Eligibility Rules, Okay

[Predator]

Edit: Which pursuit are you referring to, by the way? The declaration proposal or the possible lobbying to FIFA to have Irish nationality regarded as a shared nationality? I was referring to the latter.


I was referring to the former.
Forgive my lack of clarity. I was referring to the latter.
That said, I'm still undecided on the former.

[jbyrne]

I'll hopefully get a detailed and balanced insight into current IFA strategy on the issue when I'm in the Ukraine at the end of next month.

its Ukraine. no "the".
in the interests of respecting nationality and all that

[ifk101]

I'd simply want the IFA to select and develop players from Under 19 and above who have a desire to represent the Association at Senior International level - whether that be for footballing and/or political reasons.


The very nature of nationalism/republicanism is that it wants to see Northern Ireland no longer exist.


The decision to play for Ireland represents an exercising of "political" reasons to switch from the Northern Ireland FA. To use your quote and a previous quote attributable to you, this "political" decision to switch, is of a nationalism/ republicanism nature - player is "against" the existence of Northern Ireland. Given the nature of this political decision to switch, a subsequent switch back for footballing reasons and the player's acceptance back into the fold would appear at odds. Why would you want players that have switched and switched back to represent the Northern Ireland FA? Because if they are true to their beliefs, they do not want the team they are representing to exist. Shouldn't said players be honest with themselves? Surely these shysters can't have any genuine desire to represent the Northern Ireland FA and you can't have any genuine desire to see them taking the place of players that are true to their beliefs?

[Not Brazil]

Neither in theory nor in practice. They are allocated independently of one another by two separate, distinct and sovereign bodies of nationality law. One is not dependent on the other and one need not necessarily be held simultaneously with the other. A NI-born dual British and Irish citizen can renounce his British citizenship but that has no bearing on his Irish citizenship, for example.


The fundamental tenet of FIFA Eligibility Rules is Article 5.

How on earth did FIFA think their proposal was going to work within the framework of Article 5?

I don't think they thought that one through.

That said, if Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland was enough to make a player eligible for the Irish Football Association, then Article 6, by the letter of the (FIFA) law, would have to apply.

A daft proposal by FIFA really.

[DannyInvincible]

The fundamental tenet of FIFA Eligibility Rules is Article 5.

How on earth did FIFA think their proposal was going to work within the framework of Article 5?

I don't think they thought that one through.

That said, if Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland was enough to make a player eligible for the Irish Football Association, then Article 6, by the letter of the (FIFA) law, would have to apply.

A daft proposal by FIFA really.

The logical inference of making such a proposal follows that FIFA would have passed further legislation to render what they were proposing exempt from the application of article 6.

[Not Brazil]

The decision to play for Ireland represents an exercising of "political" reasons to switch from the Northern Ireland FA. To use your quote and a previous quote attributable to you, this "political" decision to switch, is of a nationalism/ republicanism nature - player is "against" the existence of Northern Ireland. Given the nature of this political decision to switch, a subsequent switch back for footballing reasons and the player's acceptance back into the fold would appear at odds. Why would you want players that have switched and switched back to represent the Northern Ireland FA? Because if they are true to their beliefs, they do not want the team they are representing to exist. Shouldn't said players be honest with themselves? Surely these shysters can't have any genuine desire to represent the Northern Ireland FA and you can't have any genuine desire to see them taking the place of players that are true to their beliefs?

Of course, the IFA is under absolutely no obligation to select anyone expressing a desire to switch to them. You'll note that Mr Bruce has not been selected, inspite of his "enthusiasm" to switch.

The reasons why a nationalist/republican would want to switch from the south to the Irish Football Association would not be for me to understand or explain - but, if they did, I'll cheer them on all the same.

If they had played for the Irish Football Association at Under 19 and above, switched to the south, and wanted to switch back (if they could?), I wouldn't select them, going forward.

[Not Brazil]

The logical inference of making such a proposal follows that FIFA would have passed further legislation to render what they were proposing exempt from the application of article 6.

Large can of worms.

In such a scenario, it would be one rule for the Irish, and another rule for everyone else.

Problematic.

[DannyInvincible]

Large can of worms.

In such a scenario, it would be one rule for the Irish, and another rule for everyone else.

Problematic.

It would certainly have created an anomaly whereby just the IFA were treated differently to all other associations in that citizens of an external jurisdiction would have become eligible to play for the IFA on account of their external citizenship that bore no logical relationship to the IFA - nothing would have changed with regard to eligibility to play for the FAI in that Irish citizens born north of the border already were eligible to play for the FAI on account of their Irish citizenship - but it appears FIFA were prepared to go ahead with it for no other rational reason than to placate the IFA's protests.

[osarusan]

but it appears FIFA were prepared to go ahead with it for no other rational reason than to placate the IFA's protests.

It appears to who?

I don't really see how it would have placated their protests, if it had immediately been followed by a change in regulations rendering it meaningless.

[DannyInvincible]

It appears to who?

I don't really see how it would have placated their protests, if it had immediately been followed by a change in regulations rendering it meaningless.

FIFA obviously proposed it in the hope it would satisfy the IFA. It would have been followed by a change in regulations to render it meaningful.

[osarusan]

FIFA obviously proposed it in the hope it would satisfy the IFA. It would have been followed by a change in regulations to render it meaningful.

If, as you say, it would have necessitated an extra piece of legislation to ensure that NI-born players were exempt from Article 6 and could play for the ROI, then in what way would it have been meaningful? It would basically give the IFA nothing, wouldn't it? Perhaps I've picked you up wrong.

[DannyInvincible]

In what way would it have been meaningful? Perhaps I've picked you up wrong.

Without a necessary amendment to article 6 (what was then article 16) or some additional legislation marking out the proposal as being exempt from the application of said article, FIFA's 2007 proposal aimed at solving the dispute between the IFA and FAI would otherwise have fallen foul of article 6 as Irish nationality would have subsequently been regarded as a shared nationality. Thus, without also intending to make some additional legislative change, such a proposal would have been meaningless and would not have made logical sense. In other words, in order for it to have been meaningful, it would have logically necessitated further legislative change.

[osarusan]

We're back to my original question - in what way does the proposal, including the necessary exemption, placate the IFA? How does it offer consolation, or benefit?

Without any exemption, it would have been incredibly meaningful for the IFA indeed, but I agree that this was never going to be the case.

[DannyInvincible]

We're back to my original question - in what way does the proposal, including the necessary exemption, placate the IFA? How does it offer consolation, or benefit?

FIFA proposed it under the mistaken belief or hope that it might satisfy them as it would have permitted Irish nationals born south of the border to play for NI by sole virtue of their Irish nationality. At the time, FIFA obviously believed that this was a good way of balancing what the IFA, and possibly FIFA themselves, perceived to be a lack of equilibrium or a "one-way situation". Whilst the FAI had no problem with the proposal, the IFA rejected it, obviously seeing little consolation or merit in it.

[Closed Account]

We're back to my original question - in what way does the proposal, including the necessary exemption, placate the IFA? How does it offer consolation, or benefit?

Without any exemption, it would have been incredibly meaningful for the IFA indeed, but I agree that this was never going to be the case.
It would of meant anyone " born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA]"
Which wouldn't of been much benefit. Because I'd guess if you went around to every 19 year old in Ireland, who couldn't previously play for NI before this amendment, which national team would you like to play for, my suspicion is:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tv/assets_c/2011/07/110705_Pointless_500-thumb-500x333-77027.jpg
Northern Ireland would be a pointless answer.

[Not Brazil]

It would of meant anyone " born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the [FAI] or the [IFA]"


Which would have meant Article 6 kicking in, unless exception was made for Republic Of Ireland Nationals.

Such an exception being legislated for would have opened a huge can of worms for FIFA.

[geysir]

Whilst not breaching any of the specific eligibility statutes, what you say is probably true. However, as you highlight, actually proving discrimination would be nigh impossible, especially if the association's strategy was informal and confidential. Then, would NB's proposal actually be discriminatory? Certainly, to use the word in its most neutral sense, selecting players and not selecting others is, by definition, discriminatory. But associations are entitled to select who they wish, or to engage in that form of discrimination, if you will. How does one prove they're engaging in the malign or proscribed form of discrimination where the players' (non-)selections are based on something beyond just the abilities of the players concerned? Could NB's proposal be interpreted as engaging in this malign form of discrimination?
I have absolutely no idea on the matter if a policy of discriminating with available young talent based on loyalty aspiration, which is nationality based, could be proven to conflict with anything in article 3. Never thought about that. Most probably it does not conflict with the statute right of the dual national player to chose because the player can change at any time, as long as he willing to endure his new assumed status - a lying sectarian bigot (a case for which is constructed afterwards by a selective process of cynical interpretation :)).
Any conflict with Football for All which aspires to create the conditions that players would chose to want to play for the IFA of their own volition?


There are many people in Derry who perceive an anti-Derry bias within the IFA. That's a bit unfair on the IFA, however; what they're also failing to highlight are the other anti-Derry biases within the FAI, UEFA, FIFA, the Stormont government, the UK government and the EU. :p

As I wrote, there are a number of factors, perceptions of bias, a history of institutionalised discrimination, the incompetence of the IFA - including the self righteous haughty incompetence that can be found throughout, then you have a selection process mixed in with a Football for All campaign.
All sounds very harmonious :)

[Not Brazil]

Any conflict with Football for All which aspires to create the conditions that players would chose to want to play for the IFA of their own volition?

...then you have a selection process mixed in with a Football for All campaign.


I think you misunderstand what "Football For All" is about - it's not all about Nationalists and their particular sensitivities.

It most definately is not about pleading with players who don't want to play for Northern Ireland.

"Concentrate on players who want to play for Northern Ireland" we were told.

Absolutely bang on the money.

[Closed Account]

Which would have meant Article 6 kicking in, unless exception was made for Republic Of Ireland Nationals.

Such an exception being legislated for would have opened a huge can of worms for FIFA.
I'm suprised at you NB. You just can't seem to see our point of view. We don't think Article 6 would of come into play as FIFA were suggesting a "specific and unique agreement". You don't bring in a rule saying everyone in Ireland can play for NI, if the net effect is that the only Irish people who could, would be the ones born(parents and grandparents) in the 6 counties, effectively the same people who already qualify.

Here's the full proposal


“The current situation is such that, for the Irish Football Association, players can choose also to play for the representative teams of the Football Association of Ireland but the vice-versa is not possible.
With the objective, as always, to find an amicable solution which is acceptable for both member associations concerned as well as for FIFA, the FIFA Legal Committee has now made the following new proposal: any player holding the nationality of the Republic of Ireland and consequently, in principle, being eligible to play for the representative teams of the Football Association of Ireland, that was born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland, would, by agreement between the two associations, also be eligible for the representative teams of the Irish Football Association.
In other words, every player born on the territory of Northern Ireland, holding the UK nationality and being entitled to a passport of the Republic of Ireland or born on the territory of the Republic of Ireland and holding the Irish nationality could either play for the Football Association of Ireland or the Irish Football Association, under the condition that all other relevant prerequisites pertaining to a player’s eligibility for a specific association team (see FIFA Statutes – Art. 15 of the Regulations governing the FIFA Statutes (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/federation/fifa%5fstatutes%5f0719%5fen%5f14479.pdf) are fulfilled.

FIFA has informed the Irish Football Association and the Football Association of Ireland today (November 6) about this proposal and asked both associations for a feedback.
Ultimately, it will be up to the FIFA Executive Committee to take a decision.”



So according to the proposal, you only had to be born in ROI and satisfy Article 15 in order to represent NI. No mention of Article 16, it was a unique solution.

Edit, you did mention the exception. Apologies.

I think it's safe to say that if NI did try to accept that proposal now, nearly 5 years later, with the hope of it impacting Article 6(as it is now), they are hopelessly deluded.

[DannyInvincible]

Indeed, CAS described it as a "specific and unique agreement" in paragraph 44 of Kearns. This indicates that it would have transcended the pre-existing eligibility rules.


I think it's safe to say that if NI did try to accept that proposal now, nearly 5 years later, with the hope of it impacting Article 6(as it is now), they are hopelessly deluded.

That's not exactly what NB is suggesting the IFA are contemplating doing though. NB has suggested that the IFA are not interested in accepting the 2007 proposal, but are instead contemplating lobbying FIFA to regard Irish nationality as shared nationality with article 6 still applying, thus rendering Irish nationals born north of the border ineligible for the FAI.

[Not Brazil]

So according to the proposal, you only had to be born in ROI and satisfy Article 15 in order to represent NI. No mention of Article 16, it was a unique solution.

Edit, you did mention the exception. Apologies.

I think it's safe to say that if NI did try to accept that proposal now, nearly 5 years later, with the hope of it impacting Article 6(as it is now), they are hopelessly deluded.

Articles 15 & 16 (now Articles 5 & 6) are inextricably linked.

[Closed Account]

If the IFA went back to FIFA to lobby to have their (FIFA's) previous suggestion to allow Citizens of the Republic Of Ireland to play for Northern Ireland put in place - and were successful - that would bring Article 6 of the FIFA Eligibility Statutes into play.

I'm hearing whispers of such an approach being considered.

Not in favour myself.


Indeed, CAS described it as a "specific and unique agreement" in paragraph 44 of Kearns. This indicates that it would have transcended the pre-existing eligibility rules.



That's not exactly what NB is suggesting the IFA are contemplating doing though.
I think that is exactly what NB suggested the IFA are contemplating doing though.

[Closed Account]

Anyway, it was a non sensical proposal and I don't know why the FAI would of accepted it, other than being magnanimous, in the first place.

Why should I, who's hardly ever set foot in Northern Ireland, be eligible for their football team, any more than I should be for any other country. That's the other reason NI revisiting the proposal is ridiculous. They turned it down in the first place for the right reasons. If you're not happy with lads from NI, who don't want to play for you, putting on the NI jersey, how would you feel about some Cork lad with a Dublin persecution complex, lining up in Windsor Park.

[DannyInvincible]

I think that is exactly what NB suggested the IFA are contemplating doing though.

The pre-existing statutes wouldn't have applied to the specific and unique 2007 arrangement as the proposal wouldn't have made sense otherwise given how FIFA worded it. The proposal would have been exempt from their application.

From what NB has said in relation to current IFA thinking, however, I understand the IFA may now seek to have FIFA apply article 6 to Irish nationality (which the IFA will attempt to argue is a nationality shared by both the FAI and IFA) in order to render Irish nationals born north of the border ineligible for the FAI and eligible only for the IFA. Maybe he can clarify?

[Not Brazil]

From what NB has said in relation to current IFA thinking, however, I understand the IFA may now seek to have FIFA apply article 6 to Irish nationality (which the IFA will attempt to argue is a nationality shared by both the FAI and IFA) in order to render Irish nationals born north of the border ineligible for the FAI and eligible only for the IFA. Maybe he can clarify?

I'm not in a position to clarify anything in that regard - I heard a whisper that the IFA were considering re-visiting the issue, centred on Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland being suffice to be eligible for Northern Ireland.

We all know from pre Kearns ruling times that the "prize" the IFA sought was for Article 16 to be applicable to Northern Irish born players wanting to play for the Republic Of Ireland.

[DannyInvincible]

We all know from pre Kearns ruling times that the "prize" the IFA sought was for Article 16 to be applicable to Northern Irish born players wanting to play for the Republic Of Ireland.

Indeed, which is why they rejected the 2007 proposal as it clearly wouldn't have rendered Irish nationals born north of the border ineligible to play for the FAI.

A possible return to their former mode of thinking - attempting to have northern-born Irish nationals rendered ineligible to play for the FAI - would be:


bizarre, deluded and ill-advised in that this specific line of reasoning would be doomed to inevitable failure due to the fact there is no logical, legal or factual basis to the claim that Irish nationality is a nationality of the IFA. How could an association possess two nationalities; one of them being the nationality of the association of an external jurisdiction?
diplomatically contentious and provocative in that it would amount to an attempt to claim a sovereign, independent and unrelated body of nationality law - that being the nationality law of the state of Ireland - as being somehow relevant to the IFA, or as being a nationality of the IFA, in other words. If the IFA went ahead with this, I'd envisage not just the two associations, but also foreign ministers and the like, getting embroiled in a very heated and politicised debate.
insulting to Irish nationals born north of the border, the valid identity of whom the IFA had since Kearns apparently come to acknowledge, accept and work with. Just like dragging Kearns off to CAS, this would, once again, make the IFA look like stubborn unionists hell-bent on depriving nationalist footballers of their right to declare for the association, the FAI, that represents their country, Ireland. As a second attempt, this would be even worse. They might have been able to plead that the first attempt to stifle nationalist footballers' rights was tinged with a degree of ignorance, but not this time; this strategy would be much more contrived and devious.


It would be a disastrous idea for the IFA to pursue all round.

[Not Brazil]

It would be a disastrous idea for the IFA to pursue all round.

I agree, but if Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland qualified a player in FIFA's eyes to play for more than one Association - namely the FAI & IFA - Article 6 would need amending, given the current wording of Articles 5 and 6. If amended to cater solely for Republic Of Ireland Citizens, it would potentially create a huge headache for FIFA.

For example, what about a young Northern Irish lad with no blood ties to England - but for footballing reasons wants to play for them?

Why should a Republic Of Ireland Citizen from Cork, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland, be allowed to play for Northern Ireland - but a young British Citizen from Northern Ireland, with no blood ties to England, is not allowed to play for them?

That's not equality.

Anyway, I want the IFA to work within the rules as they are - and feel that my proposals to concentrate on players who want to play for Northern Ireland is a sound basis for progress going forward, and to the mutual benefit of all parties.

[DannyInvincible]

I agree, but if Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland qualified a player in FIFA's eyes to play for more than one Association - namely the FAI & IFA - Article 6 would need amending, given the current wording of Articles 5 and 6.

It depends on what the aim of making Irish nationality a shared nationality would be. It would have required amending under the 2007 proposal (or some addendum could have been passed stating that the specific situation transcended the pre-existing regulatory framework) as the aim of FIFA then was to enable Irish nationals born both north and south of the border to play for both the FAI and IFA on account of what would have become a shared nationality, but I don't think it would require amending if FIFA were to accept this possible new IFA proposal as the aim of the IFA would be to deprive Irish nationals born north of the border of eligibility to represent the FAI due to the intended continued application of article 6.


Why should a Republic Of Ireland Citizen from Cork, with no blood ties to Northern Ireland, be allowed to play for Northern Ireland - but a young British Citizen from Northern Ireland, with no blood ties to England, is not allowed to play for them?

Indeed. The proposal clearly wasn't rooted in any concern for logic or equality, even if FIFA did mistakenly believe the proposal would balance what they formerly perceived to be a lack of equilibrium, or a "one-way situation", as it was described at the time. Its rationale was rooted solely in a misguided attempt to reach a unique and specific settlement in order to placate the IFA's protestations.

[Not Brazil]

It depends on what the aim of making Irish nationality a shared nationality would be. It would have required amending under the 2007 proposal (or some addendum could have been passed stating that the specific situation transcended the pre-existing regulatory framework) as the aim of FIFA then was to enable Irish nationals born both north and south of the border to play for both the FAI and IFA on account of what would have become a shared nationality, but I don't think it would require amending if FIFA were to accept this possible new IFA proposal as the aim of the IFA would be to deprive Irish nationals born north of the border of eligibility to represent the FAI due to the intended continued application of article 6.

If - as they seemingly were prepared to do - FIFA were to allow a player from Cork, for example, with only Republic of Ireland Citizenship to be eligible for Northern Ireland:

In the context of the guiding principle of eligibility, Article 5, what Nationality would be then permitting that player to represent Northern Ireland?

A: Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland.

Would Citizenship of the Republic Of Ireland alone alllow you to play for more that one Association, as dealt with by current Article 6?

A: Yes - two Associations ie. the FAI & IFA


Here's what FIFA submitted to CAS during the Kearns case (Para 22):

"Regarding the eligibility of players to be selected for a representative team,
FIFA implemented a set of rules, which are clear and apply uniformly to
each of its 208 member associations. Those rules are global and were not
designed for the purpose of a single situation, i.e. not specifically for the
Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland situation"

On close inspection of Article 5 - the fundamental tenet of eligibility - were FIFA telling us they were going to re-write the script? Because, be absoltely clear, they would have had to.

Were FIFA going to open up a potentially much bigger headache for themselves, just to deal with Irish Nationality, and angry Irish Nationalists?

A: I doubt it very much - I suspect they'd have expected their "global" eligibility rules to apply, when the dust settled.

Were FIFA talking out of their hoop when making their ill thought out nonsensical suggestion of a solution?

A: Yes. I suspect they wanted to be seen to be "helpful".

[geysir]

At the time of the compromise in 2007, the eligibility rules were scattered around various pages and maybe it was possible to make a separate agreement and have it annexed to the statutes.
In 2008 came a shift in FIFA's approach and every eligibility rule was incorporated into the statutes.
Maybe what was possible to do in 2007 is not possible since then.

There is not a snowball in hells chance of an agreement being imposed on an association without their volition and the FAI are not going to settle for less than basic article 5 eligibility for all players born on the island and all first generation born anywhere.

[Drumcondra 69er]

Cheers for that earlier Danny, all sorted. :good: Your PM folder is full btw.

[DannyInvincible]

Were FIFA going to open up a potentially much bigger headache for themselves, just to deal with Irish Nationality, and angry Irish Nationalists?

A: I doubt it very much - I suspect they'd have expected their "global" eligibility rules to apply, when the dust settled.

Were FIFA talking out of their hoop when making their ill thought out nonsensical suggestion of a solution?

A: Yes. I suspect they wanted to be seen to be "helpful".

They might well have been talking out of their hoop, but I can only interpret their published pronouncements in good faith. And why propose it if they'd later have reneged on it? What would have happened had both associations been all for it?

Without having to overhaul articles 5 and 6 of the statutes (although possibly they were prepared to do that), couldn't FIFA have just passed an addendum stating that a different set of criteria were to be applied to eligibility for the IFA and FAI? It would indeed have defied logic and equality, but the 2007 proposal clearly wasn't rooted in such notions; the aim of reaching an amicable solution took priority.

Why would nationalists have been angry though? The FAI accepted the proposal without nationalist protest.

[Not Brazil]

At the time of the compromise in 2007, the eligibility rules were scattered around various pages and maybe it was possible to make a separate agreement and have it annexed to the statutes.
In 2008 came a shift in FIFA's approach and every eligibility rule was incorporated into the statutes.
Maybe what was possible to do in 2007 is not possible since then.

There is not a snowball in hells chance of an agreement being imposed on an association without their volition and the FAI are not going to settle for less than basic article 5 eligibility for all players born on the island and all first generation born anywhere.

Which eligibility rules, salient to the Irish dispute, were "scattered around various pages" in November 2007?

Fact is, the relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60.

If FIFA were serious about their November 2007 proposal, they should have been aware that Article 15, Paras 1 & 3would had to have been re-written, or an addendum put in place stating: "applicable everywhere in the world, except in Ireland":D

That wasn't going to happen, mo chara.

[geysir]

Which eligibility rules, salient to the Irish dispute, were "scattered around various pages" in November 2007?

May 2008 was proposed the following alterations which were passed in June 2008

3.2 REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES13.2.1 Eligibility to play for representative teams
Explanation:
The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisionswithin the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legalsituation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,circular no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and circular no. 1093 dated 21 June2007). Under the proposal approved by the Executive Committee, all relevantprovisions have been summarised and added to the Regulations Governing theApplication of the Statutes.



Fact is, the relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60.
Not so, fact!



If FIFA were serious about their November 2007 proposal, they should have been aware that Article 15, Paras 1 & 3would had to have been re-written, or an addendum put in place stating: "applicable everywhere in the world, except in Ireland":D

That wasn't going to happen, mo chara.

I see no reason to presume FIFA were not serious about their proposal. There is no evidence to support that. There is plenty of evidence to support that they seriously tried to facilitate a compromise situation.
Afaiu, the 2nd proposal had to be voluntarily entered into, mutually agreed to, voluntarily subscribed to and would be allowed to happen by FIFA, cocooned from the Statutes. The proposal came from the FIFA legal dept and I doubt that they would propose something that they could not make work and they did not have to change the statutes to allow it to happen.

[Not Brazil]

It would indeed have defied logic and equality, but the 2007 proposal clearly wasn't rooted in such notions


Hence the can of worms, much bigger than an "Irish dispute", being opened.

Dangerous.

I'm sure I read something in the Statutes about equality...must look it up.

Amongst the, numerous, questions arising from other FIFA members, one springs to mind immediately.

Does a player without British Nationality representing a British Association make a mockery of International football?

I think they'd have a point.

[Not Brazil]

May 2008 was proposed the following alterations which were passed in June 2008


Like I said, all saliant eligibilty rules pertaining the the Irish dispute - at the time of the FIFA prosposal in November 2007 - where contained on page 60 of the FIFA Statutes applicable at that time.

No need for your veneer of irrelevancy.

[geysir]

Like I said, all saliant eligibilty rules pertaining the the Irish dispute - at the time of the FIFA prosposal in November 2007 - where contained on page 60 of the FIFA Statutes applicable at that time.

I would have considered article 16 was salient, certainly the IFA thought so.


No need for your veneer of irrelevancy

This is not the first time you have engaged in these type of tiresome petty snide remarks of a personal nature. At the very least, engage yourself in the discussion with a veneer of a maturity.

[CraftyToePoke]

No need for your veneer of irrelevancy.

Every now and again the mask slips.

[Not Brazil]

I would have considered article 16 was salient, certainly the IFA thought so.


Don't think so, mo chara.

In Novemer 2007, Article 16 read as follows:

Amendments to the Laws
1 FIFA shall notify its Members of any amendments and decisions
regarding the Laws of the Game within one month of the ordinary
annual meeting of IFAB.
2 The Members shall enforce these amendments and decisions no
later than 1 July following IFAB’s annual meeting. Exceptions may be
granted only to Members whose football season has not terminated
by this date.
3 Members may apply such amendments and decisions as soon as
they have been issued by IFAB.

And, that was relevant how?

Perhaps you really meant Article 15 Para 3?

Deary me.

[Not Brazil]

Every now and again the mask slips.

What "mask" is that crafty?

Have you anything sensible, or relevant, to add to the discussion?

[CraftyToePoke]

What "mask" is that crafty?

The one whereby if you spy gap in someones point or argument, you can tend toward the personal in your riposte, toward the put down even. Its a quality I don't find endearing, but each to their own, as it were.

What did you think I meant ? That you wear a cloak of reasoned debate only, and behind that are less PC views perhaps? Not at all old chap, not at all.

Carry on.

[Not Brazil]

The one whereby if you spy gap in someones point or argument, you can tend toward the personal in your riposte, toward the put down even. Its a quality I don't find endearing, but each to their own, as it were.

What did you think I meant ?


I didn't know what you meant Crafty, that's why I asked you what you meant.

Thanks for replying.

In the case of the other poster concerned, in his mock outrage, you should know that he has a history of 'put downs' and dishing out insults on this board. In addition, he has a history of colourful exaggeration and fanciful ramblings not centred on fact.

Take with a pinch of salt.

[geysir]

Don't think so, mo chara.

In Novemer 2007, Article 16 read as follows:

Amendments to the Laws
1 FIFA shall notify its Members of any amendments and decisions
regarding the Laws of the Game within one month of the ordinary
annual meeting of IFAB.
2 The Members shall enforce these amendments and decisions no
later than 1 July following IFAB’s annual meeting. Exceptions may be
granted only to Members whose football season has not terminated
by this date.
3 Members may apply such amendments and decisions as soon as
they have been issued by IFAB.

And, that was relevant how?

Perhaps you really meant Article 15 Para 3?

Deary me.
I referred to article 16 (the UK association agreement) that was absent from the statutes in 2007 but was incorporated after a vote in mid 2008.

[geysir]

I didn't know what you meant Crafty, that's why I asked you what you meant.

Thanks for replying.

In the case of the other poster concerned, in his mock outrage, you should know that he has a history of 'put downs' and dishing out insults on this board. .

Please find one example of a personal insults I have made in this thread, a thread of 195 pages where we have been active enough
(Ealing Green excepted, he´s fair game). Should not be too difficult seeing as I'm supposed to have a history of it and you retain a clear memory of the insult.

[Not Brazil]

I referred to article 16 (the UK association agreement) that was absent from the statutes in 2007 but was incorporated after a vote in mid 2008.

You're all confused again.

Rules pertaining to players with a nationality entitling them to represent more than one Association (for example, British Citizens) were already in place in the Statutes in November 2007 - Article 15, Paragraph 3.

Stop digging...It's excruciatingly cringeworthy.

[Not Brazil]

(Ealing Green excepted, he´s fair game).

You answered your own question, before I could be arsed looking further.

You're the gift that just keeps giving.

[geysir]

You're all confused again.

Rules pertaining to players with a nationality entitling them to represent more than one Association (for example, British Citizens) were already in place in the Statutes in November 2007 - Article 15, Paragraph 3.

Stop digging...It's excruciatingly cringeworthy.

You can't spot the difference?


FIFA Statutes 2007


article 15 .3
If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a newnationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several Associations’teams due to nationality, he may, up to his 21st birthday, requestto change the Association for which he is eligible to play interna-tional matches to the Association of another country of which heholds nationality, subject to the following conditions:


(a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) at “A” inter-national level for his current Association, and if at the time of hisfirst full or partial appearance in an international match in anofficial competition for his current Association, he already hadthe nationality of the Association’s team for which he wishes toplay.

(b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any com-petition in which he has already played for his previous Associa-tion. A player may exercise this right only once.






FIFA Statutes 2008
Art. 16 – Nationality entitling players to representmore than one Association (new).
Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association.

A player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play in an international match for one of these Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions:




(a) he was born on the territoryof the relevant Association;

(b) his biological mother
or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;

(c) his grandmother orgrandfather was bornon the territory of the relevant Association;

(d) he has lived on the territory of the relevantAssociation for at least two years without interruption.

[Not Brazil]

[QUOTE=geysir;1598608]You can't spot the difference?
[/uQUOTE]

Of course.

And the relevance of the "difference" in November 2007 when FIFA made their ridiculous proposal, in the context of the discussion is what, exactly?

If the FIFA proposal of November 2007 was put back on the table now, what's the difference in consequences?

[Closed Account]

You can't spot the difference?


Of course.

And the relevance of the "difference" in November 2007 when FIFA made their ridiculous proposal, in the context of the discussion is what, exactly?

If the FIFA proposal of November 2007 was put back on the table now, what's the difference in consequences?
No difference?

[Not Brazil]

No difference?

Big difference, as it transpires.