QuoteOriginally Posted by The Fly
Figured it was about time I saw what all the fuss was about...
No, it was a reply to Ardee Bhoy. If I want to dig at OWC, I'll address them direct.Is that a dig at OWC?
PS no need to repeat that gag, I understood it the first time.
A bit harsh? He didn't stand out either way in a scratch side, and we did actually manage to draw the game.
Really? Maybe I'm naive but I took what the press reported NW claiming he said back in September at face value. Clearly that was the point we should have told him to bugger off.I think most of our fans knew what he meant when he said he wanted to hold out to try and get a game for them (i.e. he wanted the ROI to give him a chance)
Last edited by Gather round; 21/03/2011 at 7:52 AM.
Figured it was about time I saw what all the fuss was about...
Ou-est le Centre George Pompidou?
why don't owc let unregistered users see their forum?
Past experience suggests that this deters sh*t-stirring. Of course, it might also put off a lot of potential posters, as well as encouraging something of a siege mentality. Swings and roundabouts.
Gerry Armstrong, in his Sunday Life piece yesterday, stated that Barton had played at Under Age level for the Republic Of Ireland, before he played for Northern Ireland v Morocco.
Gerry talking rubbish?
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...
possibly, no mention of him on fai.ie, other than the call up for the U21s, or on soccerscene.ie
While not definitive, those are the sites I use most often to find any underage appearance information for players
I don't think it's harsh. He didn't do anything, he was an empty shirt. Maybe that's because his head wasn't in it but he certainly did nothing to suggest he can play for England or the ROI.
I don't think I've ever directed such an accusation at any other poster, bar EG. Anyhow, what I'm uncertain about regarding Barton's status is whether or not he was originally registered with the IFA in the eyes of FIFA given that he never played in a competitive game for Northern Ireland and whether declaring for us amounts to a change of association or acquisition of a new nationality. Presumably it doesn't if he never effected his registration with the IFA in the first place by lining out for them in a competitive fixture. In light of that, it's entirely plausible, if not likely, that he may qualify to play for us under article 15.
And that's where EG comes in; he asserts with apparent clarity that article 15 permits only those with an automatic birthright to Irish nationality to represent us* because, he claims, both CAS and the head of FIFA, Sepp Blatter, confirmed and reiterated this to be the case on more than one occasion. I've no problem with him possessing a particular agenda - it's the spin, dishonest logic and twisting of uncertainty into apparent fact to conform with that agenda time and time again that gets me - and, fair enough - I'll divest myself of my cynicism in order to give him the benefit of the doubt here - he may not fully understand the application of article 15 and can make an honest interpretative error, as can anyone, including myself, but if he's telling the truth with regard to what CAS and Blatter have supposedly said, I'll eat my hat. It's rather difficult to prove a negative in this instance as I don't have the time to read through the whole Kearns judgment again nor can I sift through the internet in search of minutes from the IFAB AGM at the Slieve Donard Hotel in 2009 that probably don't even exist, but from what I know and have read I think it likely in the extreme that he isn't being the slightest bit frank.
*As is well-known, Barton isn't entitled to automatic Irish nationality from birth, but rather, he is entitled to acquire Irish nationality, by virtue of having a grandparent born on the island, from the date of his birth being registered with the Foreign Births Register. This latter form of Irish nationality is no less permanent than the former nor does it rely on residence, thus, it would be reasonable to assume that it falls under the range of article 15, surely?
The morality of switching association after the age of 18/21/whatever or having represented an association in a non-competitive senior fixture aside, I think it was as part of the most recent amendments to FIFA's statutes that saw the age limit of 21 abolished after heavy lobbying from nations mainly in the Francophone north-African bloc (the likes of Algeria) sought to call up players who had played for France prior to turning 21 but were otherwise eligible to play for a north-African nation. In light of that, it's unlikely that FIFA will go back on it any time soon, although the IFA are entirely within their rights to lobby FIFA for a reversion in just the same way. But as it stands, everyone is in the same boat, as AB points out and as FIFA will tell you:
"Regarding the eligibility of players to be selected for a representative team, FIFA implemented a set of rules, which are clear and apply uniformly to each of its 208 member associations. Those rules are global and were not designed for the purpose of a single situation, i.e. not specifically for the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland situation." - FIFA submission to CAS during the Kearns case.
For what it's worth, if FIFA were to revert back to the old way, I wouldn't have any major qualms with it.
Interestingly, from an Irish perspective, former Ireland under-21 international, Éamon Zayed, was able to declare for Libya fairly recently due to the rule change in question.
