Player eligibility row

[Gather round]

No other agreements are necessary

No. The current rule is unsatisfactory, ergo a new agreement would be better. Nothing's set in stone, not even the rubbish you keep posting on here.

The last part of the paragraph about whether people know about who Wellington is more patronising BS

Not really. I was just responding in similar dismissive style to Nedser's post (although in practice Wellington isn't as well know as before, simply because the national curriculum doesn't teach kids about 19th century generals like it used to).

whilst know plenty of individuals born/raised in Britain (and other countries) who don't in the least feel any affinity to their 'host' nation. Why should they?

I too know such people, I'm not denying they exist. But, unlike you and Nedser, I don't assume that everyone is like me and the people I know.

Hasn't it only existed since the 1920's??

Hair-splitting. What is now Northern Ireland was part of the British state since 1800.

Clearly you're again out of touch again with the unionist community who have this thing about 'not conceding an inch'

No, I'm quite in touch with what they think. Much of which is just exaggerated rhetoric. Unionists claimed up to 1920 that they wouldn't concede a single county, then gave up 26 of 32. The border remains unchanged since the 1920s largely because it has suited a succession of governments, and public opinion, in the Republic. Before, during and since the Troublings. It's pretty obvious.

The former is due to being actively discouraged by your unionist mates and those parties having been seen as deserting their potential voters there. Not to mention inherently flawed in the main

To repeat, it's not mainly because of unionist protests. The Republic of Ireland and its institutions have done many things unionists don't like over the years. So are you agreeing with me that the Republic's parties have deserted their potential voters? If not, what's flawed and why?

Plus they don't want lots of northern Nats.voting even for the SDLP, let alone SF! Which is wrong

So we're agreed then?

You said it!

Don't be like that. You asked for an electoral system that allowed foreign-resident nationals to vote straigtforwardly, I offered one.

[janeymac]

GR - We all know that Unionists abandoned their own in the border counties in the first place to the tender mercy of the new Republic. Secondly, since the first boundary has hardly worked out well for anyone on this island, what makes you think redrawing another line would?

As for your comments about not being welcoming to unionists in Ireland - what do you think could have been done to be more 'welcoming'? (bearing in mind that the most festive Orange Order parade takes place in the Republic and both peoples have opposite political ideology?)

[geysir]

The problem is that RoI citizens in NI don't have a vote in the former. Which is an issue if only because some RoI supporters here are detailing at length how welcoming the Republic is to all Irish people.

Disagree, it's the same issue. The Republic withholds the vote from citizens living abroad because it suits it, largely because of the broad cost. As for the outnumbering, if you allocate citizenship so widely, of course TP Coogan's 70 million Worldwide will trump four million in the country. Likely opposition from unionists isn't the main factor- if it was, there wouldn't have been any Articles Two and Three for 60 years.

You have the unlimited capacity to spout all sorts of subjective and uninformed opinions on a myriad of topics and draw irrational conclusions.
Franchise requirements, requiring registration in order to vote in parliamentary elections, is logical and without bias. Franchise regulations for Local Gov and Presidential election are different and also have their logic and reasoning.
That is totally irrelevant to what FIFA regard as the premium eligibility criteria - full citizenship as a right. Full citizenship carries a much higher value as a connection to a country than 2nd or 3rd generation blood connection.

You don't like the FIFA rules, you don't like the citizenship rules, you don't like the rankings regulations, in fact, pretty much you are on a constant unending moanfest about most things you disagree with.

[Gather round]

You have the unlimited capacity to spout all sorts of subjective and uninformed opinions on a myriad of topics and draw irrational conclusions

Why thanks, but you flatter me. I reckon I've been reasonably objective, well-informed and rational on here, but no doubt you'll tell me where not.

Franchise requirements, requiring registration in order to vote in parliamentary elections, is logical and without bias. Franchise regulations for Local Gov and Presidential election are different and also have their logic and reasoning

Excluding a large proportion of your citizens from voting is obviously biased, whatever the logic (for which I offered an explanation).

That is totally irrelevant to what FIFA regard as the premium eligibility criteria - full citizenship as a right. Full citizenship carries a much higher value as a connection to a country than 2nd or 3rd generation blood connection

Er, it's relevant because it answers what others have said on the thread. If you dislike/ are bored by/ don't understand it, ignore it.

What's your point about full citizenship? I'm not denying anyone else's.

You don't like the FIFA rules, you don't like the citizenship rules, you don't like the rankings regulations, in fact, pretty much you are on a constant unending moanfest about most things you disagree with

Got it in one, Einstein. It's a discussion board, not the Critique of Pure Reason. Lighten up and blow some smoke rings.

GR - We all know that Unionists abandoned their own in the border counties in the first place to the tender mercy of the new Republic. Secondly, since the first boundary has hardly worked out well for anyone on this island, what makes you think redrawing another line would?

Given that the population of the two places I mentioned is about 90% nationalist, redrawing the border around them would presumably greatly increase the number on their preferred side. Don't ye think?

As for your comments about not being welcoming to unionists in Ireland - what do you think could have been done to be more 'welcoming'? (bearing in mind that the most festive Orange Order parade takes place in the Republic and both peoples have opposite political ideology?)

You could have, variously,

* tested your popularity in our elections (only Sinn Fein of the Republic's main parties ever bothered)

* dropped your constitutional claim decades earlier, or even better, never made it in the first place. When we want to join you in a united Ireland, we'll tell you.

[ArdeeBhoy]

It's Ok geysir, pomposity and misinformation is their middle, er, names....

[geysir]

I also see that much of the media and the numerous posts on this matter seem to regurgitate the fact that the GFA has brought about some dynamic change in NI society to enable players born in Northern Ireland to represent the Republic due to their entitlement to Irish citzenship but from my understanding people born in the North have always been entitled to Irish citzenship since partition and the GFA has made very little difference in this regard. Perhaps I'm mistaken on this matter and maybe someone more knowledgeable in this subject (geysir, lopez) can confirm if this was the case.

However while I agree with the decision I do feel genuine sorrow for the Northern Ireland supporters as I believe, as do many of them I'm sure, that as time goes on more and more players born in Northern Ireland may well choose to represent the Republic and this is likely to put a signifcant dent in the meagre resources available to them while increasing substantially the meagre resources available to us.

Irish Citizenship entitlements (pre gfa) were outlined in the 1956 citizenship laws. Yes, NI born were entitled to apply for Irish citizenship but it was not an automatic citizenship like that for those born in the South. The GFA caused a change in the Irish citizenship laws to make the criteria same for all on the Island. In the North, the constitutional acceptance of the GFA in a referendum, recognised this as a legitimate right and also Irish unity as a legitimate aspiration for those so inclined, with a constitutionally accepted formula for ending the status of NI. The so called irredentist Irish republic aspirations have been embraced as a legitimate aspiration and constitutionally accepted by the majority of the people in the North.
I have little doubt that the way the GFA was positively embraced into the constitution, both North and South, rendered any possible IFA irredentist argument against the eligibility rules, redundant in the eyes of FIFA.

re sympathy:
It is not difficult to recognise that NI is a dual national zone. It is not difficult to recognise that the soccer team is linked predominantly with the Unionist support and identity. Possibly I would have similar sympathy that you have expressed, if the IFA had been more sincere in recognising that NI is a constitution of 2 identities. It is way past the time that they should have vigorously eliminated the trappings of the anthem etc. All in all, the way and manner that the IFA have reacted over this whole issue, is actually so typical of Unionist blinkered belligerence.

[Predator]

Just the one I've mentioned briefly and repeatedly on this thread. Neither side would select any player who'd already appeared for the other's senior teams (full, U-21, U-19, competitive and friendly matches both) after their 18th birthday.

I suspected that would be the proposal which you would advocate. To be honest, I'm not as enthusiastic about the idea as I once was, since I am in broadly favour of FIFA's rule-change allowing players to switch associations regardless of previous underage honours, because I feel it will undoubtedly benefit both the FAI, the IFA and other small associations (Algeria are a good example), not to mention players themselves. If there was to be such an agreement, I could perhaps see U21 honours as being the cut off point, rather than any appearance past the age of 18, but as I say, I can't see the FAI yielding. More importantly, why exactly should they?

The way the FAI look will probably look at it is, if players born in the north are eligible for selection under FIFA's rules and they wish to change association, then why shouldn't they be selected?

Also, I see that the old cry for compensation has arisen again on OWC. Do you think the IFA will seriously entertain such a ludicrous notion?

[Gather round]

I suspected that would be the proposal which you would advocate

Well, it is the (only) one I've mentioned, in this and other similar threads here.

I feel it will undoubtedly benefit both the FAI, the IFA and other small associations (Algeria are a good example), not to mention players themselves

I take your point about the benefits, in that obviously what I'm suggesting would stop some players transferring from England's youth teams to Northern Ireland's. But I'd take that. Given that England's population is about five times that of the rest of Britain's combined, while their football teams don't play a proprtionately larger number of games, clearly there will always be plenty of good uncapped English players who qualify to turn out elsewhere. The players wouldn't be unfairly disavantaged, or pressured while still under-age. They still have a choice, just that its limits are a bit different.

I wouldn't really call Algeria a good example of smallness in football terms. They've made two quarter-finals and a semi in the last six African championships. They're about the ninth biggest African country by population. If they need 17 or 18 guys from France in their national squad it doesn't say much for their own players. FIFA changed the rules not because they think it's unfair that Algeria are a bit mediocre- it was clearly because the Francophone countries in North and West Africa lobbied in a bloc.

If there was to be such an agreement, I could perhaps see U21 honours as being the cut off point, rather than any appearance past the age of 18, but as I say, I can't see the FAI yielding. More importantly, why exactly should they?...The way the FAI look will probably look at it is, if players born in the north are eligible for selection under FIFA's rules and they wish to change association, then why shouldn't they be selected?

You mentioned previously where they last compromised, now you suggest a possible future equivalent. The FAI might think that the benefit of being seen to be generous may outweigh the notional loss of a few players (who they'd only 'lose' if the players had decided, as adults not impressionable children, to play for Northern Ireland). There's also the possibility- faint thought it seems at the moment- that the FAI might want to store a favor for the future. To get the IFA's vote to stage future finals, say.

Also, I see that the old cry for compensation has arisen again on OWC. Do you think the IFA will seriously entertain such a ludicrous notion?

No idea. Obviously I, like you, think the idea is pretty daft, but I can't speak for the IFA. They- and many fans, pundits, politicans etc.- are acting as madly as a box of frogs right now.

[lopez]

You have the unlimited capacity to spout all sorts of subjective and uninformed opinions on a myriad of topics and draw irrational conclusions...You don't like the FIFA rules, you don't like the citizenship rules, you don't like the rankings regulations, in fact, pretty much you are on a constant unending moanfest about most things you disagree with.

Sounds like he'll be at home on this forum.

[Predator]

I wouldn't really call Algeria a good example of smallness in football terms. They've made two quarter-finals and a semi in the last six African championships. They're about the ninth biggest African country by population. If they need 17 or 18 guys from France in their national squad it doesn't say much for their own players. FIFA changed the rules not because they think it's unfair that Algeria are a bit mediocre- it was clearly because the Francophone countries in North and West Africa lobbied in a bloc.

Yeah, I understand that. I meant that Algeria were a good example of how the rules have benefitted associations. While Algeria may not really compare to the FAI or IFA, I'd still view them as being a relatively weak football association in global terms.

...The FAI might think that the benefit of being seen to be generous may outweigh the notional loss of a few players (who they'd only 'lose' if the players had decided, as adults not impressionable children, to play for Northern Ireland). There's also the possibility- faint thought it seems at the moment- that the FAI might want to store a favor for the future. To get the IFA's vote to stage future finals, say.

I honestly cannot imagine that the FAI would prefer to 'save face' or whatever after the IFA's decision to take the eligibility matter to the courts. Indeed, I don't think it is even the FAI who is required to 'save face' in this matter; even so, do you honestly think the FAI particularly care for how they appear to the football world? Think about some of the comments following Henry's handball.

As a football association, the FAI (like the IFA) will always seek to look after its own interests first. In agreeing to such a deal as the one you are suggesting, the FAI would risk weakening its playing pool and the playing pool would surely be considered higher on the list of priorities than diplomacy.

No idea. Obviously I, like you, think the idea is pretty daft, but I can't speak for the IFA. They- and many fans, pundits, politicans etc.- are acting as madly as a box of frogs right now.

I agree. The level of madness is actually a bit startling.

[Gather round]

I honestly cannot imagine that the FAI would prefer to 'save face' or whatever after the IFA's decision to take the eligibility matter to the courts. Indeed, I don't think it is even the FAI who is required to 'save face' in this matter

Hang on- I'm not suggesting they need to "save face". Merely that they might be persuaded to see some small advantage in a compromise.

even so, do you honestly think the FAI particularly care for how they appear to the football world? Think about some of the comments following Henry's handball

I think they-like almost all organisations- care at least a little for their public image. Mad reaction to the Henry handball notwithstanding.

As a football association, the FAI (like the IFA) will always seek to look after its own interests first. In agreeing to such a deal as the one you are suggesting, the FAI would risk weakening its playing pool and the playing pool would surely be considered higher on the list of priorities than diplomacy

There's always give and take in compromise. The IFA have to calm down and offer something, along the broad lines I suggested.

[Predator]

Hang on- I'm not suggesting they need to "save face". Merely that they might be persuaded to see some small advantage in a compromise.

Ah right, apologies if I misunderstood.

[ArdeeBhoy]

No. The current rule is unsatisfactory, ergo a new agreement would be better.

Only because you deem to say so. You are more bothered than the IFA seem to be.

Nothing's set in stone, not even the rubbish you keep posting on here.

Presumably more, er, Irony!

although in practice Wellington isn't as well know as before, simply because the national curriculum doesn't teach kids about 19th century generals like it used to.

You know the history curriculum of every contemporary student now??

I too know such people, I'm not denying they exist. But, unlike you and Nedser, I don't assume that everyone is like me and the people I know.

The first part again is ridiculously patronising and the rest whilst making more sense is enough to make one conclude, 'Amen to that' to the end of that statement.

What is now Northern Ireland was part of the British state since 1800.
Unionists claimed up to 1920 that they wouldn't concede a single county, then gave up 26 of 32. The border remains unchanged since the 1920s largely because it has suited a succession of governments, and public opinion, in the Republic. Before, during and since the Troublings.

It's nothing to do with the country whose name, as highlighted above, does not exist in that form!
Lol.

Though despite your claimed 'protestations', it's because the unionists have had the backing of Britain.
Nothing to do with nationalist aspirations of various Irish politicians who had no viable means of carrying this out.

To repeat, it's not mainly because of unionist protests. The Republic of Ireland and its institutions have done many things unionists don't like over the years. So are you agreeing with me that the Republic's parties have deserted their potential voters? If not, what's flawed and why?

But of course it is, as even you should know!
The next sentence is too vague to make sense, while the course of Irish politics in this context has been largely determined by the actions of your mates and threat of unwanted British intervention.
Not to mention the financial implications, which I would admit.

But if you don't know why the mainstream Irish political parties not standing in the North now are flawed, you never will.....

Don't be like that.

Except I was referring to the relative idiocy highlighted above!

Why thanks, but you flatter me. I reckon I've been reasonably objective, well-informed and rational on here, but no doubt you'll tell me where not.

You seriously need to upgrade the dictionary! Or more irony?

Excluding a large proportion of your citizens from voting is obviously biased, whatever the logic.

Whereas of course the British state, and the North especially, has an exemplary record in the rightful and proportional representation of its citizens !

Got it in one, Einstein. It's a discussion board, not the Critique of Pure Reason. Lighten up and blow some smoke rings.

Sunstroke??

You could have, variously,

* tested your popularity in our elections (only Sinn Fein of the Republic's main parties ever bothered)

* dropped your constitutional claim decades earlier, or even better, never made it in the first place. When we want to join you in a united Ireland, we'll tell you.

More pompous nonsense, as highlighted above!

I take your point about the benefits, in that obviously what I'm suggesting would stop some players transferring from England's youth teams to Northern Ireland's. But I'd take that.

Given that England's population is about five times that of the rest of Britain's combined, while their football teams don't play a proprtionately larger number of games, clearly there will always be plenty of good uncapped English players who qualify to turn out elsewhere. The players wouldn't be unfairly disavantaged, or pressured while still under-age. They still have a choice, just that its limits are a bit different.

I wouldn't really call Algeria a good example of smallness in football terms. They've made two quarter-finals and a semi in the last six African championships. They're about the ninth biggest African country by population. If they need 17 or 18 guys from France in their national squad it doesn't say much for their own players. FIFA changed the rules not because they think it's unfair that Algeria are a bit mediocre- it was clearly because the Francophone countries in North and West Africa lobbied in a bloc.

The FAI might think that the benefit of being seen to be generous may outweigh the notional loss of a few players (who they'd only 'lose' if the players had decided, as adults not impressionable children, to play for Northern Ireland). There's also the possibility- faint thought it seems at the moment- that the FAI might want to store a favour for the future. To get the IFA's vote to stage future finals, say.

Hang on- I'm not suggesting they need to "save face". Merely that they might be persuaded to see some small advantage in a compromise.
I think they-like almost all organisations- care at least a little for their public image.

Again, this is largely waffle. Understand a desire for a notional agreement, but unless the gnomes in Zurich insist, why bother with any compromise? The IFA have hardly facilitated their existence while the reasons highlighted here are barely going to concern the FAI.

[awec]

I'm glad I was away for a few days, the number of stupid posts on this thread in the last few pages (including on the Orange Order - HAHA!) is incredible and I'd have either lost the head at having to correct people on such basic things or had tears running down my face at how ill-informed some people are.

[awec]

Who is this President of the Republic of Ireland that you speak of? Would it be the President of Ireland, President McAleese? Surely you have been hanging around here long enough to know the proper name of the country you are cyber visiting.

The 12th July happens to be the anniversary of the death of Douglas Hyde, the first President of Ireland, who was a Protestant. This year was the 150th Anniversary of his birth. Why wouldn't people from all over the island come and celebrate mark this occasion.

As regards the sectarian Orange Order - they sure as heck are not going to learn anything new marching up and down the Garvahy Road. They might learn a bit of tolerance & understanding down this neck of the wood so fair play to them for coming.

I grew up near the Garvaghy Road. To say it practices tolerance and understanding is quite frankly laughable. The people there wouldn't know the meaning of the words.

When you have Brendan McKenna as your spokesperson it says a lot.

[lopez]

I'm glad I was away for a few days, the number of stupid posts on this thread in the last few pages (including on the Orange Order - HAHA!) is incredible and I'd have either lost the head at having to correct people on such basic things or had tears running down my face at how ill-informed some people are.

So what the hell are you doing back?

[awec]

So what the hell are you doing back?

My shrink told me that it was safe again.

[janeymac]

I grew up near the Garvaghy Road. To say it practices tolerance and understanding is quite frankly laughable. The people there wouldn't know the meaning of the words.

When you have Brendan McKenna as your spokesperson it says a lot.

I didn't make any comment about the tolerance or understanding levels of the inhabitants of the Garvaghy Road. I did say the OO is a sectarian organisation though.

[awec]

I didn't make any comment about the tolerance or understanding levels of the inhabitants of the Garvaghy Road. I did say the OO is a sectarian organisation though.

For your first statement, I must have picked you up wrong. My apologies.

For your second statement, that is totally wrong. Is the GAA sectarian? In my eyes it is not, the same way as the OO is not.

[janeymac]

For your first statement, I must have picked you up wrong. My apologies.

For your second statement, that is totally wrong. Is the GAA sectarian? In my eyes it is not, the same way as the OO is not.

As a non-sectarian organisation, whose big day (12th July is all about defeating their catholic neighbours) how do you square that its not sectarian by the fact that even if a catholic was nuts enough to want to parade around in bowlers etc. they couldn't because of the religious bar to catholics.