Adam Barton

[boovidge]

I believe that the reason FIFA consider Barton to be eligible to play for (the RO) Ireland is that he has been entitled to Irish citizenship from birth- and didn't have to earn it through say, residency. I don't think he should be eligible either, because he's played for another association's senior side but FIFA make the rules and the FAI and Barton are fully within their rights.

I think most NI fans will agree he never seemed keen to represent NI anyway, openly stalling to get a chance with another association, so you're well rid of him imo.

[Predator]

Worthington should have accepted that the player wasn't fully committed and let him get on with his career, instead of offering him a 'carrot cap'. He did the exact same with Duffy when Duffy first showed a desire to represent the FAI, by catapulting him through the ranks.
Then again, you might argue that it has paid off in Shane Ferguson and Liam Boyce.

[EalingGreen]

Gorman is hardly a "boy Wonder". He is a sub on Wolves reserves a team that three current under 19 Irish internationals Doherty, Mccarey and Forde play for regularly. He left united because Brady amongst many others was miles ahead of him.Really?

As I understand it, he left MU because he obtained a place, possibly on a scholarship, at Repton - one of the most prestigious Public Schools in England: http://www.repton.org.uk/ Repton is in the Midlands.

Moreover, since both his parents are Lecturers, I suspect that they are both keen to see that he maintain his education at least until he is 18 etc. And the lad himself has been quoted as pointing out that only 20% of 16 year olds who get offered their first contract at a club ever go on to establish a career in the game, so I'd say his head is pretty screwed on.

Which possibly explains to me why NW picks him so frequently i.e. he feels that if Gorman weren't trying to juggle his studies and his football, he's already be much further on with the latter.

Either that or he fancies his (NI-born) mother...

[EalingGreen]

that's a little easier when there's more teams ranked ahead of youSlovenia (the team that we beat away), was ranked above ROI, too. Still is, in fact (17th). They had also qualified for the World Cup Finals a few months earlier.

But hey, you've still got until September before the 10th Anniversary of the last time you beat a decent ranked opponent in a competitive international...

[Charlie Darwin]

I think you've stumbled upon the one argument more boring than the eligibility one.

[liamoo11]

Congratulations to young John for going to a nice Private fee paying school. I imagine if both his parents are lecturers they could afford his fees or as you say maybe he got a scholarship or maybe he worked out a payment plan for ten pounds a week for the next 30 years who knows? It is somewhat strange that he spent a year at Manchester city after he "decided" to leave Utd. Persumably Man citys academy is closer to Repton in the midlands than Utds academy. I do hope though that young John does not fancy his NI born mother! Looks a good player though in fairness

[EalingGreen]

The fact that FIFA say he is eligible probably goes over your head.When did FIFA confirm that Barton is eligible to represent the FAI?


Like the IFA, you think you are right and FIFA don't even know their own rules. Quite a bizarre argument which makes sense to only the most irrational of people.I have nowhere said that Barton is not eligible to represent the FAI. Rather I have queried how he might be. I do so because I cannot see how he is eligible under Article 15 (Irish National from birth) and I can't see how he is eligible under Article 17 (Acquiring a new nationality).

It may be that he qualifies in some way which I am missing (eg another grandparent, born in the ROI). But if not, then the only other way I could see him qualifying would be if NI were to be considered the "territory" of the FAI. And such an interpretation is, quite frankly, ridiculous.


I have explained in detail why a player like Barton is eligible for the FAI, in the eligibility threadYou have not "explained" anything. Rather you have made a case* of sorts, which I do not accept.

* - Speaking of which, any chance of your providing a link to those comments by Wells which you claim support your case?


As you have consistently got every aspect of the rules of FIFA eligibility wrong, I wont hold my breath on your desire or capability to understand the rules.Really? You have made that claim quite a few times, even though I have pulled you up on it several times.

For the record, right back to the start of the Gibson dispute, I made it crystal clear, both on this forum and elsewhere, that I considered that the case could go either way.

And right up to the last minute, even the FAI was admitting that it could go against them (cf. John Delaney's comment to RTE on his return from Switzerland at Dublin Airport about "winning the battle, but losing the war", October 2007).

Meanwhile, you were one of those posters who was claiming certainty over this issue, when not in any position to do so, an unattractive trait which fits in with your total lack of integrity in consistently misrepresenting me over this, and other issues.

Any "open minded" person in your position would be ashamed of himself.

[osarusan]

Save this **** for the eligibility thread please.

[EalingGreen]

I believe that the reason FIFA consider Barton to be eligible to play for (the RO) Ireland is that he has been entitled to Irish citizenship from birth- and didn't have to earn it through say, residency.Except that unless he has another ROI-born grandparent somewhere, he is NOT an Irish National from birth. Ther official Irish Government guidelines on Nationality have already been quoted elsewhere on this site.
They make it clear that anyone born anywhere in the world to an Irish-born parent (either part) is automatically an Irish national from birth.
However, if the connection is a generation further back (i.e. grandparent or beyond), then the person has to apply to be included on the Register of foreign births, as a prelude for applying for Irish nationality.
The fact that such a person will almost invariably be granted nationality (if they can kick a ball, at any rate), is neither here nor there; FIFA have made it quite clear that automatic nationality from birth is the test which must be met in order to qualify under Article 15.


I don't think he should be eligible either, because he's played for another association's senior side...Thank You.


... but FIFA make the rules and the FAI and Barton are fully within their rights. We do not know whether the FAI is correct in considering that Barton complies with FIFA's eligibility rules.
The two test cases to date (Gibson and Kearns) have both involved players who were born in Ireland, so were unquestionably Irish nationals from the point of birth (i.e. Article 15). Other players born outside of Ireland also comply with FIFA's rules either because they are 1st generation eg Chris Hughton (Art.15), or because they are 2nd generation, but have an ROI-born grandparent eg Cian Hughton (Art.17).
Barton appears to be different because he is 2nd Generation but doesn't have an ROI-born grandparent. He has, of course, an NI-born one, but that is insufficient to represent the FAI under Article 17 (imo).


I think most NI fans will agree he never seemed keen to represent NI anyway, openly stalling to get a chance with another association,When we were originally told the choice was either England or NI, opinion amongst our fans was divided. I personally took the pragmatic view that it was only natural that he should have a strong hankering to play for the land of his birth, and that we were in no position to shut the door on him for NI merely because of that - especially when every other country is playing the eligibility game for all it's worth, and we are also getting uniquely shafted by FIFA on eligibility "elsewhere".

However, had Barton been straight with us, instead of concealing another card up his sleeve, then I've no doubt the overwhelming reaction of NI fans would have been for him to Eff Off.



... so you're well rid of him imo.And assuming he accepts the FAI's call-up, you're welcome to him!

[gastric]

Ealing Green,

He's gone, face up to it, and others will follow. Your ranting and raving on here are beginning to sound more desperate and are losing objectivity. Insults about our cosmopolitan international team don't help either!

[Stuttgart88]

Slovenia (the team that we beat away), was ranked above ROI, too. Still is, in fact (17th). They had also qualified for the World Cup Finals a few months earlier.

But hey, you've still got until September before the 10th Anniversary of the last time you beat a decent ranked opponent in a competitive international...Wow. Whoopie ding. NI gets lucky every now and again. How marvelous. Very happy for you. When was the last time you made a play off?

[DannyInvincible]

Your under-age teams contain more non-native born players than ours, so your future would appear to be more "plastic" than ours...

Good lord. You're like a kindergarten school kid in a playground. Maybe with future intentions of making the cheer-leading team at college. There's absolutely no difference in IFA policy from FAI policy, be that by the means or by the ends; stop kidding yourself that there is.


NI/IFA have been in close contact with the player for nearly two years, primarily through Steve Beaglehole. They were prepared to "keep the door open" whilst he decided between NI and England; I cannot believe they would have done so had he asked for such consideration whilst he decided between NI, England and ROI.

Why ought his door have been shut if he has, as has now become very apparent, clearly harboured intentions to play for us, as well as England? Why would or should having us as another valid option for him be any different from having merely England as an option?


All the evidence suggests that this is just another example of a player being a d i c k - something with which eg followers of the career of a certain Stephen Ireland should be familiar.

Try "dick". Beating the censor is next up on Fly's crash-course in how to be 133t, but you can get there before him in three easy steps... ;)

[DannyInvincible]

When a poster has to resort to convoluted constructions like that to back up his case, it is a sure sign that he is on dodgy ground.

Convoluted constructions? It's pretty standard English. :rolleyes:


International eligibility and territorial jurisdiction are two separate issues.

So you claim, but I'm not aware of FIFA making any distinction. In fact, they expressly connect the two in the articles relating to eligibility when they raise the issue of "territory".


Otherwise, since the FAI is entitled to select as-of-right under Article 15 any player born anywhere in the world to an Irish-born parent, your "logic" would mean that anywhere in the world also constitute the "territory" of the FAI...

Now who's resorting to convoluted constructions? You surely see what you're doing there, you disingenuous ol' divil you. Players born "anywhere in the world" don't qualify automatically to play for us by virtue of born "anywhere in the world", as you well know; they qualify because their parents are Ireland-born Irish nationals.


Or, to put it another way, if NI is FAI "territory" why does a player (professional or amateur) transferring from an ROI club to an NI club (or vv) have to secure international clearance? Why are Derry City required to be Members of the IFA? Why do clubs/players/Leagues etc who are eg aggrieved at a decision by an IFA Disciplinary panel not merely appeal to the FAI etc? Indeed, why does anyone submit to the authority of the IFA in NI, if it does not have full jurisdiction over its own territory?

Because those are administrative issues. Irish nationality extends over the IFA's administrative jurisdiction, so for those purposes solely, FIFA obviously considers it to be the "territory" of the FAI.


Geysir did NOT "explain it" to me.

Rather, he concocted a flimsy case which depended on two points, Alex Bruce and an alleged Howard Wells statement.
However, he has never specified under what Article etc Bruce was deemed eligible, or even that he was actually even deemed to be so (i.e. an Association may select anyone it likes, without having to justify it, if no-one else formally challenges the selection). Further, the international eligibility criteria, and their operation, have changed several times since Bruce first played for ROI.

As for Wells, Geysir likes to refer to an (alleged) statement by Wells, yet he has not, to my knowledge at least, ever provided a link. And considering he has consistently denigrated the reliability, credibility and veracity of Wells on just about every other issue, it's a bit rich for him to be making him his "Star witness for the prosecution" now.

Although some rules may have been added/abolished or wording amended here and there since the statues were last updated, I'm pretty sure that the same wording which enabled Bruce to line out for us when he first did are those still in place today. He qualifies - or qualified at the time, even - to play for us by virtue of his northern-born grandmother; under what is now article 17.

And you'll find what Wells said here (http://www.ipswich.vitalfootball.co.uk/article.asp?a=81961).


Northern Ireland chief executive, Howard Wells, spoke to The EADT: "This is an issue to do with player eligibility according to FIFA's own rules. It is a principle that needs to be resolved based on player eligibility, so that it is applied consistently.

"Alex Bruce is a player we have asked FIFA and the Republic to clarify but it is not about individuals, it is about the principle."

Was just a simple matter of googling "howard wells alex bruce" and, hey presto, it's your first hit. I reckon a knowledge-hungry fellow like yourself would be savvy to that already though. Not that you'd ever admit to having been aware, mind... :rolleyes:


Why on earth should the IFA be interested in ascertaining whether Barton held/was entitled to Irish Nationality at the time he played for us against Morocco?
Having been born and bred in England, Barton is automatically a UK national.
And UK Nationality falls under FIFA Article 16 - "Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association".
In the UK's case, these Associations are the FA, SFA, FAW and IFA and by mutual agreement, these four Associations specifically requested that additional qualifications (birth/ancestral/residential) be required to prevent a "free-for-all".
Barton satisfied these by virtue of his NI-born Grandfather, so neither the FA nor FIFA can have had any objection to his representing us.


I do not understand what point it is you're trying to make here.

I'm not surprised considering your rather long-standing and impressively-resolute ineptitude when it comes to trying to comprehend FIFA's eligibility statutes, but let me explain. No-one is objecting to him having represented Northern Ireland. Not sure what got that into your head. If you, however, had cared to read the rule I mentioned (article 18.1 (a)), you might have noted that it contains the following words:


1. If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new
nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams
due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for
which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another
country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions:

(a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an official
competition at "A" international level for his current Association, and at
the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match
in an official competition for his current Association, he already had the
nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play

...

Clearer now?

Edit: Actually, I'm just realising that Barton only ever played in one friendly game for Northern Ireland, albeit for the senior team, so this may not apply to him at all. I'd assumed he'd represented you at under-age level in official competition or something, although this isn't the case, is it? Apologies, notwithstanding your past neglect. :o

Re-edit: Does this even mean that Barton is actually making an official change of association in the eyes of FIFA? Possibly not. Maybe someone could confirm?

[DannyInvincible]

I believe that the reason FIFA consider Barton to be eligible to play for (the RO) Ireland is that he has been entitled to Irish citizenship from birth- and didn't have to earn it through say, residency.

I don't think that's entirely correct. In order to attain Irish nationality, he would have had to register his birth with the Foreign Births Register and his nationality would only have taken effect from the date of registration rather than applying retroactively from the date of his birth.

[boovidge]

yeah but I think the point is the entitlement from birth.

[Predator]

Re-edit: Does this even mean that Barton is actually making an official change of association in the eyes of FIFA? Possibly not. Maybe someone could confirm?I think geysir might have clarified this in the eligibility thread.
Here (http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1449836&viewfull=1#post1449836)?

[SkStu]

i think EG's taken his ball and gone home lads...

[Stuttgart88]

it is 20 past 10 over here Stu. I'm sure he has better things to do, unlike me (just watched Masterchef on SKY+ with Mrs S. - her turn to choose). Newsnight beckons however. Can't wait.

[Predator]

How could he have better things to do, when the eligibility issue remains unsolved?!
Oh, wait.

[DannyInvincible]

When did FIFA confirm that Barton is eligible to represent the FAI?

If it was necessary for him to "submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat" for change of association under article 18.3, I imagine it would have been a short time after that.

I meant to ask you about your previous assertion that "an Association may select anyone it likes, without having to justify it, if no-one else formally challenges the selection". Is this actually so? Surely there is some form of registration, checking or review system in place, for competitive games at least...


For the record, right back to the start of the Gibson dispute, I made it crystal clear, both on this forum and elsewhere, that I considered that the case could go either way.

And, I suppose, if Barton ever happens to line out for us at senior competitive level a few years down the line or something, you will also claim that you'd made it crystal clear, both on this forum and elsewhere, that you were always prepared to admit that he actually always was eligible to represent us by virtue of his northern-born grandparent?


And right up to the last minute, even the FAI was admitting that it could go against them (cf. John Delaney's comment to RTE on his return from Switzerland at Dublin Airport about "winning the battle, but losing the war", October 2007).

Last minute? Seriously? That's a comment from three and a half years ago you've just mentioned.


Meanwhile, you were one of those posters who was claiming certainty over this issue, when not in any position to do so, an unattractive trait which fits in with your total lack of integrity in consistently misrepresenting me over this, and other issues.

Considering the CAS ruling was in full agreement with everything geysir had said, maybe he was in a position to do so. It was like re-reading the eligibility thread. Besides, it became obvious how things would go with CAS the more the wording of the various statutes in question were weighed up and discussed in minute detail in that mammoth thread.

[Stuttgart88]

I just learnt what "133t" means. I'm chuffed.

[The Fly]

Aye, I reply point by point, and as far as possible briefly to what others say. Why throw in unncessary flowery language? It doesn't impress people, just makes you look arrogant and pompous.


Is that a dig at EalingGreen?


Try "dick". Beating the censor is next up on Fly's crash-course in how to be 133t, but you can get there before him in three easy steps... ;)

To any new members out there, please familiarise yourselves with the context of this statement. It's not some sort of foot.ie rite of passage, and I'm not that way inclined.


I just learnt what "133t" means. I'm chuffed.

Likewise, we must be slow learners.

How are you coming along with the whole 'writing over links' challenge?
I must confess...it did go to my head a bit.

[SwanVsDalton]

Care to elaborate on who you mean by "certain posters"?

Do you...


He can't (a ) because he is already tied to NI, and (b ) because a player may only switch once.
Apart from that, nice try...

...have to...


Your under-age teams contain more non-native born players than ours, so your future would appear to be more "plastic" than ours...

...respond to...


Considering our refusal of the invitation to pool our resources in an all-UK U-21 team (for the London Olympics), why on earth should we do so with your lot?

...every little...


But hey, you've still got until September before the 10th Anniversary of the last time you beat a decent ranked opponent in a competitive international...

...flippant comment?

Not being mean, just genuinely concerned you're some sort of robot. Data from Star Trek's got a better handle on humour than you.

[SwanVsDalton]

Likewise, we must be slow learners.

How are you coming along with the whole 'writing over links' challenge?

That's makes three.

BTW maybe we should have some kind of Hyperlink HTML Tournament in off-topic? Winner gets a an £25 Amazon voucher written in binary code, loser gets wrapped in carpet and thrown off a bridge.

[DannyInvincible]

To any new members out there, please familiarise yourselves with the context of this statement. It's not some sort of foot.ie rite of passage, and I'm not that way inclined.

Haha, I do apologise for any scurrilous insinuation perceived. That was mischievous of me.

[ArdeeBhoy]

In five minutes of competitive international football Gorman has managed something no RoI player has managed since 1994. Wolves third-teamer or not.
Really, do share?
Guessing he was born the same time as Houghton scored v.Italy in USA '94....


Your under-age teams contain more non-native born players than ours, so your future would appear to be more "plastic" than ours...

Except around 5 years ago you were proclaiming on the web, how "pure" 'your' player pool was.
But besides the 50 or so players born outside the North who've played for your senior side, your B, U-21 & Youth squads are full of players born outside the Six Counties.
And given the trend towards emigration by Unionists to the Brit mainland (& further afield) , it's liable to happen more and more. Especially if England, us or Scotland don't want them.....

And why shouldn't they be....based on all those rules which you usually misinterpret, when it suits.


Considering our refusal of the invitation to pool our resources in an all-UK U-21 team (for the London Olympics), why on earth should we do so with your lot?
Er, Irony. Do try it sometime?
It was hardly serious. But AI Olympic soccer team, does have a ring to it.


Aye, I reply point by point, and as far as possible briefly to what others say. Why throw in unncessary flowery language? It doesn't impress people, just makes you look arrogant and pompous*.
Erm....


I'll assume from the above that you think any comment from any NI-supporting poster on this broad issue is inherently worthless.
Not any, just some.
;)

NB & yer man Awec seem to manage to keep a sense of perspective, generally.


This isn't merely narrow-minded (contrary to your claim above), it's infantile*.
* See above.
Sadly don't think you're being Ironic.

[the bear]

That's makes three.

BTW maybe we should have some kind of Hyperlink HTML Tournament in off-topic? Winner gets a an £25 Amazon voucher written in binary code, loser gets wrapped in carpet and thrown off a bridge.

waste of carpet

[SwanVsDalton]

waste of carpet

I know but foot.ie got in trouble after the last tournament for all the bodies that washed up at Poolbeg...

[the bear]

I know but foot.ie got in trouble after the last tournament for all the bodies that washed up at Poolbeg...

in that case you should wrap them in trolleys and syringes so they blend in

[tetsujin1979]

I just learnt what "133t" means. I'm chuffed.
you'll be joining Anonymous before you know it!

[DannyInvincible]

yeah but I think the point is the entitlement from birth.

I'm not sure where you're getting that from. There's nothing about it in the statute book, to my knowledge anyway. Let me take you on a wild ramble.

Under article 15, eligibility to play for a national team relies simply upon possessing a "permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country" as a general principle. If Barton's appearance in a friendly for Northern Ireland means nothing to FIFA for the purposes of deciphering his permanent nationality/nationalities and international eligibility, or, in effect, he never was or had to be "registered" with the IFA in the first place to line out for them in a friendly, or, in other words, if any formal link with that association (or any other, including the FA) was never "effected" in the first place in the eyes of FIFA because he never represented them in a competitive game at any level, and Barton possesses permanent Irish nationality (that is, permanent from the date of his birth being registered with the Foreign Births Register in Ireland, in spite of his Irish nationality not having been passed onto him automatically from the moment of birth or applying retroactively after the date of his birth being registered; it's still permanent, after all), then I'm coming to think that he might well be eligible to play for us under this article alone. The fact he is legally British by birth and may have assumed permanent Irish nationality at a later date (could have been last week even for all we know) might well be of no significance to FIFA at all seeing as they'll officially remain unaware of his British nationality. For their official purposes and following on from what I've written, as soon as he makes a competitive appearance for Ireland at any level, his nationality in their eyes may well be considered to be Irish, solely or primarily, and to always have been so since he started playing competitive international football (any level), at the exclusion of any other permanent legal nationalities he might also happen to possess simultaneously, simply because another of his permanent legal nationalities was never "effected" in the eyes of FIFA or made known to them formally. That's a bit long-winded - apologies - but I hope it makes sense. It's something that's just struck me as a possibility in light of reading what geysir had written in relation to Bobby Zamora, especially, in the post to which Predator provided a link above in post #116.

Edit: I'll outline it in simpler points as it might be easier to understand that way. I'm confusing myself as it is.

1) FIFA are officially unaware of Barton’s legal nationality as he has never represented an international team in a competitive game.
2) We/I understand that Barton possesses permanent Irish nationality via having an Irish-born grandparent and his birth subsequently registered with the Foreign Births Register. His Irish nationality may only be effective from the date of registration and not the moment of his birth, but it is still permanent in nature from that date onward. "Permanent" does not mean the same this as having existed eternally and something can become permanent after having come into existence and being designated such a quality.
3) Let's say, Barton happens to represent Ireland in a competitive game.
4) As a result, Barton is registered with FIFA as an Irish national. He might have been an Irish national from birth for all they know, although they couldn't care less, just so long as he is in possession of a permanent Irish nationality and satisfies any other relevant issues; hasn't played in a competitive international for an association other than the FAI, for example, and so forth.
5) If the competitive game in which Barton played for Ireland was not an 'A' international, Barton, in theory, still has the choice of assuming a new nationality in the eyes of FIFA - the one change of association permitted to him - which might be deemed to be his already-legally-existing British one (in spite of having held it from birth) if, say, he sought to represent England.

Does that make sense/stand up to scrutiny or is it a complete misinterpretation?

[Gather round]

Is that a dig at EalingGreen?

No, a reply to Geysir. If I want to reply to EG, I'll quote his original comment.

[paul_oshea]

Fly, whats binary code?

[geysir]

Not Brazil has provided a link to an article containing direct quotations from the player himself. The article clearly states that he was considering NI, but was unsure, since he was still hoping for a future England career.
The only quotes from Barton in that article related to his enjoyment of the experience of playing for NI, he mentioned nothing about his options.
It was noted that Barton was tightlipped.



NI/IFA have been in close contact with the player for nearly two years, primarily through Steve Beaglehole. They were prepared to "keep the door open" whilst he decided between NI and England; I cannot believe they would have done so had he asked for such consideration whilst he decided between NI, England and ROI.

All the evidence suggests that this is just another example of a player being a d i c k - something with which eg followers of the career of a certain Stephen Ireland should be familiar.

The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence and prefer instead to accuse NW of lying etc, says more about you than it does of him.

And then you have the brass neck to bleat about being "open-minded".
My open mindedness is beyond question, it is a proven fact.
I never accused NW of lying, I just don't believe the IFA account. The IFA may believe their perception to be true but I don't believe it without having anything substantial to go on. The facts are, Barton considered playing for the IFA, decided not and then declared for the FAI almost straight away. Those actions do not suggest to me that he was waiting for an England call up.
I doubt that a young lad could string along the IFA on a merry dance.
Any number of things could have happened to affect the experience. Just because the IFA thought they were grooming him they think they have first call on his services and now Barton has jilted the IFA ye lot a bit sore.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Fly, whats binary code?

A tenuous sub-dialect of Ulster-Scots??

[geysir]

I have nowhere said that Barton is not eligible to represent the FAI. Rather I have queried how he might be. I do so because I cannot see how he is eligible under Article 15 (Irish National from birth) and I can't see how he is eligible under Article 17 (Acquiring a new nationality).
And because you don't see it, means you don't get it.



You have not "explained" anything. Rather you have made a case* of sorts, which I do not accept

Well you would have to understand the rules to some degree, in order to understand the explanation for how they apply to 3rd generation Irish nationals, whose citizenship criteria is fulfilled by having a grandparent born in the 6 counties.
Everything that I have explained in the eligibility thread is supported by FIFA actions and will continue to be supported by FIFA actions until that time they chose to change the rules.





For the record, right back to the start of the Gibson dispute, I made it crystal clear, both on this forum and elsewhere, that I considered that the case could go either way.
I can't think offhand of one example of crystal clear thinking from you on the eligibility issue.
Quite frankly, your continued waffling on this issue just shows that you are a academic fraud, the incurable kind.

[paul_oshea]

I'd assume the reason its quite on here from NB, GR and EG is because they have gone back home to dublin for the parade and are on the beer as i now speak.

Just the few expats left like me, the witch doctor, the goalkeeper, the guitar player....and tets.

[paul_oshea]

And yes thats not a mistake, incase anyone thinks it is.....

[Gather round]

I'd assume the reason its quite on here from NB, GR and EG is because they have gone back home to dublin for the parade and are on the beer as i now speak

Sadly not a bank holiday where I am...

[Predator]

Good lord. You're like a kindergarten school kid in a playground. Maybe with future intentions of making the cheer-leading team at college. There's absolutely no difference in IFA policy from FAI policy, be that by the means or by the ends; stop kidding yourself that there is.Spot on.




Why ought his door have been shut if he has, as has now become very apparent, clearly harboured intentions to play for us, as well as England? Why would or should having us as another valid option for him be any different from having merely England as an option?I too am quite interested to hear EalingGreen's response to this. No vitriol when a player is unsure between two eligible teams, but when the FAI come into the equation, all hell breaks loose.

[The Fly]

No, a reply to Geysir. If I want to reply to EG, I'll quote his original comment.

I'll hold to the inference. ;)

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ha ha.
;)

Good to see Danny Invincible, Predator and The Fly all over this thread.

Our 'barrack room lawyers' are way ahead of the EG/GR's of this world.
Men against boys and all that.

[Not Brazil]

So you claim, but I'm not aware of FIFA making any distinction.

"Any Association which is responsible for organising and supervising football
in its country may become a Member of FIFA. In this context, the expression
“country” shall refer to an independent state recognised by the international
community. Subject to par. 5 and par. 6 below, only one Association shall be
recognised in each country"*

* Each of the four British Associations is recognised as a separate Member of
FIFA.

Northern Ireland is not the territory of the FAI - Northern Ireland is the territory of the IFA.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Isn't it technically 'both' after the CAS ruling though, NB??

As in your potentially relative loss and our gain?

[Not Brazil]

Isn't it technically 'both' after the CAS ruling though, NB??


Happy Saint Patrick's Day to you AB.

Not sure what you mean by "both"?

Are you confusing nationality with Association territory?

[Gather round]

I'll hold to the inference. ;)

And you'd still be wrong. I inferred nothing about posts I wasn't replying to.


Our 'barrack room lawyers' are way ahead of the EG/GR's of this world. Men against boys and all that

I didn't realise this thread was a court of law, military or otherwise. Even if it was, I haven't even replied to (or been answered by) Messrs Invincible and Predator, and merely corrected Fly who seems to think I was replying/ referring to one poster when I clearly addressed another. But if that's what floats Lord Justice Ardee's boat, fine.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Belated thanks NB. Hope yours was good?

Apologies for responding to the other distorted interjection, but stand by the point that certain posters have very visibly lost on the very tenuous points they were alluding to make.
And just as well had no legal standing, as they would have been laughed out long ago!!!
;)

They should quit before they fall further behind.

[ArdeeBhoy]

More seriously does the CAS ruling differentiate between potential nationality and territory in this instance?? As in the subsequent national association.
As in it can fall both sides of the fence, as it were.

Despite the odd, er, 'protestation', guessing Messrs. Invincible, Pred & Fly have answered either here or in threads passim.....

[Eminence Grise]

8 pages already... I'm coming over all nostalgic for the Boundary Commission...

[drummerboy]

I just hope this kid is worth all the fuss. Somehow I think not.