James McClean set for transfer into the Championship with Wigan

I live in a country were nearly everybody over the age of 70 could use that excuse.

 

Sunderland have accepted a bid from Championship side Wigan for winger James McClean, Sky Sports sources understand.

The 24-year-old looks surplus to requirements under Paolo Di Canio's regime, having previously starred under Martin O'Neill.

McClean joined Sunderland in 2011, signed by Steve Bruce, but injuries meant he never got to play under him before his departure and instead he was blooded by O'Neill.

The former Derry City man made a stunning impact and was tied down to a new-long term deal in early 2012.

However, after a brilliant debut campaign, things did not work out last season and he appears to not be in the plans of Di Canio, who is ready to let him leave after already bringing in nine new faces this summer.

Wigan have now made their move and have had a bid accepted as Owen Coyle looks to further bolster their promotion push back to the Premier League.

It is understood that at least two more clubs have an interest in McClean.

 

It would be nice if you constructively backed up that statement. I'd love to see you defend him in the middle of a few ex squadies who'd served a term or two in Ulster.

 

Well said bristolcat. The people that will sit and say 'you don't know what he went though as a kid' are just condoning the violence that these thugs live by (which every side they are on)

 

Not sure if Bri is being devils advocate or not . If he aint then he`s being a bit naive imo

 

As a Mental health worker, ok, I'll back up my comments. Taken for an article I read and happen to see it's merits because i'm open minded enough to try and see things from more than one standpoint. I didn't post it because I thought it was too heavy but in an attempt to help you gain a bit of empathy and insight into his situation i'll post it. Then you might realise how flippant and offensive some of the comments about him are. Remember, I'm on the fence but nobody is defending his messed up head. Remember, he's not very smart and he was once an innocent little boy.


On the morning of 31 July 1972, British soldiers entered the Creggan Heights area of Derry. It was part of a wider operation to invade the 'no-go' areas which were controlled by Irish Republican paramilitaries.

Whilst there, a soldier from a Company of the 1st Batallion of Royal Scots opened fire on a small group of unarmed teenage civilian residents, killing 15-year-old Daniel Hegarty and seriously wounding his 16-year old cousin Christopher, before leaving the boys on the ground and vacating the area without offering either medical examination or assistance.

A 'hopelessly inadequate and dreadful' military inquiry was held a year later which returned an open verdict and a Ministry of Defence document described Daniel as 'a terrorist'.

Just six months earlier, 14 men - including 7 teenagers - had also died in Derry at the hands of British soldiers following a civil rights march on what has come to be known as Bloody Sunday. That total included 6 men, again, from Creggan - the place that James McClean calls home.

Since McClean took to the field against Everton as the only Premier League player who did not have a poppy on his shirt, there has been a lot said about his decision. Our own head editor, Simon Walsh, offered a staunch defence of the player's right to choose whether he wore a poppy or not. Others, such as Sky Sports' Graeme Bailey insisted that the poppy appeal is such a treasured facet of the British identity that all players plying their trade here should be forced to embrace it.

It is a reasonable debate, but while people get carried away with freely indulging their outrage at his decision, few seem willing to consider why McClean made the decision in the first place. Instead, ignorance, assumption, and conjecture have reigned.

Personally, I consider myself fortunate to be born British. I am patriotic by nature and genuinely proud of our military history and the legacy it has left the world. A direct relative of mine died on the Hindenburg line in the First World War and I can't pass the South Hylton war memorial that carries his name without feeling that sense of pride. My granda, whom I never knew, fought in the second world war, and hearing about his various wartime adventures in battles such as Arnham were treasured times.

But what if I grew up in Creggan? What if the memorials I walked past every day were to commemorate innocent teenage lives savagely taken by the British Army? What if the tales I grew up hearing were of homes so devastated by loss at the hands of our military that mothers continued setting a place at the dinner table for massacred children even months after their deaths? What if the pub my parents went to in order to celebrate my international call-up were filled with broken and scarred families, still carrying the pain of The Troubles? What would my regard for the British Armed Forces be then? Not a very high one, I am sure.

I won't say that I have even the first idea of how being raised in such a community effects those who are born into it. It is not something I could possibly know. By the same token, however, I won't be so ignorant to deny the likelihood that it had some kind of effect somewhere along the line.

There is this idea out there that history is a matter of fact. A simple list of events in black and white for all to see and accept. The truth is that history is, and always has been, a matter of perception. Ask one of the millions of women raped at the hands of the Red Army as they advanced on Berlin through Eastern Europe in the closing stages of the Second World War, and it is unlikely you'll hear the word 'liberators', for example. The lines become blurred. There is no definitive and universal interpretation.

From our perspective, McClean choose not to wear a symbol closely associated with our war heroes and noble dead. But from his perspective he chose not to wear a symbol closely associated with an organization who - for all its brave servicemen and women of the past - marched into his community, opened fire on children, committed atrocities, branded the innocent dead 'terrorists', and left a deep scarr. When something that savage has touched you on a personal level, whatever other good they might have done at some point or another must surely fade into the background.

I have heard many arguments as to why I should be outraged at McClean's decision not to wear a poppy, each revolving around a purely subjective interpretation that the player is having thrust upon him and then judged against.

I am told that you can not respect those who have served in the armed forces or their sacrifice without wearing a poppy, but I haven't worn a poppy at all this year yet know I have respect for their cause.

I am told that simply not wearing a poppy is an act of disrespect and implies hatred, but find that a staggering quantum leap wholly without justification. Are those of us who are not growing a moustache this month expressing hate for those suffering with prostate cancer? Of course not.

I am told that the whole thing was nothing more than an attempt at attention-seeking, yet I have seen no public statements issued at all by McClean on the subject.

I am told that given the time that has passed McClean should leave the past in the past, and not allow the wrongs committed against his forefathers effect his judgement in the present. I wonder how many of those making such a claim still harbour hatred for the Conservative Party due to Thatcher's decimation of the industries that previous generations were built upon in Sunderland?

I am told that since he is playing his football in a city with our own proud military traditions that a failure to wear a poppy is a failure to show adequate respect for the heritage of the fans, yet if we have the right to be proud of our own heritage and embrace it as part of our identity and ideals, doesn't James McClean retain the same right to do the same with his own?

Whichever way you want to look at it, we cannot be outraged that our own ideals, principles, and heritage are not being honoured whilst simultaneously refusing to accept those that belong to others. We simply do not have that right.

We are not talking about someone here who burned poppies or staged a demonstration during a Remembrance Day service. It isn't as if he has gone out of his way to abuse his profile to make inflammatory political statements that incite hatred and division. He didn't even refuse to observe the minutes silence at Goodison Park. He paid his respects just like everyone else in attendance did.

All he is guilty of is making a quiet and dignified stand of nonconformity in accordance with his own upbringing and principles and, to be perfectly honest, the roots of those principles are considerably easier to understand than they are to vilify. It is simply a case of checking the history books and accepting that just because we don't share those principles it does not necessarily make them any less valid.

And what is the alternative, anyway? Condemn someone based upon their heritage and their refusal to conform to the ideals and beliefs of the majority? Perhaps advocate banishing the heathen to a far flung extremity of the territories? That's been done before. Personally, I consider it an immeasurably worse way to sully the sacrifice of those who gave their lives for our freedom than simply exercising your right to not wear a poppy.




Which is why his footballing ability should be the only thing up for debate here. Because there's two sides to every story and because a persons own experiences are unique to themselves and while ignorant little men like you pass of vile flippant remarks, you forget this lad has feelings. It's not necessary to keep throwing politics in the lads face. He's daft, not very intelligent, mentally scared and will learn the hard way. What's your excuse?

 

Alright lads, been a while...I always like weighing in on these NI/IRA debates as I went to Uni in Belfast, come from a mixed religion family, and my Mam/family were born and raised in Portadown (as Loyalist as you can get) despite being Catholic.

First off, ****e footballer, so you'd do well to sell him.

In terms of religion. I don't think his decision not to wear the poppy was as motivated by pain/hardship as you may believe. It's based more on the tribalism of Northern Ireland as a country. Would you wear a Newcastle shirt because your job demanded it? Wearing a poppy is akin to that for a Republican. Yes, many Irish/Republicans died and should be honoured using the poppy, but similarly, many great Newcastle players have done amazing things in our region as a whole - logic doesn't come into it. His avoidance of the poppy, is as much to do with the Loyalists hijacking it in Northern Ireland and using it as a symbol for their own cause (much like the phrase 'English and Proud' bears immediate connotations of Right Wing EDL/BNP members), for him to wear it, he'd be going against something which is established in his community, something all his mates, his family and his neighbours hold dear.

As for genuinely supporting the IRA, The IRA who fought for a free Ireland (1916ish) were justified in their war. The Provisional IRA (70s-90s) used horrific methods, yet, their overall aims were understandable, Catholics were genuinely treated in the same manner as black people during the civil rights movement and you had people like the Shankhill Butchers literally roaming the streets, murdering people with butchers knives PURELY because they were Catholic. It's widely reported that the police knew who the butchers were, but felt their hands were tied. In that sense you can understand why people felt the need to take arms against such an overt injustice, however, the murder of innocent people is murder no matter how you try and dress it up, military, paramilitary or otherwise. The current factions of 'IRA' are like the school yard bullies. The majority of people hate them, hate what they stand for and hate what they do. One of my close friends at Uni was the cousin of the last man murdered in the 'IRA' conflict (Ronan Kerr, killed by a car bomb in 2011) and she, despite being Republican in her views (the overall aim of achieving a united Ireland) would despise being associated with the people who brutally murdered a member of her family - just keep that in mind when you talk about Republicans as a whole.

^^^^ That article above makes some great points!

 

Jesus not the religion crack again, discuss elsewhere please

 

Bri we can go back decades as well and lull on the wrongs done to our forefathers. if you want to sit on a politically correct fence about this then go ahead. How can you defend a professional footballer who has politically divided the support of the club?

Me, i'm with the majority of Sunderland fans and will be glad to see him go.

 

Devil's advocate here like the British army did at Peterloo (Manchester) and have done against the Catholics in NI.

Agree with Bri on this one sell if he's not good enough but not because of his back ground.
Personally would like to see him loaned out to a championship club to see if he improves. Remember he was part if a piss poor team last season.
But a couple if million profit fair enough remember we will have to pay Derry City 1/2 a million in sell on!

 

Just like Di Canio's reported views divided this club!

 

It's nothing to do with politics. I'm defending his mental health and trying to understand the mental abuse he suffered as an innocent child with all these nasty politics that warped his mind and robbed him of a childhood. The lad has done **** all except grow up in absolute chaos. The lads got demons can't you see that?

I'll be glad to see him go but it's because he isn't good enough.

 

****e footballer with ****e views . Lets all live in the past and not move forward .
Those romans what a bunch of ****ers they were , vikings them ****ers raped my great aunt x50 the bastards Did you know them germans bombed our fish shop .
ITS tossers like him who keep the fires of hatred burning . **** me peterloo when was that sometime IN THE 1700`S 1800`S if my memory serves me right . I don`t give a flying **** whether he wore a poppy or not .But i do care about my country being terrorised by a bunch of cowards and anybody who has leanings towards these cowards can get to **** no matter what **** upbringing they have had ............. I know what i will do go and kill someone but its ok because i had a **** up bringing .
I will save my sympathy for the victims .

 

Well said Bristol

 

The victims on both sides or just the British ones! He cares about his country been terrorized by cowards can't get much cowardly than shooting unarmed children! Argument works both ways and atrocities committed by both sides the British Army included! Your keeping the hatred and bigotry going and living in the past and not moving forward!

 

victims on bothsides . I hate terrorists and what they stand for and am happy to keep that alive . I despise anybody who have leanings or surport to terrorists .
I am not reponsible for our goverment faillings . People hate me for who I am what I belive and the country I live in . peace to all mankind but **** the evil bastards I hate the ****ers .

 

i did with the paras all the little gits were throwing bottles and stones loads at the lads trying to cause injuries but if we caught one and clipped him they cried like bitches, along with the grown ups, apart from being useless at football and thick , the disrespect alone is a reason to ship

 

since when has the North been a republic , republicans moved there for better work opportunities as there was only the North or Emigrate

 

haway if you put a fact down don't try it as a headline grabber at lease explain the reasons why , there are 2 sides to every story

 

So the north has always been completely protestant and loyalist? look a the history of the Troubles the whole civil rights movement in the 60's was due to Catholics having far less chance of a job having worse housing conditions been harassed by a bigoted loyalist police. The biggest recruitment for the Provos came after Bloody Sunday! The British Army was originally sent over to protect the Catholics but became a tool of the protestant northern Irish governments.
By the way I don't support terrorism. But as some one once said one man's terrorist is another freedom fighter!