QuoteYou have just made comments here under 5 minutes ago about 18 years old making decisions. I have just given you my opinion on your comments. Have you forgotten what you just wrote?Originally Posted by Not Brazil
What part of "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" did you not read?
Of course I want a solution that is beneficial for the IFA, in terms of developing players whose dream it is to play for Northern Ireland.
Am I supposed to apologise for that?
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 have just made comments here under 5 minutes ago about 18 years old making decisions. I have just given you my opinion on your comments. Have you forgotten what you just wrote?
Perhaps the FAI shouldn't cap such immature and undecided players until their mid-twenties, in the best interests of the player.
I'm absolutely clear about what I wrote.
I find it absolutely incredulous that you are getting so excercised about a proposal which will see young prospects , whose dream it is the play for the FAI, being encouraged and facilitated to do so by the IFA.
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 are indulging in the thoroughly disingenuous act of selective post snipping, commenting on the first part of what I wrote, while removing the context.
Also, do you completely forget that we are the folks who have been trying to explain for years to the OWC morons visiting here, that only British Nationality allows a footballer to play for NI?
The absurdity of you telling me about the relevance of British nationality to playing for NI
Have you lost your head in your frenzy of OWC missionary activity?
Hang on, you mentioned a figure of 18, like a hundred times. So please don't repeat it, yet again....
Normally I would say elaborate on the latter point, but you just seem set on repeating the same point ad nauseum, just because you've fallen out with OWB.
It does a disservice to the term 'broken record.
Also enough of the snide and patronising drivel;If you want to to insult people just come out and do it!
If you were as sharp as you imply, you wouldn't have to repeat the same point dozens of times to people who largely aren't interested...
'Nigel Dodds calls for talks over football eligibility': http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-16965522
North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds was speaking at Westminster as MPs debated the issue of governance in football.
The DUP Deputy leader said "action needs to be taken to stop the haemorrhaging of talent from Northern Ireland".
He said there needed to a "higher discussion about this".
The British and Irish governments should get together to address an "injustice", he added.
He also called on Uefa and Fifa to re-examine the issue which he claimed uniquely affected Northern Ireland.
A ruling by football's governing body Fifa allows players from the island of Ireland to choose which national side they represent providing they have not played for the other in a competitive senior international.
...
Speaking in Westminster to the BBC, Mr Dodds, who takes an interest in football matters as a long-suffering Everton fan, said the ruling needs to be overturned.
He said "the real problem is that the Northern Ireland team will suffer badly if this rule remains in place".
...
Last month, the new Northern Ireland manager Michael O'Neill spoke about the issue.
He said: "A lot of these lads have played their youth football in Northern Ireland, they have played representative for Northern Ireland at under age level."
The former Shamrock Rovers boss added: "It is important we look after these players and mentor them so they see the benefit of having a long and distinguished career with Northern Ireland as opposed to possibly being on the fringes of the Republic of Ireland squad."
Last year, in a BBC Radio Ulster documentary entitled 'Does the Cap Fit' Northern Ireland football legend Gerry Armstrong claimed there was evidence that teenage players from north of the border were being approached to play for the Republic of Ireland.
Mr Armstrong said players as young as 15 were being approached. The Football Association of Ireland said it was not involved.
That Dodds describes Irish men from the north playing for the FAI as an injustice says it all, really. An injustice to his sense of secure Northern Irish/British identity, perhaps?
End Apartheid Now! One Team in Ireland!
Haha. He clearly has the best interests of Northern Irish football at heart, suffering so long for his local side.Speaking in Westminster to the BBC, Mr Dodds, who takes an interest in football matters as a long-suffering Everton fan, said the ruling needs to be overturned.
On the issue of an agreement, I'm not sure the idea that NB has suggested is much of a solution. I understand that a few players would decide to represent ROI, and they would make that declaration a year or 3 earlier than they otherwise would have, thus freeing up space for other players.
But when asked, players could just say they don't know who they truly want to represent at senior level, and what are the IFA going to do? Exclude anybody who doesn't say they want to represent NI? That's not very likely.
Likewise, I don't think that FIFA are going to entertain any notions of a rule change in the IFA's favour.
In my opinion, the IFA's best bet is to try and come to some agreement (gentleman's agreement??) with the FAI regarding a point after which the FAI would agree not to call up any player who had previously played at underage level with NI. This point could be simply based on age, or it could be agreed that if a player had been capped at a certain underage level (U-19 or U-21, for example), the FAI would agree not to call him up in the future.
The question is whether the FAI, who clearly have all the cards in their favour at the moment, would be willing to come to any such agreement. They have already done so once, regarding not making the first move in contacting a player.
What's in it for the FAI? Are they willing to do this simply for the sake of harmony with a close neighbour? To stop the stream of mainly seriously ill-informed criticism coming their way from media (and even politicians) in NI?
If the issue of not making first contact was removed, and the FAI were free to make first contact with players with a view to joining ROI underage squads, both sides would be able to make their case to the player. Would the FAI be more likely to agree not to call up any player who still wanted to represent NI (at the agreed underage level) after the FAI had made efforts to bring him into ROI underage squads?
Just to humour you, at the age of 16 you are allowed to do the following:
Get married or register a civil partnership with consent
Drive a moped or invalid carriage
You can consent to sexual activity with others aged 16 and over
Drink wine/beer with a meal if accompanied by someone over 18
Leave school on the official school leaving date
Get a National Insurance number
Join a trade union
Work full-time if you have left school
Be paid national minimum wage for 16/17 year olds
Join the Armed Forces with parental consent
Change name by deed poll
Leave home with parental consent
In certain circumstances you must pay for prescriptions, dental treatment and eye tests
Choose a GP
Consent to medical treatment
Buy premium bonds
Pilot a glider
Buy a lottery ticket
Register as a blood donor, but you won't be called to give blood until you're 17
Apply for a passport without parental consent
The net widens at 17:
Drive most vehicles and pilot a helicopter or plane
No longer be subject to a care order
Become a blood donor
Be interviewed by the Police without an adult present.
The magic milestone of 18 bestows the following privileges:
The right to vote
Sue or be sued
Open a bank account in your own name
Perform professionally abroad
Serve on a jury
Get a tattoo
Buy cigarettes and tobacco
Buy and drink alcohol in a bar
See an 18 certificate film at the cinema
Buy fireworks
Leave home
Marry or register a civil partnership
Make a Will
Leave your body for medical study if you die
Carry an organ donor card
You cannot be made a ward of the court
Own land, buy a house or flat & apply for a mortgage
If you are adopted, you can apply to see a copy of your original birth certificate
Ride a motorbike above 125cc with a licence
Drive lorries between 3500kg and 7500kg with a trailer up to 750kg (with the appropriate licence)
Finally, at 21 you are permitted to:
Be elected as a Member of Parliament, local councillor or a mayor
Adopt a child
Hold an airline transport pilot's licence for an aeroplane, helicopter and gyroplane
Apply for a provisional licence to drive a large passenger vehicle or heavy goods vehicle
Supervise a learner driver (providing you have held a full licence for the same type of vehicle for at least three years)
I wonder where the choice of national football team comes in???
Last edited by The Fly; 09/02/2012 at 1:35 PM.
Agree completely regarding potential for uncertainty/dishonesty.
Agreed.Likewise, I don't think that FIFA are going to entertain any notions of a rule change in the IFA's favour.
To the best of my knowledge, the oldest player yet to have switched between the two associations is Alex Bruce who was 26 when talk first arose of his intentions to switch from the FAI to the IFA. Anyway, some form of internal agreement between the two associations without FIFA approval would amount to an infringement on the right of players not party to such an agreement to switch association once. Unless it was an unwritten "rule", I suppose, but how do you enforce that?In my opinion, the IFA's best bet is to try and come to some agreement (gentleman's agreement??
I'm not so sure it's as simple as saying the FAI have all the cards in their favour. The rules apply universally and the IFA benefit from article 8 (Lee Camp and Oliver Norwood, for example) in the same way it could be said that the FAI suffer from it (Alex Bruce, Johnny Gorman, Ryan Brobbel, Shane Lowry and Sean McGinty/Michael Keane(?), for example).The question is whether the FAI, who clearly have all the cards in their favour at the moment, would be willing to come to any such agreement. They have already done so once, regarding not making the first move in contacting a player.
The relationship between the IFA and FAI is currently one of harmony, as far as I'm aware. The official/public IFA line in relation to player eligibility is one of acceptance of players' right to switch - they're more than happy to take advantage of it themselves - and they acknowledge that the ball is in their court with regard to making playing for their sides an attractive option for more players from a nationalist background.What's in it for the FAI? Are they willing to do this simply for the sake of harmony with a close neighbour? To stop the stream of mainly seriously ill-informed criticism coming their way from media (and even politicians) in NI?
Not so sure this issue remains relevant considering the IFA took Daniel Kearns, the FAI and FIFA to CAS with the aim of removing players' right to switch. That would amount to a serious breach of any prior agreement in my book.If the issue of not making first contact was removed, and the FAI were free to make first contact with players with a view to joining ROI underage squads, both sides would be able to make their case to the player. Would the FAI be more likely to agree not to call up any player who still wanted to represent NI (at the agreed underage level) after the FAI had made efforts to bring him into ROI underage squads?
Anyway, if a player still wanted to represent NI rather than the FAI after the FAI had discussions with him, it's not as if the FAI could compel him to join one of our squads.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 09/02/2012 at 1:42 PM.
They're all coming out of the woodwork today.
'One soccer team for all Ireland is the way forward – Pat Sheehan': http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/2251...medium=twitter
Sinn Féin MLA Pat Sheehan has stated that the DUP's Nigel Dodds needs to accept that soccer players in the North have a fundamental right to choose to play for either soccer team in Ireland at international level and that those who choose not to play for one or the other should not be disadvantaged.
The FIFA Court of Arbitration for Sport has already ruled that players from the North have the right to represent either of the teams on the island of Ireland.
Pat Sheehan said:
“This debate has been ruled on by FIFA's Executive Committee who very clearly indicated that soccer players in the north can choose to play for either international team on the island.
“Nigel Dodds cannot force people to play for one team or another just as he cannot force people to choose whether they choose to identify themselves as Irish or British.He would be better calling for talks between the two governing soccer bodies on the island in the hope of having one team represent Ireland.
“It’s a pity that soccer does not learn from other sports when one team represents Ireland in the likes of rugby, cricket and other sports. Having one team from Ireland has witnessed the entire county getting behind them with no mention of divisions North, South, East or West.”
It wouldn't infringe on their right to switch. They just wouldn't get called up. It would, most likely, have an effect on their desire to switch.
I never said they could?
My point is, along the lines NB suggested, that allowing players exposure to both the IFA and FAI underage set-ups would allow them to make a more informed choice, maybe even earlier in their career than otherwise. That would be good for both associations. Currently, that doesn't happen as the FAI have to wait to be contacted.
From the IFA's persprective, it would be a lot harder for a player to claim it was their boyhood dream to represent ROI at senior level after representing NI at underage level if they'd had the option to represent ROI at underage level.
Last edited by osarusan; 09/02/2012 at 2:22 PM.
Am I correct in interpreting that as meaning the "rule" would be an unwritten one? How would such then be enforced? By mere good will?
Hmm, who's to say? Is the principle any different? Might Alex Bruce not have been a potential option for us in the future? I'm not saying he's a world-beater but central defence is an area where we don't have fantastic strength in depth at the minute. Who knows how the likes of Johnny Gorman might develop? And then there's Lee Camp; the position of goalkeeper has long been a problem area for England. Who's to say with any certainty that, in the event of a future goalkeeping crisis, the FA wouldn't have called upon Camp as an option? Sean McGinty has been touted as a hot prospect but there's talk that he's considering a switch from the FAI to the FA. As I said, the rules apply universally, which is the most optimal thing a code of rules can do; everyone benefits or suffers to some degree and it's impossible to try and objectively quantify the degrees to which respective associations are affected.I struggle to think of any player who had a bright ROI career in fornt of him but switched to NI. In that sense, the FAI hold the cards.
This bit confused me:I never said they could?
"Would the FAI be more likely to agree not to call up any player who still wanted to represent NI (at the agreed underage level) after the FAI had made efforts to bring him into ROI underage squads?"
If a player wanted to play for the IFA rather than the FAI, there'd be nothing the FAI could do to force him to play for them, so there'd be no need for the FAI to agree not to call such a player up. Or am I still misunderstanding you?
Regarding your latter point, Noel King suggested otherwise the other day. He asserted that it was well within his realm of rights to approach players eligible to play for the FAI. But I do agree with what you say otherwise.My point is, along the lines NB suggested, that allowing players exposure to both the IFA and FAI underage set-ups would allow them to make a more informed choice, maybe even earlier in their career than otherwise. That would be good for both associations. Currently, that doesn't happen as the FAI have to wait to be contacted.
Agreed.From the IFA's persprective, it would be a lot harder for a player to claim it was their boyhood dream to represent ROI at senior level after representing NI at underage level if they'd had the option to represent ROI at underage level.
If any other kind of agreement would infringe on player's rights as outlined in CAS, then yes, an unwritten rule. If both parties were agreed upon it, it would be easily adhered to, by mere good will.
Ah, I see.
This bit confused me:
"Would the FAI be more likely to agree not to call up any player who still wanted to represent NI (at the agreed underage level) after the FAI had made efforts to bring him into ROI underage squads?"
If a player wanted to play for the IFA rather than the FAI, there'd be nothing the FAI could do to force him to play for them, so there'd be no need for the FAI to agree not to call such a player up. Or am I still misunderstanding you?
What I'm saying is that both the IFA and FAI have until an agreed upon time (age, underage level etc) to convince a player to play for them. Once a player had made the decision, the other association would agree not to call them up at any future point (in an attempt to change their mind) before a senior competitive cap ended the issue for once and for all. Of course, if the player was completely happy with the original decison, then the agreement would be redundant. It would come into play when a player started to have second thoughts after the original decision.
Last edited by osarusan; 09/02/2012 at 3:07 PM.
I think what NB is proposing wouldn't even be an unwritten rule - just a selection policy by the IFA. They don't need any agreement from the FAI either. It doesn't change the rights of any player but it does address the issue raised by some IFA fans about players who they feel are not wholly committed.
They will ask a player at 18 if he is fully committed to playing for the IFA team, if he says yes, then he is available for selection, if he says no, then the IFA can decide not to select him. If he subsequently changes his mind then the IFA will live with that risk and can't stop him switching to another football association if he qualifies elsewhere.
"There's man all over for you, blaming on his boots the fault of his feet" - Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot
Indeed - but not in any context that would breach existing FIFA eligibility rules.
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 would expect them to give first preference to those who are sure, with the door firmly open to the others if/when they've had a think and expressed their preference to represent Northern Ireland.
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...
The bold Paddy is some pup.
He bangs on about the fundamental right to choice (quite right too), and then offers a solution which takes away choice.
Top man.
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...
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks