England coach
in [World Football]
|
From: MH on 29 Jun 2010 16:39 Bob wrote: > MH wrote: >> Manx Gunner wrote: >>> [RED DEVIL <manutd11XX(a)bellsouth.net>] >>> [Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:21:51 -0400] >>> >>>> It's not his country >>> He should drop the 'Sir' silliness, then. >>> >> Why ? A knighthood can be given to many commonwealth citizens as far >> as I know. (Sir Edmund Hilary springs to mind). She is our Queen >> too. >> >> The UK is Alex Ferguson's country of citizenship. England most >> definitely is not. > > Hasn't Scotland been occupied by England for eons? Occupied by England, no. Union of crowns was under a Scottish king, in 1603. Act of union passed by Scottish parliament (and English) in 1707. So no real occupation in the military sense since Cromwell. Like an order of > magnitude longer than Latvia has been independent? I know the distinction > matters to Scottish people but from the outside it seems like a matter of > semantics. And tradition. International football and rugby both started with Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales playing each other. What possible harm does it do to anyone to keep that tradition of separate Football Associations in those jurisdictions? I mean I could see other UEFA nations being upset if the home countries were regularly taking up 3 or 4 of UEFA's WC slots, but there is no danger of that these days. And even reducing the number of UEFA countries by three by combining the four into one would only be a drop in the bucket in terms of reducing fixture congestion. > >
From: Bob on 29 Jun 2010 17:26 RED DEVIL wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:31:14 -0700, "Bob" <Bob(a)Bob.com> wrote: > >> MH wrote: >>> Bob wrote: >>>> RED DEVIL wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 09:20:49 -0700 (PDT), gsn >>>>> <gsnarayanan(a)ymail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 29, 11:27 am, RED DEVIL <manutd1...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:12:47 -0700 (PDT), gsn >>>>>>> <gsnaraya...(a)ymail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have not been keeping in touch with English football, >>>>>>>> but is there a reason why Alex Ferguson is not considered for >>>>>>>> England coach (with Beckham perhaps as assistant coach)? >>>>>>>> Are there issues like politics, lack of interest on Fergie's >>>>>>>> part? Looks like if anyone, Alex Ferguson can put together a >>>>>>>> winning team. >>>>>>>> gsn >>>>>>> They offered it to him before Erikson and he laughed them off >>>>>>> RED DEVIL >>>>>> >>>>>> Wouldn't do it for country and the Queen ?! >>>>>> >>>>>> gsn >>>>> It's not his country >>>> >>>> It seems like it is for most purpose. >>>> >>>> >>> England is not. The UK is. He would be coaching England, not the UK. >> >> He doesn't need an English passport to coach England, and he seems >> very well assimilated and accepted in England so I don't completely >> see the problem. I could better understand if he was some kind of >> rebel who advocated independence, but may be I am mistaken and he's >> a fierce independentist? >> > > There is no such thing as a "English Passport" which would appear to make my argument even stronger (if I really cared one way or another)
From: Bob on 29 Jun 2010 17:30 MH wrote: > Bob wrote: >> MH wrote: >>> Manx Gunner wrote: >>>> [RED DEVIL <manutd11XX(a)bellsouth.net>] >>>> [Tue, 29 Jun 2010 12:21:51 -0400] >>>> >>>>> It's not his country >>>> He should drop the 'Sir' silliness, then. >>>> >>> Why ? A knighthood can be given to many commonwealth citizens as >>> far as I know. (Sir Edmund Hilary springs to mind). She is our >>> Queen too. >>> >>> The UK is Alex Ferguson's country of citizenship. England most >>> definitely is not. >> >> Hasn't Scotland been occupied by England for eons? > > Occupied by England, no. Union of crowns was under a Scottish king, > in 1603. Act of union passed by Scottish parliament (and English) in > 1707. So no real occupation in the military sense since Cromwell. Alright, so they likely pulled out after stamping rebellions and got the local aristocracy to police the Scotts? > > Like an order of >> magnitude longer than Latvia has been independent? I know the >> distinction matters to Scottish people but from the outside it seems >> like a matter of semantics. > > And tradition. International football and rugby both started with > Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales playing each other. What > possible harm does it do to anyone to keep that tradition of separate > Football Associations in those jurisdictions? > I mean I could see other UEFA nations being upset if the home > countries were regularly taking up 3 or 4 of UEFA's WC slots, but > there is no danger of that these days. > And even reducing the number of UEFA countries by three by combining > the four into one would only be a drop in the bucket in terms of > reducing fixture congestion. The issue of FA's and spots available is another bag of worms. I just thought that if Zidane and others could represent France on a football pitch, Fergusson could surely coach England ;)
From: *skriptis, European Patriot on 29 Jun 2010 17:44 "RED DEVIL" <manutd11XX(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:hamk26hlnfflhdqcjegmk4ns0fka1ii1et(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 20:48:32 +0100, Mehdi <Benny(a)soccer-europe.com> > wrote: > >> > Subject : England coach >> > From : grassynoel(a)iinet.net.au >> >>> This business of the UK being allowed to field four teams is stupid. The >>> UK has been one country for far longer than Italy or Germany, to give >>> just two examples. IFAB needs to be restructured or abolished, too. >> >>Agreed. The national associations should have equal power, the decision >>making should not be shared by 4+4. Of course you do know that this >>situation is entirely the fault of the British FAs - for giving FIFA >>voting rights. > > > As usual Benny doesn't have a clue. It's not about voting rights it's > about the very existance of the UK countries FA's. If there was a UK > FA then there wouldn't be an England, Scotland, Wales or Northern > Ireland FA. It would also cut back the number of CL entries. Like Welsh, N. Irish or Sccotish teams benefit from having a CL entry? When did last time a team from any of those countries play a major role in a CL tournament? If they/you form a single league and a single national team, yes, less scotissh, welsh or irish teams would enter CL. But those who'd enter would play a major role then, like Arsenal, United, Chelsea, Liverpool play every year. But I guess some like to be content with small things, like Scottish, Irish or Welsh. Ocasionaly world cup campaigns, if any, poor league, and non-contender role in UEFA champions league. Everybody would gain something, but the irony is, those who'd gain the most, are the ones who're most strongly against it, eg, Scotland, Ireland..
From: Dwight Beers on 29 Jun 2010 17:57
On 06/29/2010 05:31 AM, The Scrutineer wrote: > > > "gsn" <gsnarayanan(a)ymail.com> wrote in message > news:ec507ae8-2b12-49eb-abc2-83216d34f9c0(a)j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> I have not been keeping in touch with English football, but is >> there a reason why Alex Ferguson is not considered for England coach >> (with Beckham perhaps as assistant coach)? >> Are there issues like politics, lack of interest on Fergie's part? >> Looks like if anyone, Alex Ferguson can put together a winning team. >> > > Or they could turn to Paul Gascoigne who would clean up all the bad > habits amongst the team!!! Or: Plymouth Argyle could win the FA Cup next year, and the English FA will as a consequence realize that Paul Mariner, is the very best English coach in the known universe, and they will then ask him to coach England for the next World Cup. This too is highly unlikely! :-) |