QuoteNot too sure what you mean by this. What recent actions by the FAI can be perceived as an attempt to even things up?Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
The historical inconsistencies above that allowed Northern Ireland favourable treatment at the expense of the Republic are directly related to the 40 year period that renowned champion of equal rights, Harry Cavan, sat on various FIFA Committees and Boards, and exercised an undue influence, right up to his ten years as Vice-President. We need not forgot that it was he who tried most to cancel the All Ireland/Shamrock Rovers Select XI vs Brazil friendly, presumably for "slippy slope" reasons in relation to a unified team taking the pitch under the name Ireland.
Viewed in this context, the FAI's recent actions can be seen as an attempt to even things up.
Not too sure what you mean by this. What recent actions by the FAI can be perceived as an attempt to even things up?
Calling up players who previously representing Northern Ireland at underage level. What did you think I was referring to?!
I thought you were suggesting something that could be perceived as underhanded.
Except them, as with any country, are eligible to switch if applicable, until they receive a full competitive cap.
Right, with you now. For a moment I thought you were having a gentle dig at Britain having more than one international team. If there's a World of difference, I doubt if it's quite in the way you suggest. Compare Scotland, or Bavaria, or Flanders, say, with San Marino or Liechtenstein.
Agreed it's not really that relevant. Northern Ireland and England have separate international sides not because they paid off 3% and 83% of FIFA's overdraft (or whatever it was). But basically because a) they always have, and b) hardly anyone else is bothered by this, bar a few stirrers on Republic of Ireland supporter boards.I find it hard to believe Northern Ireland "saved" FIFA (I find it even harder to believe it's in any way relevant). When you factor in the level to which FIFA facilitated Harry Cavan feathering his own bed (see "Foul" for more info), I'd say on balance the IFA was a taker than a giver
Do you have a link for the Foul story? Although Harry Cavan's slightly before my time, I used to have the Foul compendium reissued by When Saturday Comes in the early 90s (?)
What favourable treatment did we get at your expense for 40 years (or even less than that)?The historical inconsistencies above that allowed Northern Ireland favourable treatment at the expense of the Republic are directly related to the 40 year period that renowned champion of equal rights, Harry Cavan, sat on various FIFA Committees and Boards, and exercised an undue influence, right up to his ten years as Vice-President
Aye, terrible. He was worried about a threat to the NI team. What an absolute bounder the bloke must have been.We need not forgot that it was he who tried most to cancel the All Ireland/Shamrock Rovers Select XI vs Brazil friendly, presumably for "slippy slope" reasons in relation to a unified team taking the pitch under the name Ireland
And there was me thinking those actions were in the context of recruiting some more decent players and thus improving disappointing results.Viewed in this context, the FAI's recent actions can be seen as an attempt to even things up
None taken. But if you are suggesting that, then quite simply you are just as wrong as Ardee Troll, the Fly and other posters who think unionists are somehow less Irish, or not Irish at all. I'm sure I speak for EG and other NI fans on the thread- our sense of being Irish comes from and is er, being from Ireland. It's perfectly simple.
I've no problem with you distinguishing between concepts, statuses (stati?) legal this and constitutional that. Because really they're just convoluted ways of distinguishing between er, nationalists and unionists. Neither is inherently more or less Irish than the other.They're not really even differently Irish. Both coming from Ireland, like.but, surely, let's be honest that there is a distinction between your concept and the status of Irishness accorded to persons of Irish nationality, at least on a legal-constitutional basis
You're referring to what 'OneRedArmy' astutely refers to as a "state of mind" whilst the Good Friday Agreement refers to and invokes the latter. You might even refer to this "state of mind" as "Northern Irish", to be more accurate, seeing as you view the British and not the Irish nation as the custodian of your identity and interests, right?
No, wrong. The British part of my identity doesn't contradict the Irish part. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't. As for the custodian of my interests, whatever that means- beyond what people say on this thread, how would you know what they are?
Indeed. So how about both FAI and IFA agreeing that they won't select any players who've already appeared as adults (ie, age 18) for the other's teams?from my experience, there is some sympathy on this board for the notion that the IFA have the potential to suffer to quite a significant degree as regards their expenditure on youth development due to the FIFA statutes and that maybe some change could be made somewhere - be that to FIFA's rules or to the FAI's policy - to "rectify" this apparent injustice
Although I'll admit to not welcoming it, it's hardly preposterous. Although possibly not the best use of the FAI's resources. I mean, you will probably continue to get more players from England than Derry, Newry or Twinbrook, so why not set up the training camps there?Personally, I wouldn't object to the idea of the FAI funding their own training camps in nationalist areas within NI, but I suppose you'd throw it out the window as a preposterous suggestion...
I am. A 20 year old wunderkind who's lived in Rathcoole throughout should be able to play for NI. He's as Irish as Jonny Evans regardless of passport carried.I don't think anyone is arguing that [EG's notional Belfast-born Pole not eligible to play for either NI or RoI under current rules] should be eligible
No, fully behind the FAI exercising their rights. My overall point is that it is completely hypocritical for the IFA to accept their "special treatment" by FIFA which ensures their existance as an international football team, whilst at the same time denying the FAI the right to pick Irish citizen's who want to play for Ireland. Its having your cake and eating it. They got away with in Harry Cavan's day because of his influence with FIFA, but that time has passed.
FIFA's rules have a host of exceptions, inconsistencies and the like, which is fitting for the most politically corrupt of institutions. If you open the lid on one, you risk the potential for a protracted period of whataboutery in relation to various compromises and sidebar deals. It will be interesting to see when Sepp goes, if a non UEFA delegate were to take over, particularly an African or Asian, whether they would seek to chip away at the European powerbase.
Aye, but I'd say the corruption comes from the nature, size and scale of the organisation. Is FIFA that much more corrupt than the United Nations, IOC etc?
If it was Hayatou, Chung or Warner (the three non-European FIFA politicians who seem to appear most often in the British media), that could be interesting. How do you see any of them doing that- more and bigger World Cups in Africa, more CONCACAF teams in the finals, no international status for England or Faroe Islands?It will be interesting to see when Sepp goes, if a non UEFA delegate were to take over, particularly an African or Asian, whether they would seek to chip away at the European powerbase
FIFA are certainly up there with the IOC. It goes with members having equal votes yet vast inequalities of wealth and a game that is one of the world's biggest and wealthiest industries. Huge blame goes to Adidas, Puma, Reebok and Nike for fostering it.
The 4 "home nations" each having a team and a vote obviously works strongly in favour of the UEFA-bloc vis-a-vis the other confederations and therefore will be supported by all UEFA members at a minimum. But anything is possible, although a very remote possibility.
Warner is a crook, plain and simple, God forbid he gets any more senior that he already is.
[QUOTE=EalingGreen;1378171]fact of my having a Tipperary grandmother
I knew we had something in common......
The British/ Danish/ UEFA bloc votes aren't that significant. The West Indies (which plays as one team in international cricket) has 11 votes in CONCACAF. Jamaica, Barbados, Montserrat etc. all having one each.
Again, comparison with sovereign states isn't relevant, nor is the West Indies comparison. I might as well bring up the Irish rugby, hockey, golf teams if we're going to use the Windies as an example....!
Hmmm................moving swiftly on.
It's perfectly relevant (indeed a direct answer) to your earlier point about Britain/ UEFA having three extra 'bloc' votes from non-sovereign countries. CONCACAF has far more of a similar bloc vote, simply because it has more micro-countries than Europe does. Micro-countries which combine in other international sport. I'd assumed (it seems wrongly) that we'd moved on to a discussion of FIFA politicking generally, rather than just going over the British anomaly over and over again.
Bring up the Irish rugby or cricket teams if you like. As you suggest, they're anomalies which seem to work- although as you might guess I'd prefer to support a purely Northern Ireland cricket side.
What favourable treatment did we get at your expense for 40 years (or even less than that)?The historical inconsistencies above that allowed Northern Ireland favourable treatment at the expense of the Republic are directly related to the 40 year period that renowned champion of equal rights, Harry Cavan, sat on various FIFA Committees and Boards, and exercised an undue influence, right up to his ten years as Vice-President
Last edited by Gather round; 21/07/2010 at 2:38 PM.
For the purposes of this thread, I don't think anyone will move on until either the IFA back down or FIFA change the rules.
I'm also not sure what a micro-country is, are they less deserving of a vote because they are small? FIFA's hands are effectively tied in that they must recognise all sovereign states as individual members as recognised by the UN etc. There is no optionality or discretion there. If you are a real sovereign entity, as recognised by international bodies, you get a seat at the table.
In addition to this, FIFA recognise a small cohort of statelets, territories and other non-sovereign entities, mostly for various historical and geographical reasons. This is not grounded in international law or anywhere other than in FIFA's rulebook.
The restriction on the use of the name Ireland as outlined above would be a good place to start.
Whilst the 60 odd pages of rhetoric and history make somewhat interesting reading, the likelihood is that FIFA will do what it always does and take the path of least resistance. I firmly believe that will be reinforcing the validity of the current approach taken by the FAI. The IFA have more to lose than stopping people representing the ROI, and they know it.
Speak for yourself. There's only one broad IFA supporter on this thread; other NI fans, including me, have moved on, so there's no inherent reason why you and others can't. I imagine the IFA will back down fairly soon, with a bad grace. They're likely to lose and to be unable to afford any further legal or similar challenges.
Population less than 100,000? They're equally, but no more deserving of a vote than England or the Faroe Islands are, I reckon.I'm also not sure what a micro-country is, are they less deserving of a vote because they are small?
Are you sure? FIFA is an independent organisation, not a UN quango. Can't it do as it pleases, including changing its own rule book?FIFA's hands are effectively tied in that they must recognise all sovereign states as individual members as recognised by the UN etc. There is no optionality or discretion there. If you are a real sovereign entity, as recognised by international bodies, you get a seat at the table
Fine. Why is this a problem? As long it doesn't break any international laws, FIFA can do as it sees fit?This is not grounded in international law or anywhere other than in FIFA's rulebook
Ha ha. And to finish, presumably? I thought at the very least you'd suggest we were allowed a goal start, or a tame Swedish linesman in every games. You'll struggle to convince many abroad that part of Ireland not being allowed to call itself Ireland (however upsetting that might be) somehow offered an advantage to the other part of Ireland.The restriction on the use of the name Ireland as outlined above would be a good place to start
As someone put it on OWC, in the short term they'll lose the PR battle (and be made to look poorly-led and vindictive, I think) . In the longer term their playing pool might be two or three men short at any given time. Generally, they've no more to lose than any other country's FA, unless you're suggesting that not being a sovereign country is a threat in itself, in which case I think you're deluding youself.IFA have more to lose than stopping people representing the ROI, and they know it
Not unbounded it can't. Despite throwing itself around like a school bully any time legal action is mentioned at the expense of its own arbitration process, to survive it has to operate within the bounds of national and international laws. Its strength is its complete global reach. If it pushes too far and doesn't bring the global "football family" along, you go down the boxing route of an IBF, WBA, WBC etc.
Agree with this.
I don't think unionists per se, by virtue of being unionist, are necessarily "less Irish" or a "different type of Irish", or whatever. That's not exactly what I was saying, not that you personally are not Irish at all, and therefore deluded or something. There are obviously those in the south whose sense of identity is rooted in the Ulster-Scots tradition or the old Protestant Ascendancy. Presumably they would have sympathised with unionist politics pre-partition (maybe even still*) and see much of their collective histories in British terms (maybe?). One thing I am sure of, however, is that they are as much Irish in the modern sense as I am. I wasn't espousing a traditional ethnic or Catholic nationalism of any sort - but very much a civic one - just to be sure. They're Irish nationality and my Irish nationality undoubtedly share an equal status and it's not my place to even say they're welcome to it as that might imply that my Irishness sits on some higher pedestal and that I have some sense of prerogative over how Irishness is defined; to "welcome them into 'our' set of rules" or whatever with "our" signifying some supposed superior status, if you get my drift... By saying such, there would be an implication or connotation there that they mightn't be welcome to it if those perceived as being "superiorly and unquestionably Irish" (not to suggest there is such a distinction in this case; I only use that for the purposes of this debate) objected to it, but that would be getting into rather distasteful and ethnically-motivated politics.
Your sense of Irishness, though, or what has been described as a "state of mind" by others, is surely something a bit different seeing as you, presumably, have little or no interest in being an Irish national as channelled through the modern Irish state. Would you object to using the term "Northern Irish" instead of "Irish" as a self-description? And do you consider yourself part of the Irish nation or part of an Irish nation? I'm not so sure there are two Irish nations, you see. I suppose it's like EG's Estonian-born Russians example. They see themselves as ethnically and culturally Russian, but I don't believe Russia offers them any legal recognition. I wouldn't deny their Russian heritage, but to classify them in the same bracket as fully-fledged Russian citizens seems a bit of a leap to me. At the same time, it would also seem absurd to refer to them as a second Russian nation. Maybe you disagree. Anyway, I'm not sure how coherent my points are as it's just something I've been mulling over here, but it seems quite an unconventional thought, and not even just for Irish nationalists who might feel that those perceived to be the native Irish - the Gaels or whatever, or they themselves even - have a traditional and innate dominion or prerogative over what constitutes Irishness.
*I'm aware that 'fhtb', to use a peculiar example, is from Donegal - presumably from around the Laggan area or somewhere given the fact he supports Finn Harps - yet, in supporting Northern Ireland (rather paradoxically?), he supports a British international team. He clearly feels that his identity is best represented by a British team despite presumably being an Irish national. Of course, I don't know the guy - would you want to?! :P - and don't want to jump to conclusions, but I'm just going from what I can see on the face of things and adding two and two together. Maybe he has northern parents or something and the reasons for the support can be better explained elsewhere, mind you. It would be interesting to hear his politics though, although that's certainly not an expectation for disclosure.
The interests of a/an (Northern) Irish unionist, surely.As for the custodian of my interests, whatever that means- beyond what people say on this thread, how would you know what they are?I suppose, generally-speaking, I'm referring to the notion that you and your kin, as unionists, see the UK as the protector of your rights and privileges and as where your future lies. Unless I'm mistaken.
No major qualms with that for the sake of maintaining good neighbourly terms. I like the idea of our players coming up through FAI ranks where possible, as I'm sure anyone would. It's certainly preferable that way and you can feel no doubts on a moral level as to how deserved it is when you're reaping the benefits; enjoying fruits of your labour and all that. In saying that, I don't feel like Shane Duffy, for example, did anything strictly unethical or whatever - as has been suggested in certain quarters - as that was how circumstances prevailed for the lad and I'm aware that the FAI and Sean McCaffrey were - rightly or wrongly, given the fact he had a Donegal father anyway - very reluctant to initiate contact with him while the IFA engaged in a process of fast-tracking. In the end, I don't think the FAI ever did make contact until his father got in touch with them despite it being patently obvious how keen Duffy was, but maybe that can be confirmed. Life is a matter of perspective and I'm prepared to fully give him the benefit of the doubt over his overall path. Bear in mind though, that an agreement between the IFA and FAI in the nature of what you propose wouldn't actually have restricted the FAI from selecting Gibson, Wilson or Duffy. They all switched before the age of 18. Can't be certain about others, but most switch quite early, contrary to what Beaglehole was trying to relay to the impressionable public. Would this render such an agreement largely pointless? Possibly.Indeed. So how about both FAI and IFA agreeing that they won't select any players who've already appeared as adults (ie, age 18) for the other's teams?
Out of interest, would Duffy be exempt from your proposition anyway, what with him having a Donegal father and all?
I was only suggesting it as something that might quell the IFA's protestations and ensure good relations. Plus, we'd be training our own players. Although it's not something I'm strongly advocating; just something to which I wouldn't object.Although I'll admit to not welcoming it, it's hardly preposterous. Although possibly not the best use of the FAI's resources. I mean, you will probably continue to get more players from England than Derry, Newry or Twinbrook, so why not set up the training camps there?
That Rathcoole in Belfast or Rathcoole in Dublin?I am. A 20 year old wunderkind who's lived in Rathcoole throughout should be able to play for NI. He's as Irish as Jonny Evans regardless of passport carried.
Then again, the thing that puzzles me right now is FIFA's use of the word "permanent" in article 15. Obviously, nationality from birth is permanent in nature, but I'll use Alex Bruce as an example here as I've mentioned him above... He is born with the potential to claim Irish citizenship at a later date. It is not assumed to have taken automatic effect from birth if it's derived via a grand-parental link, as per my understanding of the relevant legislation on Irish nationality law. Once granted, however, it is technically permanent in nature from that date, right? So, what I'm wondering is whether Bruce actually does qualify to play for us by recourse to article 17, or whether it's actually by recourse to article 15. And, if he indeed is eligible via article 15, to what type of candidate would article 17 then apply? Is the need for such an article negated then other than for those persons who satisfy it by having lived in a country for at least five years after the age of 18, also having assumed a temporary citizenship of that country through naturalisation or whatever before or within that time? Once again, maybe I'm missing something obvious; my heads turning like a windmill.
