Brett Pitman

[matty]

Early days in the story I know, and apologies if already posted, but it seems Pitman qualifies for us. I don't think he's said anything to media so not sure how interested he is, but surely being born in Channel Islands he was always on our radar?

He's only 22, got a decent scoring record in League 1 (1 goal in every 3 according to WalesOnline), and his move to Bristol City is a good one...if he wants to play for us of course.

[caradocevans]

The English get Artetta and we get some bloke from the Channel Islands....

[matty]

Aug 24, 2010 10:53:09 GMT caradocevans said:

The English get Artetta and we get some bloke from the Channel Islands....

If you compare the English's resourses to ours you will always be disappointed.

[cardibach]

If the Sais can claim Arteta as he is a "British Citizen", can't we?
(Or Scotland or NIreland?)

[Deleted]

As far as I am concerned this is great news and we need to get him in the setup ASAP.

Early days as we do not know how he will fare in the championship, but for me he has the potential to go the furthest out of our current striking options. Hes still young at only 22 and Ian Holloway (who is a decent judge of a player) wanted to take him to the prem with Blackpool.

We dont want to miss out on him and then watch him develop into a hell of a player in a few years time.

[bale-droed]

Aug 24, 2010 13:08:25 GMT cardibach said:

If the Sais can claim Arteta as he is a "British Citizen", can't we?
(Or Scotland or NIreland?)

yes we could others we could technically have a steed malbranque dele adebola julio arca now parmarot etc etc.


also every week these days we find a player with welsh connection or a way of playing for wales. and i friggin love it and i think its great!!
if he is half good get him in the team before scotland or n ireland do!

[scoop76]

No idea whether Pitman would be good enough at international level but saw him play a couple of times for Bournemouth last season and he impressed.

He scored probably the best goal I saw last season - a 35 yard effort against Burton Albion that he thumped into the back of the net, Hot Shot Hamish style.

[llannerch]

Aug 24, 2010 13:08:25 GMT cardibach said:

If the Sais can claim Arteta as he is a "British Citizen", can't we?
(Or Scotland or NIreland?)

Yes

[Tim P]

the difference being, the english can make a morally sound claim to arteta - or at the very least, a far more legitimate one than we can. it is beyond belief that people are even mentioning it.

[tai33stashon]

WHY is it were all the same british born and bread and if they get arteta theyd might let us have Warnock or a fringe player of Premiership qualty.

[saints19]

I agree with Trendy. If this lad plays for us it's a joke.

Arteta is Spanish-qualified, a Basque by self-identity, but at least he has lived in England for a few years.

When you allow players to play for countries they have never set foot in, it makes a mockery of the ideals of international football. It would never happen outside the UK, but we have a unique situation - even still, we should not have this rule.

People with British passports cannot possibly have their pick of four international teams. If they have stayed in one of the UK's constituent countries for five years, you can perhaps make an argument they should be able to play for that country, but not the others.

FIFA should scrap his rule or amend it as explained above, and also scrap the one that allows the Republic of Ireland to poach players born in Northern Ireland, with no (Rep) Irish parents or grandparents, on the grounds that they have an Irish passport. Both silly and unfair rules open to abuse.

[llannerch]

Aug 24, 2010 19:52:49 GMT saints19 said:

and also scrap the one that allows the Republic of Ireland to poach players born in Northern Ireland, with no (Rep) Irish parents or grandparents, on the grounds that they have an Irish passport. Both silly and unfair rules open to abuse.

The Republic can pick players from NI but not because of passports. It's to do with the Good Friday Agreement which has a provision for shared British/Irish birthright and the "parity of esteem" for both Irish and British cultures; see link:

www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/gibson-gives-mcilroy-reason-to-regret-good-friday-agreement-1832977.html

For what it's worth, NI can pick players from Eire but it's highly unlikely there will be many Irish people claiming an Ulster/British birthright denied to them by an occupying, imperialist force.

I don't disagree with you saints19 - it's pretty unedifying that someone can play for a country they may have never lived in or have relations from, but in Ireland's case I suppose there's a greater cause

[marsvolta]

on the bristol city part of the 606 forums website,someone is saying that pitman is friends with sam vokes and that is why he chose bristol city instead of blackpool.maybe vokes had a word with him about playing for wales.

[welshcule]

I would say it makes a mockery of us as a nation if Pittman or Arteta were to play for Wales but then again we can't go much lower than we already have in the past with long lost grandma's and grandad's bringing their documents out of the closet for the likes of Vinnie Jones, Ben Thatcher, Freddie Eastwood et al. No disrespect to any of those guys but playing football for your country should mean a) you were born there or b) one of your parents were born in Wales or c) you have lived in Wales for ten years or more at any point in your life. Outside of football people can be as free as they like to move from country to country, everyone has the right to live and work wherever they are eligible. But in my own opinion, when it comes to playing football for your country, you should be welsh to play for Wales, English to play for England etc etc. And you should also be forced to either learn the national anthem or at least be able to pretend convincingly! Rant over!

[marsvolta]

Aug 24, 2010 14:05:52 GMT @storm said:

As far as I am concerned this is great news and we need to get him in the setup ASAP.

Early days as we do not know how he will fare in the championship, but for me he has the potential to go the furthest out of our current striking options. Hes still young at only 22 and Ian Holloway (who is a decent judge of a player) wanted to take him to the prem with Blackpool.

We dont want to miss out on him and then watch him develop into a hell of a player in a few years time.

i agree,i think its great that our pool of players is getting bigger.even if only one out of our three recent recruits,pitman,morison and robson-kanu,turns out to be a regular in the next few years it would be good news.

robson-kanu scored for reading tonight by the way.

[marsvolta]

Aug 24, 2010 18:37:27 GMT Tim P said:

the difference being, the english can make a morally sound claim to arteta - or at the very least, a far more legitimate one than we can. it is beyond belief that people are even mentioning it.

the good news is that if arteta played for england we would always have some ammo if any england fans started taking the piss out of our 'welsh grannie' players.

[cardibach]

Where does Arteta live? Just inside the Welsh border would be good.....

[bale-droed]

Aug 24, 2010 21:50:45 GMT marsvolta said:

on the bristol city part of the 606 forums website,someone is saying that pitman is friends with sam vokes and that is why he chose bristol city instead of blackpool.maybe vokes had a word with him about playing for wales.

obviously they both woudlve played youth football at bournmouth so that makes sense.

no arteta should never play for wales. however theres no problem with brett playing for us because he has no national team playing under fifa and if he was incredible , england wouldve had him by now like with le tissier and le saux. im glad brett would choos us over scotland or n ireland shows that young footballers might think wales is shit hot! be optimistic dudes!

[Deleted]

Aug 24, 2010 21:57:04 GMT welshcule said:

I would say it makes a mockery of us as a nation if Pittman or Arteta were to play for Wales but then again we can't go much lower than we already have in the past with long lost grandma's and grandad's bringing their documents out of the closet for the likes of Vinnie Jones, Ben Thatcher, Freddie Eastwood et al. No disrespect to any of those guys but playing football for your country should mean a) you were born there or b) one of your parents were born in Wales or c) you have lived in Wales for ten years or more at any point in your life. Outside of football people can be as free as they like to move from country to country, everyone has the right to live and work wherever they are eligible. But in my own opinion, when it comes to playing football for your country, you should be welsh to play for Wales, English to play for England etc etc. And you should also be forced to either learn the national anthem or at least be able to pretend convincingly! Rant over!

I agree in principle but we are in danger of being left behind by the sides that are taking advantage of these rules.

We are 82nd in the rankings and a policy of limiting who we can pick from will only diminish our chances of even being a 3rd seed let alone qualifying in future.

I do not agree with wholesale abuse of this rule, but I dont think there is anything wrong with using it discriminatingly to strengthen in areas where we are weak, and whilst we have some good prospects in midfield we are particularly light up front in terms of quality players.

[saints19]

Aug 24, 2010 21:06:20 GMT llannerch said:

Aug 24, 2010 19:52:49 GMT saints19 said:

and also scrap the one that allows the Republic of Ireland to poach players born in Northern Ireland, with no (Rep) Irish parents or grandparents, on the grounds that they have an Irish passport. Both silly and unfair rules open to abuse.

The Republic can pick players from NI but not because of passports. It's to do with the Good Friday Agreement which has a provision for shared British/Irish birthright and the "parity of esteem" for both Irish and British cultures; see link:

www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/gibson-gives-mcilroy-reason-to-regret-good-friday-agreement-1832977.html

For what it's worth, NI can pick players from Eire but it's highly unlikely there will be many Irish people claiming an Ulster/British birthright denied to them by an occupying, imperialist force.

I don't disagree with you saints19 - it's pretty unedifying that someone can play for a country they may have never lived in or have relations from, but in Ireland's case I suppose there's a greater cause

It's about passports. A clause in the GFA allows someone born in Northern Ireland to hold either British or Irish (or both) passports. That's what creates the anomaly in footballing terms.

However I think this is nonsense, politics and football should be kept as seperate as possible. (except FIFA/UEFA politics, that goes without saying) Players from both communities play for Northern Ireland and it's obvious the ruling advantages the Republic far more than the North.

Darron Gibson, had he been any nationality other than Northern Irish, would have qualified for only his country of birth (born in Derry/Londonderry, and all parents/grandparents born in NI). In other words, the only reason he can play for the Republic is because of this special rule. The Republic have a totally unfair advantage not just on Northern Ireland, but also other teams who would never be able to poach from other countries (I would say including us, but then we have the equally ridiculous UK citizenship ruling which allows a Channel Islander to play for us.)

Both rules are crap and should be abolished.

[saints19]

Aug 25, 2010 0:02:53 GMT @storm said:

I do not agree with wholesale abuse of this rule, but I dont think there is anything wrong with using it discriminatingly to strengthen in areas where we are weak, and whilst we have some good prospects in midfield we are particularly light up front in terms of quality players.

Storm, just curious, but what do you think the moral difference is between using this rule to fill 1 or 2 squad places (because they need filling) and using it to fill half the squad (because needs must).

I can't agree with it ever being used. The grandparent rule can throw up the odd strange one (Eastwood for instance) but usually, the player will be at least aware of heir heritage and identify to some extent with that country (e.g. Morison knew about his grandparent, and contacted us, according to what has been written on here). The need for actual birth/ancestry links provides a solid basis for eligibility. There'll be some cases where players/countries abuse the rule but these will be the exception.

On the other hand, the residency rule will probably, in a greater percentage of cases, lead to players having no identity whatsoever with their chosen country. If someone like Arteta played for us or Scotland or Northern Ireland it would be entirely because he wanted to 'advance his career' (if that sounds plausible given his ability and our situation!). As I've said, Arteta would have an arguable case to play for England but certainly not us.

Others have made the point that the grandparent rule shouldn't exist either; I think that is a reasonable position to take and it is a point for debate, but what cannot be argued is the difference between the grandparent rule and what we are talking about here.

[Deleted]

Aug 25, 2010 2:56:10 GMT saints19 said:

Aug 25, 2010 0:02:53 GMT @storm said:

I do not agree with wholesale abuse of this rule, but I dont think there is anything wrong with using it discriminatingly to strengthen in areas where we are weak, and whilst we have some good prospects in midfield we are particularly light up front in terms of quality players.

Storm, just curious, but what do you think the moral difference is between using this rule to fill 1 or 2 squad places (because they need filling) and using it to fill half the squad (because needs must).

I can't agree with it ever being used. The grandparent rule can throw up the odd strange one (Eastwood for instance) but usually, the player will be at least aware of heir heritage and identify to some extent with that country (e.g. Morison knew about his grandparent, and contacted us, according to what has been written on here). The need for actual birth/ancestry links provides a solid basis for eligibility. There'll be some cases where players/countries abuse the rule but these will be the exception.

On the other hand, the residency rule will probably, in a greater percentage of cases, lead to players having no identity whatsoever with their chosen country. If someone like Arteta played for us or Scotland or Northern Ireland it would be entirely because he wanted to 'advance his career' (if that sounds plausible given his ability and our situation!). As I've said, Arteta would have an arguable case to play for England but certainly not us.

Others have made the point that the grandparent rule shouldn't exist either; I think that is a reasonable position to take and it is a point for debate, but what cannot be argued is the difference between the grandparent rule and what we are talking about here.

Rules are rules and if we dont take advantage of them someone else will.

My perspective on it is that we are struggling for results and its a battle for survival at the moment to make sure we dont slip into pot 5 which for me would be an absolute embarrassment, moreso than giving a few dodgy caps out that while creating an interesting debate is still perfectly legal.

Would it be untrue to say that some wholly welsh players have used international football to further their careers? I think that is how international football is seen these days for all but the die-hards like Bellamy and the supporters. It has less and less importance each year and only receives a shot in the arm during the tournaments themselves. Koumas retired early...so did Davies. Wheres the difference?

Its a tough one to call because in an ideal world we would not need to consider players with extremely tenuous (almost non existant) links but I think its an argument that ultimately is dependent on the quality of player, as would anybody on this board seriously object if a player like, say, Drogba was available to us via this ridiculous residency rule that allows Arteta to qualify? Im pretty sure most on here would be in favour, albeit reluctantly, and that sums my stance up perfectly.

[matty]

Going off on a tangent, we could one day have a team of players all born outside of Wales - you could easily pick an XI now of players in that situation. As much as I get excited by the news that Robson-Kanu, Morison etc have chosen Wales I also wouldn't want a team completely made up of people in their situation - double standards from myself I admit.
However, our Bellamy's, Bales and Ramseys are born in Wales. Our "stars" will always be born in Wales because lets be fair we'd never tempt a player of their ability to Wales. If they were English born and bred thats the way they'd stay.

[welshcule]

Aug 25, 2010 11:31:21 GMT matty said:

Going off on a tangent, we could one day have a team of players all born outside of Wales - you could easily pick an XI now of players in that situation. As much as I get excited by the news that Robson-Kanu, Morison etc have chosen Wales I also wouldn't want a team completely made up of people in their situation - double standards from myself I admit.
However, our Bellamy's, Bales and Ramseys are born in Wales. Our "stars" will always be born in Wales because lets be fair we'd never tempt a player of their ability to Wales. If they were English born and bred thats the way they'd stay.

good post

[bale-droed]

if scotland tried to get agbonlahor im sure flynn would at least give it a bash mind , if for example michael mancienne or daniel sturridge had a welsh grannie.

[saints19]

Aug 25, 2010 3:44:12 GMT @storm said:

Aug 25, 2010 2:56:10 GMT saints19 said:

Storm, just curious, but what do you think the moral difference is between using this rule to fill 1 or 2 squad places (because they need filling) and using it to fill half the squad (because needs must).

I can't agree with it ever being used. The grandparent rule can throw up the odd strange one (Eastwood for instance) but usually, the player will be at least aware of heir heritage and identify to some extent with that country (e.g. Morison knew about his grandparent, and contacted us, according to what has been written on here). The need for actual birth/ancestry links provides a solid basis for eligibility. There'll be some cases where players/countries abuse the rule but these will be the exception.

On the other hand, the residency rule will probably, in a greater percentage of cases, lead to players having no identity whatsoever with their chosen country. If someone like Arteta played for us or Scotland or Northern Ireland it would be entirely because he wanted to 'advance his career' (if that sounds plausible given his ability and our situation!). As I've said, Arteta would have an arguable case to play for England but certainly not us.

Others have made the point that the grandparent rule shouldn't exist either; I think that is a reasonable position to take and it is a point for debate, but what cannot be argued is the difference between the grandparent rule and what we are talking about here.

Rules are rules and if we dont take advantage of them someone else will.

My perspective on it is that we are struggling for results and its a battle for survival at the moment to make sure we dont slip into pot 5 which for me would be an absolute embarrassment, moreso than giving a few dodgy caps out that while creating an interesting debate is still perfectly legal.

Would it be untrue to say that some wholly welsh players have used international football to further their careers? I think that is how international football is seen these days for all but the die-hards like Bellamy and the supporters. It has less and less importance each year and only receives a shot in the arm during the tournaments themselves. Koumas retired early...so did Davies. Wheres the difference?

Its a tough one to call because in an ideal world we would not need to consider players with extremely tenuous (almost non existant) links but I think its an argument that ultimately is dependent on the quality of player, as would anybody on this board seriously object if a player like, say, Drogba was available to us via this ridiculous residency rule that allows Arteta to qualify? Im pretty sure most on here would be in favour, albeit reluctantly, and that sums my stance up perfectly.

I wouldn't want Drogba or Messi or anyone else playing for us via this rule. The ability is irrelevant - the point is that it is a rule which gives an unfair advantage to some countries.

I doubt any of the Welsh-born players of the last decade have seen international football as merely a career boost. Koumas has tailed off at club level since he quit us, Davies has quit more because of fears that he can't handle both club and international football physically - as tenuous as that sounds to me I have no doubts he is sincere. Anyone who saw him celebrate his goal against ITaly in the 2-1 win in 2003 cannot surely doubt his desire to play for Wales.

Pot 5 would't be the end of the world, and far less of an embarassment than whoring ourselves out to players who have absolutely no connection with Wales whatsoever. Northern Ireland were in pot 5 for a while and bounced back. Anyway it's unlikely to happen, we would need to do very poorly in the upcoming qualifiers to be seeded fifth for the 2014 World Cup qualifiers. At present we're about halfway down the list of fourth seeds, we're as likely to go up as down.

The 'battle for survival' attitude is ridiculous. It's a bunch of guys kicking a ball around on a large rectangle of grass, not some Darwinist arena where the 'laws of the jungle' (whatever they are) apply. As I argued before on the issue of diving and cheating, if we can't have morals in sport when the outcome ultimately doesn't matter then we're well and truly ****ed when it comes to real life.