Maybe so, although when Shane Lowry declared for Australia after having represented us all the way through under-age level, the reaction was more one of disappointment that we didn't interest him as a senior option whilst wishing him all the best for the future rather than anything bitter. Likewise, if, say, James McCarthy had, as the fear in the media appeared to be for a while when things got a bit silly, declared for Scotland, I think most of the criticism would have been directed, rather than at McCarthy personally, towards Trapattoni's man-management and the FAI for not having done more to keep such a highly-rated prospect on board. When a player switches from the IFA to the FAI, however, it seems par for the course that they'll be on the receiving end of a scathing and vitriolic barrage of attack, along with the FAI, of course. The initial reaction should be to analyse your own house and make sure it's in order first.If he turns out for Ireland in a senior friendly and then declares for England I can't imagine too many roi fans being happy at that one either.
Probably mistaken. Surely would have been mentioned somewhere before now if it was the case, at least here, if not in the media.
You said above that he was "unbelievably rubbish". Not compared with the rest of our team he wasn't, or he wouldn't have stayed on for the whole 90 minutes.
No-one is claiming he looked like a potential England or even RoI international.
He was unbelievably rubbish relative to the talent that we were supposed to be getting. I'm not saying he's a rubbish player, but he's not as good as made out! The lad thought he was good enough for England so you expected him to show what he has at least a bit but we didn't see anything..
I don't know, maybe I am being harsh because of his age, but he wouldn't get into our team at this moment in time and I can't see him getting much better in future.
One accusation of dishonesty-even-when-you're-unsure is enough, surely? Anyway, you're nit-picking. I wasn't suggesting you throw out such accusations willy-nilly. I should have said "accusing another poster" above, to avoid confusion.
Agreed. If anything, I think they might relax the rules yet further in favor of the 'second' countries- eg by allowing guys to turn out for Algeria etc. even after they've played in a qualifier for France. The Francophone and similar lobbies are powerful in FIFA.In light of that, it's unlikely that FIFA will go back on it any time soon
The IFA isn't, unless you count their seat on IFAB. So clearly they're better served in a local agreement with FAI, than trying to change Worldwide rules.
Glad we sorted that out. I'm not sure what you were expecting from the guy- at the start of this season he'd played a handful of games for Preston. That hardly makes him the next Tom Finney.
I have said this all along...
(Yes, I do want a blue peter badge).
I presume he meant Johnny Gorman rather than Barton.
I'll hold to the inference, again.
P.S...congratulations on your thousandth post.
Possibly - he might have been getting the two confused.
To the best of my knowledge, Barton has never represented the Republic Of Ireland at any level.
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...
Except DI has clarified why.....as certain people seem to want to misrepresent the truth.
Not really. The no. of acknowledgements (and lack of dispute with their stance) would suggest otherwise.It's a bit subjective suggesting those you agree with are more objective than others.
As is the case with two of your esteemed, er, 'colleagues'.
Amazing! Glad we cleared that up.....No-one is infallible.
As in what?
As for OWB they must be waiting with bated breath....
Paranoia and to a lesser extent, so they can 'hate' without being monitored by the wider authorities. So I suppose embarrassment about some of their more 'extreme' posters.....
Which to be fair wouldn't involve any of the posters on here, when they post on there as it were.
.....
Last edited by Gather round; 21/03/2011 at 1:27 PM.
Whatever floats your boat. You're still wrong, mind.I'll hold to the inference, again.
Ta. Don't worry, I can take the hintP.S...congratulations on your thousandth post.
I don't think he has, actually. He accused EG of lying, then later in the same post said he wasn't sure whether he was lying or not.
The number of people who agree with you (or thank you for a web board comment) isn't a hard and fast test of objectivity. In Belfast West, for example, 88% think Irish nationalism is broadly objective; acros the Lough in Down North, only 3% do. In any case, as I mentioned to you earlier, I haven't really disagreed with most of the people you suggest are more objective than me on this thread.Not really. The no. of acknowledgements (and lack of dispute with their stance) would suggest otherwise
The only reason it doesn't involve you is because you've been banned so often for posting incoherent sectarian nonsense.So I suppose embarrassment about some of their more 'extreme' posters...Which to be fair wouldn't involve any of the posters on here, when they post on there as it were
What a load of rubbish. How are you allowed to post this nonsense and get away with it?Paranoia and to a lesser extent, so they can 'hate' without being monitored by the wider authorities. So I suppose embarrassment about some of their more 'extreme' posters.....
Which to be fair wouldn't involve any of the posters on here, when they post on there as it were.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks