They re-scheduled it. 

Would be great to just have them on and at least we would have a game to look forward to even if its behind closed doors.

I'd say we'll be doing well to be back at games for the March window. Long couple of months to come.

Interesting twitter thread on Nations League. Likely to be no September international break but all still up in the air

Yeah think it was flagged previously that they were likely to play the games in two blocks of 3 in October and November.  Thurs/Sun/Weds etc..

Interesting to see when the Euro 2020 playoffs will be played if that’s the case 

It's probably false optimism but I think there's still a very very slim 10% chance we might be able to attend the match in Sofia if popular tourist destinations like Spain and Italy open up during the next 2 months and there isn't a spike in cases. UEFA may permit attandences. Fingers crossed. 

September is highly unlikely to go ahead, simply because they have to redo the domestic fixture lists. Looks like most leagues are only going to kick off around the 2nd week of September after the summer breaks so September internationals will be out 

Plus there's meant to be world cup 2022 qualifiers in June 2021 when the re-scheduled Euros are now due to take place. That's quite a backlog for UEFA to sort out if they're gonna keep the NL. 

That's a good point. Forgot about the start of the season. 

I think the fact the world Cup isn't until the winter of 2022 is a big help too qualifying albeit not great for fans and travel plans can go up until June /Sept 2022 if needs be 

It would take about ten minutes to remove the NL from World Cup qualifying! I don't think that will have any major bearing on whether it is played or not. The most likely scenario is certainly the post above. Next season is going to be well behind schedule as it is.

That is my fear. International games may need to be sacrificed given the scheduling pressures. Hoping this doesn't do longer term damage to the status of the international game. 

At least they have more interest than friendlies i would say , hummmm just

UEFA won't want to lose it, certainly, but it will be a hit they will be more than willing to take given the alternatives. The revenue from international football, World Cup aside, just isn't there. UEFA's revenue was €3.86 billion for  last season, with €2 billion of that coming from television money for the Champions League. To put that in context, the television revenue from the last Euros was half of that and the total revenue was less than €2 billion. When you factor in that UEFA lost money on international football last season, albeit somewhere around €15 million,I think,  which is hardly a big deal for them, it shows where their priorities are going to lie.

They would much rather take the hit on the NL than the CL, that's for certain, and the clubs/franchises from the CL will remind them if they don't get their way in their domestic leagues.

It is unquestionably sh*te, but national associations don't have the power they once did.

Beats the f**k out of playing Oman 

Our games were sh*te.

It just feels that they have undermined the Euros with it and the cynic in me thinks deliberately so. I don't see why they needed to complicate two tournaments to make the NL a success and think it should have been tried on it's own merits first. 

In fairness, the champions League can be pretty sh*t in the group stages as well. 

given it's only been staged once I was pretty impressed with the general standard and you could tell that most Nations were giving it 100% as well.

But also just having a couple of decent players coming through. We are a small footballing nation, but we have been to the last 8 in the World Cup and the Euros and this crop of kids might not fulfil their potential, but they give us hope that we can do it again. When you add in, as you said, the ability to punch above one's weight in international football, it let's you dream. Which is the whole point.

Compare that with club/franchise football where the only way to break the glass ceiling is for a club to become a franchised plaything for a ****.

I can't for the life of me see how you can refer to the CL as boring? Have you forgotten the comebacks in the semi finals last season? Or Barcas comeback against PSG in 2017? Dortmund against Malaga 2013? Liverpool v Roma in 2018? The list goes on. For entertainment value, the CL knockout stages are the best in world football

Individual games might always be interesting, albeit I have stated before that I found a lot of the games that people raved about in the past few years, at least those I watched, to leave me pretty cold. That's probably because the overall result is still so predictable. The last 16 this season comes from 5 leagues. It is less European than the rugby equivalent!

 

So pretty similar to the World Cup then - 3 from SA; 5 from Europe and....oh, that's it actually. The World Cup is even less competitive in fact.

 

At least with the CL some random oligarch can always buy your club and propel you to success. The best we can hope for is DOB to start trying to make people hate him less by funding the management team again.

I think you're confusing teams that have won it with teams that can win it. Which is  my point. Unquestionably there is only a few teams who have won it, but as Greece and Denmark proved with the Euros, or Croatia, in falling short, proved at the last World Cup; it isn't impossible. 

As I said, the game is unquestionably dominated by superpowers and may always be, but there isn't the financial disparity that has been deliberately created by the richest clubs and franchises. 

pre Madonna wrote: The only teams that can win [the CL] are: 3 from Spain; 6 from England; and 1 each from Italy, France and Germany.

I hate predictability in a football competition, too.

It's why I could never be a fan of an SPL team, for instance.

Any word on a new manager Teri?

Or Linfield or Glentoran, say? Only the 76 titles between them and many of Glentoran's in what I estimate to be in your youth. 

The SPL doesn't exist, by the way.

Despite enjoying this time as a Celtic fan, especially as I started following them in 1990 and didn't really enjoy the following years, I agree. But I am not suggesting people stop their individual teams for competitions not being competitive, although I do struggle to see how they can when they have become so far removed from their community(Celtic stretch that at times too, albeit slightly less than Sheikh Mansour), but merely pointing out that they are.

I would be in preference of changing things in Scottish football, as elsewhere, primarily in the splitting of gate receipts 50-50, as that is what caused the greatest division between Celtic and Rangers and the rest originally, before the player's untimely death due to gluttony.

It is the weird psychology of the football fan that in an argument about football that is completely unrelated to a team you support, that team must be brought into it. I think you often refer to it as 'whataboutery'.

Isn't Jimmy 'Up Yours' Nicholl one of the favourites for it? 

Though I must say I enjoyed your reaction to it more than I had anticipated.

pre Madonna wrote: It is the weird psychology of the football fan that in an argument about football that is completely unrelated to a team you support, that team must be brought into it. I think you often refer to it as 'whataboutery'.

Oh dear, yet another person who doesn't understand the true meaning of the term, even when he uses it himself.

To explain: you were criticising the CL for being uncompetitive. It would have been "Whataboutery" had I been trying to defend the CL by pointing to another competition (eg the SPL, or whatever it's now called) for being just as bad: "You can't arrest me for shoplifting, Officer, because him over there was nicking stuff as well"

Instead, I was pointing to your not being interested in a competition on the grounds that it is not competitive, while at the same time following another competition which is no more competitive (arguably even worse).

Which is the difference between "Whataboutery" and "Double Standards".

HTH.

That was also a joke and I certainly enjoyed your reaction, even if your style really does grate. Kudos for that.

Nah, the IFA have said themselves they're not in any hurry, indicating it would be mid-late summer. (Save money on salary and/or compensation to existing employer?)

Anyhow, though the usual names are being bandied about, my guess (no more than that) is that it will be Steven Robinson and/or Ian Baraclough - they've both a decent repuation, both been involved in the set-up before, have both worked together previously and neither would be hard to pay.

I'd be happy enough with either/both.

Then get your own jokes.

Or at least stop pretending you were only joking when you'd nothing else to come back with.

pre Madonna wrote: ... even if your style really does grate. Kudos for that.

And a new catchphrase would help, too.

HTH

No. Tbf, I'm pretty sure he doesn't even want the job.

Though he has said he'd be happy still to be involved in a backroom capacity.

Which I actually think is his forte, since he works well as a conduit between players and manager and keeps morale up with his good humour etc. Also a wealth of experience (and stories!)

Well, I didn't think it would work. I'm not too bothered if you don't believe me, but something I did a few weeks back, and I would recommend to any bored forum user looking for time to kill, was to search for the use of the 'word' in your posts. It was even more amusing than I could hope for, especially your long-drawn out explanations of a 'makie-uppie' word. I had forgotten about it until today, when, as some of you may have gathered, I am at a loose end.

P.S. Why would I need a new catchphrase? This one appears to be working just fine:  or is that v. fine?

Toodles.

Green Cockade wrote: Tommy Wright is a possibility after quitting St Johnstone in mysterious circumstances.

I've no inside info, but I suspect that the appointment in January of a new CEO at St. Johnstone with a reputation for being a hard cookie and a costcutter etc may not be entirely unconnected.

If only in bringing forward his planned retirement from sunmmer 2021 to summer 2020, which was itself brought forward another 3 months due to the Covid-19 suspension.

Green Cockade wrote: Jim Magilton another who may be in the frame.

Certainly hope not (though he hAs said he's interested).

Tbf, I like the guy and I suspect he may be doing a good job as "Elite Performance Director" at the IFA ("Club NI" etc).

But as a manager, he has too much of a reputation for falling out with players. Which is bad enough anywhere, but so much worse in a set-up where you've already a tiny playing squad, and no ability to sign replacements.

pre Madonna wrote: Surely Tommy Wright wouldn't do much for inclusivity?

0/10.

Must try harder.

Much harder.

pre Madonna wrote: You think a man who has worn a UDR poppy would be a good choice for inclusivity then? Interesting.

Even were I minded to give you a reaction, which Im not, I still wouldn't, such is your obvious need for a bite to distract from your discomfort.

Quit while you're behind would be my advice.

I think that's called deflection. You normally give three thousand words of v. pointless writing, with added pictures, unnecessary emboldened words, italics, smiley faces and post scripts to do the same thing.

Either way, you think it is acceptable. 

Btw, when you said earlier you were at "a loose end", didn't you mean at your wit's end (both senses of the word)?

It's a simply question Terry, but your refusal to answer it says a lot. I'll try again, but it hasn't been my week to get questions answered! 

Do you think a man who still finds the UDR relevant should be considered to manage Norn Iron?

Wow! You're clearly seriously desperate for an answer. Or do I mean bite?

Either way, may I re-direct you eg to Michael O'Neill? You know, the guy who took him to Dublin to coach his players at Shamrock Rovers?

Or Alan Maybury, who applied to work for him at St.Johnstone (and was appointed btw)?

Or any of the literally hundreds of players, coaches and chairmen from all backgrounds he's worked with as a manager in NI, ROI and Scotland, for over two decades, with some success?

Or even any of the numerous journalists who've covered his career who might therefore be in a position to comment?

I daresay that if there's anything in his character or temperament which would make him unsuited, at least one of them might mention it.

Though come to think of it, I don't understand why none of them hasn't done so before now.

Unless of course...

You can direct anyone anywhere you like. You can mention that some of his best friends are Catholic and that his milkman is from Athone, but none of it is in any way relevant. I'm not asking if he should be allowed work at Shamrock Rovers, or St. Johnstone; nor am I asking if players from all backgrounds and none have a problem with him, ever had a problem with him or should have a problem with him. I'm not asking about his character, his temperament, what he does on Sundays or what his wife's mother's maiden name is. I'm not asking about literally a thousand things that I don't think are in anway relevant to my point. 

I'm asking is it acceptable for a man who has publicly shown support for an organisation that was involved in sectarian murders in the north of Ireland to manage the international football team based there and could any potential appointment not be deemed divisive.

At this stage it is fairly obvious what you think, but haven't the decency to say so, and this is exactly why I don't bother engaging with you, only when I fancy a bit of fun. 

I'm going to leave it at that, because we are a long way from the thread's origins, but I do expect a three thousand word reply that mentions everything from personal digs at me to jokes by Jimmy Cricket; the one thing I won't every expect from you is a straight answer.

Probably not, but I think it's a bit of a red herring tbh. NI could put whoever they want in charge, it's not going to make nationalists want to play for them as their 1st choice.

Funnily enough, Maybury is one of the few Protestant ROI footballers I can think of in recent times, so perhaps he was more agreeable to Wright 

strange move alright 

https://twitter.com/chuckreboots/status/1059219904191066112?lang=en" rel="nofollow - https://twitter.com/chuckreboots/status/1059219904191066112?lang=en

It isn't just about that though. Players should be allowed to play for who they are eligible for and left at that. As far as I am aware he has never even paid it lip service. Now, I don't think it is relevant for any single other thing he does in his career, bar, possibly manage Norn Iron. I think it is divisive and insensitive, regardless of nationalist players.

Ah, the old "leading question" ploy.

You may think yourself clever, but don't imagine that I'm correspondingly stupid, or at least stupid enough to fall for it.

The fact is, you have absolutely no idea why TW was wearing that badge, or what he meant by it. For all any of us know, it could easily have been in remembrance of a family member or friend from amongst the many thousands who served in the organisation - the Poppy is usually a clue. Indeed it may even have been for one or more of the 250-odd members and former members who were murdered . (Most of us who come from his community and age-range know someone in that category, btw).

Of course, you appear to consider that the badge is in some way endorsing sectarian murder, yet there is no evidence whatever to suggest that TW thinks that way, or anything like it. On the contrary, his long record of working happily and successfully with people from all communities all over these islands over decades, without even a hint of scandal, indicates no such thing. Maybe you know better than them?

Either way, if he does apply for the job, it will be working for an organisation in which 3 of the 4 most senior positions (Chaiman, CEO and COO) are occupied by people with a CNR background.

And I trust them to make their decisions on the basis of known fact, not baseless speculation derived from nothing more than ignorance and prejudice.

(Oh and btw, all words are "made up" - it's how language develops. And I'm pretty sure that "Whataboutery" was first popularised in NI, sorry, the north of Ireland, by a certain Martin McGuinness.)

It isn't leading at all. It is unquestionably endorsing sectarian murder, no matter why he wore it. You can underline, embolden, italicise, post script and put whatever you want in brackets: it won't change that.

I don't care what background people have and what they do. Your obsession with deflection and unrelated trivialities is amazing. 

What is obvious is that you have no problem with the potential Norn Iron manager endorsing sectarian murder, as long as he can justify it to himself. That is profoundly ignorant. 

I am well aware that all words are made up and I couldn't care less who by.  I have used the word myself. My amusement comes from, as I say, your obsession with it. 

directly involved in sectarian murder - the miami showband massacre being one of countless - maybe Tommy needs to take his head out of his arse 

My (Scottish) neighbour is a regular, practising Catholic. She wears a crucifix round her neck and a badge on her lapel to reflect that.

Should I presume therefore that she endorses child abuse, on the basis that a (tiny) minority of priests and nuns abused children, whilst the hierarchy didn't always do all it could to stamp it out?

I don't of course, and never would, and not because she's obviously a pleasant and kindly woman. Rather it's because it is outrageous to interpret such symbols to fit some pre-existing prejudice, all the more so if it's someone you don't even know.

(And before you say it, that's not Whataboutery, it's Analogy)

It's certainly something, I will give you that! I wouldn't say it is a whataboutery or an analogy. I would say it is a f**king poor effort at getting yourself out of a hole. 

Just to be clear here: wearing a religious symbol(regardless of how questionable the religion is; I'm sure we would agree there) is comparable to wearing, proudly, the symbol of an organisation set-up to murder Irish people of that religion?

Peak Territorial. 

Well you would say that. woudln't you?

You know, in the absence of a proper answer to my question.

The UDR, which attracted 18% Catholic membership at its establishment btw, was no more "set-up to murder Irish Catholics" than the Church was "set-up" to abuse Irish Catholics' children.

That has absolutely no bearing,  in any way, shape or form ro my original question. If your neighbour wants to wear a UDR poppy I do not have a problem with that. If she wants to wear a Swastika, it is probably in the hope that you won't talk to her.

Now, can you admit that a football manager, who is working in Perth, Scotland and who was born seven years before the UDR's foundation, and was born in County Antrim, would be fully aware of the importance and implications of wearing such a badge? 

Your argument here has been flimsy from the start. It is a simple question. Do you think someone can manager a football team in a statelet riddled with such a complex history without validating his reason to wear a symbol so divisive in that statelet's history. No analogies. No double standards. No whataboutery.  Nothing else only that. It is incredibly straightforward

None of that is relevant to the point.

There is plenty to suggest that it was, regardless of what religion 18% of them were. He didn't wear the badge in '70 or '71, so it is, once again, deflection. Did the UDR deliberately murder people based on their background?

Jesus man, even by your standards thats a horrifically weak analogy.

I can only assume he thinks I'm a Catholic and get annoyed by this, because none of it is remotely close to an answer.

Unless you have some actual evidence that it is the latter, then you have no place to assume it to be so, especially when there is ample evidence that he has no problem working with/for/over Catholics, and they have no problem working with/for/over him, happily and successfully during many years.

But if the IFA should have any reason to suppose he even might have a sinister motive, however unlikely, then I have no doubt they will make further enquiries before even interviewing him, never mind appointing him.

They could start by asking his old teammate (and boss), Michael O'Neill for a start.

pre Madonna wrote: Did the UDR deliberately murder people based on their background?

No, "the UDR" [sic] did not do so, even if a tiny minority of their members did.

Just like "the Catholic church" [sic] did not abuse children, even if a tiny minority of their priests and nuns did.

How so?

Right, we are getting somewhere. I'll get a straight answer yet...

Now, what other reasons could a football manager from County Antrim have for wearing a UDR badge nearly over 25 years after they were disbanded? 

I love the continued deflection though. I'm not asking about any O'Neill! Can we stick to Wright, right?

No, I don't assume so. I try not make to such assumptions generally, and in your case I seem to recall you stating that you aren't on a previous occasion.

But whether you are or are not, it doesn't affect my point, nor have you refuted it.

I think most in the Catholic Church were well aware what was going on.

Now, are you saying it was just a few bad eggs that made the vast majority of the 18% you mentioned earlier to leave?

In memory of a friend or family member who served.

Just the same as eg people wear Army/Poppy badges in memory of people who served in WWII, Korea, Falklands or Iraq, for instance.

The point being that you don't know why he's wearing it, so you have no right to assume that it can only be because he "endorses the murder of Catholics".

pre Madonna wrote: I love the continued deflection though. I'm not asking about any O'Neill! Can we stick to Wright, right?

His friendship with Michael is not "deflection". Rather it is evidence that he doesn't hate Catholics.

What evidence do you have that he does?

If you say so.

Don't you think it possible for them to abhor the abuse, but still continue to be members for other, acceptable reasons?

For which I certainly wouldn't ever blame them, even if I mightn't take that course myself.

pre Madonna wrote: Now, are you saying it was just a few bad eggs that made the vast majority of the 18% you mentioned earlier to leave?

There are many reasons why so many of them left. Some of these were understandable (eg targeted by the IRA in their own communities), some were dismayingly regrettable, if equally understandable (eg disgust at Bloody Sunday).

But getting back to TW,]what evidence do you have that he was unsympathetic to their joining in the first place and would have endorsed their murder, along with Catholics generally?

He didn't wear a poppy badge with a regiment that served in WW2, Korea, Iraq or The Falklands though, did he? He wore a poppy badge that represented a regiment that was infiltrated by loyalist paramilitaries. Now, given where he was from, not to mention when he was born, unless he is a simpleton, we can be sure that he is aware that they were involved in sectarian murders and that wearing such a badge would be deliberately divisive in the north of Ireland, which, as I have previously said, is absolutely fine, unless he wants to manage the region's international football team...

No. It is unacceptable for members of a (supposed) religion, that teaches morality, to stay silent and pretend nothing happened. But that is still deflection...

The reason so many left, and almost overnight, is because of the nature of the organisation.

Because by being sympathetic to the organisation, at all, should be, completely unacceptable. If not at the time, then certainly in hindsight. Maybe not for your average Nordie, but if they want to manage a football team spreading inclusivity. 

pre Madonna wrote: He wore a poppy badge that represented a regiment that was infiltrated by loyalist paramilitaries.

The Catholic church in Ireland was "infiltrated" by paedophiles. Many people including priests, bishops and even cardinals, must have known, if only from their own experiences in schools and seminaries, or that of friends and colleagues. Moreover they must also have known that many in the hierarchy were turning a blind eye, or even covering it up.

Should they not have been allowed preferment in the church, even when they had neither engaged in such practices or condoned it? And should they not be permitted to display the symbols of their faith, even though many victims of the church will have been traumatised by their experience, and can't bear to be reminded of it?

Fact is, you have no evidence whatever that TW "endorsed the murder of Catholics", whereas there is any amount of evidence down the years to suggest that he has no problems with Catholics, nor they with him.

(May I assume you do know the meaning of the word "evidence"?)

The Catholic Church wasn't infiltrated by anything! It was run by paedophiles and worse were those who knew and said nothing. I don't understand the correlation?
 

Yes. Exhibit A would be the thing he knowingly pinned to his chest.

As I said, there were differing reasons why they left, you prefer to home in on the one which suits your argument.

Just like there are differing reasons why TW might wear such a badge and you will only (ahem) endorse the one which suits you there, too.

Which is the point at issue here.

pre Madonna wrote: Because by being sympathetic to the organisation, at all, should be, completely unacceptable. If not at the time, then certainly in hindsight. Maybe not for your average Nordie, but if they want to manage a football team spreading inclusivity.

So if someone finds his vocation and opts to become a priest, he should be disbarred from doing so on the basis that he was previously sympathetic to the church, incl whilst the abuse was going on?

At least in hindsight.

Can you explain the differing reasons why he might wear such a badge at such a time? Preferably without the unnecessary extras.

Yes, that has been my stance for years. You cannot claim to be a Christian otherwise. The Catholic Church is a vile organisation, but that, again,  isn't relevant. 

OK, "infiltrated" or "run by", your choice.

But if sectarian abuses by a minority of UDR members makes it impossible to show acknowledge the service of the majority, then the sex abuse by a minority of priests must equally make it impossible to acknowledge the service of the majority.

pre Madonna wrote: Wright endorsed the murder of innocent people by wearing a UDR poppy.

Just like my neighbour "endorses" the abuse of innocent children by wearing her crucifix then.

For we must allow no other explanation for such a display.

And she should certainly not be allowed anywhere near children, either.

It wasn't a minority though. It was a rotten sectarian organisation that deliberately murdered people based on nothing. Nobody  should have a problem admitting that. The fact you don't,  based on nothing more than a sympathiser might manage a football team you like, says a lot.
 

I have already outlined acceptable reasons why he might have worn it.

But you are the one claiming that he has an ulterior reason for wearing it, so it must be for you to produce the evidence to support your claim.

pre Madonna wrote: Yes, that has been my stance for years. You cannot claim to be a Christian otherwise. The Catholic Church is a vile organisation, but that, again,  isn't relevant.

Do you mean "not relevant", or "not convenient" (to your argument).

Or are you saying that no-one should be allowed to be appointed eg to be head teacher of a school, or manager of a childrens' home, if he/she had also been a practising Catholic at a time when these abuses were being revealed?

And you know, continues to be a member today, maybe even wears a crucifix?

Or is it that despite your protestations, it's only one of these two "vile organisations" you realy have the problem with?

I know why he might have worn it! What I am looking for is acceptable reasons that he might have worn it and then became manager of Norn Iron, without that being divisive. I believe that was the point.

I'll gladly talk about the RCC all night long, but it isn't relevant here. 

Explain.