posted Aug 10, 2008

Actually, fjsm33 (U10224003)raised a good point and perhaps the key point on this issue.

He blamed FIFA for restricting the rights of the four british FA's in selecting a team Britain. That is not correct; it is the refusal of the british olympic committee to allow this. He also says, quite rightly, that the four british Fa's field national sides in the Commonwealth Games.

team gb is the brainchild solely of athletics origin to accummulate a decent amount of medals. In football, none of us need it, so why not allow all four sides to compete on their own behalf?

FIFA are perfectly correct in their stance. Once a team gb is registered, we all become one footballing country. We can't have our cake and eat it! No one can.

britain is comprised of four, completely different countries in which every native resolutely prefers to be known English, Irish, Scots or Welsh (in alphabetic order ONLY). Even the naturalised people prefer the country of their residence to be their nation, over gb.

Now, the IOC would welcome team britain being abandoned; why? because it gives britain an unfair advantage in the medals count. team gb is a political "whitewash" and the IOC know this.

This issue could resolve the IOC's problem by allowing all four countries to represent themselves. As this topic resoundingly says, the overwhelming majority don't want team gb.

We all want to represent Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England (to be fair, in reverse alphabetic order this time).

Sebastian Coe; are you and your british committee cohorts listening? Nope.... far too busy exploiting the benefits of a british quango.

So, let's consider the money. In the UK, there are lots of football stadiums that have the capacity to serve over 60,000 people. A gb team would not fill one of them.

Just watch this olympics. The only full stadium you'll see is for the opening and closing ceremonies.

This issue is solely about whether or not we should risk our four footballing nation's independence with FIFA sacrosanct or risk it to keep a few british stalwarts in a job because they refuse to accept the majority view.

To team gb, I say no; what say you?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 10, 2008

Actually, fjsm33 (U10224003)raised a good point and perhaps the key point on this issue.

He blamed FIFA for restricting the rights of the four british FA's in selecting a team Britain. That is not correct; it is the refusal of the british olympic committee to allow this. He also says, quite rightly, that the four british Fa's field national sides in the Commonwealth Games.

team gb is the brainchild solely of athletics origin to accummulate a decent amount of medals. In football, none of us need it, so why not allow all four sides to compete on their own behalf?

FIFA are perfectly correct in their stance. Once a team gb is registered, we all become one footballing country. We can't have our cake and eat it! No one can.

britain is comprised of four, completely different countries in which every native resolutely prefers to be known English, Irish, Scots or Welsh (in alphabetic order ONLY). Even the naturalised people prefer the country of their residence to be their nation, over gb.

Now, the IOC would welcome team britain being abandoned; why? because it gives britain an unfair advantage in the medals count. team gb is a political "whitewash" and the IOC know this.

This issue could resolve the IOC's problem by allowing all four countries to represent themselves. As this topic resoundingly says, the overwhelming majority don't want team gb.

We all want to represent Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England (to be fair, in reverse alphabetic order this time).

Sebastian Coe; are you and your british committee cohorts listening? Nope.... far too busy exploiting the benefits of a british quango.

So, let's consider the money. In the UK, there are lots of football stadiums that have the capacity to serve over 60,000 people. A gb team would not fill one of them.

Just watch this olympics. The only full stadium you'll see is for the opening and closing ceremonies.

This issue is solely about whether or not we should keep our four footballing nation's independence with FIFA sacrosanct or risk it to keep a few british stalwarts in a job because they refuse to accept the majority view.

To team gb, I say no; what say you?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 14, 2008

I'd like to see some more football!

Idk, I don't see why sport has to get so political, it's sport. Manchester has two teams, doesn't mean the actual city is split in half.

Mini-tournament? Wales vs England vs Scotland vs Ireland. Winner represents GB. Simple.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 19, 2008

comment by byjohnpayne (U13028315)
posted 5 Days Ago

I'd like to see some more football!

Idk, I don't see why sport has to get so political, it's sport. Manchester has two teams, doesn't mean the actual city is split in half.

Mini-tournament? Wales vs England vs Scotland vs Ireland. Winner represents GB. Simple.

-----------------

I've been saying about doing a mini-tournament since the very day we won the bid, and no one seems to listen. It is the perfect solution for 2012.

If we agreed with FIFA and IOC, a mini-tournament could be played before EVERY UEFA U21 Champs qualifying - the qualifying tournament for the Olympics.

The winners of the mini-tournament would be GB's 'nominated team'.

So for example. if Scotland won the mini-tournament, then only they could qualify for the Olympics through UEFA U21. However, if England got in a qualify position through UEFA U21, they couldn't qualify because they weren't the nominated team.

Does everyone see the logic (not to mention financial possibilities!) behind a 2012, and beyond that a pre-qualifying, mini Home Nations?

The most common excuse I get is that 'England would definitely win it, so the others wouldn't agree'. WTF? That is complete rubbish. Scotland got to the final of UEFA U19 only two years ago, far better than England done, so why would it be so dominated? If anything, a Home Nations tournament would favour the others due to the shared hatred for England :D

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Aug 29, 2008

Does make perfect sense! Sorry about the late reply, haha.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 8, 2008

Can't we have something like the Lions in Rugby. They play on "Special" occasions!!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2009

A GB team does not have to be made up of only English players. I think that the welch should be asked to provide a team and call it GB for the occassion of the olympics only. It is an excellent opportunity to provide the welch football union with an opportunity to play in a tournament as they have not qualified for one since the 1950s.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 10, 2009

The English players would not get in, they are overrated and look good against their foreign team mates. Lets have a team Gb minus the England prima donas. Or if the english insist we can play and the winner rpresents the UK again, they would be easily beaten.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 11, 2009

May the Lord preserve us from chippy Celts.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 12, 2009

I can't understand why football is even in the olympics never mind this stupid debate.

No-one outside a bunch of politicians really wants this so why bother. three out of four nations have said no, that should be the end of it.

add comment | complain about this comment