Edit: Actually, apologies, I managed to confuse myself. I'm just realising I overlooked what should have been very obvious in relation to my final paragraph. Alex Bruce would be acquiring a new nationality, so article 17 is the rule that applies in his case. I'm pretty sure I've even discussed this in depth already on here, ha. My original worry about his eligibility, if article 17 is to be read literally, still stands then, seeing as his grandparent wasn't from the territory of the FAI, having been born in the north.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 21/07/2010 at 11:45 PM.
Credit to DannyI again, especially the paragraph comparing Estonia and the North.
Out of interest, know the odd Romanian who tell me Moldova could be a better example of what you're talking about here. But that's a whole new can of worms!
Hypocrisy/Pomposity Alert!
Either that, or extreme Irony(again).
This is certainly not the view of the vast majority of unionists, who still see themselves as British, given a, er, preference!
The most recent study showed a minimum of 75% disagreeing, whatever the scope of the GFA!
Rather than a miniscule snapshot of views on a MB.
Not withstanding the vast reams of pointless (& repetitive) waffle generated, defending this minority position *
For the latest regurgitation, see above, re.the stance of the majority of unionists and doubtless of fans of the North's football team.I've no problem with you distinguishing between concepts, statuses (stati?) legal this and constitutional that. Because really they're just convoluted ways of distinguishing between er, nationalists and unionists. Neither is inherently more or less Irish than the other.They're not really even differently Irish. Both coming from Ireland, like.
The British part of my identity doesn't contradict the Irish part. Sometimes they overlap, sometimes they don't
What else is being suggested, other than this new-found stating of Irishness, is somehow diminishing 'Britishness';What percentage(s) are you claiming now ??
Or doing as allowed, where anyone with dual or multiple-eligibility, are available to all until they receive their first competitive cap.So how about both FAI and IFA agreeing that they won't select any players who've already appeared as adults (ie, age 18) for the other's teams?
Unless of course they belong to, or identify with(especially due to family), another culture!A 20 year old wunderkind who's lived in Rathcoole throughout should be able to play for NI. He's as Irish as Jonny Evans regardless of passport carried.
Except no-one in the ICU would take such a farcically myopic view and on a more local level both the cricket and rugby teams have been capable of some admirable performances as joint teams, regardless of religion or political views.
At least give them credit for that.
Even the Boers, (Or should that be 'Bores' in this case) never called for this in S.Africa!
**Did you mean yourself??
And since when would the IFA be remotely interested in any PR battle;they're just interested, belatedly, hanging onto what they think they've already got.
Despite it being contrary to the GFA.
Remember the same thing, that confirms your dual-status.
Though most of your ilk don't seem to be currently interested! Or this what you meant by 'deluded'?
Lol.
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 21/07/2010 at 10:18 PM.
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/sport/FO...urt.6428473.jp
With a photo of Londonderry's finest. No surprise at the demented rants of the Unionist posters when the read this tripe
FOOTBALL: IFA wait on court ruling
Londonderry-born Darron Gibson opted to play for the Republic
IT could be up to six weeks before the Irish
FA know if they were successful in halting the Republic of Ireland from grabbing their talented young players.
A team of legal experts and the IFA chief executive, Patrick Nelson, presented a case to the Court of Arbitration yesterday in an effort to halt Northern Ireland-born players opting to play for the Republic.
The IFA took the case to the Lausanne-based body after Daniel Kearns became the latest Northern Ireland born player to switch to the Republic this year.
It follows on from a a case brought before FIFA almost three years ago which failed to clarify the issue.
Irish Football Association president, Raymond Kennedy, who was also in Switzerland, told the News Letter last night that it could be "some
time" before an outcome would be known.
"It could be weeks, maybe up to six weeks," he said.
"All I can say is, given this is such a delicate issue, that everyone presented their cases today and it is now up to the panel to make a
decision."
Kearns, who attended yesterday's hearing, joined Darron Gibson, in changing allegiance after playing at youth level for Northern Ireland.
Yesterday, the IFA argued that players like Kearns and Gibson, whose parents and grandparents were born in Northern Ireland, should not be allowed to declare for the Republic.
It is a situation which puts the IFA at a clear disadvantage against all other 206 associations and there is a fear the player drain South
could gather momentum.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks