Messages

Apparently the NRA want to increase the toll on the M50 by 60% next year when they get rid of the toll bridge - how is this fair?? Thats over 3 euro or over 30 euro a week if you use it to get to and from work.

And if you get on before the toll bridge you pay full whack but if you get on a Red Cow, Tallaght etc you pay nothing just doesnt seem right..

I've never hated a road so much in my entire life.

They only approached players who they thought would be interested in playing for them namely Nationalists - Unionists wouldnt be interested.

Is it that hard to understand???

Of course you can make it sound like whatever you want - rant away...

Excellent piece in todays Irish Times  - it appears that IFA only want to implement FIFAs rules when it suits them


Some Fifa members more equal than others

Emmet Malone on soccer

One of the more remarkable aspects of the current campaign by the Irish Football Association to have Fifa intervene on its behalf to stop players born north of the Border from playing for the Republic is the claim repeated by the association's chief executive, Howard Wells, on RTÉ radio at the weekend. Wells said he and his colleagues were only looking to have the international federation apply its rules equally in relation to its members.

Of course, it doesn't take a particularly in-depth analysis of Fifa's workings to realise that some members are more equal than others. Wells effectively admitted as much when he referred to the IFA's privileged status as one of the four "British Associations" as one reason for not having a unified Irish team.

Since 1946 the four have been allowed to nominate one of Fifa's eight vice-presidents - Africa, Asia and South America also get one vice-president apiece - while each is represented on the International Football Association Board, which gives the British 50 per cent of the votes on the game's ultimate rule-making committee.

Wells's apparent inability to sense the irony of the case he was making was truly perplexing. At one point he argued that Fifa's proposal to allow those born on the island of Ireland to choose which national teams they would prefer to play for would undermine the internal eligibility arrangements agreed between the British associations. The four have had a gentlemen's agreement since the early 1990s to apply the Fifa rules as if they were really four different countries because the rules, needless to say, don't actually apply to them.

Wells cites Fifa's Circular 901, the organisation's reaction nearly four years ago to an attempt by Qatar to make a mockery of the regulations on international eligibility by granting citizenship to a number of Brazilian players so they could play football for the country's national team.

In the document Fifa make the point that for a footballer to "change" his nationality specifically in order to play for another country is in breach of the spirit of its regulations. It lays down specific criteria that should be met to avoid such abuses and these essentially amount to what is known here as "the granny rule" or a requirement of two years' residency.

The intention, it is made crystal clear, is to "ensure that a player has a clear connection with the relevant country". They do not mention that as a result of particular political "complexities" in several parts of the world there are exceptions.

The circular was intended only to address a flagrant abuse of Article 15.1 of Fifa's statutes, which, under the heading "principles", states that "any player holding the nationality of a country is eligible to play for that country".

Nationality is the key here, and passports, dismissed by the IFA as irrelevant to the current dispute are the generally accepted norm of demonstrating that.

By citing Circular 901, indeed, Wells seems to be drawing a direct comparison between Brazilians being enticed to play for a Middle East state, with which they have absolutely no connection, on the basis of financial reward and young men from the nationalist community in a town like Derry wishing to play for a country to citizenship of which they are entitled from birth.

It suggests he is either being disingenuous or is staggeringly ignorant of the historical context of the community in which he is currently working.

The former seems far more likely, though when Wells, an Englishman, suggested on Sunday that if there were freedom of choice for players (it seemed that he meant within the four "British Associations") then "everyone would play for England if they thought they were going to get a better crack of the whip", it was hard to avoid the conclusion that someone should take him aside and have a quiet word.

He mentioned the IFA's work in the area of anti-sectarianism, and much credit is due to both the association and its main supporters' organisations for the progress made in this area over the last few years. Presumably, though, no one involved in the organisation seriously believes the problem has really been solved.

A large proportion of the nationalist community continue to believe they are treated unfairly at the hands of the IFA and there are many stories of Catholic footballers concluding they are not appreciated in quite the way their Protestant counterparts are.

There is a significant geographical aspect to it as well, one touched on by Stephen Kenny when he was manager of Derry City and observed that those in power in Belfast seemed to regard Derry as the North's fifth-most-important population centre rather than its second.

Darron Gibson's uncle Paul McLoughlin recalls that his nephew's defection was prompted by being told by the manager of his Northern Ireland team that if he went on a trial to Manchester United on a particular date he would never play for the North again. Predictably, the youngster was distraught, but he went to Manchester, signed for United and started playing for the Republic instead.

Wells maintains the current dispute is not about Gibson, and as someone who had opted to play for the North before being alienated, the midfielder really is a poor example. What it is about, as the Belfast Agreement puts it, is the right of people born in the North to be "accepted as British or Irish, or both, as they may so choose".

Themmuns and ussuns. ?

You call it that to me it is just agreeing to disagree and I dont see whats wrong with that - if you want to be British be British and if you want to be Irish be Irish. it doesnt imply any disrespect in either direction.

To take it a stage further are you saying that becuase these 'British' people are in a majority they have carte blanche to do what they want, regardless of what is correct and inclusive. Where have you been for the last 86 years?

no idea how I'm saying that.

I would have absolutely no problems with the removal of Amhran na bhFainn or the tricolour from games at Casement Park. I didn't get involved in any sport to use it to further my nationalism. I played a variety of sports simply because I enjoyed them and whether or not the tricolour is flying over Casement as I stroke the ball over the bar from 50 yards will not lessen my enjoyment as the umpire reaches for the white flag.

Fair enough I appreciate your view but for me playing (which I've long since stopped) and supporting my club and Antrim are expressions of my culture and Nationality. I'm far from being alone in seeing it that way. Hearing Amhran na bhFainn at Casement is part and parcel of that I mean no disrespect to Unionists nor do I think they should see it as a threat. And all I am saying is that it works both ways.

Let's also be honest - you are talking bollix.

Really? God forbid anybody has a different view from you. The identity I was talking about was their Britishness to which they seem quite attached - they have made it quite clear on here countless times that they see themselves as Irish in a British context - asking them to produce an anemic football environment to appeal to the few Nationalists that are ever going to care about their team seems to me unfair. this does not mean that they should start singing sectarian songs or waving uvf flags at Windsor (I dont believe the vast majority have any interest in that anyway). I take it you disagree and would like to support them - so you would obviously want rid of the National anthem and tricolour at Casement?

the only way forward for this island is that everyone has the right to be who they want to be, the days of coercion are gone. individual rights are paramount and thats how it should be. finally mw there may well be unionists living in the south that want to play for ni and good luck to them.

Totally.

Or they can act to make their team more attractive to Catholics. Drop the flag - fly a flag with the IFA crest if you must have one. Drop God Save the Queen and replace it with something less English - the Scots and Welsh do it already. There's no athemn played at Ulster rugby matches.

Maybe then some Catholics will choose to play for NI. They only reason any have played for NI in the past is because they've had no choice.

Lets also be honest - no matter what NI do I (and an awful lot of other Nationalists) will support the Republic. They should not have to dilute their identity in the vain hope of attracting more Nationalists in much the same way as I would object to the removal of Amhrán na bhFiann and the tricolour at GAA games in the vain hope of attracting Unionists.

British citizens (which on its own would qualify a player to represent England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Anguilla, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks & Caicos Islands, or the British Virgin Islands); Danish citizens (Denmark, Faroe Islands, and perhaps in the not too distant future Greenland); American citizens (USA, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa); Dutch citizens (Netherlands, Aruba, Netherlands Antilles); French citizens (France, Tahiti, New Caledonia); Chinese citizens (China PR, Hong Kong, Macau); New Zealand citizens (New Zealand, Cook Islands).

Touche MW (and I checked them all)

I'd be gravely concerned about the future of the NI team if FIFA's suggestion were accepted.

Why? There will always be a significant portion of the population that will never play for the Republic.

SOrry but that is complete and utter bollix.

Stop getting upset

he FAI are trying to change FIFA's rules to suit their own petty sectarianism.

Seriously the FAI is sectarian? Thats the whole reason for this?

I doubt that any footballer is going to give up football and go and play cricket, but you might be right.

A footballer from the North who feels his allegiance is to the Rep (as a lot of us do - unpalatable fact but true none the less) will now not be able to play internationall football unless its for the North


If your not trying to compel anyone to play for the North then why does it matter to you so much who anyone in the North plays for? I cannot understand why we cant just let footballers from the North to play for either jurisdiction

As I said on ILS when discussing "players who don't want to play for Northern Ireland anyway" for me it's not so much players who only ever want to play for the Republic of Ireland.

More that say a teenager could in a fit of pique at not being picked for an underage team for a particular game, or annoyed at being arsed around by coaches, could defect 'just like that'.

Or a young lad could believe the guff that flows around that we NI fans are all tattooed loyalists who sacrifice Catholic babies at matches, and decide they'd be much better off playing in Dublin.

Right fair enough but what about the ones who only ever wanted to play for the Republic?

And while they might own the franchises can they for instance suddenly tell Argentina and Brazil to merge?
Err that is exactly the point, you're arguing against yourself.

No I'm not I'm merely stating that there are things FIFA cannot do despite have full control of eligibility etc.

Can see what you mean about Qatar but we are an exception here - theres very few places where you have a choice of Nationalities.
What are you on about?

Deiseach was saying that FIFA have a legitmate point since they are trying to stop players from just playing for anybody - I was agreeing.

And is the whole UK being split into four not exceptional as well?
Not really, there are lots of examples (Faroe Islands, Palestine etc)

Its not exactly the norm as the Palestine example illustrates (I take it you agree that Palestinians shouldnt be forced to play for Israel?)
Faroe Islands fair enough - thats 3 out of 208 - any more?

Nobody is compelled to play for anybody. Nationalists have always played for and followed NI and always will. The issue is about eligibility, nothing else.

Really well the current situation is that Northern Nationalists can play for the Rep - something you want to change - that would then compel Nationalists who wanted to play international football to play for the North. I have nothing against the Northern Ireland football team but I do not feel that it represents me - O'Neill wrote a very good post on this when he went to a game ages ago. I cannot understand why OWC wants to compel Northern Nationalists to play for NI - again why?

Personally I understand why some people would choose to play for the ROI, and i can understand the grey area here, i just wish if people where going to claim it illegal they could adequately explain exactly how its illegal.

Fair enough nifan I havent made that case but I'm not an expert on the law. But I'm still not convinced that lawyers wouldnt find something.

In fairness, I think the courts would probably agree with FIFA, that they have franchised out international soccer to two separate organisations on the island and, as such, they're entitled to dictate the rules on eligibility to those two franchises. The reason FIFA changed the rules (I'd imagine) was to prevent Qatar hoovering up Brazilians who wouldn't know where Qatar was, let alone have set foot in it.

I dont agree - FIFA do own the franchises as you put it and are entitled as a private organisation to make up their own rules but they are using citizenship and passports as a means of eligibility and cant just then ignore legal agreements such as the GFA which have a direct affect on passports/citizenship. And while they might own the franchises can they for instance suddenly tell Argentina and Brazil to merge? Can see what you mean about Qatar but we are an exception here - theres very few places where you have a choice of Nationalities. And is the whole UK being split into four not exceptional as well?

Much as it pains me to agree with Tony he is completely right - this does not compel anyone to play for the Rep - it offers a choice. The OWC attitude to this says alot - seems to me they want to compell Nationalists to play for the North - why?

is representing the football team a right enshrined by law?
No one seems to be able to point to any evidence of this at all - what is the law that could be taken up here?

it is not unique to bring political geography into rights anyway - in America the president cant just be a citizen he has to have been born in the US

I would class being able to represent your country as a right even if it isn't enshrined in law - the issue would also be denying someone the right to represent their country. I have an Irish passport and this makes me a citizen of the Republic by law and as I see it should also entitle me to represent the Rep - from what I've read the FIFA legal team agree or at least agree that this would be up held in an inevitable court case.

As for the American I dont see this as valid - no one (as far as I'm aware) disputes the geographical boundaries of the USA as is the case here. Are you trying now to say that I cant be considered Irish as I am from the North?

Have we not agreed to let people be whatever of the two Nationalities they want? And if so what is the problem from letting people play for either jurisdiction?

FIFA's suggestion is purely a response to the fact that their legal team knew that their previous position would not hold up in court. If you can have an Irish passport in the North you should be able to play for the Republic - otherwise you dont really have the same rights as other citizens do you?

I can understand why the IFA acted the way it did but to try and block Nationalists from playing for the Republic is stupid and counter productive.

I have a mate who swears that the best way is to go into one of their shops and haggle - he says that they will always give you a better deal than is advertised just keep at them. I'd say getting two contracts would put you into an even better position.

You can also keep your number.

Happy Christmas / Happy holidays who cares. Either way its a load of commercial balls.

The sooner we mover towards completely secular states the better. The adherence to religion will eventually be seen a backward stage in our development.