This threads need to rest dormant for a while, I don't think any decision is in anyway imminent.
Jack Grenglish
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
Of course he is going to join the england set up the little bollocks. He wouldnt have turned down the ROI for these friendlies otherwise.
@Kinsella in the newbies asked me to post this for him:
------------
Contrary to popular belief, the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 has nothing to do with the application of FIFA’s statutes on Irish nationality. Indeed, players born in Northern Ireland have been lining out for Republic of Ireland sides under FIFA rules identical in effect to those in place today before the Good Friday Agreement came into being. Examples include Ger Crossley, Gerard Doherty, Mark McKeever and Tony Shields.
Players from Northern Ireland are able to do this by virtue of Articles 2 & 3 of Irish Constitution, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.
Article 2 states:
'It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.'
The central point to be taken from this is that Irish nationality has been available from birth to those born in Northern Ireland long before 1998.
In turn FIFA has four articles - no 15, 16, 17 and 18 governing player eligibility for their member associations.
Article 15 states:
“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.”
In conclusion, it is the permanent Irish nationality not dependent on residence held by Northern Ireland-born Irish nationals that qualifies these players to represent the Republic.
The real problem for Norn Iron fans is the Irish citizenship laws. Good luck trying to get them changed lads.....
From Kinsella
------------
Contrary to popular belief, the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 has nothing to do with the application of FIFA’s statutes on Irish nationality. Indeed, players born in Northern Ireland have been lining out for Republic of Ireland sides under FIFA rules identical in effect to those in place today before the Good Friday Agreement came into being. Examples include Ger Crossley, Gerard Doherty, Mark McKeever and Tony Shields.
Players from Northern Ireland are able to do this by virtue of Articles 2 & 3 of Irish Constitution, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.
Article 2 states:
'It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.'
The central point to be taken from this is that Irish nationality has been available from birth to those born in Northern Ireland long before 1998.
In turn FIFA has four articles - no 15, 16, 17 and 18 governing player eligibility for their member associations.
Article 15 states:
“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.”
In conclusion, it is the permanent Irish nationality not dependent on residence held by Northern Ireland-born Irish nationals that qualifies these players to represent the Republic.
The real problem for Norn Iron fans is the Irish citizenship laws. Good luck trying to get them changed lads.....
From Kinsella
dont see wtf that has to do with this situation
Roy reckons that his decision will be made this summer. I don't agree with him being fast tracked to the first team squad as Roy is suggesting. He hasn't earned that.
He might end up like Zaha too, fast tracked and then out in the wilderness.
He might end up like Zaha too, fast tracked and then out in the wilderness.
I stand corrected re Good Friday Agreement. Found another piece that explains it a little further@Kinsella in the newbies asked me to post this for him:
------------
Contrary to popular belief, the Good Friday Agreement of 1998 has nothing to do with the application of FIFA’s statutes on Irish nationality. Indeed, players born in Northern Ireland have been lining out for Republic of Ireland sides under FIFA rules identical in effect to those in place today before the Good Friday Agreement came into being. Examples include Ger Crossley, Gerard Doherty, Mark McKeever and Tony Shields.
Players from Northern Ireland are able to do this by virtue of Articles 2 & 3 of Irish Constitution, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956.
Article 2 states:
'It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with law to be citizens of Ireland. Furthermore, the Irish nation cherishes its special affinity with people of Irish ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage.'
The central point to be taken from this is that Irish nationality has been available from birth to those born in Northern Ireland long before 1998.
In turn FIFA has four articles - no 15, 16, 17 and 18 governing player eligibility for their member associations.
Article 15 states:
“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.”
In conclusion, it is the permanent Irish nationality not dependent on residence held by Northern Ireland-born Irish nationals that qualifies these players to represent the Republic.
The real problem for Norn Iron fans is the Irish citizenship laws. Good luck trying to get them changed lads.....
From Kinsella
"It’s both bewildering how such a level of confusion still reigns over the issue of player eligibility in spite of the fact that there are clear rules in place to govern it.
See articles 15-18 of FIFA’s Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes, about which an independent judicial body, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, has provided ample clarification in a long and detailed judgment.
You could excuse the general public for not knowing any better – they trust that those whose professional duty it is to report reliable facts actually know what they’re talking about. But when supposedly serious Northern journalists and media outlets are continually getting the basics of this issue wrong, it’s simply unforgivable.
This issue didn’t arise out of any rule change, nor is it anything new. Former IFA president and newly-instated FIFA vice-president, Jim Boyce, acknowledged the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for Ireland as far back as January 1999, in a meeting with his counterpart at the FAI, Bernard O’Byrne.
Of the meeting, Boyce stated:
“The issue of Northern Ireland’s eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI. It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the FAI could do unless FIFA was to change legislation. That, we accept. But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen.”
The atmosphere was described by O’Byrne to have been “very positive” whilst Boyce declared himself as being “extremely happy” with the outcome of all items on the agenda at the meeting.
Clearly, the IFA’s thinking on the matter changed at some later point in time – most likely around the time of Darron Gibson’s high-profile declaration for Ireland – although there was no reason whatsoever for them assume that the situation or the effect of the rules governing this specific issue had changed.
And let’s dispel another myth bandied around by IFA supporters and those in the Northern press pack sympathetic to Worthington’s team, regarding the imaginary ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ of 1950.
There was none. The Court Of Arbitration In Sport cleared that up.
If one had existed, you’d have expected the IFA to have offered proof of it, which they failed to do. There is only evidence for FIFA issuing a dictat effective upon the IFA in order to prevent them from selecting players born south of the border.
No corresponding dictat was ever issued to the FAI. Regardless, rules supercede “agreed and established practice” every time.
If there was any agreement between the two associations, it was when Jim Boyce accepted that the FAI could call up northern-born players in 1999.
It’s also worth noting that when the IFA took the FAI to the Court of Arbitration, it could be rightfully deemed a breach of such an agreement. In light of this, there is no reason why the FAI shouldn’t communicate with northern-born players prior to them volunteering.
Players born in the north have been lining up for FAI teams under FIFA rules identical in effect to those in place today before the Good Friday Agreement, despite the constant citing of the agreement by the media as some kind of watershed moment in the eligibility issue.
The likes of Ger Crossley, Gerard Doherty, Mark McKeever and Tony Shields – all northern-born – played for FAI teams between 1995 and 1997. Countless others have played for Irish teams between the signing of the Good Friday Agreement and the Darron Gibson saga that seemed to implant the issue in the minds of Northern football supporters.
The Good Friday Agreement has nothing to do with the application of FIFA’s statutes on Irish nationality, so it’s frustrating to see it continually raised in discussions surrounding player eligibility, especially when the eligibility of northern-born Irish nationals to play for Ireland is being attributed to its terms.
If anyone seeks as complete an understanding of this issue as is available, I suggest they have a read of the Court of Arbitration for Sport’s judgment in the case of Daniel Kearns. The case was very straightforward – the IFA were always going to lose it – and the IFA lost it under the same misunderstanding from which many media commentators are currently suffering; that the terms and conditions outlined in article 16 applied to six county-born Irish nationals."
The funniest comment in this thread.How is it funny? It is true. There are very large Irish communities across the world especially in the US in areas of Boston, New York etc. They have their own communities and basically live in their own little Irish town. Large amounts of them are illegal and they have their own schools, doctors etc. to get around it and all work together in their companies so they hardly communicate with non-Irish people. Growing up in one of these areas you will have an Irish accent, you don't have to live in Ireland to get an accent, you have to grow up around others with the accent and you'll pick it up yourself.
They need to tighten up the eligibility rules IMO, some of the vile hatred and anger I am seeing spewed at this kid because he might choose to play for the country he is from, was born in and which his parents are from is ridiculous, it's completely unfair pressure on a young person who should be enjoying and concentrating on their sport.
That has nothing to do with eligibility rules. It has to do with people being morons.
International football has already lost its allure. Preventing players from playing for the country they associate with helps nobody.
If they made it that you can only play for the country of your parents then that would at least tighten the scope of countries digging into the ancestral tree just so they can then put pressure on a kid to play for them.
What is the "country of your parents"? Where you are born? Where you live? It's a much smaller world these days. Nationality is nowhere near as cut and dried as it used to be.
The country your parents are born in, they could at least streamline the rules, his parents are both born and raised in England, he's born and lived his entire life in England, he's English. The rule shenanigans have led to people like Townsend and Lawrence playing for Ireland and yet now they completely identify themselves as English, that shouldn't be allowed IMO.
At the end of the day I personally have no issue with whatever he decides, but all this counting back relatives rule does is lead to huge pressure being placed on young players shoulders, it's not productive at all.
Where's the pressure? Just say "no" and it's done. More Irish people seem to live outside the country as in it. Nationality is not as simple as you are suggesting.
There are plenty of children born and raised outside of their parents' country for numerous socio-economic reasons. Are they any better at football because they happened to be born in another country?
I am all for the granny rule because abolishing it only strengthens richer countries with bigger populations. You already have players choosing bigger countries for greater chance of success not because they associate with the country.
Where's the pressure? The lad is 19 and is receiving hatred aimed at him and pressure from the FA's to choose them, that is not remotely conducive to him developing as a player. If they make the rule simpler regarding the player then it will eliminate the tug of war and will also stop the players playing for countries they don't identify with at all simply because they can't get a game for the country they actually think of themselves as belonging to. If you and your parents live your whole life in a country then you should only be eligible to play for that country IMO, and that would stop all the loopholes.
Fair enough if that's your opinion. Not sure what country you are from but it's an easy opinion to have when you're from a wealthy one.
It's only a saga because he hasn't made a decision. People acting inappropriately is not a reason to change a perfectly legitimate rule. The English FA are putting pressure on Grealish to switch allegiance so your solution is to force him to play for them so they don't have to?
For every Andy Townsend there's a Patrick Vieira. As the song goes. "He comes from Senegal. He plays for . . . . . France because they have a better team".
Couldn't agree more, it's become a joke.
It really isn't, unfortunately there's a chance it will only get worse once he chooses an Association.
The rules have to change, it's unfair on the smaller Associations as well as the player. For me once you commit to playing under 21 level then that's it, no changing.
@Getsme
The current rules allow him to make a choice for himself. Hypothetically his parents could have influenced him to play for Ireland whilst he wanted to play for England, at least under the current rules he gets to make the choice for himself as an adult.
I don't see why the rules are harsh on the smaller nations. Ireland probably wouldn't have got to the Italia 90 without the rule, if anything it benefits Ireland. Unlike Townsend, for example, Grealish's nationality is legitimately complex from his point of view.
The current rules allow him to make a choice for himself. Hypothetically his parents could have influenced him to play for Ireland whilst he wanted to play for England, at least under the current rules he gets to make the choice for himself as an adult.
I don't see why the rules are harsh on the smaller nations. Ireland probably wouldn't have got to the Italia 90 without the rule, if anything it benefits Ireland. Unlike Townsend, for example, Grealish's nationality is legitimately complex from his point of view.
Spot on.
If you're born in England, raised in England and your parents were also born and raised here, that should be that.
Ireland have had loads of players playing for them effectively because they thought they wouldn't get picked for England. This kid has probably played youth level simply because Engmand didn't pick him.
Picking these players - with no real connection to Ireland brought them short term success but it hasn't really helped Irish football. Their claim to Grealish seems to be based in some kind of "we saw him first" mentality.
Last edited:
Do you also agree that John Barnes and Raheem Sterling shouldn't play for England, half of the England cricket and rugby teams should be barred from playing for England and Mo Farah shouldn't be allowed to compete for Great Britain?
I agree with that and it certainly used to be that way.
If it does get worse after he chooses that is just an indictment of football fans. No rule changes will make that better.
To be fair abolishing the granny rule doesn't mean that you couldn't take up nationality by living in another country for a certain period of time.
Exactly, Owen Hargreaves? It's brilliant that these arguments come out of the woodwork only when it suits people. The simple fact is that the Irish associations are playing by the rules and smaller nations are perfectly within their rights to take advantage. It's Grealish's decision let the lad be and respect it.
It doesn't but adopting a nationality by living there is a far more tenuous link than being 3rd generation. It will only work for countries with top leagues. It's the equivalent of buying players in international football which is against everything it stands for.
Cricket and rugby are an absolute joke in that regard.
I personally think there is too much "flag of convenience" in sport. In Rugby it's a joke. Scotland have brought players in from South Africa who are not good enough to be Springboks but are good enough for Scotland. They will qualify for Scotland in time for the World Cup. It's nonsense. That means a couple of lads who are scottish don't get a chance to go.
Regarding Sterling and Barnes, while it's more complex - i.e. the fact that they were raised here and may very well feel "English", you need to draw a line in my opinion. If that prevents them playing for England then so be it.
It's the same with Mo Farah. The UK took him in and looked after him. He's been trained through our system and he himself says he considers himself British. Perhaps you make an exception in those kinda of special circumstances, but its diffucult. The rule as it stands has athletes born, raised and trained in Kenya (and having ran for the country at major championships) now racing for Quatar and motivated (quite fairly from their own perspective) by money. It's bizarre.
The issue you get is bigger countries - like France, being able to pick the best players, because players will most likely choose those countries. There's a reason Sterling chose England over Jamaica. Perhaps playing for Jamaica might have helped them in the long run.
All that said, this appears much more simple. A lad born, raised and trained in England with no parental link to Ireland. Seems straightforward to me.
Last edited:
Living there from being a small child?
In principle I disagree. Kevin Spacey, for example, is going to take up British citizenship when he can. I can't think of any other reason for him to do this besides feeling a strong connection to a country that he was not born in. Granted that in sports it is taken advantage of but in principle I don't think there is anything wrong with adopting a country that you were not born in.
It is being abused. In Quatar there's a sports college which cost hundreds of millions. They scout young players all over the world and take them in. Most come from Africa. By the time the World Cup is there in 2022 the team will be stuffed full of players with little link to the country or culture but who have passports.
I don't see how that can be right.
If they are in Qatar now and will be representing them 2022 then I think they will have a link to the Qatarian culture!
Not straightforward at all. Grealish's dad would be entitled to an Irish passport. If he was an Irish citizen (I have no idea if he is or isn't) would Jack then qualify as he then has a "parental link to Ireland"?
So Kenyan athletes competing for Qatar is bizarre but Farah for GB is a "special case"? In both cases they will have moved for a better life and will be better off financially.
The difference that is being missed here is that there are certain countries (Ireland is not the only one) where a large percentage of the population will move overseas. That doesn't sever ties with their home country.
Different sports I know but I would argue that guys called Cahill, McCarthy and Rooney playing for Ireland (they don't and that's their choice) is more appropriate than Tuilagi and Vunipola playing for England. One has actual heritage from that country. The other moved there because it's a richer country.
If you believe being a richer country should give you an advantage that is fine. You won't agree with me. I think that defeats the spirit of international football and why I love it.
Me neither. I have dual citizenship myself. I am Irish but don't live there. My kids were born here. If my son's kid wanted to represent Ireland at anything why shouldn't he/she? If they inherited the talent to make them good enough there's a 50% chance at least that it came from their Irish ancestors.
They're kids taken from home and housed with other kids of random nationality in a state of the art training facility which could be anywhere in the world. Simply "being" somewhere doesn't give you a link to the culture of a country.
It's a vanity project akin to buying a club and spending millions on players. For me that's not what international football should be about.
It's not straightforward and that's my point. It should be made more so.
I'm not saying Farah should be made an exception. I can though see a difference between a person coming to a country as a child, bring educated and raised in that country and then representing them, and people "transferring" to another country in their prime for a bigger pay packet. My point is that the system should be tightened to stop the latter. If that stops the former then perhaps it's worth it.
You seem to miss my point. I'm saying that being a richer country should give no advantage. For me you should represent the country of your birth. It might, in theory, be better to "soften" that and look at where you spent your childhood, education and where you learned the sport that you do. Perhaps you then get a choice. The issue with softening things is that you end up with it being abused.
Making it the country of your birth does give richer countries an advantage. Ignore the sporting side.
How many kids of Irish families will be born and raised in England for financial reasons? How many kids of English families will be born and raised in Ireland for financial reasons? Same point for any other two countries. Respecting the heritage is the only way to give no advantage.
If you believe having a better economy entitles you to a better football team you won't agree with me and that's fair enough. I believe it doesn't.
Who has been pressurizing him? Where has he been receiving hate?
If you are born, raised and educated in a country then I think a lot of those people would believe they are nationals of that country. There might be some romantic notion that you want to represent the country of your parents or grandparents but the reality is you are a product of the country you were born and raised in. Your family chose to move there for whatever reason. You have a passport for that nation and are entitled to, and will receive their protection if and when required.
Limiting who you can play for might not seem fair but is simple, straightforward and not open to abuse.
As I said above, the position now allows a system to be set up long term to identify and "nationalise" players from a young age. These kids would often be from poor countries and that brings other issues - such as what happens to those cut adrift.
It also allows players to pick from various countries, even after they've played for one country. They will almost inevitably pick the best side.
Rules for eligibility in rugby are different that those in Football.
The very limiting of those rights is the abuse.
This is where we differ completely. I do not believe that you are a product of where you live but of your family. Denying someone the right to represent the nation they feel most connected to (for personal or family reasons) is not a price worth paying to stop "abuse".
As for your second point, in the cases you describe, it is likely the individual in question would have passports for both nations. Tony Cascarino had an Irish passport.