Sean Scannell

Maccatacca wrote: My comment was tongue in cheek.

Your comment was tongue in cheek, mine was serious.

Denis Irwin wrote: If your going down this road Terri which part of NI is Maik Taylor's family connected to ?

Just as eg Scannell's Irish passport entitles him to play for either of the Irish international teams under FIFA rules, despite his not having been born in Ireland, so Taylor's British passport entitled him to play for any of the British international teams under FIFA rules and despite his not having been born in the UK. So my argument is entirely consistent.

Edited by Territorial - 19 Feb 2018 at 1:43pm

Denis Irwin wrote: Territorial wrote: Maccatacca wrote: Double standard How so? This is not a case of someone born on "our territory" (FIFA definition) being approached/permitted to play for you. Nor is it a case of someone born on "your territory" being approached/permitted to play for us (all that being the basis of the eligibility disagreement between us). Fact is, Scannell is English. And were he good enough to play for England, odds-on they would be his "default" setting, like eg Connor Wickham or Harry Kane.  Or would you object if, eg, Jamaica approached him and asked him to play for them? Meanwhile, you might point out that he came up through your under-age set-up. Except that since he's reached "adult" playing status, it has become quite clear that ROI have no further interest in capping him, indeed two managers have declined to cap him for a decade now. Therefore he must be free to pursue an international career with whoever he's eligible for and who will consider him. Again, this is essentially different from the likes of James McClean, who was called up by NI for a senior competitive game and accepted before Sunderland came on the scene, prompting interest from ROI, eventually causing him to withdraw from the NI set-up. Oh, and Scannell's connection with NI is through his (ahem) NI-born father, Co.Armagh to be precise. Were that connection, say, a Co. Monaghan father, then we would have neither interest or entitlement. But yeah, apart from all that...  If your going down this road Terri which part of NI is Maik Taylor's family connected to ?

Territorial wrote: The O'Shea wrote: Rationalisation at it's finest ^^. Care to point to the flaw in my rationale? (It's "reasoning", actually, but I'll let you away with that)

Rationalisation has a very different meaning to reasoning, which should be evident from the context. People "reason" to find rational coherence; they "rationalise" to try and justify logically incoherent viewpoints, which is exactly what you're doing.

John Wick wrote: Never considered before...now a panic because he might leave us

Who's panicking ?

lassassinblanc wrote: I agree with a few games under his belt he could become an option for us, seems like one of those players who has been around for years surprised he is only 26 tbh

27

Maccatacca wrote: Robbie Brady and Callum O’Dowda are both injured for Ireland’s upcoming friendlies, James McClean is out of form. Our MON has promised to try some left-field options, considering that the above three players play a similar position to Sean, it isn’t completely inconceivable that he makes one of our 40-man provisional squads. Now I’m not saying he will, or even should be called up, but just like you, we’ve a small playing pool, I’m sure Martin will want as many options available as possible.

Martin may ask him, he may even accept (if nothing else to please his oul fella?).

Territorial wrote: The O'Shea wrote: Territorial wrote: The O'Shea wrote: Rationalisation at it's finest ^^. Care to point to the flaw in my rationale? (It's "reasoning", actually, but I'll let you away with that) Rationalisation has a very different meaning to reasoning, which should be evident from the context. People "reason" to find rational coherence; they "rationalise" to try and justify logically incoherent viewpoints, which is exactly what you're doing. That's all very well except that you have yet to demonstrate that my viewpoint (reasoning) is "logically incoherent". So it's back to you, Socrates. (I shan't be holding my breath)

Both situations involve one association recruiting a player who has played at different levels for another association. That doesn't fit well with your own "victim narrative", so you have tried to introduce superfluous distinctions into the equation.

To tackle some of those superfluous narratives (albeit in truth I don't really need to) here are a few points:

1. Brady, O'Dowda, and Hayes are all currently out with long-term injuries for us, and McGeady is being tipped for retirement in some quarters. That doesn't leave us with very many options on the wing. It's not outlandish to suggest that Scannell could be of use to us in the coming year (in the same way as Alex Bruce, another player of ours who you recruited, may well have won more call-ups for us when he was starting regularly for Hull in the EPL).

2. Even if you are right, and Scannell is no longer a viable option for us, that doesn't alter the fact that you previously tried to recruit him in 2012, at which point he was still an important part of our Under-21 side!

3. Scannell has 25 underage caps for us. To make use of an argument frequently utilised by victimised NI fans; that's 25 caps that could have went towards developing someone else. Using the exact same logic that was thrown at us regarding Messrs Duffy, Gibson, Wilson, and McClean, you're effectively "robbing us" of our investment (not that I actually subscribe to this logic, I'm merely pointing out how it applies in precisely the same way to Scannell as it did to McClean and so on).

In essence then, there is no substantive difference between us taking on the likes of Duffy and McClean, and you taking on the likes of Scannell and Bruce. You can either take the view that they're all equally legitimate, or equally illegitimate; but you can't have it both ways.

@ Territorial "Scannell hasn't represented ROI for a decade"

Edited by Green Devil - 19 Feb 2018 at 6:16pm