QuoteTo be fair though, does that article say anything we didn't already know?
Good balanced reporting by the Newsletter there. God help the poor lads, forced into servitude representing a country against their will.....
To be fair though, does that article say anything we didn't already know?
No it doesnt, but its the first printed media version of the more right wing OWC version of events.Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
The only thing of note is the poaching>grabbing evolution. Where will it end? Raping? Genocide?
No, it's not exactly what you're saying, and it's not not Irish at all. But it is, as I've suggested, an unwillingness or inability from some on this thread to accept that I'm just as Irish as you are, and not inherently different in that Irishness.
Allegiance to the modern Republic of Irish state isn't necessary to be Irish. There is another modern state in Ireland, after all.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
No problem, I use both. As I do 'Republic of Irish' to describe others, as you see above.Would you object to using the term "Northern Irish" instead of "Irish" as a self-description?
Odd question. I mean, as I've explained repeatedly, there are two nations in Ireland, both with the word 'Ireland' in their official names. Not that I'm as hidebound by those as some on this thread.And do you consider yourself part of the Irish nation or part of an Irish nation? And do you consider yourself part of the Irish nation or part of an Irish nation?
My only on-line challenge to his politics is that we differ on the first principle of eligibility for international football. I don't care which part of Ireland Duffy or Gibson's great-grandparents lived in 50 or 75 years ago. It's irrelevant. If they want to play for the Republic, fine. Bye bye.I'm aware that 'fhtb', to use a peculiar example, is from Donegal
As far as I know, I've never met him at a game or otherwise. I'm not even sure what the acronym stands for. Finn Harps top boy? Fc*king hate the Blues? Faroese have tremendous beers?
Politics is only one of my interests, and unionism only part of that. For what it's worth, I'd much prefer unionism to be a cross-party lobby in Brit politics, not a whole slew of separate parties. I'm actually a member of the Green Party over here. I've very little confidence in either the current British government, or the last one, protecting my interests!The interests of a/an (Northern) Irish unionist, surely. 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
I don't think either of them did anything unethical, they acted within the rules. That's why I want a bilateral agreement wich at least theoretically changes those rules. Best wishes to Duffy himself, glad to see he's making a quick recovery. The only other advice I'd give him is try to keep Da off bad-tempered internet boards...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
Indeed, all those guys moved or declared before 18. I'm suggesting an arbitrary threshold. If such an agreement stopped 18 or 19 year old players moving, it would be worthwhile. Of course I realise it might stop some accepting an invitation to our u-19 or u-21 in the first place, but them's the vagaries.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
No. as above I don't care where his Da's from. I'm irritated only really because he played in eight adult internationals for NI before changing his mind.Out of interest, would Duffy be exempt from your proposition anyway, what with him having a Donegal father and all?
Really? I assumed you were joking and replied in kind. In practice such training camps would be seen as a provocation by the IFA and NI fans, resulting in extended howls of anguish. Whereas camps in say, Preston, Pontefract or Mansfield, probably wouldn't even be noticed, let alone commented on, in the English media.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
Belfast. I'd forgotten about the one in Dublin. As for EG's notional examples, my attitude to them would be clouded by my general attitude to citizenship in both Britain and the Republic. Broadly I think birth and/ or residence should qualify for citizenship, regardless of (grand)parentage etc.That Rathcoole in Belfast or Rathcoole in Dublin?
An articulate, yet centrally flawed, piece by a unionist blogger and commentator, and OWC poster, in the Belfast Telegraph.
The article neglects to mention FIFA's primary principle on player eligibility:
Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on
residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of
the Association of that country.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/op...-14882867.html
Last edited by The Fly; 22/07/2010 at 4:12 PM.
Sure why not? What else are we supposed to do for six weeks?
As for the Newsletter piece, I think pretty much every line of it is pure rubbish. Funnily - or depressingly - enough, these are the standard arguments to be found on OWC. I'm going to tackle them all in one go because it isn't actually all that difficult to do so.
Before I begin, congratulations to the Newsletter on reporting that it's been mentioned it might take up to six weeks for a final decision for that's one of the few things they've managed to report correctly. They're pretty much off the ball with everything else.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.
"Grabbing", "poaching", "targetting"; such aggressive hunter-and-hunted terminology amounts to nothing more than spin utilised to suit and bolster the warped agenda that a northern-born individual couldn't seriously want to play for anyone but Northern Ireland if he had a genuine choice in the matter. Of course, the players do have a genuine choice in the matter, whether they've been approached by the FAI initially or not*, but it means the NI fans who use this line of attack can avoid holding the players fully accountable for their choice and, instead, hold the FAI up as the scapegoat, as if they're coercing defenceless child slaves from the north to play for Ireland. Most worrying of all, the same attitude seems prevalent within the IFA and amongst its staff. I don't know why it's so difficult to recognise that the FAI haven't "grabbed" anyone who has willingly - nay, enthusiastically - decided completely voluntarily and on their own terms to represent Ireland. The FAI are simply making it possible for these players to realise their wishes. It's an insult to the players who would consider themselves anything but "grabbed" or "poached". If certain NI fans were to admit that these players' decisions to play for Ireland were made consensually and entirely within the realm of their own free will - and FIFA's rules, I might add - they would have to face a few home truths and admit that there are quite a few reasons as to why representing the IFA mightn't be all that appealing for many nationalists in comparison to the prospect of representing the FAI's team. That's not to deny that there will be some nationalists with no objection to representing Northern Ireland, but that doesn't necessarily contradict the former or negate its reality.
*Two brief points on the whole "who approached who first?" debate; the idea that the FAI are actually the first to engage contact - and doing so rampantly - is merely an exaggerated assumption based on something Chris Baird said about once being approached by the FAI. According to 'EalingGreen', of course. The purpose of the exaggeration is to further the aforementioned agenda. Anyway, I don't see why the FAI shouldn't approach northern-born Irish nationals who are eligible to play for Ireland, just as they would surely be entitled - both legally and morally - to approach any other player eligible to play for Ireland in order to gauge their interest and offer them a choice or opportunity to fulfil what might be a dream come true. What has to be so controversial, shameful or stigmatising about that?
In my view, the use of "legal experts" is quite a flattering description considering the quite comical legal approach they've decided to take.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.
Load of guff, and I can't fathom how this one is still doing the rounds considering the statute book is and has been very accessible and has always been there to provide clarification on the issue when required. Furthermore, the IFA wouldn't be appealing a FIFA decision if FIFA hadn't clarified something in the first place by making a decision that didn't go down too well with the IFA.It follows on from a a case brought before FIFA almost three years ago which failed to clarify the issue.
Just to make it clear; having played at youth level doesn't restrict any player in the world from changing association just so long as he possesses more than one nationality. Half the Algerian squad at the most recent World Cup had formerly played for France at youth level.Kearns, who attended yesterday's hearing, joined Darron Gibson, in changing allegiance after playing at youth level for Northern Ireland.
This argument has arisen out of an embarrassing lack of comprehension as to the meaning and effect of FIFA's statutes on eligibility. Or maybe it's just rooted in blind ignorance of them altogether. Article 15 is very straightforward in its application and mentions absolutely nothing about parents or grandparents, so why the IFA are arguing that such factors have any bearing on whether a player is eligible to play for Ireland or not is beyond me. Maybe they'd like it to be that way, but that would entail proposing a rule-change to FIFA, and that's not the route they've gone down by asking CAS to ensure that FIFA are interpreting their own statutes correctly.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.
All players throughout the world in possession of dual or multiple citizenship can opt to play for two or more countries. There is no universal standard rule governing how a nation state may grant its particular citizenship. Ireland just happens to do it a bit differently from how most (all?) other countries do it. I'm sure other countries, like Ireland, however, have unique or idiosyncratic elements in their nationality laws. It doesn't make such laws any less valid or legitimate. Furthermore, Ireland's extra-territorial nationality laws were bilaterally agreed with the explicit consent and approval of the UK. If FIFA are fine with them, then all the better.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.
This "fear" of the "player drain" gathering momentum is simply sensationalist and scare-mongering nonsense drummed up by the IFA in order to bolster their PR campaign/case. Northern-born players like Mark McKeever, Ger Crossley and Brian Lagan were playing under the auspices of the FAI over a decade ago. Before that, in the early-to-mid-90s, Alan Kernaghan qualified for Irish citizenship, despite being English-born with grand-parental roots in the north, and was eligible to play for Ireland as a result.* Between then and the "recent opening of the floodgates", there have been plenty of northern-born players sprinkled throughout the various Irish youth set-ups. Kevin Deery, Barry Molloy, Neil McCafferty and Ruairí Harkin have all played for Ireland sides between 2002 and 2006. They're just a further four. I'm sure others more knowledgeable than myself could possibly point to others and rightly demonstrate that there is no indication that the latest "batch" of switch-overs are indicative of some seminal or crucial moment in the timeline. Don't be fooled by the panic stirred up in the media that began with Darron Gibson due to the fact that he was of a higher profile than the aforementioned players. Shane Duffy has a Donegal father anyway and I've read that Marc Wilson also has a grandparent from south of the border, so I don't even know if they ought to be counted.
*I've seen it argued that Kernaghan qualified to play for Ireland because his grandparent(s) were born pre-partition. This puzzles me. Maybe someone can offer some conclusive information here, but why would having a grandparent born in what is now Northern Ireland prior to partition enable someone to play for the FAI team? That just seems like another myth that has accrued truth-like status over the years by virtue of being repeated often enough. Of course, I could be entirely incorrect and would appreciate if someone could confirm the matter. Besides, Kernaghan still would have been eligible for Irish citizenship regardless, right?
DannyI,
You've picked up from the early pace-makers, Fly & Predator. One thing's true, we'll all need a drink after this farce is over.
Granted, but that's why I didn't take it seriously.
Yawn
So you're as Irish as everyone posting in this thread.
Yeah, right. Like you're remotely similar. Beyond a geographical link.
More a case of being an apologist for the existence of unionism, despite the concept at its very ethos, that it does not recognise, or have time for, the Irish state.
Another state???Allegiance to the modern Republic of Irish state isn't necessary to be Irish. There is another modern state in Ireland, after all.
Some would question if Ireland's 'modern', let alone a community who insist on celebrating a battle of 320 years ago. Modern, not.
Not a term I've ever heard even other unionists use. See posts passim!As I do 'Republic of Irish' to describe others, as you see above.
There's one small country. And a colonial outpost of a far larger one, formerly a self-appointed 'super-state'.I mean, as I've explained repeatedly, there are two nations in Ireland, both with the word 'Ireland' in their official names. Broadly I think birth and/ or residence should qualify for citizenship, regardless of (grand)parentage etc.
Only one of which uses the name 'Ireland', whereas the other is part of the 'ever-loved' "united Kingdom"
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 22/07/2010 at 4:43 PM.
Excellent post Danny, you should email that to the Newsletter letters page and see if they publish itSure why not? What else are we supposed to do for six weeks?
As for the Newsletter piece, I think pretty much every line of it is pure rubbish. Funnily - or depressingly - enough, these are the standard arguments to be found on OWC. I'm going to tackle them all in one go because it isn't actually all that difficult to do so.
Before I begin, congratulations to the Newsletter on reporting that it's been mentioned it might take up to six weeks for a final decision for that's one of the few things they've managed to report correctly. They're pretty much off the ball with everything else.
"Grabbing", "poaching", "targetting"; such aggressive hunter-and-hunted terminology amounts to nothing more than spin utilised to suit and bolster the warped agenda that a northern-born individual couldn't seriously want to play for anyone but Northern Ireland if he had a genuine choice in the matter. Of course, the players do have a genuine choice in the matter, whether they've been approached by the FAI initially or not*, but it means the NI fans who use this line of attack can avoid holding the players fully accountable for their choice and, instead, hold the FAI up as the scapegoat, as if they're coercing defenceless child slaves from the north to play for Ireland. Most worrying of all, the same attitude seems prevalent within the IFA and amongst its staff. I don't know why it's so difficult to recognise that the FAI haven't "grabbed" anyone who has willingly - nay, enthusiastically - decided completely voluntarily and on their own terms to represent Ireland. The FAI are simply making it possible for these players to realise their wishes. It's an insult to the players who would consider themselves anything but "grabbed" or "poached". If certain NI fans were to admit that these players' decisions to play for Ireland were made consensually and entirely within the realm of their own free will - and FIFA's rules, I might add - they would have to face a few home truths and admit that there are quite a few reasons as to why representing the IFA mightn't be all that appealing for many nationalists in comparison to the prospect of representing the FAI's team. That's not to deny that there will be some nationalists with no objection to representing Northern Ireland, but that doesn't necessarily contradict the former or negate its reality.
*Two brief points on the whole "who approached who first?" debate; the idea that the FAI are actually the first to engage contact - and doing so rampantly - is merely an exaggerated assumption based on something Chris Baird said about once being approached by the FAI. According to 'EalingGreen', of course. The purpose of the exaggeration is to further the aforementioned agenda. Anyway, I don't see why the FAI shouldn't approach northern-born Irish nationals who are eligible to play for Ireland, just as they would surely be entitled - both legally and morally - to approach any other player eligible to play for Ireland in order to gauge their interest and offer them a choice or opportunity to fulfil what might be a dream come true. What has to be so controversial, shameful or stigmatising about that?
In my view, the use of "legal experts" is quite a flattering description considering the quite comical legal approach they've decided to take.
Load of guff, and I can't fathom how this one is still doing the rounds considering the statute book is and has been very accessible and has always been there to provide clarification on the issue when required. Furthermore, the IFA wouldn't be appealing a FIFA decision if FIFA hadn't clarified something in the first place by making a decision that didn't go down too well with the IFA.
Just to make it clear; having played at youth level doesn't restrict any player in the world from changing association just so long as he possesses more than one nationality. Half the Algerian squad at the most recent World Cup had formerly played for France at youth level.
This argument has arisen out of an embarrassing lack of comprehension as to the meaning and effect of FIFA's statutes on eligibility. Or maybe it's just rooted in blind ignorance of them altogether. Article 15 is very straightforward in its application and mentions absolutely nothing about parents or grandparents, so why the IFA are arguing that such factors have any bearing on whether a player is eligible to play for Ireland or not is beyond me. Maybe they'd like it to be that way, but that would entail proposing a rule-change to FIFA, and that's not the route they've gone down by asking CAS to ensure that FIFA are interpreting their own statutes correctly.
All players throughout the world in possession of dual or multiple citizenship can opt to play for two or more countries. There is no universal standard rule governing how a nation state may grant its particular citizenship. Ireland just happens to do it a bit differently from how most (all?) other countries do it. I'm sure other countries, like Ireland, however, have unique or idiosyncratic elements in their nationality laws. It doesn't make such laws any less valid or legitimate. Furthermore, Ireland's extra-territorial nationality laws were bilaterally agreed with the explicit consent and approval of the UK. If FIFA are fine with them, then all the better.
This "fear" of the "player drain" gathering momentum is simply sensationalist and scare-mongering nonsense drummed up by the IFA in order to bolster their PR campaign/case. Northern-born players like Mark McKeever, Ger Crossley and Brian Lagan were playing under the auspices of the FAI over a decade ago. Before that, in the early-to-mid-90s, Alan Kernaghan qualified for Irish citizenship, despite being English-born with grand-parental roots in the north, and was eligible to play for Ireland as a result.* Between then and the "recent opening of the floodgates", there have been plenty of northern-born players sprinkled throughout the various Irish youth set-ups. Kevin Deery, Barry Molloy, Neil McCafferty and Ruairí Harkin have all played for Ireland sides between 2002 and 2006. They're just a further four. I'm sure others more knowledgeable than myself could possibly point to others and rightly demonstrate that there is no indication that the latest "batch" of switch-overs are indicative of some seminal or crucial moment in the timeline. Don't be fooled by the panic stirred up in the media that began with Darron Gibson due to the fact that he was of a higher profile than the aforementioned players. Shane Duffy has a Donegal father anyway and I've read that Marc Wilson also has a grandparent from south of the border, so I don't even know if they ought to be counted.
*I've seen it argued that Kernaghan qualified to play for Ireland because his grandparent(s) were born pre-partition. This puzzles me. Maybe someone can offer some conclusive information here, but why would having a grandparent born in what is now Northern Ireland prior to partition enable someone to play for the FAI team? That just seems like another myth that has accrued truth-like status over the years by virtue of being repeated often enough. Of course, I could be entirely incorrect and would appreciate if someone could confirm the matter. Besides, Kernaghan still would have been eligible for Irish citizenship regardless, right?
If memory serves me correctly, the reason why Kernaghan was unable to represent Northern Ireland was because neither he, nor his parents, were born in Northern Ireland, a requirement the IFA insisted upon at the time. Despite protests from the Kernaghan family, the IFA were apparently keen to maintain the status quo.
Ironically, making it seem all the more unfair for Kernaghan - as Northern Ireland was clearly his first choice of representation, is the agreement struck by the four "Home Nation" countries in 1993, which accepted that a player - providing he held a British passport - was eligible to play for the country of birth of any of his natural grandparents. Kernaghan had made his debut for the Ireland (ROI) just weeks earlier.
His grandparents were born in Belfast and held Irish passports, thus explaining his eligibility.
Last edited by The Fly; 23/07/2010 at 1:13 AM.
Hats off to admin for the belated re-greening of foot.ie!
By the way, Belfast-born Christine Drain and Lurgan-born Henry McStay were two others who switched to represent FAI teams around or shortly after the turn of the millennium. Clearly, it's been something that’s been happening for over a decade now and players to have switched recently - in the "post-Gibsongate era", we'll call it- are just examples of a continuation of this phenomenon. There's no indication of an out-of-the-ordinary sharp rise or of the "current phase" being some sort of watershed moment, yet the IFA has still continued to function and run an international team perfectly well.
If, indeed, the IFA is genuinely worried about the practice gaining momentum, maybe they should look at themselves and how inflexibly unionist kicking up a media furore over Gibson and Duffy appeared to nationalists in the north. In making such an issue about this whole thing, they've only given those players, along with the whole issue of eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals generally, back-page headline publicity. They've already made nationalist heroes (in the footballing sense) out of two players who are currently somewhere between the level of fringe and squad players at their respective clubs. They've run the FAI’s advertisement campaign for them! If it turns out that more and more nationalist players in the north do want to follow suit, the IFA only have themselves to blame. They had no need to even bring Duffy with his Donegal roots into the whole thing, only they wanted to ride into the CAS case on the back of the publicity generated from their brewing up a storm over his switch.
As it is, however, there is no current evidence to suggest that momentum will actually gather. Not that that would affect the morality of it in my book as I feel all Irish nationals must be equally entitled to represent us - the FAI introducing some sort of threshold or upper cap system in agreement with the IFA would be preposterous, for example - but, to keep NI fans content, I'm certain there will always be nationalists who would rather fancy their chances of experiencing senior international football with the IFA, just as there have been for the past decade or more when it has always been possible for them to switch.
Another thing; this process has been occurring for over ten years, but only now the IFA kicks up a fuss and tries to do something about it by going to CAS? What sort of picture does that paint of the IFA? Might this "Football for All" be complete posturing? I suspect they couldn't really give a **** about their teams portraying a cross-community flavour or they would have gone to CAS as a priority about this in the late 90s, strictly in the interests of consistency. They only had a moan about it when a player with big prospects decided to make the switch. They're as self-interested as the body they now accuse of poaching northern-born players. I don't know where they attained the audacity to claim a moral high-ground in all of this.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 23/07/2010 at 4:11 AM.
Hear HearHats off to admin for the belated re-greening of foot.ie!
I found another player we can poach. The name McCullough suggests he could be Protestant or Catholic, but apparently once we get our teeth into these lads they are completely powerless against our seduction attempts.
http://www.irishcentral.com/sport/Ma...-97608064.html
Cheers for that, although I'd been aware of why the IFA wouldn't permit Kernaghan to represent Northern Ireland. I'd read an article about his circumstances a while back: http://sport.scotsman.com/rangersfc/...the.3337606.jp
It was just that, with regard to how he qualified to play for us, I encountered a claim the other night on OWC that puzzled me. If you want to try and root it out, it was contained in quite a lengthy one by 'Marty' in the CAS thread. Mind you, it's probably a few pages back now given the amount of daily activity in that thread the past few days with the case and all.
Anyway, the assertion was that Kernaghan qualified to play for us by virtue of his grandparents having been born in what is now Northern Ireland prior to partition; the "having been born prior to partition" supposedly acting as the crucial factor. The implication being that he wouldn't have been eligible to play for us had his grandparents been born in Belfast post-partition. What follows from this belief is that Kernaghan is a case distinct from these other Irish nationals whose roots are in the north and decide to play for Ireland.
Of course, I recognise Kernaghan didn't technically "switch" as he was never given the opportunity to play for Northern Ireland in the first place and, likewise, I'm aware that FIFA's eligibility rules would have been different then, but Irish nationality law still had, and presumably always did have, in applying retrospectively to the pre-partition era (?), an all-island effect. I don't see how partition had any crucial bearing on Kernaghan's eligibility under FIFA rules considering they were looser at the time, however - am I right in assuming that possession of a passport of a certain country pretty much guaranteed eligibility for that country? - as the grandparent would have been eligible for Irish citizenship either way, whether born before or after.
The point is that he's an example of a player with northern roots being eligible to play for us prior to the Good Friday Agreement, so presumably northern-born Irish nationals have always been eligible to play for us under FIFA's rules. And presumably what halted others from doing what Kernaghan did was this oft-mentioned gentlemen's agreement. It appears that if there ever was a gentlemen's agreement between the FAI and the IFA, however, it ceased to function fairly shortly after the GFA. Maybe the GFA was the watershed moment after all? If such an agreement did exist prior to the GFA, possibly Kernaghan was exempt from its application as he wasn’t actually eligible to play for Northern Ireland anyway due to another gentlemen’s agreement the IFA had with the other British associations requiring themselves not to select each others' players or whatever. Possibly with the extra-territorial dimension of Irish nationality law attaining the consent of the Northern Irish population and the express approval of the UK in 1998, the FAI felt it was more acceptable to begin calling up northern-born Irish nationals who wished to represent us. Whilst it was always permissible under FIFA rules, maybe they now felt morally vindicated?
Anyway, I’m just speculating and feel like I'm rambling on a bit as I’m not really sure of the full story behind his eligibility, although the article on Kernaghan above features the following line:
Then again, you couldn’t trust a journalist...The Football Association of Ireland [FAI] classed anyone with a grandparent born either side of the Irish border as fair game for their recruitment scouts.
By the way, Saul Deeney was another northern-born player who slipped my mind. He represented Ireland in the early 00s also. The practice has clearly been occurring on a similar scale for about ten years now with maybe a few players switching each year and yet, of course, the IFA remains, as ever, in unthreatened existence.
Marc Mukendi was another Derry-born player I'd forgotten about. He represented Ireland at under-19 level in 2005 and under-18 level before that, I think. Interestingly, I'm assuming Mukendi, who has a Derry mother, would actually be eligible to play for three countries - Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Democratic Republic of Congo - given the fact his father José was Zairean; Zaire being later succeeded by the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Prepare the snatch squad !
Lucky that the FAI are immune to prosecution for kidnapping !
Alan Kernaghan qualified for us because he could get an Irish passport which was the rule at the time. He had 4 grandparents born on the island of Ireland and 1 would have been enough.
partition had nothing to do with it. Any NI born player or who had a parent or grandparent from NI was eligible for us at the time.
He played schools for NI but they turned him down for their side as they didn't employ the granny rule (own choice). He was a special case anyway with 4 grandparents (mainly from Bangor I think) and he grew up in Bangor from 4 years of age. I'm glad they turned him down as he was a far better player for us than many appreciated despite one stinker v Spain
but the likes of Kevin Moran who was as bad that day get away with it. Alan was magnificent in the draw (as indeed was Kevin) in Copenhagen with the then european champions.
Limerick FC Més que un club
Cheers for the information. If that was the rule then so, are you aware of what was preventing us from calling up other players with northern roots or even just players from the north up until 1998, seemingly? A gentlemen's agreement or something?
There's one basic reason, surely? They don't identify with/ support/ want to play for the NI teams. Apart from the ones who'd already played for those teams, maybe. But ultimately if they don't want to play, you can't force them. Bye.
the FAI introducing some sort of threshold or upper cap system in agreement with the IFA would be preposterous, for example
Indeed. But is anyone seriously suggesting it? Sounds like a straw man to me, introduced only to prolong/ exaggerate the whole sorry mess.
What sort of picture does that paint of the IFA? Might this "Football for All" be complete posturing? I suspect they couldn't really give a **** about their teams portraying a cross-community flavour
As I've said, it's an avoidable PR didaster, but to echo your own post above it doesn't negate FFA. The intent and effect of which, as I've said, has always been to make the atmosphere at and around games more welcoming to everybody. Not to 'convert' fans from supporting the Republic. It's long been accepted that most nationalist fans in NI support the Republic (although some will follow NI as a second team). A major aim of FFA was to attract (back) people who weren't necessarily supporting anyone, but who might if they were weren't intimidated about going to the games, or thought the facilities were improved, or whatever.
I suspect your suspicion is exaggerated. The IFA and NI can expect most fans to be broadly unionist (as they have been for decades) but at the same time many of the players, coaches etc. to be broadly nationalist. For reasons detailed repeatedly up-thread.
Agreed, good luck with that. Although of course they might edit or truncate it. A few years ago, I wrote a letter to the Sunday Business Post about some aspect of the Peace Procession, and persuaded my mate (a sub-editor on the paper) to ensure it appeared in print. In passing, I chided their editorial policy of invariably describing Northern Ireland as "the North". Which of course then appeared in print as "Please stop referring to the North as the North, it's childish".
Aye. It shows the absurdity of grandparentage and accident of birth (or 'blood and soil' or similar) trumping lifelong residence, schooling, resulting choice etc. as the main criteria for eligibility.
There followed an assumption that the eligibility of Irish players for the two associations would be similar to that between the four British associations. Also because the North was acting as an association for the whole island in its selection practices prior to FIFA's intervention in the 1950s, it was assumed that selection of players was now dependent on place of birth. This suited the FAI at the time because (a) they wanted to stop the North poaching its players and (b) it added further legitimacy to the FAI's very existence. However what FIFA's intervention actually did was (a) introduce the official names of the two teams and (b) formally limit the IFA's activities to the 6 counties. It didn't divide the selection of players between the two associations based on place of birth. Remember the IFA wasn't a member of FIFA prior to this so their understanding of player eligibility was coloured by the selection practices between the four British associations.
It was really only when Brian Kerr came along that he made the FAI aware of the fact that they were overlooking a pool of players that were eligible for its representative teams.
Last edited by ifk101; 23/07/2010 at 9:24 AM.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks