You thought wrong about it's appeal - I'm an unashamed Unionist. I, therefore, do not subscribe to the notion of independence for an Ulster State.Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Of course, I'm proudly Northern Irish....and a British National.
Last edited by Not Brazil; 08/02/2012 at 11:26 PM.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
More odd allegations from OWC in relation to "community representatives" and the supposed coercion of McClean:
Can people really believe such warped drivel?I suppose it's safer for the wee turncoat rat to argue on twitter with Northern Ireland fans that to have fallen out with the local "community representatives" and continued to play for us. At least his knees stay safe this way
I'm not at all convinced knee injuries can't occur while using a computer and/or accessing the internet. Where is the evidence to support a statement like that?
Very dubious.
I am genuinely not trying to create red herrings. What I am saying is that there is only one winner out of all this - the IFA, and due to the complex nature of the situation, it is not that simplistic.
Players make teams, not organisations. In order to get the best out of players, they must be completely happy in their decision making, not feel pressured and believe in the team they play for. Your idea involves teenagers making decisions at too young an age with pressure placed on them by the IFA in regards to their allegiance. I think you should look at Shane Duffy as an example. He decided despite being under pressure that he really felt he needed to change to us. Under your system, he would have copped more abuse than he did. How is this fair? Would you rather players play for NI who don't want to, but do so because of the intimidation they would face if their feelings became known?
I will go back to an earlier post of mine and the opinions of Predator and Co Down Green. The IFA and its supporters need to show respect, understanding and appreciation of the opinions of the Nationalist community. This is the only real solution, but will never occur due to the myopic view that exists within the Unionist community.
Last edited by gastric; 09/02/2012 at 12:11 AM.
I"ll deal with some of the other points you raise later, but, in practice, what does this mean?
How does the IFA highlighting and discussing choices available to young adults head on, compromise what you seek?
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
What?
If a young player says his heart lies with the FAI, and he is assisted in going down that
path, the IFA are the only winners?
Strange logic.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
How would Shane have copped more abuse than he did, had he played for the ROI first - which is what NB is advocating?
You're avoiding the real issue, the fact that your system cannot work. A simplistic plan with no merit to it.
This so-called 'system' doesn't take the form of written set of rules.
NB simply wishes the IFA to establish a convention through which players who harbour ambitions of playing for the ROI can make the FAI their first port of call. If in time it doesn't work out for them, said players can return to the IFA set-up at a later date, if they so wish.
Last edited by The Fly; 09/02/2012 at 1:16 AM.
Except that they adminster and implement their rules, none of which involve an age cap, voluntary or otherwise.
And sadly, stone cold sober. What about you? It might explain a lot...
Yawn.
But you did of course exhibit a failure to recognise irony?
I am still of the opinion it is too simplistic and does not deal with the real issue.
The majority of us are in agreement about the real issue to which you refer. This is separate from that.
If you believe that this alternate approach is too simplistic to work, that's fair enough - you're entitled to your opinion. I would argue that its beauty lies in that very simplicity.
Last edited by The Fly; 09/02/2012 at 3:13 AM.
My suggestion does not involve an "age cap", and would not breach any FIFA Statutes.
However, if people thought they did ie. enough to raise the matter with FIFA, I would urge the IFA to welcome such a development.
That's possibly a bit advanced for you to comprehend at this stage, so I'll not elaborate on why the IFA should welcome FIFA being brought into it.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
What's difficult to comprehend about that?
Would the FAI not also benefit from such an approach?
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
On the contrary, I believe it could work very well.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
You missed my point. Duffy is a prime example of a player who was not sure of his future, played for NI first and then after a period of reflection made his decision. If a player the age of 20, for example, decided to change after making the commitment that NB refers to, he is going to cop even more crap that he would presently. Is this fair on young players? As a teacher, my ongoing understanding of young people is that many can't make life decisions until they are often in their mid 20s. This must be respected and should not involve undue pressure.
I would argue that the two issues are completely related and cannot be separated. The FAI's history and relationship with the the Nationalist community have lead to the existence of this thread and why we continue to have this endless debate about the possible solutions that will appease the likes of NB.
How so?
You are able to make life decisions at age 18 - vote etc.
If the player is "not sure", at age 18, of course that should be respected - and he should be afforded the time and space until he is sure.
I would contend that most know where their heart lies at age 18 - the evidence being the switchers to date have talked about "boyhood dreams" etc.
Your concern seems to be that the IFA would be "the only winners" in this, but yet you have failed to explain this assertion.
How would the FAI be a loser in such a scenario?
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
I don't think it's got anything to do with appeasing the likes of me.
My interest is in protecting the interests of the IFA within the current Eligibility framework, and the long term development of our international representative sides.
The Englishmen came over in the year 2005
But little did they know that we'd planned a wee surprise
Sir David scored the winner, and Windsor Park went wild
And this is what we sang...
Typical cheap argument. Yes, young people can vote at 18. Does this mean they are informed in their voting, understand the policies of the parties or who they are voting for? No. Why are there are more car accidents among 18 -24s than older drivers? Lack of understanding and maturity in their decision making. Again your simplicity of argument and ideas show your lack of understanding of my point. In terms of the IFA, you want a solution which will make life easy for them, when society does not work that way, If it was that simple, we would not have the complex issues we have in society.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks