Last edited by Noelys Guitar; 10/09/2010 at 11:10 PM.
Nothing of the sort. The FAI offer northern-born Irish nationals the opportunity to play for Ireland because northern-born Irish nationals have, quite clearly, over the years, made it known to the FAI that they, by and large, support them, associate with their team and would prefer to play for them if talented enough. The FAI hasn't incited anything here. It has reacted to a socio-cultural reality in NI society and attempts to fill a vacuum for northern-born Irish nationals, if you will. I think it would be poor form if they ignored northern-born Irish nationals, but that's just me.Originally Posted by EalingGreen
No "effect" has yet been documented, in spite of the practice going on since the late 1990s, so let's not get too carried away. For what it's worth, I would argue that the Irish state is and always has been a 'de jure' nationalist entity, whilst Northern Ireland is and always has been a 'de jure' unionist entity, simply by virtue of their respective existences, but, again, that's just me.I totally abhor the effect that this is having on the sport I love. Worse still, I deeply resent being characterised as being the bigot in all this (not by you, btw), for expressing my opposition to the consequential situation, whereby the ROI may become the (de facto) "Nationalist" football team in Ireland, and the NI team will be pushed ever closer towards being the (de facto) "Unionist" football team in Ireland.
Awk, but if you get your way then I won't get to experience my unadulterated joy of witnessing northern-born Irish nationals line out for Ireland.For if that happens, it will make it less likely that we will witness eg the total unadulterated joy from last Friday evening in Maribor, when Stephen Craigan, Chris Baird and Warren Feeney rushed over as one after the final whistle, to salute the Green and White Army for being their 12th man.*Strop*
I thought such "profiling" was a big no-no for you upstanding NI fans.
So? Far from that being indicative of some widespread and predatory FAI policy, this is an example of one solitary instance where Brian Kerr (the man to whom you're now referring to bolster your argument and a self-confessed hypocrite on this issue) seemingly took it upon himself to breach the gentleman's agreement agreed between the FAI and IFA in 1999. Who knows whether or not it was sanctioned by the FAI? What about all those from Catholic/nationalist backgrounds in NI teams who never got a phone-call? Where was Niall McGinn's call? He played GAA at minor level for Tyrone and even played in the League of Ireland with Derry City. That's assuming Kerr did, in fact, make an approach to Baird without Baird having made any step towards volunteering to play for us and what you're saying can be backed up. Have you a source?All three are equally committed when playing for NI, but only one received a phone call from Brian Kerr asking him to play for ROI.
I know for a fact, for example, that Sean McCaffrey refused for quite some time to make contact with Shane Duffy as it was against FAI policy to make the first approach to northern-borns, despite having received e-mails from users of this site alerting him to the lad's unequivocal interest in playing for us. I was, along with others, unaware of this policy at the time, so whilst it was rather frustrating for everyone here following the matter to watch the whole thing drag on and play out as it did, the onus was left with Duffy to contact the FAI. I imagine the policy was never made known to Duffy as he seemed to be left to his own devices, unsure of whether he was wanted or not and, thus, would have been timid to make a phone-call as it would have him appear rather presumptuous about jumping straight into the team.
Complete speculation. CAS has changed nothing of substance so there's no reason why things should change on the ground, as it were. Besides, who brewed the counter-productive and knowingly-futile media storm in the first place? I think you'll find it was the rather imprudent IFA. If nationalist community leaders in nationalist areas were disappointed with young nationalists declaring for NI in the past, they'll remain just as disappointed with young nationalists declaring for NI in the future. It's none of their business anyway as it's entirely the individual's choice, but such "pressure", as you allege to exist in nationalist communities, never stopped Paddy McCourt or Niall McGinn playing for NI. Presumably they had a special ability to better withstand the fierce pressure exerted upon them by dictatorial Derry politicians. Poor Gibson was weak enough to succumb, unfortunately.Seeing as how much this Eligibility row has inflamed tensions in NI football, and considering the atmosphere in flashpoints like Rasharkin generally, it would take any future Chris Baird to have balls of steel to turn out for NI in preference to ROI, even if he wanted to. (I certainly wouldn't blame him for choosing the ROI).
Lets look at this from another perspective. Could you imagine the communal outrage if a young Protestant lad from the unionist tradition expressed his intention to represent us simply in order to better his career or play in a World Cup or whatever? (Ahem, not even daring to insinuate that our chances of making a World Cup in the near future might be slightly higher than your own chances, of course.) Alan Kernaghan was singled out for the worst of abuse directed towards our team when we visited Windsor Park in 1993, for example, specifically because the assumption was that he was some sort of traitor or turn-coat, which was, of course, a crime worse than being a mere "Beggar". I'm not suggesting the stands in Windsor Park are full of the same level of vitriol nowadays, but I do imagine such a scenario as I've mentioned above - whilst it may be unlikely to realise itself - would stir up quite a storm, so let's not single out the nationalist community as being uniquely guilty of having cultural influence over its younger members, or whatever it is you're trying to insinuate or accuse it of.
Yes, by acknowledging and fully accepting one another's differences and unique identities, right? The best way to ensure a young nationalist footballer won't begrudge living at one with the unionist community in NI is for that community to acknowledge that , if he wishes to play international football, he shouldn't be forced into opting to play for NI; an entity he may well view as being inherently and institutionally unionist or British in nature.As someone pointed out the other day, when Nationalist politicians champion the right of NI-born players to represent the ROI, they invariably point towards the Good Friday Agreement etc.
Yet the whole point of the GFA was that it should help find a way for the two communities in NI to live together.
Like yourself, Owen Polley has a habit of bringing nationalist politicians into this debate too. Why they're remotely relevant, maybe you could enlighten us. Are you sure there's no political agenda here? Hmm...
(I'll try deal with any outstanding matters from that other beast on the whole Gibson-"scumbag" thing in time, although, I'm sorry to say, you're still not understanding my point.)
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 10/09/2010 at 11:53 PM.
You should reclaim the money, and donate it to your local 'Football-For-All' program.
Last edited by The Fly; 11/09/2010 at 7:52 PM.
You can rephrase it now all you like, but I'm sure you'll agree that it no longer bears any meaning or sense seeing as you've removed the continuity of purpose that stemmed from your initial insinuation. If that above had been how you'd originally written it, your overall post would have read rather disjointedly given the absence of any obvious link between my issue four years ago and my recent anecdote. It's pretty much a half-baked admission from you that there is indeed no relationship or necessary contradiction between my description of Gibson on here the other day and my taking issue with Gibson being dubbed a "scumbag" under what I felt were sectarian pretences four years ago.
*Tips hat*I have also amended the post on OWC to a verbatim reproduction of your original observation on DG from here, without further comment by me.
(Although I see you've maintained the now-irrelevant quote in which I originally challenged the "scumbag" label...)
I fear you're still not grasping the distinction. It's a matter of semantic interpretation. You're taking "scumbag" used in the context with which I took issue to mean merely something along the lines of a "bad egg" or a "contrary hoor", whilst I took "scumbag" in that context to mean something different; something with sectarian baggage in tow. No doubt, one of us is incorrect in our assertion of what we believe to have been the original intent behind its usage and seeing as we can only speculate, you have your good faith and misunderstanding of my points whilst I have my suspicions based on context. There's little we can do beyond that as the truth of the matter is not discernible.I was NOT putting/attempting to put words in your mouth. I will accept that you felt the "scumbag" remark could be interpreted as being ascribed to you; then again, it could just as easily be interpreted otherwise.
He could well be a complete arsehole - I don't know him personally - but it's irrelevant to the "scumbag" argument and it still wouldn't prevent me taking issue with the notion that he might be a "scumbag" specifically because he's a northern-born Catholic/nationalist who is playing for "the Darkside".I suspect you are being sensitive about this because having defended DG on a point of principle etc, it doesn't look so good for your case if he appears to be a bit of an arsehole* in practice.
I'm being mildly sensitive about this because I felt you were accusing me of hypocrisy/contradicting myself on a forum in which I was unable to defend myself; not because things didn't look so good for my case, as you put it. And I'm just making use of the inevitable boredom that comes with the last few days of a long, unemployable and shamefully non-constructive Summer.If people can't decipher the distinction between what I took issue with four years ago and an anecdotal description of Gibson I put forth the other night, there's little I can do if I can't be there to clarify myself. I felt the best I could do would be to try clear it up here with you, but that doesn't seem to be working either really.
For the nth time, the FAI aren't pushing any policy. They've merely spoken up for and acted in response to the right of northern-born Irish nationals who freely volunteer their services to play for them.Now that this Eligibility dispute is finally settled, the eventual outcome has had an incendiary effect in NI football, with eg Coaches finding that under-age teams are being strained along IFA/FAI lines (or Unionist/Nationalist, even Prod/Taig, if you prefer). I personally find this absolutely deplorable, and an entirely predictable consequence of the FAI pushing a policy which even Brian Kerr now describes as "unfair, seedy and predatory".
As for Brian Kerr, perhaps his criticism of the FAI was coloured by what many perceive to be a significant chip he has on his shoulder. He even had to admit he was being a complete hypocrite in the piece he wrote on the matter. I wouldn't attach too much value to his opinion on this.
Your main point though; I see what you're saying. Of course, the situation isn't optimal for the IFA as a self-interested party and its apparent ambition to build a team for all, as if the FAI would object to the inclusion of certain individuals in their sides based on race, creed or colour.The current reality, however, is an unfortunate by-product for the IFA of what I feel to be of primary importance; that being the right of all Irish nationals, no matter where they were born, to represent Ireland if they so wish. Whilst we'll eternally disagree on this, you must at least be able to understand why I hold such a sentiment and why I feel this is important. Likewise, I understand where your interests lie and don't really expect you to give up on them without a fight, although I do, at times, think you allow yourself to be guided by dogma in the face of logic and, ultimately, you still seek to try and tell individuals what they should and shouldn't be able to too. The illiberal stance is on your side of the fence no matter how NI fans like Owen Polley or 'fhtb' wish to spin it with their absurd and twisted "Football Apartheid in Ireland"/"Protect Northern Ireland players' identity rights" spiel.
I see what you're doing there. Very emotive... Well done.In the OWC context, this has led to a situation whereby everytime a 7 year old score a hat-trick in a Primary school kickaround, there is specualtion as to whether he is fully committed to the IFA, or might lean towards the FAI etc.
Anyway, speculation surrounds most things in life. The choice still rests with the individual, at the end of the day.
People looking to be offended by anything that doesn't match their view of the world from their living room window, I'd imagine.Worse, it has provoked the more extreme posters on both sides of the debate (NOT you or "Predator" btw) to post some pretty incendiary remarks, leading to edits/deletions/warnings by the Mods. (I myself fell foul of this unwittingly)
No doubt, like yourself, I don't like to pigeon-hole individuals and jumping to conclusions and assumptions about people is something of which I try to steer clear, but I'm afraid I don't see what is so necessarily despicable or abhorrent about such a practice, as controversial and distasteful as that might sound. Cue 'fhtb' riding in on his high-horse, but is what you're condemning really that far removed from, say, the speculation that surrounds trying to garner whether or not a Dutch guy with a name like Barry Maguire has an Irish father and whether or not he'd be willing to play for us? I don't think there's anything strictly reproachable about that. People will always speculate over things in which they have an interest, especially football fans who will look out to see what future squads might potentially look like. It's just innocent enthusiasm; nothing malevolent about it, nor would any poster here, I trust, feel any acrimony towards a Catholic player from a nationalist background deciding to play for NI. Sure, as you point out, the OWC mods have even had to implement and enforce a ban on "speculation" because the reality is that people will always speculate, even the righteous fans of NI!If nothing else, some of the players referred to may have relatives etc who will read it, and the Press has been long-known to browse the site for juicy bits of dirt to dish. As a result, a policy has had to be implemented banning any speculation of the "Is he a Prod or RC" variety.
If anything, I think the peace process has made us excessively sensitised to the issue of religion in NI society - the FAI calls up a northern-born Catholic and is dubbed sectarian, for example; Protestants are always welcome too - but there's no point in treating it as a taboo or as something that doesn't exist and denying the reality that, by and large, those from Catholic or nationalist backgrounds will identify with the FAI team - acknowledging exceptions such as Baird, McGinn and McCourt, of course, along with the many others down the years who had no problem whatsoever in lining out for NI, for whatever their reasons were, selfish or loyal - whilst those from Protestant or unionist backgrounds will generally and almost exclusively identify with the IFA team. It's not so much sectarian profiling as just plain recognition of a fact of life. Chances are, if a guy has played GAA in his youth, he considers himself Irish and might well be very much open to the idea of playing for Ireland. If that's an offensive view to hold - and I certainly don't mean any offence by it as it's more observational than normative really - I'd be happy to hear why; maybe I'm missing something...
OK; the two are not contradictory.The two "need not" be contradictory; however, that does not preclude the possibility that they may be contradictory.
I can only guess he played with NI in the first place out of convenience or because he was reared through the IFA system and it was seen as the "thing to do" or whatever. He never played with Derry City, after all, like most of the other Derry youngsters who lined out for FAI teams over the years. If he had have, maybe signing the relevant forms or whatever is required exactly would have been more convenient as he would have been dealing with the FAI as his club's association anyway.Anyhow, whether you accept it or not, you know fine well the point I was trying to make i.e. at one point DG asserted that his switch was personal (an argument with a coach), at another he said it was a matter of principle ("always wanted to play for ROI").
If it really was the latter, why did he ever agree to play for NI in the first place? After all, there had been several other Derry youngsters who'd played for the ROI before him and seeing as he was on MU's books, he would certainly have been of interest to them.
Unless, of course, he was content to use the IFA to further his career, in tandem with MU etc, until circumstances forced him to reveal his true intentions and he left us in the lurch (but only after having occupied a place in our team that other kids would die for).
Either way, it stinks (imo) both in what it says about the individual concerned, but also the way it politicises football in NI, at a time when many good people, of all backgrounds, are working so damned hard to keep politics out of the game.
I'm not sure if "furthering one's career" has a huge deal of meaning for a 16-year-old. Nevertheless, he switched to us at 16 or 17, so it's not like he was hanging around for years sucking as much blood out of the IFA as his ambition could get.
And Darron Gibson didn't politicise football in NI. The overtly political nature of NI/Irish society along with the concept of international football (between political entities, yes) makes its politicisation a natural inevitability. Darron Gibson wasn't even the one who brewed the politicised media storm. I'm pretty sure the IFA were the ones who shot themselves in the foot there by drawing attention to the whole thing through stubbornly objecting to his wish to represent his country.
I don't think they did though. That's the point. In fact, it was a nasty sentiment I felt defined the thread. Likewise, when Shane Duffy suffered that horrendous injury earlier in the year, I couldn't help but notice that virtually all the get-well wishes on OWC were qualified.A member amongst several thousand of a football website used an offensive term in a thread containing hundreds of posts over the course of 100 pages+
OK, the Mods might have cracked down on it etc,
"Scumbag" is only as mild as the context you wish to spin and confer upon it.but you only need eg go onto any Spurs website, type in "Sol Campbell" (or even a mere "Judas") and see what you get - I guarantee that "scumbag" is positively mild by comparison with the rest of what's there.
Clearly our diagnoses differ. Shame on me, then.Therefore I suggest you stop obsessing with the symptoms and start addressing the disease, which is that with football in NI always having wrestled with problems deriving from general society, at a time when both society and NI football were making encouraging progress to treat the disease, the action of the FAI in insisting on implementing their fortuitously-acquired right to pick NI-born players has only served to pour poison back into the wound.
Shame on them and all who would defend them.
By the way, there's nothing accidental about the FAI's right to select northern-born Irish nationals. It's not a loophole. They're operating properly and fully above board. And, for what it's worth, they have my fullest support in treating northern-born Irish nationals as equals.
Of course not. On the other hand, if he goes ahead with it - last I heard, he'd called it off though - it would be a very illiberal and imprudent act on the part of the state(s) to move beyond the current plea-stage by censoring him. Domestic rights-wise, at least. Even that farce has two sides to its coin.P.S. As I type this, the 1 o'clock headlines are concentrating on that ****headed "Pastor" out in the US who wants to burn Korans. Under US Law, his Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech and Conscience permits him to do so, but does anyone other than a complete bigot/moron feel he should enforce that right?
No worries. No such insinuation perceived.P.P.S. Before you get off on one, that last P.S. (above) is NOT to be read as calling you "a complete bigot/moron"...
By the way, I see your latest post on that Gibson thread is still completely missing my point and you are continuing to imply that I've dug some sort of hole for myself:
At least I might be entertaining someone......whilst DI defends Gibson for his conduct/character on this site [OWC], he is rather less complimentary about him on another [Foot.ie].
