O'Neill gives his backing for a United Ireland team

[kingdomkerry]

£400m is a tidy sum indeed.

I think a few simple signs along the road would do just fine, 'Built with the generous assistance from the people of the Republic of Ireland' along with a nice shamrock graphic.

Haven't we acknowledged the financing of our roads by the EEC with a few signs expressing gratitude?

Or they could paint the lines on the side of the road yellow rather than white

[EalingGreen]

£400m is a tidy sum indeed.
I think a few simple signs along the road would do just fine, 'Built with the generous assistance from the people of the Republic of Ireland' along with a nice shamrock graphic.
Haven't we acknowledged the financing of our roads by the EEC with a few signs expressing gratitude?

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irel...tsbenefits.htm

[geysir]

That's old news, we are spreading it around the EEC now.

Not even a 'thank you Republic Of Ireland for sharing'.
Times have certainly changed when it takes the Republic to build the roads in the North.
Maybe the NI assembly should have asked us to build that M1 motorway exit to the Maze.

[kingdomkerry]

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irel...tsbenefits.htm

Ha ha your some sad *******

[Maroon 7]

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irel...tsbenefits.htm

That's the way Europe works. We received help (mainly from the far stronger German economy rather than the UK) and now we are helping eastern European states and other impoverished regions.

[tetsujin1979]

Either lock the thread or move it to another forum, it's little or nothing to do with O'Neill's support for a united ireland team anymore.

[janeymac]

It isn't giving the amount you claimed, or anything like it, and you can't offer any evidence that it is, despite repeated prompting.

From your reaction here to I can see why all the politicians keep it fairly quite about ROI contributions to the development of NI from Unionists. DUP certainly don't want you to know this. As far as I can remember, it was announced prior to the signing of St. Andrews Agreement that the Irish Gov. were willing to invest 4bn in NI. (a quarter of what British Gov. were offering). This money was mainly to go on infrastructure - presumably the building of an electricity station in Derry by the ESB, waterways, lighthouse management, Tourism marketing etc. and such like would be accounted for in this money. Other ROI funding would go to Irish Language Act, or the 5,000 jobs this week, or indeed the money that went recently to repair Orange Order Halls in border regions (grants would be applied for from OO HQ in NI). Due to obvious reasons you won't see the EU signs that we had to put up. By the way, it wouldn't be possible to say put the money intended for Irish Language Act into fixing up Windsor Park - you just won't get it so thats a few quid knocked off the 4bn.

Thanks for the Irish language/ history/ structure of the Oireachteas lesson.But it isn't giving the amount you claimed, or anything like it, and you can't offer any evidence that it is, despite repeated prompting.

No bother. See stuff on the ground for evidence as obviously some people in NI don't like taking gifts from the ROI.

You tell me. How is this relevant? We think we need a stadium for about 25,000, and we're confident we'll get it, despite Howard Wells' politicking and your helpful lobbying for the Maze. GAA gets impressive support? Great, good for you.

NI football team is not representative of ALL the people of NI - thats how its relevant and an indicator is that you can only get 25K to an INTERNATIONAL in a city with around 1m people.And as I've pointed out before, I don't care where your stadium is.

Belfast is where the huge majority of the fans want trhe stadium to be (this includes fans who live west of the Bann, btw). I'll recap why: there are no plans to make the Maze site more accessible with a railway or road spur (so almost everyone will have to drive in and out on one-lane farm roads). Similarly, there are no plans to provide any bars, restaurants or facilities comparable to those in the city centre. Such facilities wouldn't be commercially viable- not enough events at the stadium, no passing traffic.

Well, maybe the plan is for the ROI to pay for the railway & road spur etc.

It isn't 'neutral', it's empty, thus the problems above. Given that Lisburn and the Lagan Valley is a strongly unionist area- nationalist parties got about 14% in recent elections- it isn't neutral at all. The workforce in the notional stadium would be predominantly unionist, ditto the neighbours.

But a bit more difficult to get to by those (from both sides of community) who just want to cause trouble on match days?

NI as a whole remains polarised, so you could argue that nowhere is neutral. But NI fans are in favour in principle of at least two sites in the city centre (Ormeau Park and Maysfield) which are close to and reached from strongly nationalist areas.

Can they cater the crowd that the GAA draw (40k+). Will the stadium be large enough to hold some of the Olympic games in them that are planned?

We know it's a national stadium (that's planned). What's your point? if the three sports can agree, maybe they'll share it If not, each can make its arrangments. Any of which will cost less than the Maze plan.

Like I said, why don't you read what others say instead of throwing around irrelevance and random exclamation marks? I've told you repeatedly why I think 25,000 is a sensible capacity; that with such a capacity, there'll be occasional games with a much higher demand for tickets; that such a capacity and likely crowds compare favourably with many other European countries, if not with the entirely different sport of GAA.

Think for the National stadium to be financially viable you need the GAA games to be there. What other footballing country has a population of 1.2m by the way so that you can compare them - and do they have a national stadium and how developed are they?

PS - sorry if the exclimation marks upset you

[janeymac]

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irel...tsbenefits.htm

I'd have no problem with signs thanking the EU and Germany. They have been very good friends to Ireland.

The Spanish & Norwegian fishing fleets could probably have "Big Thank You" signs to Ireland . It hasn't been a one way street you know, like the way its south->north here.

[janeymac]

Either lock the thread or move it to another forum, it's little or nothing to do with O'Neill's support for a united ireland team anymore.

Probably went down this route because it would seem that a lot of people might think the same way as O'Neill & Jennings about the team as they really should be able to attract more supporters to games than what they are getting now.

[Gather round]

Janey, I hope you'll accept my apology for accusing you of dishonesty above. Bit out of order, that.

Ditto for calling As-I-say a halfwit.

From your reaction here to I can see why all the politicians keep it fairly quite about ROI contributions to the development of NI from Unionists. DUP certainly don't want you to know this... see stuff on the ground for evidence as obviously some people in NI don't like taking gifts from the ROI

This may be generally true of unionists, but I hope I have an open mind. I'm certainly in favour of mutual economic co-operation between North and South. I didn't even bother to check the figures with the DUP, a party I've long mistrusted and never supported. That's why I quoted from the Republic's government's official sources. Effectively I was quoting Bertie and Biffo, not Robinson and Dodds.

As far as I can remember, it was announced prior to the signing of St. Andrews Agreement that the Irish Gov. were willing to invest 4bn in NI...due to obvious reasons you won't see the EU signs that we had to put up

Probably not. But all I'm asking you to do is quote a source for the €4 billion, as it's not in the Agreement nor the latest RoI Budget.

NI football team is not representative of ALL the people of NI - thats how its relevant and an indicator is that you can only get 25K to an INTERNATIONAL in a city with around 1m people.And as I've pointed out before, I don't care where your stadium is

It's not relevant because it's quoting the wrong figures. NI football is obviously representative of all who support it. That number is much greater than 25,000 which- as I have to keep repeating ad nauseam- is what we see as a sensible capacity, not the greatest conceivable demand for tickets for a one off basis. Similarly, I'm sure you'd agree that the support base in the South is much greater than the 80,000 who might fill Croke- itself much greater than the capacities of Lansdowne before and after, and indeed Dalyer where I;ve watched a couple of games in the dim and distant.

Earlier this season, NI played an international in Riga, a rather larger city in a similar-sized country. Riga's national stadium (built only in 2000) has a capacity of 10,000, less even than the current Windsor. Our plans are sensibe, if modest, and comparable to many other nearby countries.

You do seem to be unnaturally interested in how large or small our (planned) stadium is, even though we've explained it at length.

Well, maybe the plan is for the ROI to pay for the railway & road spur etc

You're stirring again. There are no plans for a road spur, which just reflects the arrogance and poor planning of the Maze lobby, and goes a long way to explain why the plan will be abandoned.

But a bit more difficult to get to by those (from both sides of community) who just want to cause trouble on match days?

I've explained how it'll be more difficult for almost everyone. to get there.

Can they cater the crowd that the GAA draw (40k+). Will the stadium be large enough to hold some of the Olympic games in them that are planned?

Both plans have envisaged about 25,000. If the GAA want to use that, fine in principle, if not equally so. 25,000 all-seated is a step up from their current facilities- almost everyone watching at Casement has to stand, in the open. As I've said above, this isn't a dig at the GAA. They can make up their own mind; if they need a much bigger ground than Casement, there's always Croke.

I assume the Olympics reference is a joke. In the unlikely event of NI getting any events, the likely demand for tickets to watch foreign U-21 teams will be at best comparable to the Milk Cup. Much of it is played on park pitches in Coleraine and the surrounding towns.

Think for the National stadium to be financially viable you need the GAA games to be there

Political and financial viability are different. If Windsor- or a new build in Belfast city- had 25,000 seats, it would be financially viable. Windsor isn't at the moment, because we are turning away income. Ravenhill is still financially viable- the Ulster branch isn't losing money playing there. Maze would be financially unviable, as NI football and Ulster rugby crowds would probably fall, based on supporter survey. If it would be viable for the GAA to use alone, fine. Although that would be to consider just running costs- there'd still be the £200 million plus to build it and surrounding infrastructure. A waste of money, they could put thousands of seats in Casement for far less.

What other footballing country has a population of 1.7m by the way so that you can compare them - and do they have a national stadium and how developed are they?

I've quoted Latvia above. Estonia and Slovenia are also comparable. Both national stadia are smaller than current Windsor.

PS - sorry if the exclimation marks upset you

They're mildly irritating, mainly because they seem to be there to impress that your posts are indisputable and self-evident.

They aren't.

Mind you, Geysir found my boldfaced quotes a pain, so fair enough

[EalingGreen]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...enda_47752.pdf

With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.

[youngirish]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...enda_47752.pdf

With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.

Typical EG. Let it go. Why do you have to depict this dispute in terms of a war (even if as you claim you are referencing someone else on the other side of the trenches)? It's not a war or battle ffs it's a relatively minor dispute between two football associations over the elligibility of players.

Anyway your information I'd say is sh*te. There's not a chance that FIFA will prevent NI born players with Irish nationality from playing for the Republic. Even if they do attempt to change the rule then this will be open to be challenged by the FAI. The only way I could ever see such a restriction being imposed is if the FAI agree to some compromise on the matter.

[RogerMilla]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, .

gutted if true EG but i reckon this is far from over...

[geysir]

Anyway your information I'd say is sh*te. There's not a chance this FIFA will prevent NI born players with Irish nationality from playing for the Republic.

Sometimes your instincts are sharp

FIFA do no propose any change to the eligibility criteria that Irish citizens - born on the wrong side of the border - use to declare for the Republic.
Permanent Irish nationality is given to Northern born and it is not dependent on residency.
We have always used article 15.

New text for Article 15
'15. Principle
1 Any person holding a
permanent nationality
that is not dependent
on residence in a certain
country is eligible to play
for the representative teams
of the Association of that
country.'

You see this bit
the proposed new article 16

16 Nationality entitling
players to represent more
than one Association
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality, may play in
an international match for
one of these Associations
only if, in addition to having
the relevant nationality, he
fulfi ls at least one of the
following conditions:

Article 16 Does not apply because Irish nationality does not entitle one to play for the North.
Irish Nationality only allows a player to play for the Republic.

[geysir]

Why have the eligibility posts been dumped into this useless defunct thread?


Put them in a new thread
name it "New FIFA Proposals"
or
OWC go here - New FIFA Proposals, aka OWC RRS again!

[Maroon 7]

and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

There's a surprise.

[EalingGreen]

Typical EG. Let it go.

There has been a recent new development within FIFA which may affect the eligibility situation vis-a-vis the FAI and IFA. This is of interest to fans both of NI and ROI and since it had not been picked up upon by anyone else, i sought to post details on here. But if you are not interested, then you should let it go, not me.

Why do you have to depict this dispute in terms of a war (even if as you claim you are referencing someone else on the other side of the trenches)? It's not a war or battle ffs

Why not direct that question to the CEO of your Association, seeing as it was he who introduced the metaphor (usefully, imo) into the debate?

it's a relatively minor dispute between two football associations over the elligibility of players.

It may be a "relatively minor dispute" for you, and maybe even your fellow ROI fans, but it counts for rather more than that for the other side to the dispute.

Anyway your information I'd say is sh*te. There's not a chance that FIFA will prevent NI born players with Irish nationality from playing for the Republic. Even if they do attempt to change the rule then this will be open to be challenged by the FAI. The only way I could ever see such a restriction being imposed is if the FAI agree to some compromise on the matter.

There is a world of difference between a rant and a logically constructed argument, the former usually constituting sh ite (if I may borrow one of your terms).
Any chance of an example of the latter from you?

[Krstic]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...enda_47752.pdf

With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.

Derry Born players will still be eligable for ROI then

[EalingGreen]

Article 16 Does not apply because Irish nationality does not entitle one to play for the North.
Irish Nationality only allows a player to play for the Republic.

Really? Your argument is that by virtue of having been born in e.g. Derry, a footballer is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, therefore should be entitled to represent the ROI, without any other qualifying criteria needing to be applied.

But by exactly the same token, such an individual is also automatically entitled to UK citizenship, and must therefore be entitled to represent the appropriate British Association (in this case the IFA) whether he chooses to, or not.

Therefore by Article 16, mustn't such an individual actually be "eligible to represent more than one Association", and so must meet at least one of the four specified conditions in order to represent his chosen Association?

[EalingGreen]

Why have the eligibility posts been dumped into this useless defunct thread?


Put them in a new thread
name it "New FIFA Proposals"
or
OWC go here - New FIFA Proposals, aka OWC RRS again!

I did actually start a new thread for this, before someone (Mod?) lumped it in with this one.