True, I was being facetious. I live near Wolverhampton and many of their fans locally have never actually heard of him. He should be in our U-19 squad, like his mates in yours.Originally Posted by liamoo11
That said, he's played in an Irish international side that's won an away qualifier against higher-ranked opposition.
Looks like we have found ourselves a drummer to back up Andy Reid on the guitar.
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk...k_n_goal_star/
Last edited by TrapAPony; 16/03/2011 at 5:29 PM.
"We lost because we didn't win"- Ronaldo
Talk about living the dream: pro footy player by day, rock star by night.
True, but only a little, given that we are only three places behind you in the UEFA rankings (#25 to #22).
In five minutes of competitive international football Gorman has managed something no RoI player has managed since 1994. Wolves third-teamer or not
If Barton is "changing his nationality" (and has to apply for an Irish pp), that suggests he was not already an Irish National.
And assuming he was not automatically an Irish National from birth (i.e. he is 2nd generation), then he must be "acquiring a new nationality". In which case, in order to be eligible to represent the FAI, he must satisfy the provisions of FIFA's Article 17.
Which means he/a parent/a grandparent must have been born in the "territory of the relevant Association".
Therefore unless someone can produce another (ROI-born) grandparent, or can plausibly argue that NI consitutes the "territory of the FAI", then I fail to see how he qualifies.
Or let me put it another way. I am saying why I think he is not eligible. Would anyone like to put forward a case - with links, sources, Articles etc - arguing how he is eligible?
Care to elaborate on who you mean by "certain posters"?
Quite.
Considering the %age of non-locally born players in our latest senior squad is just over 20%, whereas the equivalent figure for both the ROI Senior and U-21 squads is almost 50%, I doubt it, somehow.
If he ever plays for your senior team in a competitive game, then his own particular feelings may be the least of your worries:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/f...rs-742993.html
You are habituated in the practice of slicing up replies into small quotes, removing the context and making comments on that.
The context for my comment was in reference to players who have once played for the IFA and who then choose to declare for the FAI. In all these cases, we can takes the opinions of the OWC with a large dose of salt,
as they are generally exercises in prejudice, cynicism and denigration.
The IFA claim that Barton decided to wait on his English chances, is simply laughable.
That would appear correct, since under the most recent amendment to the regulations etc, a player may only switch Associations once.
Which in Barton's case would prevent him from ever representing England.
Considering he has previously publicly stated that he would not commit himself to NI if it meant ruling out any possibility of representing England, I wonder has anyone made this clear to the player?
He can't (a ) because he is already tied to NI, and (b ) because a player may only switch once.
Apart from that, nice try...
Your under-age teams contain more non-native born players than ours, so your future would appear to be more "plastic" than ours...
Considering our refusal of the invitation to pool our resources in an all-UK U-21 team (for the London Olympics), why on earth should we do so with your lot?As for the U-21 rankings, given our joint woeful standings, maybe we should have a combined team in future??
is the olympics not u23? given that mark bright had andy carroll in there who is 22 i assume it is u23 - always thought you were allowed 2 over 23 players as well.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
The fact that FIFA say he is eligible probably goes over your head. Like the IFA, you think you are right and FIFA don't even know their own rules. Quite a bizarre argument which makes sense to only the most irrational of people.
I have explained in detail why a player like Barton is eligible for the FAI, in the eligibility thread.
As you have consistently got every aspect of the rules of FIFA eligibility wrong, I wont hold my breath on your desire or capability to understand the rules.
Not Brazil has provided a link to an article containing direct quotations from the player himself. The article clearly states that he was considering NI, but was unsure, since he was still hoping for a future England career.
NI/IFA have been in close contact with the player for nearly two years, primarily through Steve Beaglehole. They were prepared to "keep the door open" whilst he decided between NI and England; I cannot believe they would have done so had he asked for such consideration whilst he decided between NI, England and ROI.
All the evidence suggests that this is just another example of a player being a d i c k - something with which eg followers of the career of a certain Stephen Ireland should be familiar.
The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence and prefer instead to accuse NW of lying etc, says more about you than it does of him.
And then you have the brass neck to bleat about being "open-minded"...
Last edited by EalingGreen; 16/03/2011 at 7:08 PM.
Aye, I reply point by point, and as far as possible briefly to what others say. Why throw in unncessary flowery language? It doesn't impress people, just makes you look arrogant and pompous.
No reply to my direct question then? Fine, I'll assume from the above that you think any comment from any NI-supporting poster on this broad issue is inherently worthless. Even where I or others might agree with you. This isn't merely narrow-minded (contrary to your claim above), it's infantile.The context for my comment was in reference to players who have once played for the IFA and who then choose to declare for the FAI. In all these cases, we can takes the opinions of the OWC with a large dose of salt, as they are generally exercises in prejudice, cynicism and denigration
I outlined various possibilities above, all are plausible. Nigel Worthington, however mad he is, has actually spoken to Adam Barton. I'd trust his account of their conversation slightly more than your habituated flights of fancy.The IFA claim that Barton decided to wait on his English chances, is simply laughable
Yes, it's U-23. Although the rules on U-21 age eligibility means you can play until you're well over 23, as james Milner did for England. Basically you have to be u-21 in the calendar year when the tournament starts, not finishes.
Last edited by Gather round; 16/03/2011 at 5:24 PM.
When a poster has to resort to convoluted constructions like that to back up his case, it is a sure sign that he is on dodgy ground.
International eligibility and territorial jurisdiction are two separate issues.
Otherwise, since the FAI is entitled to select as-of-right under Article 15 any player born anywhere in the world to an Irish-born parent, your "logic" would mean that anywhere in the world also constitute the "territory" of the FAI...
Or, to put it another way, if NI is FAI "territory" why does a player (professional or amateur) transferring from an ROI club to an NI club (or vv) have to secure international clearance? Why are Derry City required to be Members of the IFA? Why do clubs/players/Leagues etc who are eg aggrieved at a decision by an IFA Disciplinary panel not merely appeal to the FAI etc? Indeed, why does anyone submit to the authority of the IFA in NI, if it does not have full jurisdiction over its own territory?
Geysir did NOT "explain it" to me.
Rather, he concocted a flimsy case which depended on two points, Alex Bruce and an alleged Howard Wells statement.
However, he has never specified under what Article etc Bruce was deemed eligible, or even that he was actually even deemed to be so (i.e. an Association may select anyone it likes, without having to justify it, if no-one else formally challenges the selection). Further, the international eligibility criteria, and their operation, have changed several times since Bruce first played for ROI.
As for Wells, Geysir likes to refer to an (alleged) statement by Wells, yet he has not, to my knowledge at least, ever provided a link. And considering he has consistently denigrated the reliability, credibility and veracity of Wells on just about every other issue, it's a bit rich for him to be making him his "Star witness for the prosecution" now.
Why on earth should the IFA be interested in ascertaining whether Barton held/was entitled to Irish Nationality at the time he played for us against Morocco?
Having been born and bred in England, Barton is automatically a UK national.
And UK Nationality falls under FIFA Article 16 - "Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association".
In the UK's case, these Associations are the FA, SFA, FAW and IFA and by mutual agreement, these four Associations specifically requested that additional qualifications (birth/ancestral/residential) be required to prevent a "free-for-all".
Barton satisfied these by virtue of his NI-born Grandfather, so neither the FA nor FIFA can have had any objection to his representing us.
I do not understand what point it is you're trying to make here.
Who knows?
If his past, public pronouncements/actions are anything to go by, his capacity for logical thinking lies somewhere between that of Stephen Ireland and the average two year old.
And when I say "average two year old", I mean average two year old goldfish...
If that is his thinking, then he's got a nasty shock coming to him, since if he were somehow to switch his Nationality to the ROI, the fact of his having already registered as Northern Irish would preclude him from making a second switch to England.
You know, certain posters. Plenty of people have been confused by the eligibility statutes and misled by equally confusing reportage of the 'Eligibility Row'.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks