|
|
Post by rjpageuk on Mar 12, 2009 13:39:04 GMT
No, it's the British Government who are pushing it. But the English FA are the only one of the home countries FAs willing to go along with New Labour on it. The other 3 have said no. That would be the link with the English FA. Right, how does saying that they are happy for their players to be part of a team GB make them arrogant? AS for this being the 'home olympics' . what rot. London is not a 'home city' for Scottish people. It's the capital of another country. The language you're using here merely confirms to me the arrogance of some English people. The country of "Scotland" doesnt exist as far as the Olympics is concerned. We are both represented by the GB team, and any place within the "GB" hosting the Olympics would be our "home olympics". Nothing arrogant about it. And how come is it that nobody 'British' or 'English' is getting excited about the Commonwealth Games coming to the 'British' city of Glasgow? In the commonwealth games there is no team GB. The UK is represented by England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separately. Therefore a games hosted in Glasgow is only home to Scottish people. If England are a nation (and I think they are) then why the hell are they pretending to be 'Team GB' (sic)? The English FA should be standing up and saying "England will play football as England, in England shirts and it is beneath us to play for some other multi-national label, such as 'Team GB' (sic)'". (Or, in a few years time, Team EU.) The English FA are not pretending to be team GB they are just allowing their players to be part of a team GB. The only reason why it would only include English people is because none of the other FAs will allow their players to play. It is nothing to do with the other FAs believing it is beneath them to play as a team GB and all about worrys about the impact it will have on their existence (see point below). But seriously . . given that I've just said (about us and the English being the most ancient etc.,) can't you see even a wee bit why the Scots might be offended by 'Team GB' being a purely English squad against the wishes of our National Football Association. If the Scottish FA are so offended by the idea of a team GB consisting of purely English players they should allow their own players to be part of it. Can I just know what are the objections to being IN the GB team - it seems to be a technical point based on the potential of FIFA to make the UK play as one team forever more. ? Yes, it is. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 14:38:49 GMT
Yeah Rob. You'll stick up for the rights of every other minority in the world except Scots. As I say, why are the English so arrogant?
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 14:40:59 GMT
[Some easy solutions: 1 - Don't put in a team for the football competition: It's not compulsory. OR 2 - Put in separate Scottish, English, Welsh & NI teams in all sports and get rid of the ludicrous facade that we are 'TEam GB'. Now, that would be high handed! It is one thing for the Scots and Welsh FAs to decide they want nothing to do with a GB team, quite another to demand unilaterally that all other sports split up into separate nations at this late stage to accommodate them. As for not competing in Olympic football at all .... that sounds like a case of "well, we don't agree with it so we shan't let anyone else play." 'Team GB' is a flag of convenience anyway. WTF is 'GB' anyway? 'GB' doesn't have a parliament. 'GB' is not a recognised nation. And the argument for not competing in football at the Olympics is the very sensible one that a gold medal at the Olympics should be the highest possible acheivement for all sports represented; otherwise it devalues the competition. Given that nobody who cares about football cares about the Olympic medals, preferring instead to care about the REAL football competitions such as the World Cup, there is impeccable logic in removing football as an Olympic sport. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 14:41:56 GMT
Can I just know what are the objections to being IN the GB team - it seems to be a technical point based on the potential of FIFA to make the UK play as one team forever more. ? Well it's partly that. But it's also partly that there is no 'GB' in any meaningful sense, and it's a flag of convenience. To ask a proud footballing nation to play under a flag of convenience in order to boost the flagging popularity of a Prime Minister is disgraceful. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 12, 2009 14:50:15 GMT
Personally I think football gets more than enough coverage as it is, without a terminally boring god-knows-how-many rounds in the Olympics.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 14:54:35 GMT
Personally I think football gets more than enough coverage as it is, without a terminally boring god-knows-how-many rounds in the Olympics. A reasonable point!!! The sport of football is governed by the national Football Associations, not the Olympic Committee. If 3 out of the 4 UK National Football Associations are opposed to 'Team GB' (sic) football, should that not be listened to? I'm damned sure that if the English FA was opposed, the notion would be quickly shelved. No doubt about it. If Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland were desperate for a 'Team GB' (sic) but the English FA said 'no', we wouldn't even be having this discussion and we all know it. |
|
|
|
Post by everso on Mar 12, 2009 14:57:43 GMT
Personally I think football gets more than enough coverage as it is, without a terminally boring god-knows-how-many rounds in the Olympics. A reasonable point!!! The sport of football is governed by the national Football Associations, not the Olympic Committee. If 3 out of the 4 UK National Football Associations are opposed to 'Team GB' (sic) football, should that not be listened to? I'm damned sure that if the English FA was opposed, the notion would be quickly shelved. No doubt about it. If Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland were desperate for a 'Team GB' (sic) but the English FA said 'no', we wouldn't even be having this discussion and we all know it.Put like that, I fear you may be correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 12, 2009 15:01:12 GMT
I Soooo! wanted to put Rex Harrison doing "Why can't the English learn how to speak" here, cos it seemed appropriate - but then I rewatched it and thought "OK, p'raps not."
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 12, 2009 15:18:55 GMT
Can I just know what are the objections to being IN the GB team - it seems to be a technical point based on the potential of FIFA to make the UK play as one team forever more. ? Well it's partly that. But it's also partly that there is no 'GB' in any meaningful sense, and it's a flag of convenience. To ask a proud footballing nation to play under a flag of convenience in order to boost the flagging popularity of a Prime Minister is disgraceful. I see the point about not wanting to be a political pawn but I reject the idea that this is a flag of convenience. Hasn't the Olympic Games always had a team from the umbrella Great Britain and never from individual Scotland, Wales, England ... ?? Isn't this a bit OTT? It's not selling out to team up to beat the rest of the world. It's not lessening the proud footballing history or nation.  Yes it should. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 12, 2009 15:22:50 GMT
Given that nobody who cares about football cares about the Olympic medals, preferring instead to care about the REAL football competitions such as the World Cup, there is impeccable logic in removing football as an Olympic sport. But while football is an olympic sport, by not competing in the competition you are letting someone else steal your position of 'gold'. Someone else will be better than you at football because they won and you couldn't even agree to play as a team. So why not go for it? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 15:25:45 GMT
Well it's partly that. But it's also partly that there is no 'GB' in any meaningful sense, and it's a flag of convenience. To ask a proud footballing nation to play under a flag of convenience in order to boost the flagging popularity of a Prime Minister is disgraceful. I see the point about not wanting to be a political pawn but I reject the idea that this is a flag of convenience. Hasn't the Olympic Games always had a team from the umbrella Great Britain and never from individual Scotland, Wales, England ... ?? Isn't this a bit OTT? It's not selling out to team up to beat the rest of the world. It's not lessening the proud footballing history or nation. If 3 out of the 4 UK National Football Associations are opposed to 'Team GB' (sic) football, should that not be listened to?Yes it should. Of course they have never had separate national representation at the Olympics. I object to the 'Team GB' (sic) label because it is horrible and also because it is inaccurate, as Northern Irish athletes also compete in the team. (One can't imagine the French having so little dignity and so much reliance on spin and PR that they would allow their team to be known as 'Equipe F' or some such nonsense.) The invention of the 'Team GB' (sic) concept was a classic piece of New Labour spin, designed as part of Gordon Brown's attempts to create 'Britishness' in the face of growing SNP support and growing disquiet among the English about the West Lothian question, whereby MPs from Scottish seats could legislate for England, but MPs from English seats could not legislate for Scotland. The only objection I have to a UK team in the Olympics is that I would prefer to see Scotland an independent nation with a team of its own. However the concept of 'Team GB' I object to. That's what I mean by the 'Flag of Convenience' thing. I can see that I haven't fully explained that. An essential part of the 'proud footballing' heritage of Scotland - and indeed England - is the independence of our national FAs. It is that structural independence dating back over a century which is being undermined. And why? The UK haven't entered a football team into the Olympics for decades because it recognises that football in the UK is organised at a national, and not multi-national level. Why change it now? Well, my guess is that its' to do with the Gordon Brown thing I mentioned before. What footballing fan looks forward to the Olympics? It's just silly. The Olympics is the pinnacle for many sports, such as track, field, swimming, etc. Why can't it be left at that, instead of using them in this cack-handed political way? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 15:28:20 GMT
Given that nobody who cares about football cares about the Olympic medals, preferring instead to care about the REAL football competitions such as the World Cup, there is impeccable logic in removing football as an Olympic sport. But while football is an olympic sport, by not competing in the competition you are letting someone else steal your position of 'gold'. Someone else will be better than you at football because they won and you couldn't even agree to play as a team. So why not go for it? Trubs, do you even remember what state won the football at the Olympics? Nobody cares. The Olympics is not an important or relevant footballing competition. Answer me this . . . why do YOU think it's suddenly changed? Our national football infrastructure is one of the things that identifies us Scots (can't speak for the Welsh and NI) as a separate nation with our own history and heritage. I declaim the English as "arrogant" partly to make for a provocative thread title, but also because these plans show just how little respect they have for that history and heritage. |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 12, 2009 15:39:27 GMT
Right, your questioning of the validity of football as an Olympic Sport has forced me to google Olympic Football now and it has always been a sport in the Olympics - for 100 years anyway - so stop mithering.  Selected from Wiki.Association football, usually known simply as football or soccer, has been included in every Olympiad except 1896 and 1932 as a men's competition sport. Women's football was added to the official programme in 1996.In the London Games of 1908 a proper international tournament was organised by the Football Association, featuring just six teams, rising to 11 in 1912 (at which event the competition was organised by the Swedish Football Association). These early matches were fairly unbalanced, as witnessed by some large scores; two players, Sophus Nielsen in 1908 and Gottfried Fuchs in 1912, each scored ten goals in a match, a record that stood for over 90 years. All players were amateurs, in accordance with the Olympic spirit, which meant that some countries could not send their full international team. The National Olympic Committee for Great Britain and Ireland asked the Football Association to send an English national amateur team* (some of whom played with professional clubs within England, most notably Derby County's Ivan Sharpe and Chelsea's Vivian Woodward), who managed to win the first two official tournaments convincingly, beating Denmark.*( ) The 1920s
The Olympic movement was given an almighty fillip with the entrance of Uruguay and Argentina. The first of those teams were successful in both competitions (these were the only competitions that they have ever participated in) and FIFA became conscious that the Olympic movement was not only hindering the ability of nations to participate on an equal footing but, given that the Olympics only permitted amateurs to participate, was not representing the true strength of the international game.
The Olympics after the first World Cup
With Henri Delaunay's proposal in 1929 to initiate a professional World Championship of football (hence the launch of the World Cup in Uruguay in 1930), FIFA did not want the Olympic tournament to overshadow their own showpiece event,[citation needed] so football was dropped from the 1932 Los Angeles Games (the official reason was that the game was not popular in the United States),[citation needed] and it returned at the 1936 Berlin Games.Changes and developments
For the 1984 Los Angeles Games, the IOC felt a change was necessary to bring interest back, and decided to admit professional players. FIFA still did not want the Olympics to rival the World Cup, so a compromise was struck that allowed teams from Africa, Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF to field their strongest professional sides, while only allowing UEFA and CONMEBOL teams to pick players who had not previously played in a World Cup. Many teams therefore fielded very young teams, including France, who won the 1984 Olympic title in between two semi-final appearances at World Cups.
Bloody Hell! It's a mess. Why not make the teams all amateur like it should be and be done with it.   |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 15:47:47 GMT
Trubs (sigh)
I'm not denying that football has been part of the Olympics for a while.
My point was that the UK did not enter a team because it respected the national FAs on the whole.
Which has now changed. IMHO for purely political reasons.
And also, I had another point, which was unrelated. That was that football should NOT be an Olympic sport.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 12, 2009 15:52:45 GMT
I don't remember all sorts of champions from all sorts of sports. I remember Seb Coe, Zola Budd(sp?), er... the Black Power salute, er..., nope..nothing.. oh yeah the drug cheat Sharon Swimmer person from ireland..erm.. Doesn't matter that I don't recall the Olympic Football Champions really.  |
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Mar 12, 2009 15:54:18 GMT
And also, I had another point, which was unrelated. That was that football should NOT be an Olympic sport. Don't start with sighing!  That was the very point I was answering. you say it shouldn't be one - this is not respecting the history and heritage of the sport!  |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 16:04:59 GMT
And also, I had another point, which was unrelated. That was that football should NOT be an Olympic sport. Don't start with sighing! That was the very point I was answering. you say it shouldn't be one - this is not respecting the history and heritage of the sport! Right. But the 'history and heritage' point was about specifically the UK Member States FAs, and the point about football not being an Olympic sport was a more general one. It's my fault. I'm just rolling all my arguments up into one and firing them off. Let's start again. Do you agree that if three out of the four UK FAs are opposed to entering a joint team in the Olympics, that the remaining one FA, the biggest one, should be allowed to just ignore their wishes and enter their team anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 16:06:28 GMT
I don't remember all sorts of champions from all sorts of sports. I remember Seb Coe, Zola Budd(sp?), er... the Black Power salute, er..., nope..nothing.. oh yeah the drug cheat Sharon Swimmer person from ireland..erm.. Doesn't matter that I don't recall the Olympic Football Champions really. OK. But people who love football wouldn't even remember the name of the Olympic team which won. Presumably those who love swimming or beach volleyball or whatever look forward to the Olympics, and regard it as their 4 year sporting high. Which, in football, would be the world cup . . .not the Olympics. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Mar 12, 2009 16:06:49 GMT
Oh and btw . . (sigh).
|
|
|
|
Post by motorist on Mar 12, 2009 16:07:19 GMT
I am picturing this whole thread taking place in a large amount of mud  |
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
)