You Boys in Green Homepage YBIG Shop
Forum Home Forum Home : International : Republic Of Ireland
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Players eligible for Ireland
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Players eligible for Ireland

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 214215216217218 252>
Author
Message
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Davey Langan
Davey Langan


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 9:45pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Why would you promote the pursuit of a player who, in your opinion, isn't even eligible? LOL

O'Shea, you really are a sad internet troll who, I'm sorry to say, adds little to the discussion beyond uninformed snide remarks. 

I have no where said the player is (or in this case, was) not eligible.  I just said there was an argument that he was not.  But that, if tested, I believe it likely it would be resolved in favour of ROI.  I've said it about 3 or 4 times in the last page or two. 

Please, if you want to have a grown-up conversation (about a rather dry topic), try and read what is said, before trying to mock someone (laughing smiley face etc. etc.)
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 10:15pm
How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Davey Langan
Davey Langan


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.

Another stupid post O'Shea (I mean that factually, not to be pejorative).

The FAI, IFA and Daniel Kearns spent a whole heap of time and money on "an argument about eligibility".  The case was tested and, arising out of that, a binding conclusion reached. This has happened in many other cases. 

So of course there can be arguments about eligibility, where a legal position hasn't been tested. 

It has not happened in relation to the circumstances we are discussing.  

Please think before typing again - your comments, recently, aren't adding anything and are generally poorly informed, plain wrong, or both.
Back to Top
SuperDave84 View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
ooh Thomas, how could you do this to me!

Joined: 26 Aug 2011
Location: Far Fungannon
Status: Offline
Points: 20518
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SuperDave84 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 10:25pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.


In fairness, that isn't true. There is a grey area in respect of certain players.

There has never been a test case, post-2004 and the change in FIFA regulations, over a player whose only link to ROI is a grandparent born in NI.

Just because players like that who have played for ROI underage teams without dispute doesn't mean they were definitely eligible.


Edited by SuperDave84 - 12 Jan 2019 at 10:25pm
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2019 at 11:06pm
Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.

Another stupid post O'Shea (I mean that factually, not to be pejorative).

The FAI, IFA and Daniel Kearns spent a whole heap of time and money on "an argument about eligibility".  The case was tested and, arising out of that, a binding conclusion reached. This has happened in many other cases. 

So of course there can be arguments about eligibility, where a legal position hasn't been tested. 

It has not happened in relation to the circumstances we are discussing.  

Please think before typing again - your comments, recently, aren't adding anything and are generally poorly informed, plain wrong, or both.

You're embarrassing yourself, you need to stop. Kearns WAS eligible, he always was. There was no grey area, and CAS confirmed that for the misguided IFA. The fact the IFA took a case based on Kearns doesn't mean there ever was an issue with his eligibility, it simply means they FELT there was (lo-and-behold, they were incorrect). Anyone could take a case over anything, that doesn't actually mean there was an issue in the first place... Peacock-Farrell either is eligible (in which case we approached him, he rejected us, and you're moaning is redundant); or he isn't eligible (in which case your pining for him is nothing short of bizarre and pointless).
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Zinedine Kilbane 110 View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar
Man City records obsession

Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Location: Dundalk
Status: Offline
Points: 6789
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zinedine Kilbane 110 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 9:43am
Originally posted by Gabrieléire Gabrieléire wrote:

I probably should know the answer to this but don’t. Me and my mates are out in Sydney, we were talking about if you stayed would you kids play for Ireland of Australia. All of us said Ireland obviously but with us being born in Belfast would they qualify? I know McClean etc all qualify for Ireland being born in the north but is it any different for 2nd generation? 

FFS this innocent Q Kickstarter another argument.

Obviously YOU would want your kid to play for Ireland but what if they felt close to BOTH Ireland and Australia.
Given that playing for Australia would definitely mean playing in the World Cup (Biggest competition in the world) would you begrudge your son for choosing Australia?


Back to Top
Danny Invincible View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane


Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 307
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Danny Invincible Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 11:03am
Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

That Adam Barton played for our U21s doesn't prove anything: 
(i) it has nothing to do with the senior team (obviously I repeat that I know that the same rules apply); (ii) no one challenged it (unsurprisingly as nothing actually rides on it - we've never qualified for anything at U21), so nothing was decided in relation to it.  Just because an arguably ineligible player plays, that simple act does not subsequently make him eligible.  It just means a potential breach has gone unchallenged.


Point (i) is irrelevant. Your acknowledgement that the same rules apply to under-age and senior levels only serves to demonstrate this, so you undermine yourself. I don't know why you keep mentioning it.

As for point (ii), it's not true that nothing was riding on it. They were competitive games. Four of them. Barton played in four games during 2011/2012 European Under-21 Championship qualifying. We finished third in that group, two points behind Turkey in second, but you can only say "nothing was riding on it" in hindsight after you know we didn't qualify.

However, when Barton stepped on to the pitch in his first game for us that campaign, which was on the 1st of September, 2011, qualification was a possibility. We actually won the first three games in which he played, although lost the fourth, which occurred on the 6th of September, 2012, just over a full year after Barton's competitive debut. Three victories were recorded or decided upon his involvement. 

Why would the FAI risk playing an ineligible player or a player whose eligibility they were unsure about when we still in with a chance of qualifying? And they played him not just once, but four times over the course of just over a year. It'd be madness. For your narrative to be true, it relies on four separate breaches having occurred over a considerable length of time. Apply Occam's Razor here; the most reasonable explanation for Barton's participation in these four games over the course of a full year (and not just a once-off) is that he was indeed fully eligible for us.

I suspect Adam Barton never had to request a formal FIFA-sanctioned switch to us as he never played competitively for the IFA, but, if he did have to request a switch, then FIFA's Players' Status Committee would have given his case and eligibility a thorough investigation before approval. Would anyone know if Barton underwent a formal switch rubber-stamped by the PSC (because that would prove this beyond all doubt)?

I've also emailed the FAI's Disciplinary Control Unit on Barton (just to get formal confirmation to hopefully put this to bed once and for all) and have also tweeted Alex Bruce asking him if he has a southern grandparent, so I await their responses and will relay any further information here.

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

As regards your well-meaning, but ultimately childish, repetition of "purposive approach" like it is some magic divining rod of interpretation, (which presumably you are the sole authority on what conclusion it would reach):  

- the truth is a purposive approach is merely trying to interprete a rule in accordance with what we presume the draughtsman's intention was when he drafted the rule.  Given that the draughtsman in the case probably never set his mind to a person with a Granny from Fermanagh in an island with the precise history of ours, the application of the GFA, and the specific niceties of ROI's citizenship laws for foreign born citizens, I think we can probably say we don't know what the draughtsman was thinking.
  
- Also this notional draughtsman doesn't actually exist. So we're talking about presuming the thoughts of a fictional person.  But somehow you, of all the people in this forum, know what this fictional person would say, with such a degree of certitude that you can say it is FACT - have you considered a career in the priesthood Danny?

- Furthermore, various different purposes and exigencies are served by the rule (or any rule).  The question of what conclusion a purposive interpretation would reach is itself a matter of interpretation (and at this moment in this case, opinion): interpreting how the various purposes underlying the rule are balanced and applied.  

As I said, whilst I agree with your opinion on how such an issue would likely be resolved, there is doubt because it's not been tested (certainly not in any serious context).

Even if a "purposive interpretation" were applied, you don't actually KNOW what result such an interpretation would come up with.  You just think you do.  And are passing that opinion off as fact. Unfortunately, I suspect your pointed and repetitive use of legalistic terms like "purposive interpretation" which are not familiarly used, is simply a ploy give your opinions a false air of authority and to disguise what's really going on here: that you are passing off a (generally) well-considered opinion as fact.  

In any event, a purposive interpretation could come up with a wide array of different results (depending on what purpose of the many that inform any rule, is sought to be achieved).

So the area is an open question until determined. 
 

I have a law degree, so there's no need to belittle my reference to a purposive approach, which I say is used because the evidence points that way and because it was also the view, expressed personally to me, of respected eligibility expert Yann Hafner that FIFA do not apply a strictly literal approach when it comes to this regulation in an Irish context.

In general, if a player (not in the Irish context) has a grandparent from a country and qualifies for a passport from that country on account of meeting the criteria for its nationality, they'll be eligible to play for that country's association, in satisfaction of article 7(c). I think it's quite obvious or fair to assume that FIFA would have assumed, when formulating the rule, that the territory of an association and the territory over which the nationality law of the relevant association's state applied would be be in alignment. 

In the Irish context, however, the territory of the association doesn't strictly align with the territory over which the nationality law relevant to the FAI applies, so applying a literal approach to 7(c) in the Irish context would produce a situation anomalous with the general and clearly-intended application of the rule.

My position is that an interpretation is thus applied that ensures the anomaly is extinguished. What other possible results do you image a purposive interpretation could raise (seeing as you refer to potentially "a wide array of different results"?

The GFA has nothing to do with the matter of eligibility, by the way.

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Originally posted by Danny Invincible Danny Invincible wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

To the best of our knowledge (and these things usually get out one way or the other) none of these players were approached by senior management. 
 

So what? The same rules apply, regardless of age category. What are you implying here anwyay? That Noel King doesn't know the rules or that he's trying to pull a fast one and get away with playing an ineligible player or something? And you think the FAI wouldn't care too much about this and wouldn't confirm that all players they're playing in competitive fixtures were fully eligible? Your speculative fantasy narrative just isn't plausible and runs contrary to the evidence.

"The evidence"?  Yes, let's look at that for a moment.  

1. I believe you agree that on the face of the rules, these players would not be eligible to play for ROI.  Period. That's the wording of the rules - that's fairly good evidence.  

I appreciate you say that a different canon of interpretation may apply, but even if it did apply (of which there is no guarantee, just your view), you don't know exactly what result would emerge from using such a method of interpretation.  You merely speculate your view.

2. No player in these category has ever played a senior competitive international for Ireland.  And, as far as we know, no such player has even been approached by senior management (such as BPF, Jamal Lewis, George Saville) despite at the time getting regular game-time in the Championship.  I'm not saying latter point is conclusive, but it is odd.  
 

If "on the face of the rules", you mean "via a literal approach to interpretation", then I agree that these players would not meet the criterion, assuming "territory" is meant as the administrative territory of the association rather than the territory over which the nationality law relevant to the association applies.

Not that the under-age/senior level dichotomy you keep talking about is even relevant, but it's not remotely odd that no player in these circumstances hasn't played for our senior team in a competitive game. The players under discussion are generally young, there aren't actually that many cases and they simply may not have been deemed good enough by senior management to be considered for selection, if the management were even aware of their eligibility at all in the first place before the IFA's interest became apparent. For one, Barton wasn't good enough, nor was Bruce (assuming he's still relevant). There's nothing odd at all here.

Anyhow, Noel King spoke with Bailey Peacock-Farrell about playing for us; you're just clutching at straws when you say it wasn't a member of the senior management. Why would that make a difference if you accept the same rules apply, irrespective of age group?
Back to Top
Bham_McDermott View Drop Down
Phil Babb
Phil Babb
Avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2019
Location: Birmingham
Status: Offline
Points: 48
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bham_McDermott Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 2:19pm
follower of YBIG across the socials, never used the forum before so here goes nothing - does anyone know the eligibility of Paddy Roberts? 

It was also my understanding Marc Albrighton has been available but never called up - surprising?
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Davey Langan
Davey Langan


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 4:28pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.

Another stupid post O'Shea (I mean that factually, not to be pejorative).

The FAI, IFA and Daniel Kearns spent a whole heap of time and money on "an argument about eligibility".  The case was tested and, arising out of that, a binding conclusion reached. This has happened in many other cases. 

So of course there can be arguments about eligibility, where a legal position hasn't been tested. 

It has not happened in relation to the circumstances we are discussing.  

Please think before typing again - your comments, recently, aren't adding anything and are generally poorly informed, plain wrong, or both.

You're embarrassing yourself, you need to stop. Kearns WAS eligible, he always was. There was no grey area, and CAS confirmed that for the misguided IFA. The fact the IFA took a case based on Kearns doesn't mean there ever was an issue with his eligibility, it simply means they FELT there was (lo-and-behold, they were incorrect). Anyone could take a case over anything, that doesn't actually mean there was an issue in the first place... Peacock-Farrell either is eligible (in which case we approached him, he rejected us, and you're moaning is redundant); or he isn't eligible (in which case your pining for him is nothing short of bizarre and pointless).

O'Shea, your posts are so badly informed and plainly wrong as to not really merit a response.  But nonetheless...

The uncertainty in relation to Kearns was only removed after the CAS decision. Before that, there was clearly an arguable case that he was not eligible.

The way any legal proceeding will work, as Danny, who tells us he is a lawyer, will tell you is this: 

- well educated and experienced professional lawyers will carefully assess the case and conclude broadly what prospects of success it might have.  So they might tell the FAI - you have a 70% chance of success and tell the IFA a 30% chance of success.  They might say "IFA, you have a poor case, but there is doubt, and it is arguable".
- the lawyers (professionals) are ordinarily prohibited under pain of financial penalty (in the form of, amongst other things, a wasted costs order) and professional misconduct procedures from bringing a case that is not "arguable".  This was never an issue in the Kearns case.
- the very fact that the case was brought and adjudicated meant the point was arguable at the time.  The fact of the decision would mean it is unlikely to be arguable now.

Danny could tell you that is all self-evident.  

Unfortunately, your posts are adding nothing to the discussion beyond insults and, frustratingly for everyone, repetitive demonstrations of your inability to follow very basic points.
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 4:43pm
Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.

Another stupid post O'Shea (I mean that factually, not to be pejorative).

The FAI, IFA and Daniel Kearns spent a whole heap of time and money on "an argument about eligibility".  The case was tested and, arising out of that, a binding conclusion reached. This has happened in many other cases. 

So of course there can be arguments about eligibility, where a legal position hasn't been tested. 

It has not happened in relation to the circumstances we are discussing.  

Please think before typing again - your comments, recently, aren't adding anything and are generally poorly informed, plain wrong, or both.

You're embarrassing yourself, you need to stop. Kearns WAS eligible, he always was. There was no grey area, and CAS confirmed that for the misguided IFA. The fact the IFA took a case based on Kearns doesn't mean there ever was an issue with his eligibility, it simply means they FELT there was (lo-and-behold, they were incorrect). Anyone could take a case over anything, that doesn't actually mean there was an issue in the first place... Peacock-Farrell either is eligible (in which case we approached him, he rejected us, and you're moaning is redundant); or he isn't eligible (in which case your pining for him is nothing short of bizarre and pointless).

O'Shea, your posts are so badly informed and plainly wrong as to not really merit a response.  But nonetheless...

The uncertainty in relation to Kearns was only removed after the CAS decision. Before that, there was clearly an arguable case that he was not eligible.

The way any legal proceeding will work, as Danny, who tells us he is a lawyer, will tell you is this: 

- well educated and experienced professional lawyers will carefully assess the case and conclude broadly what prospects of success it might have.  So they might tell the FAI - you have a 70% chance of success and tell the IFA a 30% chance of success.  They might say "IFA, you have a poor case, but there is doubt, and it is arguable".
- the lawyers (professionals) are ordinarily prohibited under pain of financial penalty (in the form of, amongst other things, a wasted costs order) and professional misconduct procedures from bringing a case that is not "arguable".  This was never an issue in the Kearns case.
- the very fact that the case was brought and adjudicated meant the point was arguable at the time.  The fact of the decision would mean it is unlikely to be arguable now.

Danny could tell you that is all self-evident.  

Unfortunately, your posts are adding nothing to the discussion beyond insults and, frustratingly for everyone, repetitive demonstrations of your inability to follow very basic points.

Your basic premise has been exposed as pure fantasy on numerous occasions. You are ill-informed, ignorant, and stubborn as to what you are attempting to discuss. You have no idea what you're talking about, and more than that you're unwilling to learn from those better informed than you. You aren't worth the time to argue with, so I'll leave you to your demonstrably false beliefs.


Edited by The O'Shea - 13 Jan 2019 at 4:44pm
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Luis Amor Rodriguez View Drop Down
Davey Langan
Davey Langan


Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Location: Harchester
Status: Offline
Points: 949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Luis Amor Rodriguez Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 4:48pm
Danny, I'll leave it there, as we've done it to death, save:

(i) if a purposive view was applied, even that could come up with different results. 

I imagine the IFA would disagree strongly with your view that the concepts of national territory and territory governed by the association should be aligned as the same thing. 
They might say the draughtsman was well aware of the differences in those concepts.  That he could easily have drafted it to reach the conclusion you (and as it happens, I) advocate for.  But that the draughtsman deliberately chose not to.  

This is all the more so when, in the period the rules were drafted, NI born players generally (if at all?) did not play for ROI (on grounds arising out of their birth place at least).  So, the IFA might ask, against the status quo of that backdrop, why would a person then get eligibility because their grandparent was born in NI?

They might say, the rules are defined so as to protect the national integrity of states - and that NI, politically at any rate, is part of the UK.  That this is the purpose of the rules that should be prioritised.
There are lots of things they might say.  They're all arguments.

Add to that the fact that the words of the statute give exactly the opposite conclusion to what you (and I) would advocate for, that means there is doubt. 

Ultimately, most of what you say I agree with, save that it is your (well-considered) opinion, view or whatever, but is not binding authority or the confirmed state of play.  There is doubt. 

(ii) re distinguishing with U21 - all I'm saying is the penalty for sailing close to the wind at U21 is many times less than at senior level.  
So maybe - I don't know - maybe the FAI had that in mind with Barton and sought to normalise things that way.  Maybe it hasn't occurred to them at all.  Though I imagine it has - their legal dept does seem to be impressive and handled itself extremely well in the Kearns case.  Btw: asking their disciplinary unit about it obviously isn't conclusive of anything. You, as a legally trained person must know that. That unit is not a binding authority on anything - it can only offer a view.  Just like you.  And just like me. And just like Terri. 

Finally, this has now been done to death and will be wrecking people's heads.  I'd be interested in what they come back to you with.  But other than that, I'm going to leave it there.    Cheers.

Back to Top
Conan View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane
Avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 371
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 4:50pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

[QUOTE=Luis Amor Rodriguez][QUOTE=The O'Shea]How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.



Your basic premise has been exposed as pure fantasy on numerous occasions. You are ill-informed, ignorant, and stubborn as to what you are attempting to discuss. You have no idea what you're talking about, and more than that you're unwilling to learn from those better informed than you. You aren't worth the time to argue with, so I'll leave you to your demonstrably false beliefs.
Why are you so insecure about Irish identity issues O'Shea? Do you happen to be of a plastic disposition yourself??
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 5:21pm
Originally posted by Conan Conan wrote:

Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Originally posted by Luis Amor Rodriguez Luis Amor Rodriguez wrote:

Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

[QUOTE=Luis Amor Rodriguez][QUOTE=The O'Shea]How can there be "an argument that you're ineligible"? LOL You're either eligible or you aren't, it's actually incredibly simple.



Your basic premise has been exposed as pure fantasy on numerous occasions. You are ill-informed, ignorant, and stubborn as to what you are attempting to discuss. You have no idea what you're talking about, and more than that you're unwilling to learn from those better informed than you. You aren't worth the time to argue with, so I'll leave you to your demonstrably false beliefs.
Why are you so insecure about Irish identity issues O'Shea? Do you happen to be of a plastic disposition yourself??

Identity issues? This is the eligibility thread, I think you might be a bit confused Embarrassed
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Conan View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane
Avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 371
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 5:43pm
No confusion, I just wondered why you always take questions over Northern Irish players or English players eligibility for or connection to Ireland quite so personally, from which I can only infer you may not be too secure in your own Irishness or Republican credentials?
 I mean unless you are offended from an intellectual legal perspective?
Back to Top
horsebox View Drop Down
Robbie Keane
Robbie Keane
Avatar
Born n bred in darndale.

Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 27415
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote horsebox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 5:47pm
Originally posted by Conan Conan wrote:

your own Irishness or Republican credentials


Ya what now?



Edited by horsebox - 13 Jan 2019 at 5:48pm
     
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 5:58pm
Originally posted by Conan Conan wrote:

No confusion, I just wondered why you always take questions over Northern Irish players or English players eligibility for or connection to Ireland quite so personally, from which I can only infer you may not be too secure in your own Irishness or Republican credentials?
 I mean unless you are offended from an intellectual legal perspective?

Republican credentials??? Jesus you're an embarrassment LOLLOL
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
Conan View Drop Down
Kevin Kilbane
Kevin Kilbane
Avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2015
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 371
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Conan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 8:10pm
Originally posted by The O'Shea The O'Shea wrote:

Originally posted by Conan Conan wrote:

No confusion, I just wondered why you always take questions over Northern Irish players or English players eligibility for or connection to Ireland quite so personally, from which I can only infer you may not be too secure in your own Irishness or Republican credentials?
 I mean unless you are offended from an intellectual legal perspective?

Republican credentials??? Jesus you're an embarrassment LOLLOL
I do respect so much how you respond like a little girl when challenged. My admiration for you just grows every day  Hug
Back to Top
The O'Shea View Drop Down
Jack Charlton
Jack Charlton
Avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2013
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 6000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The O'Shea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2019 at 8:56pm
Challenged on what exactly? My Irishness, or my "republican credentials"? Would you like to see my birth cert too Donald? LOL
We're decent enough..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 214215216217218 252>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.00
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.