Talk:Association football in the Republic of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most popular participation sport[edit]

"most popular participation sport in the Republic of Ireland." This is not what the source says the source says "Football is the biggest participation and most popular team sport in Ireland, according to the ESRI" It does not say "Republic of Ireland" but Ireland.

This source would seem to list sports in 2004 by popularity and would seem to confirm that soccer is the most popular team sport in Ireland, but again it does not make it clear if it means the on island of Ireland or in the Republic:

The study found that recreational walking is by far the most popular form of leisure-time physical activity among Irish adults – about 60 per cent had taken a walk in the four weeks prior to being interviewed. Apart from walking, the most popular sports that people take part in are golf, soccer, swimming and GAA games for men, and swimming and aerobics for women.

But a PDF summary of the report quoted in the above does say "This survey collected data from a nationally representative sample of 3,080 individuals aged 18 years and over using face-to-face interviews." suggests to me a survey in the Republic. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


including 5 a side seems ridiculous, is it the most popualar sport - yes or no?? if you include 5 s side do you include people jumping over a wall as participation in athletics, surely it must be played competitively, has anyone figures showing the amount of registered players in ireland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati16 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement not to move the page again[edit]

No matter what the out come of the RM I'd like to build consensus's that the page isn't subjected to a other RM for at least 9 months. This is the 3rd in 5 months and is becoming pointless. A RM will just lead to rehashing of the same issues on both sides Gnevin (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You simply have no idea what consensus is. You cannot 'set' it for a period of time - even if you think you find a 'consensus' to do so! It is not possible. And what 'consensus' would it be 'set' by anyway, Gnevin? 60%?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreement not to move the page again for period stated above as I agree with the reasons stated by Gnevin. Just get on and sort the content in the articles, keep them encyclopaedic instead of gossip rag like, and stop being so anal about what they are called.--ClubOranjeTalk 08:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conformity to "Association" no-matter how uncomfortably it sits? How anal is that? That's the shirt tucked into the underpants mate. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?[edit]

Why the hell did User:JPG-GR close this at 4.30pm on a UK Saturday afternoon? After only 5 and a half days? The on in Feb that moved to "Association" (on "60% consensus"!) was 11 days long! Jesus Christ - do any of you realise how bad all this looks? Do any of you care? "Association" was winning out so why cheat? Again?--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:JPG-GR an admin? If not - what the hell gives him the right to close it early? Even if he/she is an admin - surely this RM must be 11 days like the last one? What's going on?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence that User:JPG-GR' is an admin. I've reverted him and brought the RM back to life: nearly 2 hours on a Sat afternoon is lost over this. Play fair, guys, eh? It looks you are winning anyway. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, you're losing it altogether! You've discussed it on User talk:JPG-GR so you know the proper procedure was followed. You've nothing to gain from this except to make yourself look silly. The move to Association is a done deal, and arguing about 60% won't change that. This proposal, as you say, is going to fail for lack of consensus. For your own sake, please, quit while you still have your self-respect. Scolaire (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop being so melodramatic, Scolaire? It's you who needs to show some respect to the issue at hand - and you can stop exaggerating my actions too. When 11 days is up if no better consensus is found then the proposal can't be passed - obviously. But if this RM is not done fairly either, well I cannot just sit back and watch that happen: an RM pushed through on 60%, followed by a disagreeing RM cut-short in less than half the time of the first - it's just not on. Let's have some patience and wait until its over - yes? If no-one turns up to support me what then I say? This is going to be done fairly or you won't hear the end of me - so just grin and bear it. And what's it to you? It's only an RM like you said. Why all the drama about "self respect"? I'm only fighting the corner - few others have, and we both know how much "Association" is simply disliked - even amongst some who have opposed "Football (soccer)" above. I'm not going to carry on if the tide is clearly against my proposal after the same length of time the "Association" proposal had - it would be pointless.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, you are saying that Scolaire is being melodramatic?! What about comments such as "the oppressive irony of such a stuffy and awkward bureaucratic title", comparing the page name to the horrors committed by the Nazis, threatening to take us to arbitration, and trying to use emotional blackmail, blaming our support for changing the page name for MurphiaMan's departure? I would advise you to drop the stick now. The RM has lasted the arbitrary time-limit without reaching consensus. It's fair to say the move will not be happening now. Consensus can change but I don't see any benefit in returning to this for another 3 months at least. Regards, EJF (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exaggerating my use of the Nazim example is a bit over the top itself: it was more reasoned than you suggest (and was entirely structural and nothing at all to do with the "horrors", thank you). And when did I explicitly "threaten" arbitration too? I have used strong rhetoric I agree - but exaggerating it to prove that I am myself "melodramatic" shows a slight lack of irony, don't you think? I've been forceful because I know Wikipedia well enough to know a closed shop when I see one. I also care about the subject - and am pissed-off that MurphiaMan (and genuine contributors like him) have simply been ignored over the whole issue - yes. And the move to "Association" was the reason for his departure; I'm entitled to mention it in passing - it's you who mentioned his name, not me. I hope he comes back - Wikipedia needs genuine editors, as opose to the usual goal-hangers who jump in on these votes for their various reasons. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I just say one more thing? I've re-read the whole of this page, plus your "straw polls" at England, Wales and Scotland: Deacon of Pndapetzim referred to AF as "an archaic abomination, used in very few contexts"; otherwise nobody has said even that they dislike the term, never mind that it is offensive! Why do you continue to insist that the whole footballing world believes what you believe, all evidence to the contrary? There have been four votes to change, but only you have carried on the war. It's time to stop. Seriously! Scolaire (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You havent re-read the page at all, clearly: I was initially upset to find that a decent editor had left Wikipedia because of it (you must have read this surely? I've said it more than once) - then I saw the 60% 'push-through' and the reaction to it. Try reading the page properly instead of scanning for particular words: although "dislike" does occur above, and someone even said they "despise" it (although he voted against "Football (soccer)"!). You are welcome to read my Talk if you want even more of me on this too! Seriously - I think that you yourself should just wait. I've read lots of comments across Wikipedia that say the initial move to "Association Football" was crazy. If you are saying that "Association" isn't unpopular with people, then I'm afraid you are simply wrong. And you can't end a vote because of the way it currently stands - the timing has to be fair. Just wait and see what happens, please. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political Issues[edit]

I am little confused here. Is this debate part of some complex nationalistic discussion (eg. Londonderry/Derry)? Or are we simply discussing the name of the of a popular sport in Ireland? I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything, I am really wondering if use one way or the other is politically sensitive? Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my own view on this already: some editors have turned up in both these last votes, not as football (soccer) fans at all, but as those who wish to promote real Irish fayre above anything British (ie Gaelic football above "footy"). "Soccer" (though a common disambiguator with the ROI media) can sometimes be perceived to 'demote' football (soccer) there too, which is why some don't like it on its own. I've had the hardest time here from someone who admitted to not being a Football (soccer) fan at all! They, combined with a few sticklers for "Association", made the last "60%" vote go the way it did in my opinion. I started this simply because I didn't think that was fair, and I honestly believe this is the most workable solution. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I honestly believe this is the most workable solution." There's nothing honest about it at all! It was obvious from the start that this was not workable. You have not even got a handful of support votes, despite canvassing Talk:Football in England, which you said "would bring about a sea of Supports, and you know it!" You've simply tried to bully everybody else into accepting your bigoted views. And yes, it is political. You've admitted that we don't use "soccer" in a derogatory way, but you continue to denigrate Gaelic football ("real Irish fayre", which couldn't possibly compare with anything British). The whole issue is less about being anti-football than about being anti-Irish.
Now, let me ask you a question: without looking it up, could you tell me who was the Drogs' top scorer in 2007? We all know about your passion for the game, but do you give tuppence for the game in Ireland? Scolaire (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no politic issues it's all about WP:DAB for me. Gnevin (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So some of you do feel there is a little bit of politics about it, I guess? You have both observed that others are trying to push a ceirtain line while Gnevin, feels like I do, that this is simply a disambiguation question. Thanks for clearing that up for me, I genuinely didn't know whether this was a long-standing political minefield - or just some fallout from the vote to change the main page on the sport to "Association Football".
While I oppose this page being used for wider disputes about football and British/Irish vocabulary, wikipedia does not bar editors and voters who have no real interest in the topic. My main thought, really, is - if only we could generate this sort of enthuisasm when it came to actually writing articles about Irish Association Football/Soccer! Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Football (soccer) is as unambiguous as Association Football as far as gaelic is concerned; so it's strange that there's been a lot of noise here from people only interested in WP:DAB. Anyway I'm off to look up some info for Football articles (or 'soccer' or 'Association Football' or 'Football (soccer)' or 'that evil foreign sasnach game from across the water' - take your pick!). --Albert.white (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again?[edit]

The non-admin has closed again 8 am today (Sunday morning), despite everything said. All of Sunday morning has now been lost. If this happens again I will personally consider this vote void (as both Weekend days have been abused), and try this it again at Association Football. Before anyone cries foul, this is not a 'threat' - I simply need to see a fair participation. But is this going 'on and on' what people want? DO WE WANT CLOSURE, OR NOT? It is possible we can have it here - prividing this is FAIR. I don't know about anyone else, but Wikipedia is pointless to me unless it is fair. To the non-admin who wishes to close this unfairly: SHOW SOME RESPECT TO THIS SUBJECT (it deserves if for once!!!!!!!!!!!) AND DO NOT WASTE PEOPLE 'S TIME. Thank you. --Matt Lewis (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, calm down. It's only a requested move. About your comment above, you did say "ff people here don't play fair I'll take it to arbitration." About MurphiaMan, you did link to his departure.
This RM has lasted over the normal time limit, nothing new has come out, there has been no new bunch of supporters arrive. Dragging out the debate is wasting time, and shouting in block capitals isn't going to get you your own way. EJF (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There. An admin has finally closed the move request. Frankly, with the questionable canvassing and the practice of screaming at every opposer, this one was a good candidate for closing prematurely before civility blocks start flying. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an admin you shouldn't you keep that kind of comment in Talk? It's always me who gets called 'dramatic'! - I've just been fighting a losing battle. That doesn't mean the issue isn't one worth fighting - esp on Wikipedia. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what "you shouldn't you keep that kind of comment in Talk" means. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you do. Thanks for leaving the question mark off the quote. Some admin you are! But it needed one like you, I guess. How about we let this go now, or did you come for a fight? With me, as you have seen, you have one. To reiterate: either take it to my Talk, or leave it. And if you really don't like "civility blocks", then don't provoke people!--Matt Lewis (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I can't imagine why people didn't get behind your idea with your cheery attitude. Actually, I don't think your sentence is proper English - that's the only reason I even responded. Read it slowly - what the hell does "As an admin you shouldn't you keep that kind of comment in Talk" mean? Is there an extra "you" in there? Rephrase or something so it makes sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd struck it (it is now) - the meaning was pretty obvious though imo. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still isn't obvious given that the name of this page begins with "Talk:" But now I gather that you meant "User talk:", and the answer to your reconstructed question is "no". —Wknight94 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this now provides a sense element of closure. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pity the admins didn't take the same action last time when there wasn't consensus either. --Albert.white (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closure? It's closed for me right now certainly, and it was a suitable end in a way - the reasons given were to do with me and not the issue at all. The bad smell remains - and the issue is bound to come back somewhere at some point: for my sins I tried to resolve it. I hope I've raised some questions, and as for how I did it - I think some of you are being soft, and some are just crying foul and overblowing it, for obvious reasons. Perhaps I made that too easy to do. Message to some: You can't always get your way quite as easily as you did before! I raised it partly for the editor who left becaseu of Association and for the honest (and sometimes annoyingly silent!) majority, parly for the most popular game in the world, and partly because I hate 'corruption' - and nothing has been fully fair throughout.--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being soft, you are crying foul and you have overblown it, for obvious reasons. You made a proposal and it was rejected - by nineteen votes to three. Quit whinging, grow up and take it like a man. Scolaire (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't 19:3 to that degree - there were Neutrals and a number of 'opposers' expressed concern with "Association". Stop provoking me - and how about you let it go? You have been provoking me when you could easily have let things take its course. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispness (talk • contribs) [reply]
ROFL Crispness (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Pampers, Crispness (another anti-British parachuter). it was 15:4 anyway - Scolaire can't count. --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Matt love, another five days and the soccer Association footy will be back on the telly again. Scolaire (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 days? Monday night soccer is on RTE tonight! You know, the program about Irish Soccer :-) And The FAI cup starts proper next weekend! --Albert.white (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Touché, Albert Scolaire (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you are a lovely bunch! After a curiousity-arousing note from Scolaire on my Talk page, I just came back to do my own toll up out of curiosity - I had taken his "19:3" at face value. It was actually 15:4 - only 5 out ScolaireI guess when shit flies, shit flies. Considering the non-football (soccer!) fans and the rather un-WP “protest oppose”, it wasn’t so terrible. A quick 5 in a row from elsewhere and you would never have heard the end of it from me: It's that naughty old 60% see. Tut tut. Cheerio! --Matt Lewis (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! The three was because you were the proposer, so I didn't count your vote, but the nineteen was just miscounting. Not that my comment would have been any different, anyway. Such is life! Bye again. Matt. Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section[edit]

If one might dare consider the content of the page... Apart from the first paragraph of it, the History section is patently not a history of (this sport) in Ireland, but is a fairly lengthy history of the national team. This seems inappropriate to this article, and the appropriate article already has an adequate history section: other than the venue of matches, it could be argued that the national team has very little to do with the game in Ireland. The history of this game in Ireland should deal with the formation of the leagues, the spread of the game beyond the Dublin area, the development of professionalism, relations with the GAA, etc. Kevin McE (talk) 15:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, your right. Scanning through it does just read as a history of the national team. Quite a good one too, but it doesn't belong here. Large parts of it should be transferred across to the National Team article, if they're not already there. This is quite common in a lot of these "Football in...." articles, they just cover the national team. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have considerably edited down the section along these lines (I forgot to leave an edit summary though). Except for the last two paragraphs, I haven't added any text of my own. The section could still do with further editing. Rather than paste the removed material here, I am going to put it on the national team talk page. Scolaire (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the national team mentions seem more appropriate in size to the rest of the history section now. What it really needs now is some stuff about the relatonship between the sport and Gaelic Games. Can anyone expand that? My knowledge on the topic is a little hazy Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? Gaelic games have nothing to do with football really. There could I suppose be a bit about Rule42 and the limited opening of Croke park for a few matches, and the continued refusal to let football be played on GAA pitches. Perhaps a bit about Gaelic Games in relative decline and football increasing as the recent ESRI report stated? Related to that is the relative imbalance of government capital spending. Historically the defined rules for football were codified 23 years before gaelic so that's hardly worth even mentioning. The temporary "opening" of Croke Park is mentioned on the national team page, and most of the other points can be discussed in terms of football in Ireland without needing to mention the GAA. What kind of things had you in mind for this article? --Albert.white (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure, but didn't the GAA try to supress football, and try and starve it of popularity? I thought that was one of the reasons club football in the Republic didn't match a similar level as the Scottish game, say? I might be wrong - as I say I'm no great expert on the GAA - and my knowledge of Irish club football is mostly limited to the last few years. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelic games in the early twentieth century, unlike today I must stress, had a strong political element, being associated with advanced nationalism. It was never likely to be played or supported by the same people that played or supported "soccer" or rugby. At the same time, "soccer" did not have a big following outside what is now Northern Ireland. This from Football Association of Ireland#History: "The IFA had been founded in 1880 in Belfast as the governing body for football on the island of Ireland... All but two clubs in the Irish League were based in what would become Northern Ireland. While this largely reflected the balance of footballing strength within Ireland, southern clubs felt the IFA was doing little to promote the game outside the professional clubs in its heartland." (emphasis mine) The GAA introduced the "ban", which prohibited members from playing or attending "foreign" games. While this robbed football of a few players who would have been equally good at both sports, it would be wrong to say that it had the effect of "suppressing" football, or starving it of popularity. I think Albert's suggestions would just about achieve the right balance. Scolaire (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still probably call that trying to supress it, if people couldn't go to both games. There must have been a reason why football has taken such a long time to take off in ceirtan areas. The history could briefly mention historic attempts to supress it by the GAA, along with the other suggestions by Albert. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget to WP:Cite WP:RS or it could look like WP:OR Gnevin (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some stuff on this subject in David Goldblatt's The Ball is Round, a global history of association football. He mentions the topic when adressing the spread of the game around the world. I briefly scanned it using the index pagees listed GAA. Although he doesn't use the word "supress", he does appear to suggest there was a concerted attempt by the GAA to "exclude and "marginalise" Brtish sports in general, and football in particular. Even if this attempt to limit football in Ireland failed, it is still worth mentioning. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the GAA very actively try to suppress football. The attempt to annex Tallaght is one example and the trouble that Wexford Youths are having with their ground can be traced back to GAA circles also. The days I was in the court listening to the Tallaght Stadium Judicial Review case really opened my eyes to the views of the GAA... I haven't read The Ball is Round but that suggestion seems to be fairly accurate. The playing ban deserves a mention as does the existing ban on playing football on GAA pitches. But I wouldn't like to see too much space devoted to the GAA. I'll have a reread of some of Who stole our game at the weekend and see if there is much citeable in there. --Albert.white (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, goodnight, if that's the way it's going! I thought you two were the ones who wanted to talk about sport and not politics! I'm unwatching this page. You go ahead and write what you want. Scolaire (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had a skim through Who stole our game and tbh didn't find much justification for inclusion for the GAA in this page. Yea sure they try to stop football at every oppertunity, but as Scolaire mentioned earlier the ban probably had little impact. If we want to discus the decline of Irish football in the 70's on we can probably point the finger closer to the FAI and the clubs. Televised football from the UK, stadiums not being improved, clubs being too interested in themselves and not seeing the big picture, and club owners being only interested in making money, all contributed to the decline fare more than the GAA hope to. Still that just warrants a couple of lines in the article.--Albert.white (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems worth a mention to me, but a fairly brief one. I would like to emphasise again this is not political as far as I am concerned. The Goldblatt book is far from political, and he devotes a handful of pages to the issue, in purely sporting terms. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, I'm Italian and so I've nothing against Irish Football or GAA. I came here to see something about the political controversy of association football in this country, a quite famous issue. But I don't see anything...no mentions. This is a bad thing, I think. Where should I go to read something about the political history of GAA/FAI in Ireland? --necronudist (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


should there also be a mention of britains attempts to destroy gaelic games such as shooting people they found playing gaelic games??? surely this is worth a mention if you argue the gaa try to suppress british sports —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati16 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Association football in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Association football in the Republic of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Association_football_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland&oldid=1205426941"