Shane Ferguson

[Gather round]

When I saw you'd responded, I hadn't expected the flag part to be the only thing with which you'd take issue, never mind you passing an overall compliment.

My pleasure. I suppose I could have repeated my mantra about wanting the IFA to keep pressing the FAI not to pick anyone already capped for NI adult teams. Anyway, why wouldn't I broadly agree? Many of our fans, including that blogger, are clearly nuts.

Why do you say I'm being silly though?

Any fan of international football from Andorra to Zagreb knows that "the place" (NI) "has a flag". Because they see it when our team plays their team. Regardless of their interest in/ knowledge of the wider political issues in Ireland, they'd likely be a bit puzzled at someone from Derry failing to recognise it

it is true that the flag the IFA use - the Ulster Banner - is associated with unionism

You associate it with unionism; I associate it with Northern Ireland generally, not just the football team. Our notional fan in Zagreb will likely agree with me, because he probably ain't that bothered about our local difficulties. So your 'truth' is hardly universal, is it?

doesn't possess any official status whatsoever, [does] it not?

It does in international football. Non-sovereign countries playing there is a separate issue.

To claim it's in some way neutral is a misnomer surely?

I didn't. I recognise nationalists don't like it. I don't like it featuring a crown myself, for what it's worth. You can't please everyone.

when making some point about the diversity of the French national team and it kind of irks me by this point

Aside from everything else, I certainly wouldn't want to associate with anything the French FA are up to at present. Their attitude looks openly and crassly racist and I'm amazed Blanc hasn't felt the need to resign.

[Mr_Parker]

My pleasure. I suppose I could have repeated my mantra about wanting the IFA to keep pressing the FAI not to pick anyone already capped for NI adult teams. Anyway, why wouldn't I broadly agree? Many of our fans, including that blogger, are clearly nuts.



Any fan of international football from Andorra to Zagreb knows that "the place" (NI) "has a flag". Because they see it when our team plays their team. Regardless of their interest in/ knowledge of the wider political issues in Ireland, they'd likely be a bit puzzled at someone from Derry failing to recognise it



You associate it with unionism; I associate it with Northern Ireland generally, not just the football team. Our notional fan in Zagreb will likely agree with me, because he probably ain't that bothered about our local difficulties. So your 'truth' is hardly universal, is it?



It does in international football. Non-sovereign countries playing there is a separate issue.



I didn't. I recognise nationalists don't like it. I don't like it featuring a crown myself, for what it's worth. You can't please everyone.



Aside from everything else, I certainly wouldn't want to associate with anything the French FA are up to at present. Their attitude looks openly and crassly racist and I'm amazed Blanc hasn't felt the need to resign.

Why do the IFA continue to use a flag that has lost its official political status and is divisive, when their quest is to attract people to play for them? Surely if they were committed to change to help improve things they would have identified this as an area of concern?

[DannyInvincible]

Danny, brilliant post that first one, POTY so far for me.
And the second up to the usual standard.

Top stuff.

Oh and what The Fly said!

You're very flattering, although I suspect my best and most efficient course of action would be to write some sort of blog entry myself on everything I know about the eligibility issue and link back to it when needs be, ha. In saying that, the FIFA statutes and the Kearns judgment - which pretty much sums up the whole issue very well - are freely and easily accessible through a simple Google search. How such ignorance and misinformation prevails for people who have an obvious interest in the issue is difficult to comprehend in light of this.

[French Toasht]

I've posted below the blog piece a pretty much identical version of what I've written above, although it's now awaiting moderation, so I guess I'll have to wait and see if it appears.

I posted a rational and informed response on his page, two days ago, and low and behold ... It never appeared. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story though eh?

[Sullivinho]

Top class post/s there Danny. I hope the writer of the original blog piece doesn't leave themselves down by suppressing it.

[DannyInvincible]

You associate it with unionism; I associate it with Northern Ireland generally, not just the football team. Our notional fan in Zagreb will likely agree with me, because he probably ain't that bothered about our local difficulties. So your 'truth' is hardly universal, is it?

I suppose, but then it's in the interests of the IFA to be concerned about local difficulties. Why they should be concerned that a flag-change might confuse someone in Zagreb or whatever, I wouldn't know.

I didn't. I recognise nationalists don't like it. I don't like it featuring a crown myself, for what it's worth. You can't please everyone.

I was referring to the blogger really when he stated there was no reason to find the flag offensive.

In saying all that, and to be honest, I do think of the flag/anthem issue can tend to be somewhat of a red herring. No matter what flag or anthem the IFA were to have representing them, I still think that the fundamental issue will remain - the British constitutional status of NI and the fact that the IFA are a British association - which the IFA can't really do anything about other than accept a situation that will inevitably lead many players from a nationalist background who wish to express their Irish identity to do so by channelling it through playing for the FAI. I don't know if a flag or song amendment can really change that. I suppose a change would do no harm considering all the talk of promoting the ideal of a cross-community team and all that - it might even endear some more "moderate" nationalists to the side - but, as I say, I think it's ultimately a red herring.

I posted a rational and informed response on his page, two days ago, and low and behold ... It never appeared. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story though eh?

That's disappointing considering his own words: "It is always good to hear the other side of the story."

[ArdeeBhoy]

Aye, like it would be simpler if there was just one team representing BeNeLux/ Scandinavia/ ex-Yugoslavia etc.

Except they have separate languages and were never all part of the same country.
So not remotely the same.

I suppose I could have repeated my mantra about wanting the IFA to keep pressing the FAI not to pick anyone already capped for NI adult teams. Anyway, why wouldn't I broadly agree? Many of our fans, including that blogger, are clearly nuts.

Except that it disregards the CAS ruling. And am bemused to see you offering up your good self as the voice of, er, 'sanity'....

Any fan of international football from Andorra to Zagreb knows that "the place" (NI) "has a flag". Because they see it when our team plays their team. Regardless of their interest in/ knowledge of the wider political issues in Ireland

You associate it with unionism; I associate it with Northern Ireland generally, not just the football team. Our notional fan in Zagreb will likely agree with me, because he probably ain't that bothered about our local difficulties.

Except most people I've met in Europe are bemused as to why there are even two* 'teams' on the island....
'Regardless of their interest in/ knowledge of the wider political situation in Ireland'

And would barely recognize our flag, let alone one of some sub-province.

Often they seem to be embarrassed of such a situation*, so there's hardly widespread 'acceptance' of the situation.

I recognise nationalists don't like it. I don't like it featuring a crown myself, for what it's worth. You can't please everyone.

Given the new status alluded to, why not lead a campaign for a new flag then??

Remember the OWB campaign on this a few years back;such a suggestion, along with the anthem and all the other old chestnuts, went down like the usual lead balloon with the majority.

[DannyInvincible]

Anyway, talking football for a change, Ferguson is expected to start on the left wing for Newcastle at home to West Brom today. At least, the Guardian have him in their probable starting line-up anyway: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...romwich-albion

[DannyInvincible]

Indeed, Ferguson starting today.

[French Toasht]

Except they have separate languages and were never all part of the same country.
So not remotely the same.

Hate to break it to you mate. Norway used to be a part of Sweden and the whole ownership issue in Scandinavia changed hands several times.

I don't want to see a unified Irish team, because to be totally honest it would be neither democratic or worth the hassle it would bring. The status quo ensures that the FAI can pick players from the 32 counties of Ireland, importantly players who WANT TO REPRESENT IRELAND. I respect the wishes of unionist fans who don't support the idea of a united Ireland team and in fact, any such team would personify division not cohesion.

All I have ever looked for as a fan is that the terms of the Good Friday Agreement be respected and that self determination exists. We have that now, even if the IFA are doing their best to inhibit the rights of Irish men to represent their country.

[awec]

Hate to break it to you mate. Norway used to be a part of Sweden and the whole ownership issue in Scandinavia changed hands several times.

I don't want to see a unified Irish team, because to be totally honest it would be neither democratic or worth the hassle it would bring. The status quo ensures that the FAI can pick players from the 32 counties of Ireland, importantly players who WANT TO REPRESENT IRELAND. I respect the wishes of unionist fans who don't support the idea of a united Ireland team and in fact, any such team would personify division not cohesion.

All I have ever looked for as a fan is that the terms of the Good Friday Agreement be respected and that self determination exists. We have that now, even if the IFA are doing their best to inhibit the rights of Irish men to represent their country.

Actually, point of order, the IFA are doing pretty much nothing.

And NI fans don't want to inhibit anyone's rights. We (well I can't speak for everyone but you get my point) have no issue with northern born players wanting to play for the ROI. What our issue is is northern born players playing for Northern Ireland at youth level and then deciding they want to jump ship just before they break into the senior team. If you don't want to play for us, don't waste our time and go and play for the ROI youth teams.

The ideal scenario for me is that if you play for any Northern Ireland team in any fixture over the age of 18 you are making yourself ineligible to declare for anyone else. If you decide at 17 you want to play for the ROI, go on ahead.

[French Toasht]

The ideal scenario for me is that if you play for any Northern Ireland team in any fixture over the age of 18 you are making yourself ineligible to declare for anyone else. If you decide at 17 you want to play for the ROI, go on ahead.

Genuine question, but would such a move not be more detrimental to NI in the long run? For example looking at the map of where NI internationals actually originate from, it's clear to me that NI stand to lose lots more out of such a ruling as NI rely on a lot of English born players who have previously received caps for England under age teams, Lee Camp and Oliver Norwood for example. Also several players have been capped at under age by Ireland only to return to NI.

I think this past week, the boycott and the online petition have been an absolute disaster in terms of PR for the NI fans and has played this into the FAI's hands. The wording of the petition, the U-19 coach Steve Beaglehole declaring this is a "battle" and admitting that the capping of 17 year old Johnny Gorman in the 90th minute against Slovenia when "he wasn't ready but is now tied up" and Winkie Rea appointed as spokesman for the cause only achievement has been to alienate young nationalists further. The responses to the online petition of many Ireland fans may be flippant and whimsical but in truth it is a measure of the ill feeling such a militant stance has created. I feel had a poll been taken of the allegiances of nationalist kids prior to the boycott and petition, a much higher proportion would have opted for representing NI than would opt to represent them today.

Education and cross community projects are the only way the IFA will reverse the exodus. Hardline stances will achieve nothing and fire will be met with fire.

[awec]

Genuine question, but would such a move not be more detrimental to NI in the long run? For example looking at the map of where NI internationals actually originate from, it's clear to me that NI stand to lose lots more out of such a ruling as NI rely on a lot of English born players who have previously received caps for England under age teams, Lee Camp and Oliver Norwood for example. Also several players have been capped at under age by Ireland only to return to NI.

I think this past week, the boycott and the online petition have been an absolute disaster in terms of PR for the NI fans and has played this into the FAI's hands. The wording of the petition, the U-19 coach Steve Beaglehole declaring this is a "battle" and admitting that the capping of 17 year old Johnny Gorman in the 90th minute against Slovenia when "he wasn't ready but is now tied up" and Winkie Rea appointed as spokesman for the cause only achievement has been to alienate young nationalists further. The responses to the online petition of many Ireland fans may be flippant and whimsical but in truth it is a measure of the ill feeling such a militant stance has created. I feel had a poll been taken of the allegiances of nationalist kids prior to the boycott and petition, a much higher proportion would have opted for representing NI than would opt to represent them today.

Education and cross community projects are the only way the IFA will reverse the exodus. Hardline stances will achieve nothing and fire will be met with fire.

Yes we would also stand to lose out unfortunately.

I don't see why you keep bringing that spokesperson into this. He is an elected representative of one supporters club, it's up to them who they elect and nothing to do with the NI support as a whole.

[Mr_Parker]

Actually, point of order, the IFA are doing pretty much nothing.

And NI fans don't want to inhibit anyone's rights. We (well I can't speak for everyone but you get my point) have no issue with northern born players wanting to play for the ROI. What our issue is is northern born players playing for Northern Ireland at youth level and then deciding they want to jump ship just before they break into the senior team. If you don't want to play for us, don't waste our time and go and play for the ROI youth teams.

The ideal scenario for me is that if you play for any Northern Ireland team in any fixture over the age of 18 you are making yourself ineligible to declare for anyone else. If you decide at 17 you want to play for the ROI, go on ahead.

That may be your ideal solution, but sorry to say practicalities get in the way ie the "age of majority."

[ArdeeBhoy]

Not to mention FIFA rules, The CAS etc etc......

[ArdeeBhoy]

Norway used to be a part of Sweden and the whole ownership issue in Scandinavia changed hands several times.

Well yes, but Norway, with its own distinct language and history, has been fully independent for more than a century.
Even longer than some place called Ireland....

[DannyInvincible]

Genuine question, but would such a move not be more detrimental to NI in the long run? For example looking at the map of where NI internationals actually originate from, it's clear to me that NI stand to lose lots more out of such a ruling as NI rely on a lot of English born players who have previously received caps for England under age teams, Lee Camp and Oliver Norwood for example. Also several players have been capped at under age by Ireland only to return to NI.

I think this past week, the boycott and the online petition have been an absolute disaster in terms of PR for the NI fans and has played this into the FAI's hands. The wording of the petition, the U-19 coach Steve Beaglehole declaring this is a "battle" and admitting that the capping of 17 year old Johnny Gorman in the 90th minute against Slovenia when "he wasn't ready but is now tied up" and Winkie Rea appointed as spokesman for the cause only achievement has been to alienate young nationalists further. The responses to the online petition of many Ireland fans may be flippant and whimsical but in truth it is a measure of the ill feeling such a militant stance has created. I feel had a poll been taken of the allegiances of nationalist kids prior to the boycott and petition, a much higher proportion would have opted for representing NI than would opt to represent them today.

Education and cross community projects are the only way the IFA will reverse the exodus. Hardline stances will achieve nothing and fire will be met with fire.

I do think that by making such a huge issue out of it, the IFA shot themselves in the foot. Barely anyone was even aware of northern-born players declaring for Ireland prior to the IFA kicking up a fuss over Gibson's switch. Most people still haven't a clue that Gibson wasn't the first northern-born player to opt for us even now. Not only did it have the unintended consequence of further publicising an option open to northern-born footballers, it also has served to make the IFA appear disconnected from the nationalist community - even hostile to its interests and expressions of national identity - thereby further alienating many and fomenting disapproval within a community that would, in many circles, want little to do with it anyway. The IFA allowed themselves to become characterised as intransigent, uncompromising and stubborn unionists dead set on hampering young nationalist footballers' dreams of playing for their country. They still fail to acknowledge that there is a significant population living within the borders of NI that don't really consider it to be their country, but rather consider Ireland to be their country. I'm sure some would have no qualms in throwing accusations of sectarianism at the IFA over the whole thing such is the annoyance it has caused.

Personally speaking, my own feelings towards the IFA have gone from somewhat indifferent to cold as a result of how they've conducted matters. Previously, they had little to do with me and I had little interest in their affairs; next they were effectively telling the community of which I view myself a part that channelling expressions of Irish identity through the FAI and Ireland team wasn't acceptable; essentially implying that we were traitors for supporting/playing for "another country". And worse, they then had me posting long-winded and strongly-worded denunciations of their antics on Foot.ie long into the wee small hours of the night!

[French Toasht]

I don't see why you keep bringing that spokesperson into this. He is an elected representative of one supporters club, it's up to them who they elect and nothing to do with the NI support as a whole.

Yes and I agree with you, they are entitled to appoint who they wish as spokesperson. But do you not think his particular selection is a bit ill judged? If you look at this from the point of view of an impartial observer, here is a man with a seriously dodgy past taking a human rights case. It really does not lend them too much credibility from a PR point of view.
Now perhaps you will state that certain assembly members may not have a whiter than white past themselves, but does that really lend legitimacy to the view that he should be a good spokesman for the cause?

Well yes, but Norway, with its own distinct language and history, has been fully independent for more than a century.
Even longer than some place called Ireland....

Ok sorry to be pedantic and going off on a tangent, but having lived in Denmark for a number of years, I can tell you that all the Scandinavian languages (bar Finnish) originate from the one family and in essence are only just regional dialects of the original with an element of local colloquialism. This is so much so that only in the relative recent past Norway tried to create their own new Norwegian language to strengthen feelings of patriotism among its people. In essence the point this makes is to suggest that the re-unification of an All Ireland team is not all that dissimilar to suggesting a united Scandinavian team. I think Irish people effectively have a united Irish team currently and do you not envisage massive problems down the line if there was only one team on the island?

[Gather round]

Why do the IFA continue to use a flag that has lost its official political status and is divisive, when their quest is to attract people to play for them? Surely if they were committed to change to help improve things they would have identified this as an area of concern?

They continue to use it largely because there has never been a widely accepted replacement for it, and thus no alternative that isn't divisive.

In saying all that, and to be honest, I do think of the flag/anthem issue can tend to be somewhat of a red herring...I suppose a change would do no harm considering all the talk of promoting the ideal of a cross-community team and all that - it might even endear some more "moderate" nationalists to the side - but, as I say, I think it's ultimately a red herring

Broadly agreed the issue is a red herring. A change to the NI team's symbols that didn't have close to 100% support from its existing fans would obviously do 'harm' in the sense that it would p*ss a lot of them off...

Except most people I've met in Europe are bemused as to why there are even two* 'teams' on the island...

Strangely enough, most people I've met on similar travels aren't at all bemused. They accept that there is variety of different types of political organisation across the continent, and just get on with welcoming the other teams when they arrive to play.

Genuine question, but would such a move not be more detrimental to NI in the long run? For example looking at the map of where NI internationals actually originate from, it's clear to me that NI stand to lose lots more out of such a ruling as NI rely on a lot of English born players who have previously received caps for England under age teams

Possibly, although that map is a bit misleading. Of the 24 players who represented NI in WC 2010 qualifying, only two (Maik Taylor and Martin Paterson) grew up outside.You can add Camp and Little Lord Gormanleroy to the list since.

Personally, I'd prefer us to pick players from NI and not rely on those from England qualifying through a granny- otherwise it makes international football look a bit odd (and yes, I know non-sovereign countries playing internationals is a tad bizarre too... )

Yes and I agree with you, they are entitled to appoint who they wish as spokesperson. But do you not think his particular selection is a bit ill judged? If you look at this from the point of view of an impartial observer, here is a man with a seriously dodgy past taking a human rights case. It really does not lend them too much credibility from a PR point of view. Now perhaps you will state that certain assembly members may not have a whiter than white past themselves, but does that really lend legitimacy to the view that he should be a good spokesman for the cause?

I know Winkie Rea only by sight and have no idea how good or bad an advocate he is for anything, or how subtle his PR skills. But in practice it's perfectly possible to overcome a paramilitary/ criminal background in such a role if you are articulate and media trained.

[DannyInvincible]

Yes and I agree with you, they are entitled to appoint who they wish as spokesperson. But do you not think his particular selection is a bit ill judged? If you look at this from the point of view of an impartial observer, here is a man with a seriously dodgy past taking a human rights case. It really does not lend them too much credibility from a PR point of view.
Now perhaps you will state that certain assembly members may not have a whiter than white past themselves, but does that really lend legitimacy to the view that he should be a good spokesman for the cause?

To be honest, I don't really have any major issue with the morality of this Winkie Rea chap being a spokesman for a supporters club. Sure, it is likely to alienate nationalists, but whatever his past, he's served his time in prison and was issued with the same reprieve accorded to others from both communities in the north who'd been imprisoned as a result of their actions during the Troubles. He might not be all that tasteful a character but then unionists share power with individuals in Stormont whose pasts they probably view in a similarly dim light to how a nationalist or republican might view Winkie Rea's. Or is it the practicality and prudence of a person such as he holding the position he does and the image it might convey to nationalists to whom the IFA are desperately trying to reach out that you're questioning? If that's the case, I suppose I'd agree there is potential there to alienate nationalists with such a figure.

Edit: Sorry, I see now that that's kind of what you are saying, although I think GR makes a fair enough point. If Rea can perform his role competently and in what you might call a politically-neutral manner or whatever, then there's really no reason why he should be prevented from acting as spokesman of a supporters club.