Therefore at best, this new observation by DI tends to confirm what a few on here thiink about Gibson, at worst, it gives us a good old giggle.
Maybe I'm wasting my time, but I'll try explain this one last time, and apologies to others if they feel I'm going overboard with this or de-railing the thread somewhat.
First of all, it's not a new observation. It's something I've known for about six or seven years now, or since whenever it was Gibson first went on trial with United and my English teacher rolled his eyes at the prospect with half a sense of relief. I merely decided to divulge it on a public forum the other day in light of what 'Kingdom' was saying and it doesn't contradict anything I've ever said about Gibson in the past. 'Kingdom' was questioning Gibson's general attitude and whether it was conducive to him making an impact in the Ireland team. There are posts on this forum where I've accused Gibson of not doing enough and going into hiding during games; essentially being lazy and lacking in drive. I question his attitude in the context of him not pulling his weight and lacking on-field discipline to bother following instructions from an authority above him.
On the other hand, on OWC, I was defending Gibson's right to play for Ireland (his "conduct" being making the switch) along with defending him against being dubbed a "scumbag" for what I felt were reasons beyond his simple desire to play for an international team other than Northern Ireland. If I felt the tone behind the slur, in fact, related only to this idea that Gibson might be contrary and moody, then maybe I wouldn't have such a problem with it, but I felt such language was being specially reserved for him specifically because he was from a Catholic/nationalist background and the team he wished to represent happened to be abhorrent "Darkside". More precisely, I was defending him from what I saw to be an assault on his identity rather than a transparent assault on his character. They are two different debates. I can't dictate what you wish to write about me on an external forum, but I do hope you can at least now acknowledge the distinction as I don't plan on explaining it again.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 11/09/2010 at 2:59 AM.
Gibson only makes the bench today, with John O'Shea seemingly playing in midfield with Scholes, Fletcher, Nani and Giggs.
Gibson must have wood splints in his arse. He's going to develop gout from sitting down all the time.
No Somos muchos pero estamos locos.
Says a lot of fergie's opinion of him if he's willing to play Josh centrally instead of him. Really should have pushed for a loan move!
He probably wanted a more defensively-minded body in there with Arteta, Fellaini and Cahill all operating in that space in front of the defence.
Possibly. At the same time, perhaps Ferguson saw the aerial threat of Everton being dangerous enough to warrant playing O'Shea over Gibson, to act as a 'buffer' and to bolster the aerial prowess of United's midfield and defence.
It could also have been a case of Ferguson wanting to play G.Neville at right back, while also keeping O'Shea in the side.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...pe/8994314.stm
Gibson is to start tonight, in United's champions league clash against Rangers.
It's live on Sky Sports 2 at 7.45 pm. Good luck Gibbo!
Great news! Feels like its almost my 100th time saying that this is a yet another big opportunity for him. Hopefully he'll take it!
It'll be interesting to see how he does alongside Fletcher - I'm not sure how many times they've started together, in a 4-man midfield at least. Fletcher can tend to dominate the play so he'll need to be demanding the ball more than he usually does.
He nearly scored there, great shot just whistled past the post. Playing ok. Neat and tidy.
Some nice probing passes, i wish he imposed himself more midfield though.
Good game from Gibson I thought. Was much stronger than Fletcher and rarely did anything wrong with the ball. Attempted 5 or 6 long rangers, one volley would have been candidate for goal of the season if it went in. Was decent enough tracking back.
The only major thing I noticed is that Gibson never makes runs in the box, he's always hanging back in that shooting position for a stray clearance. Might be doing this under instruction.
All in all, some lovely passes, and didn't give the ball away at all tonight. If he gets a start at the weekend it will be very encouraging.
I agree, I thought he was united's best player on the night.
He was their only goal threat and I thought he was much more assertive in terms of taking possession of the ball
He looks more at home playing for United than for us.
Which I suppose is not an earth shattering observation.
Good in the first half, but I thought he faded in the second a bit. a lot of players failed to impose themselves in the second half though.
He has tremendous technique when striking a ball. That volley that was about 2 foot wide of the post at crossbar height was such a difficult shot to get even as close as he did.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks