O’Neill revisits the loyalty question

Northern Ireland manager Michael O’Neill believes the fate of Darron Gibson and other high-profile players who’ve switched allegiance from the North to the Republic should make younger players across the border think twice before following suit.

“If you look at the Northern lads who’ve come down here, none of them’s had a particularly positive experience, let’s be honest,” he said.

“Marc Wilson had his problems, James [McClean] has had his problems and Darron Gibson has certainly not played anywhere near as much for the Republic of Ireland as he would have done for Northern Ireland. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.”

O’Neill also questioned the fairness of the FAI’s role in attracting players south of the border.

“I think to go and ask a player at 17 or 19 to change their allegiance without any potential promise of a full international career, I think there’s a moral issue there and maybe that should be looked at, and it’s not just a case of ‘let’s get them all to declare for us’,” he said.

“If you’re an 18 or 19-year-old that’s made that decision — and there are players who’ve made it at that age — and then find that you have no route to being a senior international or your pathway is blocked because of more senior players, I don’t think that’s to the benefit of a player’s career. And I think there is a moral aspect, as an association, to make sure that the interest is genuine.”

Accepting that the “rule applies”, however, O’Neill said he can only do the best to retain young playing talent for the North.

“I always say to our U17s — ‘you’re two years away from me picking you and you have to think like that’. So any player thinking along the lines of their eligibility, I’ve met with them personally and outlined to them why I believe they’d be better served playing for Northern Ireland. But after that, there’s not really much I can do. The rule applies, rightly or wrongly, and we just have to make the best of it.”

O’Neill is still looking for his first win as Northern Ireland manager, with current top two in the their World Cup qualifying group, Russia and Israel, next up to visit Windsor Park later this month. The task of getting to the finals is, he points out, much harder now than it was when Northern Ireland famously qualified in 1982 and again in 1986.

“In 1982, second in a group of four got you to the World Cup. Second place in a group of five qualified you in 1986. Now second in a group of seven gets you a play-off against Holland! It’s a totally different scenario to qualify now. The main objective is to be as competitive as possible.”

Reflecting on the aftermath of his departure from Shamrock Rovers — which saw Stephen Kenny succeeded by interim manager Brian Laws before the appointment of new man Trevor Croly — O’ Neill is critical of some of the club’s decision-making.

“I didn’t understand the situation of sacking Stephen Kenny when they did. The appointment of Brian Laws was a mystifying one for me because I’m not sure what level of consultancy the Rovers board felt they needed by appointing Brian. If you look at the appointment that was then made, ie Trevor, I don’t think that came from the benefit of bringing in someone from outside the league, ie Brian Laws.

“As a manager, you need a strong board and the support of the board. There will be rocky times this season for Trevor. If you lose two games at Tallaght, the natives get restless at times. It’s important he has that support and the board are strong for him.”

Having enjoyed so much success during his time with the Hoops, O’Neill said his biggest disappointment arose out of their celebrated qualification for the Europa League group stage.

“We played three Europa League games here and I don’t think one of them sold out. The first time a League of Ireland club ever played in the group stage of a European competition — that was a disappointment for me and, as a club, we should have done better at that.”

O’Neill was also at pains to deny that he’d made excessive financial demands before leaving Rovers.

“The idea that I asked for a king’s ransom to stay and wanted a huge amount of difference in the budget is totally incorrect. What happened was basically I gave them options for two models. This is how we could move to a full-time model; this is how we could stay in our current model. The difference in costing of that was a difference of 10% in the budget. Everything was in place. They had to look at it and think was it beneficial to go to a slightly more full-time model or would the model stay as it is? But I couldn’t tell you what they thought because nobody told me.”