surprised if there were more than a copule of dozen in attendance, when an ROI-registered car pulled up and out got two known FAI scouts, ROI tracksuits and all.
They weren't there to take notes on the Aussies, that's for sure...
Speaking for myself, my attitude towards the FAI and their team (not their fans, I might add) has been greatly hardened by the Gibson case, since it is more than just a case of "disagreement".
What those in the FAI fail to acknowledge is that it is they who unilaterally broke the Gentleman's Agreement between the two Associations not to pick each others' players, an Agreement negotiated nearly 60 years ago, at the behest of the FAI.
Therefore, if they are now entitled to pick the likes of Gibson, what has changed from two or three decades ago, when they would have declined to pick Gibson's father or grandfather?
And then they have the brass neck to bitch about "fair play" over the Henry Handball...
Who do you think it is employs/subsidises/administers/encourages all those coaches/players etc in doing their good work, if not the IFA (and its decision-makers)?
Despite being perenially skint, the IFA devotes a lot of scarce resources to FFA, such that people like Brian Kerr, when he was involved with SARI, has stated that the FAI could learn a lot from what the IFA is doing in this field.
P.S. If the IFA is "nearly there" (anthem aside), how do you reconcile that with your earlier description of them as being "orange-tinted"?
Which comment betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what FFA is all about.
For it is not a case of balancing eg Nationalist numbers versus those of Loyalists.
Rather, it is a case of ensuring as many people who wish to do so, may do so in an atmosphere free of anything on the grounds of religion/politics/race/disability etc which might deter them.
On which point, had you recently (ever?) actually attended an NI game, you would know that that is now almost universally the case. (For independent verification of this, see eg Gspain's accounts drawn from his own personal experience).
Anyhow, fans may maintain whatever political views they like away from the stadium, so long as they don't bring them through the turnstiles.
As such, I can assure you we have been enormously successful in recent years, and if it is still a "work in progress", the good work goes on.
In the meantime, we can also go on enjoying the good work on the pitch; I would sincerely invite you to come along and see this for yourself (tickets permitting), but if you cannot bring yourself to do so, then I suspect it is more your loss than ours.
Quote
).
And how can you back up a statement like that without any hard evidence? 
Bookmarks