Foluwashola Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Why does it matter that we haven't worn one in the past? Poppy's have been worn since 1920, don't see any major issue with national teams adopting it. Not patriotic in the slightest but if a team wishes to make a small gesture towards their dead by wearing a little red circle in a meaningless friendly, they should have every right to do so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 To be fair, if this whole poppy on the shirt thing was commercialized - with all the proceedings going to Help for Heroes and The Royal British Legion, etc I would happily buy a shirt. Think it's beyond a fucking joke that we couldn't have a poppy on our shirts. I actually think if this had have been another nation it probably wouldn't have been a problem. FIFA are a bunch of total and utter wankers and need to fuck right off. Corrupt twats. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Whether it happened last year or not is also irrelevant in the current debate. It's not a political, religious or commercial symbol, therefore FIFA are talking shite. In that case it's never been political, religious or commercial; we've just never been bothered about having it on before, ever. Why are we suddenly arsed now? Genuinely interested to know what kicked this off. It is probably brought on by some random act of patriotism, as opposed to a genuine display of respect to the dead. I suppose I just don't see the harm in starting it. EDIT: The idea probably came about by some random act of patriotism I mean. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Why does it matter that we haven't worn one in the past? Poppy's have been worn since 1920, don't see any major issue with national teams adopting it. Not patriotic in the slightest but if a team wishes to make a small gesture towards their dead by wearing a little red circle in a meaningless friendly, they should have every right to do so. Pretty much my stance on it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 We're still at war and still losing lives of true heroes. These supposed 'heroes' that many look up to, either as children or as grown men, are role models for thousands of the population. Wearing a poppy on their shirt therefore urges children to understand it, and embrace it, as they rightly should...IMO obviously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Bit off topic like, but seeing loads of "does my poppy offend you, fuck off out the country" etc statuses and likes on Facebook Cannot believe some of the shit half of the people I actualy like come out with on there man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's got nowt to do with football and even less so if we start bringing current military action into the equation. To say it's not political is naive in the extreme. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's a mark of respect for dead soldiers, the fact that they have died in a war brought on by politics doesn't make the gesture itself political imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 I'm with Dave on this tbh. Rule's a rule and the same applies for every country. Typical victim mentality being taken up by the British public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's nonsense to suggest that it has nothing to do with politics. It's all about the English/British national myth. Us vs The Continent. Battle of Britain. Agincourt. Blah Blah. It romanticises sacrifice. But the Great War wasn't fought for any high ideals. It was an imperialist squabble that ended an age of empires. Casualties were enormous -- but largely because military strategists had utterly failed to understand the impact that the machine gun would have on the nature of warfare. The generational consequences of fighting a war of attrition (not just the deaths of so many young men, but also the degree to which the first world war and its botched settlement led into the second war) should be laid at the feet of our own, miserably stupid politicians and generals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's got nowt to do with football and even less so if we start bringing current military action into the equation. To say it's not political is naive in the extreme. Politics and football cross paths plenty of time to be fair. I've seen Macedonians burning England flags outside the ground before qualifiers, I've heard our players racially abused on the continent, I've seen footballers going to war torn countries to show support, etc, etc. Like it or not our soldiers more than likely love sports, and more specifically football. This will be a hugely televised friendly I would imagine, and some lads and lasses will more than likely see it in Afghanistan or Iraq and I'm sure it would raise morale, to see something so simple as a poppy on an England shirt. Football is tribal, and has been for many a year - people use it as a way to represent who they are, and where they come from. We come from a land that is free, and has fought and died for this freedom, why shouldn't we be proud? Whilst I agree this isn't the be all and end all, and will be quickly forgotten, FIFA have been totally embarrassing by not allowing it to go ahead. I'm sick of the double standards we receive for being English. Nee wonder Black people got pissed off with racism. It's millions time worse and this irritates the shit out of me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Evening Standard's take on why this is only coming up as an issue now... The Football Association have never previously requested the symbol on an England shirt because the use of poppies on football kit is a relatively recent phenomenon. Leicester were the first club to instigate the adornment of poppies on their kit in 2003 and it has gradually been adopted in what must be considered one of football's more thoughtful and considerate acts. Since England played a friendly in Geneva against Argentina on November 12, 2005, they have not had a match so close to the 11th hour of the 11th month of the 11th day which, on the 11th year of this millennium carries so much significance in marking the end of World War One. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-24007829-defy-fifa-play-with-a-poppy-england.do Personally I think it's a load of fuss over nothing. I didn't think anything could be as dull as the Terry story this week but I've been proven wrong. Also, what if - for whatever reason - a player didn't want to wear a poppy on their shirt? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's a mark of respect for dead soldiers, the fact that they have died in a war brought on by politics doesn't make the gesture itself political imo. The fact that money from the shirts/poppy symbol is going to support a military body is enough for FIFA to say, "Like fuck". They can't afford to set a precedent. It's nowt to do with international football which is what this boils down to. Sometimes matches occur that are played in politically-charged circumstances: matches with Israel, the Koreas, some African games, etc. FIFA has to ensure that ultimately the game is simply a match between two football sides. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Evening Standard's take on why this is only coming up as an issue now... The Football Association have never previously requested the symbol on an England shirt because the use of poppies on football kit is a relatively recent phenomenon. Leicester were the first club to instigate the adornment of poppies on their kit in 2003 and it has gradually been adopted in what must be considered one of football's more thoughtful and considerate acts. Since England played a friendly in Geneva against Argentina on November 12, 2005, they have not had a match so close to the 11th hour of the 11th month of the 11th day which, on the 11th year of this millennium carries so much significance in marking the end of World War One. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-24007829-defy-fifa-play-with-a-poppy-england.do Personally I think it's a load of fuss over nothing. I didn't think anything could be as dull as the Terry story this week but I've been proven wrong. Also, what if - for whatever reason - a player didn't want to wear a poppy on their shirt? I'd think that was fair enough, we have a freedom and democratic view in this country. Regardless of this though, they would be shafted by the media and football fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's a mark of respect for dead soldiers, the fact that they have died in a war brought on by politics doesn't make the gesture itself political imo. The fact that money from the shirts/poppy symbol is going to support a military body is enough for FIFA to say, "Like f***". They can't afford to set a precedent. It's nowt to do with international football which is what this boils down to. Sometimes matches occur that are played in politically-charged circumstances: matches with Israel, the Koreas, some African games, etc. FIFA has to ensure that ultimately the game is simply a match between two football sides. I wonder what Spain think about this? Think they might get their owld Armada oot... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's nonsense to suggest that it has nothing to do with politics. It's all about the English/British national myth. Us vs The Continent. Battle of Britain. Agincourt. Blah Blah. It romanticises sacrifice. But the Great War wasn't fought for any high ideals. It was an imperialist squabble that ended an age of empires. Casualties were enormous -- but largely because military strategists had utterly failed to understand the impact that the machine gun would have on the nature of warfare. The generational consequences of fighting a war of attrition (not just the deaths of so many young men, but also the degree to which the first world war and its botched settlement led into the second war) should be laid at the feet of our own, miserably stupid politicians and generals. "English/British national myth. Us vs The Continent" Aye because we are the only nation to wear a poppy to remember war dead... I don't realy understand how the rest of your post is supposed to support your theory like, innocent kids die in pointless wars due to political squables that does not involve them. The poppy (a symbol of death for centuries) is used as a symbol for there 'pointless' death, not as a symbol of the war they were fighting in. Anyway that's just my stance on it, it'll probably not change. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's a mark of respect for dead soldiers, the fact that they have died in a war brought on by politics doesn't make the gesture itself political imo. The fact that money from the shirts/poppy symbol is going to support a military body is enough for FIFA to say, "Like fuck". They can't afford to set a precedent. It's nowt to do with international football which is what this boils down to. Sometimes matches occur that are played in politically-charged circumstances: matches with Israel, the Koreas, some African games, etc. FIFA has to ensure that ultimately the game is simply a match between two football sides. I know people like to lay the boot into FIFA because they're a bunch of corrupt wankers, but their job is to run football and they're doing the right thing in this instance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's a mark of respect for dead soldiers, the fact that they have died in a war brought on by politics doesn't make the gesture itself political imo. The fact that money from the shirts/poppy symbol is going to support a military body is enough for FIFA to say, "Like fuck". They can't afford to set a precedent. It's nowt to do with international football which is what this boils down to. Sometimes matches occur that are played in politically-charged circumstances: matches with Israel, the Koreas, some African games, etc. FIFA has to ensure that ultimately the game is simply a match between two football sides. Fair point, I suppose that explains why they would allow the armband instead of a customised shirt. EDIT: I still disagree that the poppy symbol itself is 'political' like Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's nonsense to suggest that it has nothing to do with politics. It's all about the English/British national myth. Us vs The Continent. Battle of Britain. Agincourt. Blah Blah. It romanticises sacrifice. But the Great War wasn't fought for any high ideals. It was an imperialist squabble that ended an age of empires. Casualties were enormous -- but largely because military strategists had utterly failed to understand the impact that the machine gun would have on the nature of warfare. The generational consequences of fighting a war of attrition (not just the deaths of so many young men, but also the degree to which the first world war and its botched settlement led into the second war) should be laid at the feet of our own, miserably stupid politicians and generals. None of that addresses why we can't pay tribute to those that did make a sacrifice, for whatever reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interpolic Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Evening Standard's take on why this is only coming up as an issue now... The Football Association have never previously requested the symbol on an England shirt because the use of poppies on football kit is a relatively recent phenomenon. Leicester were the first club to instigate the adornment of poppies on their kit in 2003 and it has gradually been adopted in what must be considered one of football's more thoughtful and considerate acts. Since England played a friendly in Geneva against Argentina on November 12, 2005, they have not had a match so close to the 11th hour of the 11th month of the 11th day which, on the 11th year of this millennium carries so much significance in marking the end of World War One. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-24007829-defy-fifa-play-with-a-poppy-england.do Personally I think it's a load of fuss over nothing. I didn't think anything could be as dull as the Terry story this week but I've been proven wrong. Also, what if - for whatever reason - a player didn't want to wear a poppy on their shirt? I'd think that was fair enough, we have a freedom and democratic view in this country. Regardless of this though, they would be shafted by the media and football fans. Well aye, they'd get fucking slaughtered. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's a mark of respect for dead soldiers, the fact that they have died in a war brought on by politics doesn't make the gesture itself political imo. The fact that money from the shirts/poppy symbol is going to support a military body is enough for FIFA to say, "Like f***". They can't afford to set a precedent. It's nowt to do with international football which is what this boils down to. Sometimes matches occur that are played in politically-charged circumstances: matches with Israel, the Koreas, some African games, etc. FIFA has to ensure that ultimately the game is simply a match between two football sides. I know people like to lay the boot into FIFA because they're a bunch of corrupt wankers, but their job is to run football and they're doing the right thing in this instance. How on earth is the poppy going to cause unrest amongst rival nations? It stands for nothing but respect and remembrance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlufPurdi Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Argh, two threads? It's all a crock of shit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OzzieMandias Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Evening Standard's take on why this is only coming up as an issue now... The Football Association have never previously requested the symbol on an England shirt because the use of poppies on football kit is a relatively recent phenomenon. Leicester were the first club to instigate the adornment of poppies on their kit in 2003 and it has gradually been adopted in what must be considered one of football's more thoughtful and considerate acts. Since England played a friendly in Geneva against Argentina on November 12, 2005, they have not had a match so close to the 11th hour of the 11th month of the 11th day which, on the 11th year of this millennium carries so much significance in marking the end of World War One. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-24007829-defy-fifa-play-with-a-poppy-england.do Personally I think it's a load of fuss over nothing. I didn't think anything could be as dull as the Terry story this week but I've been proven wrong. Also, what if - for whatever reason - a player didn't want to wear a poppy on their shirt? Aye, I've been wondering that too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 It's a mark of respect for dead soldiers, the fact that they have died in a war brought on by politics doesn't make the gesture itself political imo. The fact that money from the shirts/poppy symbol is going to support a military body is enough for FIFA to say, "Like f***". They can't afford to set a precedent. It's nowt to do with international football which is what this boils down to. Sometimes matches occur that are played in politically-charged circumstances: matches with Israel, the Koreas, some African games, etc. FIFA has to ensure that ultimately the game is simply a match between two football sides. I know people like to lay the boot into FIFA because they're a bunch of corrupt wankers, but their job is to run football and they're doing the right thing in this instance. How on earth is the poppy going to cause unrest amongst rival nations? It stands for nothing but respect and remembrance. It sets a dangerous precedent. You allow this and then you have countries wanting to commemorate war victories or pay respect to charities or all kinds of nonsense. Putting a blanket ban in place (which has always been the rule) means this doesn't even become a topic. Like Keefaz says it's a sport and FIFA's responsibility is to make sure it remains solely about the sport. It's their job to make sure politics and sport remain separate, and I completely agree with that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted November 9, 2011 Share Posted November 9, 2011 Evening Standard's take on why this is only coming up as an issue now... The Football Association have never previously requested the symbol on an England shirt because the use of poppies on football kit is a relatively recent phenomenon. Leicester were the first club to instigate the adornment of poppies on their kit in 2003 and it has gradually been adopted in what must be considered one of football's more thoughtful and considerate acts. Since England played a friendly in Geneva against Argentina on November 12, 2005, they have not had a match so close to the 11th hour of the 11th month of the 11th day which, on the 11th year of this millennium carries so much significance in marking the end of World War One. http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-sport/football/article-24007829-defy-fifa-play-with-a-poppy-england.do Personally I think it's a load of fuss over nothing. I didn't think anything could be as dull as the Terry story this week but I've been proven wrong. Also, what if - for whatever reason - a player didn't want to wear a poppy on their shirt? Aye, I've been wondering that too. As if the robotic, braindead morons in the England squad would make such a statement. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts