Conference trucks::football;1

    Big Jack should be the manager

    
    It'll never happen...
    
    Dave...

    
                                  Goram
           Jones         Pallister        Ruddock        Pierce
    
           Giggs        Ince           Platt       Speed/Collins           
    
                     Wright/Saunders      Shearer/Ferdinand          
    
    
           Subs from above plus Gaza/Gough/McCall/Cole/

    
                                  
                                 SEAMAN
    
           JONES        PALLISTER        ADAMS          PIERCE
    
            PLATT        INCE           GAZZA           SHARPE
    
                      WRIGHT                FERDINAND
    
    
           This would be my choice for our British lions side......
    
       Andy..B

    
    	Here's my twopence worth
    
    				Southall
    
    	Jones		McGrath		Gough		Phelan
    
        Houghton	McStay		Gazza		Giggs
    
    		   Ferdinand	     Rush
    
    
	Subs:	Seaman , Quinn , McCoist , Ince , Platt & Townsend

    Interesting to speculate whether Eire would be in. They are in the
    Rubgy, but their team there is North & South. My bet would be that they
    would remain a separate country. Therefore:
    
    
    				Seaman
    
    	Jones		Adams		Walker		Pearce
    
    				Ince
    		Giggs		Platt		McStay
    
    			Wright		Rush
    
    Subs:	Southall, Pallister, Speed, McCallister, Hughes/McCoist
    
    Paul

    
    Bloater=Fatboy=GAZZA
    
    Steve (bit of a bloater) P

  >>>>  Interesting to speculate whether Eire would be in. They are in the
        Rubgy, but their team there is North & South. My bet would be that they
        would remain a separate country.<<<<

 Paul the last time I looked at an atlas we were a republic so I presume that
means we are a separate country!!!!!!!!!

  Forget this British Lions stuff it will never happen..... and I for one am
glad it wont.

                                                              -dave-

    
    re: .9
>Paul the last time I looked at an atlas we were a republic so I presume that
>means we are a separate country!!!!!!!!!

    Seems reasonable, I suppose!
    
>Forget this British Lions stuff it will never happen..... and I for one am
>glad it wont.
    
    I too think it's pretty unlikely, although unlike you, I'm in favour of 
    the idea. If nothing else, it does seem "politically correct" (to use an 
    expression that's very much in vogue at the moment); I'm forever
    hearing non-Britons complaining at the fact that Great Britain (and NI) has
    4 NATIONal football teams, none of which represents a NATION. I don't
    think you can argue with that, although it does imply that the Vatican has
    more right to a "national" football team than England or Scotland! 
    
    What exactly is your argument against a "British Lions" team? I agree
    that team selection would be nightmare - liable to spark off civil war!
    
    Dom

    
    England *IS* a nation
    Scotland *IS* a nation
    Wales *IS* a nation
    
    I don't know the status of Northern Ireland, sorry.
    
    The fact that *ALL* four countries are governed from one place does NOT
    change the fact that they are four separate countries.  A parallel
    situation would be France, Belgium and Holland with ONE Government in
    Brussels, say.
    
    IAn

    
    
     Apart from the nationalistic arguements over a possible Lions
    teams, the countries involved all have their separate football
    associations responsible for the promotion, development and 
    administration of the game in their country. The "gurus" in charge
    would fight tooth and nail to keep things as they are. They 
    wouldn't want to amalgamate and miss out on their free jaunts
    around the world. As long as they keep the 4 associations separate,
    they should be able to fight off any change which other countries
    would like to see.
    
     I won't put in my team selection as I can't think of many Scots
    who make the team, Goram and McCall being the exceptions.
    
     Danny.
    
    ps I can't see many Scots cheering for the Mars Bar kid or Land of
      Hope and Glory before an international.

    
    RE -1
    
    Danny,    You are probably right...I certainly wouldn't be cheering for
    the Mars bar kid or singing Land of Hope ( or GSTQ ) 8^)
    
    I would not anticipate the formation of a British team nor would I want
    it.Each country has its own identity ( on and off the pitch) and it
    should stay that way. Really, smaller countries (Scotland,Wales & NI)
    would never feel happy with the players that would be included in a
    British team. England has more teams/more class players and would
    obviously give the backbone to the team....Dont fancy cheering a team
    almost completely full of englishmen...not trying to be racist here..
    just my point of view. Would anybody be happy ! Would an English/Welsh
    or Irish fan want to cheer on a team full of Scots.
    
    There is simply too much rivalry between the countries..especially
    between the Scots and the English. I must admit I couldn't really care
    if the English national team qualifys for the USA...my intersets are
    with Scotland and since we are pretty cr^p and have no chance now my 
    interest has dropped.........
    
    
    c'mon you Holland 8^)   .....

   Dom folks are proud of where they come from, and Iam sure I speak for all
Nations. Its much better the way it is, and Iam sure the players from the
individual countries would play with more heart for their countries than for an
amalgamation team.
           
                 Take for example the British Lions in rugby, England traveled
to Dublin for their last game in the home countries league and got hammered and
a few days later the "English" coach picked approx 14 english players and I 
think just 1 irish player to tour with the British Lions, and this caused an
uproar as you can imagine!!!!! The team was then nicknamed the "English Lions"

   This is one good reason why it wouldn't work.... It should be left as it is
and we all try to keep politics out of sport.

                                                    have a good weekend....

                                                           -dave-

    
    >There is simply too much rivalry between the countries..especially
    >between the Scots and the English. I must admit I couldn't really care
    >if the English national team qualifys for the USA...my intersets are
    >with Scotland and since we are pretty cr^p and have no chance now my 
    >interest has dropped.........
    
    Well, *my* interests are with football. I practically through in my lot
    with Scotland at the last Euro championships - much more entertaining
    and far more will to win. I'd invariably support Scotland, Wales, N.
    Ireland or Eire against any other country...ALL OTHER THINGS BEING
    EQUAL, i.e. if the other team play more entertaining football, then
    they're more likely to enjoy my favour. By the same token, I wouldn't
    support Sheff. Utd. or Wimbledon against Real Madrid. 
    
    I've no doubt that a lot of people in this conference don't think the same 
    way (especially the crowd in 130!), but so be it. I wouldn't have any 
    problem with "a team full of Scots", although I would only expect McCall 
    (and perhaps Collins) to be considered at this moment in time.
    
    As for "identity on and off the pitch", I'm afraid it smacks of the
    sort of trollop that Yorkshire Cricket Club have been dishing up for
    the last umpteen years. And if we want to get political, it's the crux
    of the problems in Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia and God knows how many
    other places.
    
    "We don't like them because they talk different...". Ugh!
    
    Dom 

    
    Most English people can identify with a British team.  I suspect it is
    much more difficult for the Scots, wlesh and Northern Irish.  They wish
    to remain part of the UK politically but still retain their own
    national identity.  A British team would never play in Belfast, hardly
    ever in Cardiff and rarely at Hampden.  It would consist of mainly
    English players.
    
    The next logical step then is a European side consisting of the 12 EEC
    nations.
    
    Football gives a healthy outlet for patriotism.  It would be a shame
    for the Scots, Wlesh and Northern Irish to lose that.
    
    Gary.

    re: .16
    
    >Most English people can identify with a British team.  I suspect it is
    >much more difficult for the Scots, wlesh and Northern Irish.  They wish
    >to remain part of the UK politically but still retain their own
    >national identity.  
    
    Funny how "nationalism" becomes a dirty word except when it concerns the 
    Scots, Irish and Welsh! IMO, what you're referring to is more akin to
    "provincialism". I see a lot of it here in Italy:
    
    "We Bolognese feel like fish out of water when go to Milan. They talk
    differently, dress differently, eat different food...not my sort of
    people at all!" 
     
    Personally, I've got no time for it - and I'd feel the same way about
    similar attitudes in Cornwall or Yorkshire.
     
    >A British team would never play in Belfast, hardly ever in Cardiff and 
    >rarely at Hampden. It would consist of mainly English players. 
    
    Belfast granted  - at the moment; let's hope the situation changes in
    the not too distant future. But I can't see why they wouldn't play at
    Hampden, or any other large stadium.
    
    As for the team consisting of mainly English players, that certainly
    wouldn't have been the case if they'd selected a team after the last
    European Championships! An English majority would probably only reflect
    the difference in population, just as the old USSR team tended to
    contain more Russians than Georgians, Lithuanians and Armenians. The
    same sort of "problem" would exit for practically any European country.
    
    Dom

    
     Perhaps one other problem is that Scottish football, as far as I know,
    does not get a lot of press in England, therefore denying the English
    public the chance to form an opinion about many Scottish players.  We,
    here in Scotland, do get the chance to see English games on sky.
    
     If the British XI was to come about there would have to be a British
    League with minor Leagues staying national for financial reasons.  So
    you would then in a situation with a British premier and first
    divisions with national league winners in a playoff to see who goes to
    play with the big boys.
    
     What top twenty teams would be in the league?  Much the same question
    as a British Lions team is it not?
    
      Just an opinion.....
    
         John
    

	For a British League, I would say it would have to consist of the 
	following Teams.

	1.Glasgow Celtic
	2.Glasgow Rangers 
	3.Aberdeen
	4.Hearts
	5.Dundee Utd
	6.Hibs
	7.Man Utd
	8.Man City
	9.Liverpool
	10.Everton
	11.Blackburn Rovers
	12.Sheffield Wed.
	13.Leeds Utd
	14.Tottenham Hotspur
	15.Aston Villa
	16.Arsenal
	17.Norwich
	18.Newcastle Utd
	19.Chelsea
	20.Coventry City	

		Apologies to any Welsh Fans.
	

    I don't think we should write-off the concept of "the British" team
    just because we don't like it. FIFA/UEFA have been trying to force it on us
    for years and their campaign has a lot of support from other nations.
    The other nations (including Eire) consider it favouritism that we have
    four "national" sides representing the UK. So the decision will not be
    ours when it gets forced.
    
    I reckon it will happen in the longer term.
    
    Anyway the Irish don't find it a problem having an Englishman as a
    manager. Although if Jackie hadn't been a success then I am sure the
    story would be different. I wouldn't mind having a foreigner as England
    manager; Franz Beckenbauer for example. He speaks better English than
    Fat-Tum too ;-)
    
    Julian
    

    
    >FIFA/UEFA have been trying to force it on us for years.......
    
    Not quite true. UEFA have never tried to 'force' it on us. I remember
    reading somewhere that having 4 British sides (All UEFA memebers) in 
    world football gives UEFA additional voting power against the other
    intercontinental FAs in FIFA. Consequently, they don't want to lose
    this advantage.
    
    Tim           

    
    Of course, this whole question goes hand-in-hand with the issue of
    British players being counted as foreigners if they play for a
    different home federation. If a British Lions team existed, then (for
    example) Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish players who represent
    English clubs could no longer be regarded as foreigners.
    
    All the talk about voting power in FIFA is perfectly true, but it's no
    more correct than, say, parliamentary immunity or nepotism. Until
    recent events in Yugoslavia and the ex-Soviet Union, who could have put
    up a decent case to explain why England and Scotland could field 
    *national* football teams, while Macedonia and Lithuania could not?
    
    Nation (n.) A political body whose citizens are united under ONE
    independent government, WITHOUT close regard for their origins.
    
    Dom

    
    I'm for it too. 
    It would be great for Ireland (Not Eire. That name for our country is
    objectionable) also. With so many players competing for 11 places can 
    you imagine the number who would declare themselves for the Irish team.
    Nobody would stop us !
    
    In addition. There are many players who would have a stronger
    allegiance to an Irish side than to any Great Britain side(roughly
    translated to England with a token Scot or Welsh man). In particular,
    many Scottish players with Irish heritage would declare for us.
    
    Yep ! Sounds good to me !
    
    Peter(An Impartial Celt) 
    
    

re: .23
    
    >It would be great for Ireland (Not Eire. That name for our country is
    >objectionable) also. With so many players competing for 11 places can 
    >you imagine the number who would declare themselves for the Irish team.
    >Nobody would stop us !
    
    >In addition. There are many players who would have a stronger
    >allegiance to an Irish side than to any Great Britain side(roughly
    >translated to England with a token Scot or Welsh man). In particular,
    >many Scottish players with Irish heritage would declare for us.
    
    In the light of all this, I'm just speculating on what might be the
    Eire XI for the World Cup in 2002 (assuming they qualify):

1.  Gabriel Garcia Marquez
2.  Idi Amin
3.  Clint Eastwood  
4.  Luciano Paverotti
5.  Peter Ustinov
6.  King Hussein
7.  The Dalai Lama 
8.  Bishop Tutu
9.  B.B. King
10. Pol Pot
11. Acker Bilk

Manager: Big Jack (he'll be Prime Minister by then!)

    They won't bring the cup home, but I'm sure they'll all be just as
    proud as the present mob to wear the green shirt.
    
    (And just imagine trying to bend a free kick round a wall made up of
    Idi Amin and Luciano Paverotti!) 
    

    here we go again
    yiz are all just jealous cos we're gonna win the world cup next year
    Ray.... 

    
    >>1.  Gabriel Garcia Marquez (Gab Grab Marquez. An excellent keeper
    				 Named after Gabriel(Gay) Byrne. His da !)
    >>2   Idi Amin        (The best Right Wing back this 
    					country has seen)
    >>3.  Clint Eastwood    (Yes. Right in the Line of Fire. Center half)
    >>4.  Luciano Paverotti (Nessun Dorma ? None shall sleep with Pavvo at the back
    			     I think he sang Danny Boy once also. He qualifies !)
    >>5.  Peter Ustinov     (A good Left Wing back. A little Russian blood
    			     does no harm. His real name, Peter Ustin O' v)
    >>6.  King Hussein  (The Middle Eastern mid-fielder. Need I say more !
    			 Known to his friends a King Micko(Hussle) Hussein) 
    >>7.  The Dalai Lama (He may be quiet at home but he kicks ass on the
    			 pitch. He's related to God. He has to be Irish.) 
    >>8.  Bishop Tutu   (Dessie. Named after the Irish bred horse his speed and
    							dexterity resembles)
    >>9.  B.B. King    (Well he did play with U.2. He must qualify)
    >>10. Pol Pot      
    >>11. Acker Bilk   (He once played at the Cork Jazz festival. He
    							quailifies !)

Manager: Big Jack (he'll be Prime Minister by then!) Well this one's right.
                                          
    Peter(An Impartial Celt)
    

   What about Bono, he'll probably be Prime Minister by the year 2002, seeing
that its impossible for him to become president of another country!!!!!

   Sorry for pulluting this notes conference with non-footy stuff..... My
opinion is that this topic should be deleted... and Iam sure a few others agree.


                                                                  -dave-

    re -1 hear hear