Celtic Cup thread

[DannyInvincible]

I see that the spin-doctors are currently in effect and a concerted campaign is now well underway on OWC to, rather disingenuously, pass the rationale behind this boycott off as having been motivated by the disagreement over player eligibility ex post facto and in spite of the original AoNISC announcement on the boycott mentioning nothing of it, citing solely the cost of travel, the security arrangements and the lack of willingness on the IFA's part to take NI fan's views into consideration as reasons.

I understand that there were initial hopes to stage a boycott over what some NI fans perceive to be a "sectarian policy of poaching" orchestrated by the FAI but that, and this was generally undisputed, only a very tiny minority supported these plans with around 8,000 still expected to attend the game. One relatively high-profile poster on OWC who was in favour of an original boycott even rebuked the notion of describing it as a "boycott" due to the fact that the numbers engaging were so few, feeling that such an exaggerated description might imply there was some sort of mass consensus or action; rather, he viewed it as no more than active opposition by a number of individuals acting independently, for want of a better description. Clearly, this latter and current boycott was spurred, not by something the FAI has done, but by the IFA's unsatisfactory arrangements with the supporters of its team.

Nevertheless, I fear that twisting the rationale behind the boycott after the fact to having had something to do with the player eligibility thing will, in most external observer's eyes, only serve to implicate the vast majority of (virtually all?) NI supporters with the divisive, insensitive and spiteful objection to certain Irish nationals having the right to represent their country in international football. Whilst it also comes across as a bit ignorant in light of the CAS ruling, I don't think it will do the fanbase any favours in nationalist circles.

[The Fly]

I see that the spin-doctors are currently in effect and a concerted campaign is now well underway on OWC to, rather disingenuously, pass the rationale behind this boycott off as having been motivated by the disagreement over player eligibility ex post facto and in spite of the original AoNISC announcement on the boycott mentioning nothing of it, citing solely the cost of travel, the security arrangements and the lack of willingness on the IFA's part to take NI fan's views into consideration as reasons.

I understand that there were initial hopes to stage a boycott over what some NI fans perceive to be a "sectarian policy of poaching" orchestrated by the FAI but that, and this was generally undisputed, only a very tiny minority supported these plans with around 8,000 still expected to attend the game. One relatively high-profile poster on OWC who was in favour of an original boycott even rebuked the notion of describing it as a "boycott" due to the fact that the numbers engaging were so few, feeling that such an exaggerated description might imply there was some sort of mass consensus or action; rather, he viewed it as no more than active opposition by a number of individuals acting independently, for want of a better description. Clearly, this latter and current boycott was spurred, not by something the FAI has done, but by the IFA's unsatisfactory arrangements with the supporters of its team.

Nevertheless, I fear that twisting the rationale behind the boycott after the fact to having had something to do with the player eligibility thing will, in most external observer's eyes, only serve to implicate the vast majority of (virtually all?) NI supporters with the divisive, insensitive and spiteful objection to certain Irish nationals having the right to represent their country in international football. Whilst it also comes across as a bit ignorant in light of the CAS ruling, I don't think it will do the fanbase any favours in nationalist circles.

I think you're 'lurking' now Danny.

[DannyInvincible]

Regarding the boycott, those who urged such action on the "poaching" issue didn't have any momentum or impact - Over 6,000 Northern Ireland fans attended the game v Scotland. Similar numbers, if not more, were planning to attend the Republic game.

Perhaps they didn't stop to think about the financial side of things pertaining to the IFA? I don't know.

I've come across an unsourced claim on OWC that the FAI were taking 80 per cent of the television revenue and 100 per cent of the revenue from ticket sales, with the remaining 20 per cent of television revenue presumably split between the other three competing associations. That would mean, however, that the IFA would have nothing to gain from trying to sell more tickets, at least financially anyway, and, thus, nothing to worry about with regard to minimising losses in this instance. Surely can't be right though, can it?

[DannyInvincible]

I think you're 'lurking' now Danny.

Haha, nothing wrong with that.

I was aware of the collapse of the original plans a while ago, mind. Just though it was an interesting twisting of events.

[Predator]

NI fans can vent their anger through boycotts and hot air, but it won't change much in the way of national team eligibility and nor should it. For every article or angry letter they send, we should systematically tear it to shreds with a thorough dose of common sense in our bellies.

This quote from Sickboy, administrator of OWC, had me laughing:
"Sometimes pushing poeple[sic] is the only way to get them going in the right direction."

Anyone detect an ever so faint hint of fascism in there?
The so-called 'right direction' is what, exactly, as decided by whom, exactly? You don't agree with what we have to say? You're wrong, you need to be 'pushed' into 'the right direction'.
It cries out to be parodied.

[DannyInvincible]

This quote from Sickboy, administrator of OWC, had me laughing:
"Sometimes pushing poeple[sic] is the only way to get them going in the right direction."

If Joseph Goebbels had been designated a marked burial place, I'd imagine that would have been the epitaph on his gravestone.

[gastric]

Let's come clean and stop the charade. We in the South secretly follow the Pope's orders and would like to see every new born Protestant child burn in hell except for the ones who want to play for us and who will now go to heaven. We refer offline to Northen Ireland as Nursery Ireland and CAS stands for Catholics Are Sectarians. I think by finally acknowledging what we really think we can stop the paranoia that exists up North.

[Not Brazil]

I see that the spin-doctors are currently in effect and a concerted campaign is now well underway on OWC to, rather disingenuously, pass the rationale behind this boycott off as having been motivated by the disagreement over player eligibility ex post facto and in spite of the original AoNISC announcement on the boycott mentioning nothing of it, citing solely the cost of travel, the security arrangements and the lack of willingness on the IFA's part to take NI fan's views into consideration as reasons.

I understand that one of the justifications for the "campaign" is a poll on OWC which shows that 69.63% of those voting are boycotting because of the FAI "nicking" players.

On the same poll only 20.74% of those voting cited the travel restrictions etc as their reason for not attending.

However, on another forum poll on the same issue, the results are somewhat different.

It shows only 6.32% of those voting boycotting because of the FAI selecting Northern Ireland born players, with 69.63% citing the travel arrangements/restrictions as their reason for not attending.

[Sullivinho]

This quote from Sickboy, administrator of OWC, had me laughing:
"Sometimes pushing poeple[sic] is the only way to get them going in the right direction."

I feel like a traffic accident voyeur whenever I read the dispatches of your good self, DannyInvincible et al from that place.

[DannyInvincible]

I understand that one of the justifications for the "campaign" is a poll on OWC which shows that 69.63% of those voting are boycotting because of the FAI "nicking" players.

On the same poll only 20.74% of those voting cited the travel restrictions etc as their reason for not attending.

However, on another forum poll on the same issue, the results are somewhat different.

It shows only 6.32% of those voting boycotting because of the FAI selecting Northern Ireland born players, with 69.63% citing the travel arrangements/restrictions as their reason for not attending.

I am aware of the recent poll instigated on the 11th of May where the vast majority - now over 70 per cent - have voted citing the FAI "nicking" players as the reason for their boycott, but it's very easy to change one's apparent motivations after the fact and once one has already decided they'll not be going over the travel and security arrangements anyway, as the presumably-earlier poll you mention clearly demonstrates. I'm not aware of the other poll of which you speak but I assume it was before the "question" of "how [NI fans/OWC users] manage it" - that being how the boycott is depicted in the media with consideration also given to "some way of coat-tailing the current French scandal" - came into play on the morning of the 11th and began to receive much encouragement.

The most recent poll clearly offered most the chance to "save face" or "get it right the second time" and was well stage-managed as the seemingly trivial and fickle reasoning of a boycott over "paying an extra tenner and not getting a pint" came in for stark criticism from some even after the IFA reduced their travel price from £30 to £22: "I just dare someone to come on here and say that the £8 saving has swayed them and they're going again." On the other hand, taking a stand on the eligibility issue has been advanced as the principled stance.

It's patently obvious what sparked the boycott that actually took off.

[SkStu]

I am aware of the recent poll instigated on the 11th of May where the vast majority - now over 70 per cent - have voted citing the FAI "nicking" players as the reason for their boycott, but it's very easy to change one's apparent motivations after the fact and once one has already decided they'll not be going over the travel and security arrangements anyway, as the presumably-earlier poll you mention clearly demonstrates. I'm not aware of the other poll of which you speak but I assume it was before the "question" of "how [NI fans/OWC users] manage it" - that being how the boycott is depicted in the media with consideration also given to "some way of coat-tailing the current French scandal" - came into play on the morning of the 11th and began to receive much encouragement.

The most recent poll clearly offered most the chance to "save face" or "get it right the second time" and was well stage-managed as the seemingly trivial and fickle reasoning of a boycott over "paying an extra tenner and not getting a pint" came in for stark criticism from some even after the IFA reduced their travel price from £30 to £22: "I just dare someone to come on here and say that the £8 saving has swayed them and they're going again." On the other hand, taking a stand on the eligibility issue has been advanced as the principled stance.

It's patently obvious what sparked the boycott that actually took off.

i voted travel and security arrangements.

[geysir]

No space for the Lambeg drums on the bus.

[DannyInvincible]

i voted travel and security arrangements.

Hehe, do I detect a hint of dismissive sarcasm there?

The reason I'm highlighting this is because I do think it's a relevant and somewhat important issue when a disingenuous campaign is well underway, both nationally and internationally if those now taking a leading role in the boycott are to be believed, to win international support for the notion that the FAI are stealing players from another association; a notion that the vast majority of NI fans clearly didn't view as meriting a boycott in the first place.

[SkStu]

Hehe, do I detect a hint of dismissive sarcasm there?

no... i live in Canada and I have no house alarm...

(my jokes are clearly losing their punch!)

[Mr_Parker]

I wouldn't expect a big jump in numbers now DI - many will be wise enough to see through the IFA spin and bull****.

Sponsors are not happy by all accounts, but that's not the bigger story I've heard from what I consider to be an informed source.

Here's a few questions for you to investigate/consider:

Did one of the participating FAs (not based on this island, and who were initially reluctant to take part) receive a "guarantee" of circa £2,000,000 to secure their participation?

Who underwrote that "guarantee"?

Is the competition going well re: revenues so far?

Why did the IFA ignore supporters representives' advices re: ticketing for the Scotland game ie. the IFA put tickets on open sale, against advice?

Are the IFA ****ting themselves with the prospect of a low turnout v the Republic and no turnout v Wales?

Why would that be?

IFA confirm £2million more to Scotland than the rest in todays Sunday World. Scotland seem to be trying to deflect the story.

Question, as you rightly point out, that is not answered, is who is underwriting it?

[Mr_Parker]

[DannyInvincible]

The Scottish statement doesn't necessarily deny that the SFA are receiving £2 million for partaking; just that they aren't receiving £2 million more than the others. Presumably the FAW and IFA are also receiving some participation fee each meaning it would technically be correct, although their amounts probably pale in comparison.

[Charlie Darwin]

It looks like it could be a semantics thing. They may have been guaranteed £2 million more than the others have been guaranteed, but obviously that doesn't mean they'll get £2 million more at the end of the day.

[TiocfaidhArmani]

I understand that one of the justifications for the "campaign" is a poll on OWC which shows that 69.63% of those voting are boycotting because of the FAI "nicking" players.

I don't care what the reasons are, this is one boycott I fully support. Your scum fans are welcome not to come, you're not welcome after the last time and how you behaved. The citizens who live close to the Aviva will be dancing in the streets.

[Not Brazil]

IFA confirm £2million more to Scotland than the rest in todays Sunday World. Scotland seem to be trying to deflect the story.

Question, as you rightly point out, that is not answered, is who is underwriting it?

I note that Patrick Nelson is quick to distance himself from the "agreement".

Perhaps it was a desperate act by a desperate man trying to cling on to power?