Adam Barton

[ArdeeBhoy]

And the same then for Lee Camp, who earlier this season, wanted to play for The North on the basis of his Beal-feirste born grandfather even though he's never been there!


More seriously, am unsure of the late grandfather's cultural heritage which would be a more important factor??

[EalingGreen]

Think Dan's point was the one of Hypocrisy, not to mention 'paranoia' ....

Dear oh dear.

As Night follows Day, or Bust follows Boom, any reference by anyone about anything to do with NI sees Adios Andyt.... sorry, ArdeeBhoy follow with his tired old "paranoia' jibe - even when it adds precisely nothing to the debate.

Which is rather ironic, considering the only "paranoic" Irish people I ever come across is the occasional Plastic who speaks with an English accent and is afraid that he might be mistaken for an Englishman....

And 'Southerners' is a quaint concept they seem to use across the water!

Whereas "the North" is a quaint concept they use in, ahem, "the South".

[EalingGreen]

That's very kind of you, I'm sure he'll appreciate that. However, it doesn't appear to be a sentiment that is very widely held. In fact, I think that the issue has IFA fans in two camps. Some, like EG and yourself, happily welcome any boost to the playing pool, whereas I've read of others, such as the ever vociferous Owen Polley, expressing severe unease on the issue.

At the latest count, a Poll question on OWC records the following results (152 votes cast to date):

Qn. Is Nigel right to give Barton extra time before committing to NI?

A. What is there to lose? We need all the players we can get: 99 Votes = 65.13%

B. No, there is an important principle at stake here: 28 Votes = 18.42%

C. Not Sure, so will leave it to the Manager as he sees fit: 25 Votes = 16.45%

Btw, Re. Owen P: He's been digging at me over Barton (and other topics) since I called him on something he posted on OWC. I don't let him get to me, myself, but I suspect he'll be pleased to have got under your skin (if the way you keep citing him is anything to go by)!

With regard to your use of the term 'poaching', I can only express weariness, for its use has become increasingly tiresome. I thought that IFA fans were beginning to see the big picture, especially after the CAS case, but no, some people continue to feel that players born with dual nationality are somehow the property of one association.

Then you must have been particularly "weary" when a former ROI manager used the term himself, alongside "unfair", "seedy" and (ahem) "predatory"!

[EalingGreen]

Have the IFA found that Gentleman's Agreement yet?

Did the FAI ever find any NI-born players between 1950 and 2007 who were good enough to play for their senior international team?

Or at least better than Darron Gibson?

Or was there some other reason why eg Pat Jennings, Martin O'Neill, Gerry Armstrong, Neil Lennon, Jim Magilton, Michael Hughes, Gerry Taggert etc etc etc were not selected?

(I might have added the likes of George Best or Norman Whiteside to the above list, but I suspect I know one other reason why they'll not have been approached/poached...)

[EalingGreen]

Either way he [Lee Camp] is eligible. A grandparent born in any part of Ireland estblishes right to citizenship and also ROI qualification. I am pretty sure this is how Jason McAteer qualified for ROI through belfast born grand parent.

Dunno the specifics re. Jason McAteer, but the eligibility criteria have substantially changed more than once since he was first recruited.

Anyhow, re your general point, I feel you are incorrect.

As has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, a person who is born outside of Ireland, but with a parent who was born anywhere in Ireland, is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship/nationality from birth. Therefore he/she is entitled to represent ROI under FIFA Article 15.

Whereas, someone born outside Ireland whose closest Irish ancestor is a grandparent is not automatically entitled to Irish citizenship/nationality. He/she may, however, apply for it and expect to be successful. However, such applicants do not come within FIFA Article 15.

Rather, they are covered by FIFA Article 17 - "Acquisition of a new nationality". And Article 17 states:

"Any Player who refers to Art.15 par.1 to assume a new nationality... ... shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the following conditions:
(a ) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(b ) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(c ) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(d ) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.

I personally cannot see how NI may be interpreted as being part of the "territory" of the FAI (though I wouldn't put it past a reptile like Delaney to try...)

[EalingGreen]

And the same then for Lee Camp, who earlier this season, wanted to play for The North on the basis of his Beal-feirste born grandfather even though he's never been there!

"The North"? Come, come, surely you should have used lower case...

As for your reference to Beal-feirste [sic], I never understand some peoples habit of randomly throwing in the odd Irish term into an English language medium, especially when it takes longer to type.

And if nothing else, I at least expect them to get the Irish version right...

Anyhow, why not go the whole hog and type your posts entirely in Irish?

More seriously, am unsure of the late grandfather's cultural heritage which would be a more important factor??

I don't expect that Camp is in the least part concerned by what you (delicately) term his "late grandfather's cultural heritage", at least not when deciding to throw in his lot with the IFA.
And I have absolutely no doubt that no-one at the IFA, or amongst the NI support, gives a flying one about it.
Therefore why are you interested in it?

[dantheman]

How are the Glens doing these days EG?

[EalingGreen]

How are the Glens doing these days EG?

Onfield - OK
Off-field - Shambolic.

Why do you ask?

[ifk101]

Did the FAI ever find any NI-born players between 1950 and 2007 who were good enough to play for their senior international team?

Or at least better than Darron Gibson?

Or was there some other reason why eg Pat Jennings, Martin O'Neill, Gerry Armstrong, Neil Lennon, Jim Magilton, Michael Hughes, Gerry Taggert etc etc etc were not selected?

(I might have added the likes of George Best or Norman Whiteside to the above list, but I suspect I know one other reason why they'll not have been approached/poached...)

So that's a no then?

[EalingGreen]

So that's a no then?

By its very definition, a Gentleman's Agreement is not written down, so there will be no piece of paper to find. Duh!

Instead, one is forced to rely on the account of the two "gentlemen" involved and if that should subsequently differ, look at the evidence to determine which one is telling the truth and which one is not.

In this case, the issue was that following a complaint by the FAI that the IFA was picking Southern-born players, the IFA agreed to desist from doing so, on condition that the FAI ceased picking Northern-born players.

From 1950, the IFA ceased doing so entirely, despite their having done so on numerous occasions prior to then.

Similarly, the FAI ceased selecting Northern-born players for any of their teams until the mid 1990's (or 2007 for the senior team).

Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?

Any thoughts, ifk?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Think you doth protest too much, EG!

You never did explain the cryptic reference to your favourite? W.Beal-feirste Mexican??

As for the 'P' word, you obviously missed the edited, er, 'highlights' of the DUP conference last w/e.
Even if you're not, they have some way to go!!

And agree, Good Ironic point about the North, down south.
Though have heard locals of the former refer to it in rather more disparaging terms....

You should also let the Diaspora acknowledge their roots if you wish. The same happens up North, as otherwise they'd have never have come up with 'Ulster-Scots'!

As Night follows Day, or Bust follows Boom, any reference by anyone about anything to do with NI sees Adios Andyt.... sorry, ArdeeBhoy follow with his tired old "paranoia' jibe - even when it adds precisely nothing to the debate.

Which is rather ironic, considering the only "paranoic" Irish people I ever come across is the occasional Plastic who speaks with an English accent and is afraid that he might be mistaken for an Englishman....

Whereas "the North" is a quaint concept they use in, ahem, "the South".

Hmm, last time I looked, that was the correct spelling, though that's not a universal attribute on here!!!

And was just reminding you of the Irish spelling of your largest city, as you are after all Irish?? Or would you deny that's the native language now....

As for Mr.Camp, presuming dual-eligibility, was wondering if he had particular 'local knowledge', which has helped him to be so decisive.
To be fair though, he declared his interest before the CAS ruling, so he might want to re-think his options...

As for your reference to Beal-feirste [sic], I never understand some peoples habit of randomly throwing in the odd Irish term into an English language medium, especially when it takes longer to type.

And if nothing else, I at least expect them to get the Irish version right...

Anyhow, why not go the whole hog and type your posts entirely in Irish?

I don't expect that Camp is in the least part concerned by what you (delicately) term his "late grandfather's cultural heritage", at least not when deciding to throw in his lot with the IFA.
And I have absolutely no doubt that no-one at the IFA, or amongst the NI support, gives a flying one about it.
Therefore why are you interested in it?

[ifk101]

By its very definition, a Gentleman's Agreement is not written down, so there will be no piece of paper to find. Duh!

Such is the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.

Instead, one is forced to rely on the account of the two "gentlemen" involved and if that should subsequently differ, look at the evidence to determine which one is telling the truth and which one is not.

Such is also the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.

In this case

.... we need to first establish if we are dealing with a Gentleman's Agreement.

.... the issue was that following a complaint by the FAI that the IFA was picking Southern-born players, the IFA agreed to desist from doing so, on condition that the FAI ceased picking Northern-born players.

The part highlighted in bold never happened.

From 1950, the IFA ceased doing so entirely, despite their having done so on numerous occasions prior to then.

Yes the IFA were forced to comply with the same rules and regulations governing all other members when they chose to re-join FIFA.

Similarly, the FAI ceased selecting Northern-born players for any of their teams until the mid 1990's (or 2007 for the senior team).

Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?

Any thoughts, ifk?

Let’s first establish the existence of a gentleman’s agreement before speculating about the FAI selection policies. With reference to the Daniel Kearns’ ruling, I assume you have a copy and have read it, the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is not once used in a 27 page ruling. If the FAI was adhering to an agreement in the period 1951 – mid 1990’s, why is there zero mention of a “gentleman’s agreement” in this 27 page ruling? Surely this would form a cornerstone in the IFA defence?

To answer my own question, the reason as to why there is no mention a “gentleman’s agreement” is because there never was an agreement. Indeed what people like you previously assumed to exist in the form of a gentleman's agreement, became factual overnight as the “1950 FIFA ruling”. But unlike how you define a gentleman’s agreement to which I agreed with, this “1950 FIFA ruling” was/is in paper. Unfortunately, and although the IFA were not uncertain to its form, the IFA seemed to have misplaced it which seems slightly odd given the amount of other documents the IFA were able to produce. I was hoping if you could inform me if the IFA has found the "1950 FIFA ruling" as it obviously sounds like a document of extreme historically and modern day significance. Has it been found yet?

[EalingGreen]

Think you doth protest too much, EG!

You never did explain the cryptic reference to your favourite? W.Beal-feirste Mexican??

As for the 'P' word, you obviously missed the edited, er, 'highlights' of the DUP conference last w/e.
Even if you're not, they have some way to go!!

And agree, Good Ironic point about the North, down south.
Though have heard locals of the former refer to it in rather more disparaging terms....

You should also let the Diaspora acknowledge their roots if you wish. The same happens up North, as otherwise they'd have never have come up with 'Ulster-Scots'!



Hmm, last time I looked, that was the correct spelling, though that's not a universal attribute on here!!!

And was just reminding you of the Irish spelling of your largest city, as you are after all Irish?? Or would you deny that's the native language now....

As for Mr.Camp, presuming dual-eligibility, was wondering if he had particular 'local knowledge', which has helped him to be so decisive.
To be fair though, he declared his interest before the CAS ruling, so he might want to re-think his options...

Utter drivel.

Whatever the merits (or otherwise) of their posts, the likes of ifk and Predator etc are at least trying to engage in intelligent debate.

Therefore until such time as you have something sensible and relevant to say, I shall spend my time addressing their posts.

[dantheman]

Why is no-one talking about the "Gentleman's Agreement" from the IFA and OWC fans to accept that anyone born in the 32 counties of Ireland to play for the ROI international team and stop moping about it?

True, it never existed. But sure, if we talk about for long enough amongst ourselves, it can become accepted fact. We can then deluded ourselves into to thinking it existed all along!

[EalingGreen]

Such is the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.



Such is also the nature of a Gentleman's Agreement.



.... we need to first establish if we are dealing with a Gentleman's Agreement.



The part highlighted in bold never happened.



Yes the IFA were forced to comply with the same rules and regulations governing all other members when they chose to re-join FIFA.



Let’s first establish the existence of a gentleman’s agreement before speculating about the FAI selection policies. With reference to the Daniel Kearns’ ruling, I assume you have a copy and have read it, the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is not once used in a 27 page ruling. If the FAI was adhering to an agreement in the period 1951 – mid 1990’s, why is there zero mention of a “gentleman’s agreement” in this 27 page ruling? Surely this would form a cornerstone in the IFA defence?

To answer my own question, the reason as to why there is no mention a “gentleman’s agreement” is because there never was an agreement. Indeed what people like you previously assumed to exist in the form of a gentleman's agreement, became factual overnight as the “1950 FIFA ruling”. But unlike how you define a gentleman’s agreement to which I agreed with, this “1950 FIFA ruling” was/is in paper. Unfortunately, and although the IFA were not uncertain to its form, the IFA seemed to have misplaced it which seems slightly odd given the amount of other documents the IFA were able to produce. I was hoping if you could inform me if the IFA has found the "1950 FIFA ruling" as it obviously sounds like a document of extreme historically and modern day significance. Has it been found yet?

Answering your own question must be very tempting, but is there any chance of your answering my question first (from post #30)?

In case you've forgotten, it was:

"Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?"

[ifk101]

Answering your own question must be very tempting, but is there any chance of your answering my question first (from post #30)?

In case you've forgotten, it was:

"Therefore if the FAI were not adhering to the Agreement which the IFA claimed had been reached, how else do you explain the FAI's subsequent selection record?

That they were, for some (unknown, unspecified) reason, not entitled to select NI-born players for a period of nearly half a century, but were before and after?

Or that no NI-born player was good enough to get into any of the FAI's representative teams for 45-odd years?

Or that the FAI was actively trying to select such players, but were turned down in every case (and it was never disclosed publicly)?"

By establishing that there never was a gentleman's agreement, you'll need to re-phrase your original questions as they are drawn and based on the assumption that a gentleman's agreement was being adhered to.

[osarusan]

I think EG's point is the fact that the FAI stopped picking NI players for a certain period of time, despite the fact that some of them were obviously of a calibre that would have improved our team, hints at the fact that there was a reason for them not picking them. Otherwise they FAI simply refused to select some talented players for no reason at all.

[ifk101]

I think EG's point is the fact that the FAI stopped picking NI players for a certain period of time, despite the fact that some of them were obviously of a calibre that would have improved our team, hints at the fact that there was a reason for them not picking them. Otherwise they FAI simply refused to select some talented players for no reason at all.

The IFA wasn’t a member of FIFA for a period of approx. 25 yrs. – which basically coincided with the first 25 yrs of the FAI’s existence. The FAI stopped selecting “IFA players” once the IFA re-joined FIFA as the transfer of players between member associations was regulated. In 1946 the FAI complained to FIFA about the IFA acting as all-island association and not abiding by the rules and regulations governing the transfer of players between FIFA members. This complaint had a two fold objective; (a) to stop the IFA’s poaching and, more importantly, (b) to establish and legitimise the FAI’s football jurisdiction. At this time international recognition and acceptance within the footballing community was of paramount importance to the FAI, all the more so with the Home Nations now back in the FIFA fold. Given the power and influence the Home Nations commanded at this point in time, the FAI, which broke away from the IFA, (an IFA that continued to operate as an all-island association), perhaps feared for its future. By "complaining" to FIFA at this date in time demonstrates an urgency within the FAI to legitimise its very existence. To establish and legitimise the its football jurisdiction, the FAI approached FIFA on the basis of “place of birth” – i.e. if born in the Free State or whatever it was called at that point in time, that player was only eligible for the FAI’s representative sides. FIFA confirmed that in this specific instance that this was the case.

[EalingGreen]

The IFA wasn’t a member of FIFA for a period of approx. 25 yrs. – which basically coincided with the first 25 yrs of the FAI’s existence. The FAI stopped selecting “IFA players” once the IFA re-joined FIFA as the transfer of players between member associations was regulated. In 1946 the FAI complained to FIFA about the IFA acting as all-island association and not abiding by the rules and regulations governing the transfer of players between FIFA members. This complaint had a two fold objective; (a) to stop the IFA’s poaching and, more importantly, (b) to establish and legitimise the FAI’s football jurisdiction. At this time international recognition and acceptance within the footballing community was of paramount importance to the FAI, all the more so with the Home Nations now back in the FIFA fold. Given the power and influence the Home Nations commanded at this point in time, the FAI, which broke away from the IFA, (an IFA that continued to operate as an all-island association), perhaps feared for its future. By "complaining" to FIFA at this date in time demonstrates an urgency within the FAI to legitimise its very existence. To establish and legitimise the its football jurisdiction, the FAI approached FIFA on the basis of “place of birth” – i.e. if born in the Free State or whatever it was called at that point in time, that player was only eligible for the FAI’s representative sides. FIFA confirmed that in this specific instance that this was the case.

In short, what you are saying is that the 1946 action by the FAI established that only they (FAI) could select Free State-born players.

Fine.

That does not, however, address the situation of NI-born players.

And my point is that if there was/is nothing in FIFA's Regs to prevent the FAI from selecting such players, and the IFA was/is powerless to prevent the FAI from doing so, how do you explain the fact that the FAI did not select one single such player* at senior "A" level for 57 seven years (or at any level for 45-odd years)?


* - There is a case for arguing Alan Kernaghan, were it not for the fact that the IFA declined to select him (though entitled), leaving him to approach the FAI as his second choice, with the tacit "blessing" of the IFA. Therefore he is "the exception who proves the rule" imo.

[ifk101]

how do you explain the fact that the FAI did not select one single such player* at senior "A" level for 57 seven years (or at any level for 45-odd years)?

Simple. Ignorance.

We're talking about an association that made it's first senior manager appointment in 1969. And it wasn't until the arrival of Jack Charlton in 1986 that the FAI actively became aware of the potential player pool offered by the parentage rule.