The point JD made is that the FAI willl have a look at a player if the player makes his interest known. This is consistent with an agreement the FAI and the IFA have from 1999. In the case of Shane Ferguson, the FAI made the first approach which is inconsistent with what JD said. However given Mick Martin's connections to Newcastle United, this approach could simply have been an innocent crossing of paths. Shane Ferguson didn't give a definite answer and there are no indications the FAI subsequently sought to persuade or coerse him into playing for Ireland.
The GAWA has tweeted the following:
thegawa Green & White Army
Evidence to the contrary: Eunan O'Kane bbc.in/vt089d Shane Ferguson bit.ly/lubktS & Mark McKeever bit.ly/u1qJL0 #gawa
I liked the bit when Mark Carruthers asked him about the cost of the new contract and Delaney replied "...he recognised the tough economic climate that we all live in.." do you now John, do you now?
This was fun as well http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017jk00
Jump to 41 mins if you want to avoid the poor grammar exhibited during the first article, which dealt ironically enough with educational issues.
Gerry Armstrong: "I only want people who want to play for NI or for Ulster."
Play for Ulster? Erm, I'm from Ulster; representing Ireland and representing Ulster (not that international football is about provincial identity anyway) are not mutually exclusive.
Some of the callers' comments are priceless. Where has the notion arisen that nationalists are demanding this change of anthem? It's not about nationalists being "offended" by 'God Save the Queen' either; it's about the dirge being completely irrelevant to them. That's not intolerance or bigotry; it's just a symbol with which they don't associate because it's as irrelevant and alienating to them as 'La Marseillaise' would be if they played under that anthem.
Predator, although a suspicious character with an obvious pro-Irish agenda, is nothing more than an innocent patsy in the assimilation. In exhibit 'A' above, the unmistakable shape of Mick Martin can clearly be seen poaching from the grassy knoll in the background. Witnesses on the day reported hearing three distinct FAI offers yet only two defections were identified. From the IFA's p.o.v. they can be seen moving back, and to the South...back, and to the South...back, and to the South.
As Mick Martin is an employee of the FAI and Givens (his immediate boss) reported the approach made to Ferguson, we can only assume that Mick Martin made the approach on behalf of the FAI. Regardless, in that interview JD did not rule out an enquiry to find out the players's intentions. He said that the FAI were not into coercion, recruitment or pressurizing players into a declaration. So, JD was being honest in that interview.
Is JD being entirely honest in regards to the 1999 agreement, is another question.
In 1999 there was some agreement for the FAI not to approach NI born players first. Approaching Ferguson first in that (1999 agreement) context, raises a question.
Despite that 1999 agreement, the IFA have sought every means to thwart a (NI born) players right to declare for the FAI. They made public campaigns about young kids, derided their aspirations and also encouraged NI fans to deride their aspirations.They made repeated nonsensical public statements about the eligibility situation and fostered a hostile public ignorance on the issue. And now they are cajoling pressurizing players not to declare for the FAI. You might say well they have every right to do all that, then I would say the FAI have every moral right to approach a NI born player and ask if he is interested to declare for the FAI.
Last edited by geysir; 29/11/2011 at 4:43 PM.
Ideally, yes. But when you're 12-18 years old and and Big Gerry arrives to your school/club/(home!!??) with all his fanfare and rhetoric of inclusiveness, then you can see how young nationalists, unsure of their future prospects might be cajoled into declaring for the IFA. Especially when there is no concrete FAI presence locally as an alternative to the in-your-face 'NI-ism'!
Last edited by Scooby Doo; 29/11/2011 at 5:02 PM.
Eunan O'Kane also had this to say to BBC Radio Devon:
"I just felt my opportunity wasn't going to come playing for Northern Ireland and the Republic have come and asked me to come and join them, so it's kind of a no-brainer to take the decision to the country that want you."
Does that imply someone in the FAI made an approach before O'Kane declared any interest in representing the FAI?
I don't care if people connected with the FAI contacted O'Kane first, but is it possible that O'Kane, having seen the way others were treated for switching, made it up to minimise the backlash? You just never know.
End Apartheid Now! One Team in Ireland!
Hmm, I dunno. I don't see why a player would lie in public when the FAI could simply deny it and then refuse to select him.
Edit: Of course, it doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that he had someone let the FAI know he'd be interested in representing them and they then came back and asked him to play for them.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 29/11/2011 at 6:54 PM.
As I explained in my post, imo, the FAI are quite entitled to approach Irish nationals and absurd to think any different.
To answer your question about the 1999 agreement, yes the approach to O'Kane does raise a question in the context of the 1999 agreement where (according to Boyce) the FAI supposedly agreed not to approach NI born players.
McKeever was prior to the 1999 understanding.
If O'Kane says he was approached by the FAI first, I'll take his word for it as his understanding of events leading to his switch are no doubt correct. But he does say he wasn't happy with his position with NI so maybe he was the initiator of the approach without knowingly knowing so. But as others say, this is of no real relevancy. And the IFA can't really have any compliants if the FAI choses to adopt a more active approach to the selection of Irish nationals born in NI. After all haven't the IFA broken the 1999 understanding with the Daniel Kearns case?
You should also look at the question JD was answering
MC: "Yeah, but you are overtly trying to persuade players to play for the Republic, are you?"
JD: "Oh, I wouldn't agree with that at all. I would not agree with that at all. I think if a player makes it known to us that he wants to play for the Republic, then we'll look at him, but we're certainly not on a recruitment campaign."
As I wrote, there is nothing ruled out by JD about asking a player about his position.
And as regards the 1999 agreement, considering Boyce and the IFA appeared to understand the eligibility rules proficiently at that time, his (and the IFA) posturing on the eligibility issue since that time has been farcical. So imo, any judgement on FAI consistency in regards to that 1999 agreement has to measured against the other party's conduct.
Let's just say, if it were a CAS issue, the IFA would be laughed out of the court again.
There is a distinction there, but it could easily become quite blurred in conversation. What the FAI see as 'ensuring the player is aware of their options' could be seen as an 'approach' by the IFA, or by the player in question.
If FAI scout Mick Martin goes to a player and asks about his 'potential interest to play for us', it's not hard to imagine that player inferring that he has been approached by the FAI. The wording of the question would be very interesting.
Really?
How so?
Last edited by ArdeeBhoy; 30/11/2011 at 11:21 PM.
Bookmarks