Eligibility proposal

[Blanchflower]

This team we call Ireland - you can call it what you like (beggars, tinkers, mexicans, thieves, Fenians, Taigs) - doesn't represent the 32 counties

Tell that to kingdomkerry.

[Juanace]

Wow people we all need to take a few chill pills!!

Lets leave the technicalities to one side (Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Ireland or whatever..are we all really so petty? Lets move on a we bit eh?)

In essence i agree (and I'd reckon most Norn Ireland Fans would too) is that if a lad from the 6 countries feels they are more represented by by the ROI team then they should be allowed play for them - after all we cant force someone to play for a team that doesnt represent them, in their opinion - we all know the reasons a lad from the North might feel like this.

In reality it seems very rare anyway that anyone from the North plays for the ROI, take Gibson out and its really a mute point, so lets not get all hot and bothered about it eh!

[Gather round]

Players will elect to play for the team they feel will give them the best opportunity to progress their career on the international stage

As schoolboy footballers in NI, their best chance of playing international football is to get a professional contract in England. To achieve that, they'll probably need to play school or youth representative football, most likely for NI. I hope and expect that the IFA and FAI will agree/ compromise that anyone playing for a youth international side (ie aged 16+) can't then play for another country.

Totally agree. Players born in Northern Ireland will chose to play for Ireland if they are good enough as a cap for Ireland will add more value to their club paycheck than a Northern Ireland cap

Well, as above I think it's the other way round. You need to be getting kicked regularly in English Division 3 (where we both have players this term) before thinking of internationals.

This team we call Ireland - you can call it what you like

Republic of Ireland, Southern Ireland or for short the South. No offence intended in any of these.

In footballing terms you'll lose a hadnfull of players a decade, of which you will no doubt get some back when they weigh up their options before 21

Agreed on the net losses, although as above I don't think it would be unreasonable to deny them that option.

I think the amount they loose will depend on the amount of players from a nationalist background who would be good enough to play for Ireland?

Anyone in the current NI team is clearly good enough to push for a place in the Republic's- our team has been better for the last two seasons.

I think the number leaving will depend on how strong their politics are?

As the norths player pool is halved, this will eventually lead to an All Ireland team which is what i guess about 80% of the people want

There's no prospect of the NI team dissolving itself. Why wait for this, when you clearly think your existing team is all-Ireland?

[lopez]

Tell that to kingdomkerry.What we have is the de facto sectarianisation of the two representative teams in Ireland. It's not what a lot of people wanted (or claim they wanted) but the alternative for the IFA is worse. Do you think it would be right for the FAI to seek Unionists to play for them in positions they require backup (goalkeeper), or just let players (or more usually a 'representative') approach them (who are usually always of a nationalist background) and take it from there?

[Blanchflower]

What we have is the de facto sectarianisation of the two representative teams in Ireland.

I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Many RCs will continue to play for and support NI, as they always have done. After all, the FIFA ruling doesn't change anything.

[ifk101]

I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Many RCs will continue to play for and support NI, as they always have done. After all, the FIFA ruling doesn't change anything.

What's RCs?

[Paddy Garcia]

I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Many RCs will continue to play for and support NI, as they always have done. After all, the FIFA ruling doesn't change anything.

I think it opens the door far wider than previously was the case.

Also there was some doubt and debate on the eligability issue up to now, this has been publically put to bed.

[Paddy Garcia]

What's RCs?

Right Centreback. Do you know nothing?

[Paddy Garcia]

so lets not get all hot and bothered about it eh!

LOL- if you think the last few posts are hot & bothered, you ain't seen nothing yet on this issue!

[paul_oshea]

roman catholics.

reminds me of the term "arsey" when a mate was getting married and he thought the reverand in the church was calling him arsey when he actually meant RC.

[ifk101]

reminds me of the term "arsey" when a mate was getting married and he thought the reverand in the church was calling him arsey when he actually meant RC.


Very good :D:D:D

[geysir]

The FIFA executive board were not going to approve any changes to the Statutes, they can't anyway, any changes have to be voted on at the AGM or congress by the members.
The only issue outstanding for this past month was a compromise allowing republic born to declare for the North under article 15, (with no annex conditions applying)
The FIFA executive board have the authority, without the need for a congress vote on the matter, to approve a submission (in this case the compromise) by the Legal Board and add it to the statutes as a special agreement between the IFA and FAI.
But the main condition is that both Federations agree on the Legal Board approved compromise.
When that main condition was not met, the Executive Board are not going to rubber stamp a proposed compromise that does not meet the approval of the IFA.
They merely accept the Legal Dept reccomendation that one or both parties do not agree and the matter should be dropped.
That is the only significance attached to the short statement on the matter issued by FIFA executive board.

However I fail to grasp the totality of the mindset of the IFA who have been in direct contact with FIFA legal dept on the eligibility issue for over a year now and are still clueless.

[paul_oshea]

However I fail to grasp the totality of the mindset of the IFA who have been in direct contact with FIFA legal dept on the eligibility issue for over a year now and are still clueless.


We all know the reason for that ;)

[Paddy Garcia]

When that main condition was not met, the Executive Board are not going to rubber stamp a proposed compromise that does not meet the approval of the IFA.


The reports suggest that it was rejected by both parties.

[Blanchflower]

I think it opens the door far wider than previously was the case.

Also there was some doubt and debate on the eligability issue up to now, this has been publically put to bed.

If the FAI decide to step up their poaching, then I agree, there will be more RCs opting for ROI than in the past. But my general point remains - the NI team will remain mixed.

[Blanchflower]

The FIFA executive board were not going to approve any changes to the Statutes, they can't anyway, any changes have to be voted on at the AGM or congress by the members.
.
Surely a change to the statutes wasn't needed - just another of those annexes/circulars?


However I fail to grasp the totality of the mindset of the IFA who have been in direct contact with FIFA legal dept on the eligibility issue for over a year now and are still clueless.

They're stupid.

[geysir]

The reports suggest that it was rejected by both parties.
It could well be the case,
"They stated that no specific regulations applied because both associations refused previous proposals by Fifa.

But that looks to me that the FIFA legal head was referring to proposals made previous to the last one. And my impression was that the the FAI were resonably positive over this last proposal.
The FAI playing hard ball :eek:

[geysir]

Surely a change to the statutes wasn't needed - just another of those annexes/circulars?

Indeed, that's why I wrote this as well

The FIFA executive board have the authority, without the need for a congress vote on the matter, to approve a submission (in this case the compromise) by the Legal Board and add it to the statutes as a special agreement between the IFA and FAI.
The annex had to be voted on at a general Congress

[paul_oshea]

RCs?! that is an arsey comment actually, because the majority of people on both sides of the border dont care for the church

[kingdomkerry]

If the FAI decide to step up their poaching, then I agree, there will be more RCs opting for ROI than in the past. But my general point remains - the NI team will remain mixed.

Theres no "poaching". Irish players are opting to play for a team that best represents them. An Irish man from Derry is obviously going to be accepted the same as an irish player from say, Cork. What do you expect the FAI to do tell them to p1ss off??

Its like this, if NI supporters want promising young "RCs" to play for the team they support they'll have to agree to an All Ireland team.

PS If the northern team remains mixed it will be unionist and any nationalists that cannot make the Ireland team. DG has set the precident, players will always choose to play for the team they supported growing up!

[geysir]

Darron Gibson has said there are a few players he knows are already wanting to declare for the Republic.
Is poaching defined as a player, wishing to declare, telephoning the FAI on wanting to know how to go about that?
I have a few cousins who are teaching in the North, they tell me that the kids in their school just naturally follow the Republic's team, ie they are not ordered or coerced to, just free will.

[Gather round]

RCs?! that is an arsey comment actually, because the majority of people on both sides of the border dont care for the church

I'd have said 'nationalists' myself, but Roman Catholics is reasonable as a shorthand. If someone's called Damian Aloysius O'Tuathail and went to a Marist school in Derry (say, no specific example), ye can be FAIRLY sure his family background is Catholic without any guesswork into his politics ;)

Its like this, if NI supporters want promising young "RCs" to play for the team they support they'll have to agree to an All Ireland team

Don't be silly. We ain't giving up our team and I'm certain, as Blanche said, that nats/ catholics will continue to play for it.

PS If the northern team remains mixed it will be unionist and any nationalists that cannot make the Ireland team

Who are you to say what any of the players'/ fans' politics are?

Is poaching defined as a player, wishing to declare, telephoning the FAI on wanting to know how to go about that?
...in the North, they tell me that the kids in their school just naturally follow the Republic's team, ie they are not ordered or coerced to, just free will

I wouldn't accuse the FAI of 'poaching' players UNLESS the IFA had a specific agreement with them that no-one could transfer AFTER playing for our youth and u-21 sides

[Blanchflower]

Theres no "poaching". Irish players are opting to play for a team that best represents them. An Irish man from Derry is obviously going to be accepted the same as an irish player from say, Cork. What do you expect the FAI to do tell them to p1ss off??

In a spirit of neighbourliness, the FAI should elect not to select them as has been the case for the majority of the last 50 years.


Its like this, if NI supporters want promising young "RCs" to play for the team they support they'll have to agree to an All Ireland team.
How do you know? There are already promising young RCs playing for NI, so that would indicate that your statement is false.


PS If the northern team remains mixed it will be unionist and any nationalists that cannot make the Ireland team.

How do you know?

[lopez]

This team we call Ireland - you can call it what you like

Republic of Ireland, Southern Ireland or for short the South. No offence intended in any of these.
No offence if we call it Ireland either.


I think the amount they loose will depend on the amount of players from a nationalist background who would be good enough to play for Ireland?
Anyone in the current NI team is clearly good enough to push for a place in the Republic's- our team has been better for the last two seasons.
I think you are getting the performance of the NI team mixed up with the quality as shown by the respected clubs the players play for. This has been helped by the difference between your first manager and the muppet we inherited. I doubt that any of your defenders could not do a better job than O'Shea, but do they play for the premiership champions?

If the FAI decide to step up their poaching, then I agree, there will be more RCs opting for ROI than in the past. But my general point remains - the NI team will remain mixed.Poaching? :rolleyes: And I was almost thinking you were taking this quite well.

RCs?! that is an arsey comment actually, because the majority of people on both sides of the border dont care for the church

I'd have said 'nationalists' myself, but Roman Catholics is reasonable as a shorthand. If someone's called Damian Aloysius O'Tuathail and went to a Marist school in Derry (say, no specific example), ye can be FAIRLY sure his family background is Catholic without any guesswork into his politics ;).
Disagree. Nationalists have always included Protestants just as there have always been Catholic unionists. To lump anyone in a religious category is laziness, even if his name is Taig O'Fenian and he went to Our Lady of whatever.

[Not Brazil]

Its like this, if NI supporters want promising young "RCs" to play for the team they support they'll have to agree to an All Ireland team.


:D

That made my day!

As it happens, there are plenty of "promising RCs" playing for Northern Ireland at various levels.

You might be surprised at how many of them will, politely,tell the FAI to sling their hook, should they come knocking at their door.:cool:

Your misguided notion of a "fantasy island", singular, AI team lies in tatters.

You'll have to stick to your "next best" option....because, that's as good as it's getting.

[Buller]

Fantasy island? You sir are misguided. :cool:

[Gather round]

No offence if we call it Ireland either

None taken. Merely trying to avoid confusion ;)

I think you are getting the performance of the NI team mixed up with the quality as shown by the respected clubs the players play for. This has been helped by the difference between your first manager and the muppet we inherited. I doubt that any of your defenders could not do a better job than O'Shea, but do they play for the premiership champions?

I think there's a more basic reason. More of our players seem to treat internationals as a step up (which it is obviously is when you play for Nottingham Forest in English D3, less so if you're a regular timewasting injury time sub for ManU).

A series of 12 international matches over 14 months is long enough to compare relative quality

To lump anyone in a religious category is laziness, even if his name is Taig O'Fenian and he went to Our Lady of whatever

Isn't lumping them in a political category equally unsatisfactory?

[Not Brazil]

Fantasy island? You sir are misguided. :cool:

I'm sure you were wanting to make a point, but I must aplogise...you've lost me.:confused:

Maybe you would be so kind as to expand your point, and I will duly deal with any salient issues within it, to which I hold a contrary opinion?

[geysir]

Disagree. Nationalists have always included Protestants just as there have always been Catholic unionists. To lump anyone in a religious category is laziness, even if his name is Taig O'Fenian and he went to Our Lady of whatever.
I agree with your disagreement. Using the religious lump categories has more than a few shades of a caste perception. I am not a Catholic, anything but.
I don´t mind being lumped under the Nationalist umbrella, the understanding being that there are 40 shades of green.

[osarusan]

I think that for many ROI supporters, especially those who are on the more "nationalist" side, it is an appealing thought to imagine, or to assume, that for years in the past, every young player who is also of nationalist persuasion has secretly harboured desires of playing for the ROI, and from now on they will be able to follow their dream and declare for the ROI, having being liberated from the strait-jacket of the Northern Irish team.

But we really don't know if that will be the case, and I'm guessing it won't. Not everybody in Northern Ireland will be guided by those principles, I'm sure that some will decide their loyalty based geographical reasons.

[Dodge]

But we really don't know if that will be the case, and I'm guessing it won't. Not everybody in Northern Ireland will be guided by those principles, I'm sure that some will decide their loyalty based geographical reasons.
And others will take a professional approach and do whatever is best for their own career. I'd imagine it'd be similar to the 3g "Irish" in Britain

[Not Brazil]

And others will take a professional approach and do whatever is best for their own career.

Spot on.

[kingdom hoop]

Spot on.

But you talkin' pimples or angina?

Sorry that's a bit cryptic. I just think that when it comes to issues like these that one's heart is often the diagnostic tool more than the oul head.

That's assuming the youth have such feelings in their heart. Thankfully, the political problems are abating so such sentiments may become less commonplace in an interesting, mildly ironic, twist to the whole tale.

[Newryrep]

The 4 criteria also apply in respect of players whose nationality entitles them to play for >1 team. This is the bit that confused the IFA, who thought this applied to dual nationality - but it doesn't: it applies to a players whose single nationality qualifies them for more than one team.

where does it say this ? as i have seen it mentioned elsewhere

The circular refers to assuming a new nationality so in theory you could be Brazilian acquire Qatary citizenship (ie passport) then the 4 criteria apply

[Not Brazil]

where does it say this ? as i have seen it mentioned elsewhere

The circular refers to assuming a new nationality so in theory you could be Brazilian acquire Qatary citizenship (ie passport) then the 4 criteria apply

Hey, don't faze yourself.

It's over - you won.

Hooray!:)

[Blanchflower]

where does it say this ? as i have seen it mentioned elsewhere

The circular refers to assuming a new nationality so in theory you could be Brazilian acquire Qatary citizenship (ie passport) then the 4 criteria apply

If you read this

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/ps_901_en_90.pdf

you'll see it at the end of the first page in the sentence beginning "On 4 December 2003 ...".

[lopez]

To lump anyone in a religious category is laziness, even if his name is Taig O'Fenian and he went to Our Lady of whatever

Isn't lumping them in a political category equally unsatisfactory?Well there are different types of catholicsm (Everyone from Opus Dei barbed wire wearing mysogynists to the christening, weddings and funeral types) and there are far more differences within what is termed as 'Protestantism'. How ironic in this season of goodwill, where many people feel that the Christian side of Christmas is being watered down - 'ban on school nativity plays...Muslims...our culture under attack...Muslims...political correctness gone mad...Muslims' - that some Christians who actually do attend a religious establishment and read the new testament regularly are actually hostile to Christmas. Didn't Cromwell ban it?

But I digress. Religion is one thing; politics is another. Irish Nationalism has never been exclusively Catholic in its supporters - although the majority has been of one religion - even if this Nationalism itself has many faces and doctrines.

[Newryrep]

If you read this

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/ps_901_en_90.pdf

you'll see it at the end of the first page in the sentence beginning "On 4 December 2003 ...".

Thanks, i was genuinely curious as the level of journalism/mis information displayed on these islands wrt this case is appalling

Not Brazil- i wasnt gloating - see above

[co. down green]

I'm amazed internet trolls like 'not Brazil' & 'Blanchflower' have so much time on their hands to spend on an Ireland supporters site.

[Blanchflower]

Thanks, i was genuinely curious as the level of journalism/mis information displayed on these islands wrt this case is appalling



Not just wrt this case, Newry. The standard of journalism (particularly in NI) is dreadful. I get the impression that journalists are too lazy to do their own research and only too willing to accept what they are told in press releases and soundbites as Gospel.

[geysir]

Howard Wells - Buffoon of the Year

The IFA claimed victory on Saturday and Sunday.
On Monday
Howard Wells had some second thoughts, eh, if we won why are FAI smiling? but the huge fog of denial ascended again
'They cant win - we can't let them win, Fifa must apply the rules'

The arrogant, stubborn, self righteous and idiotic H Wells can't consider for a second that maybe the people who framed the rules know what they are about, greater than the great Howard Wells.
But Howard still insists that he is right and FIFA/FAI/everybody else is wrong.

"if the FAI are claiming a victory because they think that they can select players who have an Irish passport"
"it is about eligibility. We need clarification from FIFA and then we'll see where we stand."

Howard is a no brainer choice for Buffoon of the Year

[Gather round]

I'm amazed internet trolls like 'not Brazil' & 'Blanchflower' have so much time on their hands to spend on an Ireland supporters site.


Possibly because the thread's about players from Northern Ireland?

[Blanchflower]

Howard Wells - Buffoon of the Year

The IFA claimed victory on Saturday and Sunday.
On Monday
Howard Wells had some second thoughts, eh, if we won why are FAI smiling? but the huge fog of denial ascended again
'They cant win - we can't let them win, Fifa must apply the rules'

The arrogant, stubborn, self righteous and idiotic H Wells can't consider for a second that maybe the people who framed the rules know what they are about, greater than the great Howard Wells.
But Howard still insists that he is right and FIFA/FAI/everybody else is wrong.

"if the FAI are claiming a victory because they think that they can select players who have an Irish passport"
"it is about eligibility. We need clarification from FIFA and then we'll see where we stand."

Howard is a no brainer choice for Buffoon of the Year

They haven't understood the rules. Instead of arguing that they ought to be modified, they are arguing for them to be enforced (even though enforcement means the FAI wins).:eek:

I pointed this out to Howard in an email. He obviously studied it carefully.:o

[EalingGreen]

Howard Wells - Buffoon of the Year

The IFA claimed victory on Saturday and Sunday.
On Monday
Howard Wells had some second thoughts, eh, if we won why are FAI smiling? but the huge fog of denial ascended again
'They cant win - we can't let them win, Fifa must apply the rules'

The arrogant, stubborn, self righteous and idiotic H Wells can't consider for a second that maybe the people who framed the rules know what they are about, greater than the great Howard Wells.
But Howard still insists that he is right and FIFA/FAI/everybody else is wrong.

"if the FAI are claiming a victory because they think that they can select players who have an Irish passport"
"it is about eligibility. We need clarification from FIFA and then we'll see where we stand."

Howard is a no brainer choice for Buffoon of the Year

Whilst I hold no brief for Wells for a whole host of reasons, I would confidently state that whatever else, he's no fool. Which leads me to one of the most puzzling aspects of this whole affair.

Irrespective of the technical merits of the argument (rules, interpretation, application etc), it seems very clear that following their last submission to FIFA, the IFA must have been given a clear steer that they were going to win their case.

I say this because although they (the IFA, inc. Wells) are just capable, I suppose, of seriously misreading the signals, it seems clear that Delaney was also under that impression when he came back from his meeting with FIFA one week later. Otherwise, how does one explain the Report from RTE where Delaney, in sore need of good news the day before sacking Stan, spun the fact that at least it wouldn't apply to Gibson (i.e. we won the battle, though not the war)?

Further evidence of FIFA's inconsistency followed with their proposed "compromise", whereby they offered the IFA the opportunity to pick players from the FAI's jurisdiction as a quid pro quo. That is, if the Rules are clear and can only be applied in favour of the FAI, why would FIFA offer this sop to one of its Members (IFA) who had evidently brought such a misplaced case before them?

Finally, although I don't have the exact reference to hand, post-Tokyo didn't someone from FIFA say something about a "real case" needing to be brought to the CAS before it would finally be resolved?

This last could be explained by FIFA still being uncertain/unwilling to come out and state definitively that the FAI may pick NI-born players, regardless of parent/g'parent/residence etc, or may not, the implication being that Darron Gibson is not a "real" case, since he defected to the FAI before the Annex was brought in?

[Btw, I'm not seeking with this post to re-open the whole debate about which Association is right or wrong etc, merely genuinely puzzled by one particular aspect of the whole affair which doesn't add up for me]

[ifk101]

Otherwise, how does one explain the Report from RTE where Delaney, in sore need of good news the day before sacking Stan, spun the fact that at least it wouldn't apply to Gibson (i.e. we won the battle, though not the war)?

Link please.


Further evidence of FIFA's inconsistency followed with their proposed "compromise", whereby they offered the IFA the opportunity to pick players from the FAI's jurisdiction as a quid pro quo. That is, if the Rules are clear and can only be applied in favour of the FAI, why would FIFA offer this sop to one of its Members (IFA) who had evidently brought such a misplaced case before them?

They didn't offer anything - it was a proposal to induce dialogue between the two associations on the subject at hand.


Finally, although I don't have the exact reference to hand, post-Tokyo didn't someone from FIFA say something about a "real case" needing to be brought to the CAS before it would finally be resolved?

This last could be explained by FIFA still being uncertain/unwilling to come out and state definitively that the FAI may pick NI-born players, regardless of parent/g'parent/residence etc, or may not, the implication being that Darron Gibson is not a "real" case, since he defected to the FAI before the Annex was brought in?

Grasping at straws methinks. If the IFA wish to further challenge existing rules they need to present their case to the CAS. There's nothing more to it - there's no reading between the lines, no subliminal message, there's nothing else there to understand.

[lopez]

...I say this because although they (the IFA, inc. Wells) are just capable, I suppose, of seriously misreading the signals
They probably did.


...it seems clear that Delaney was also under that impression when he came back from his meeting with FIFA one week later. Otherwise, how does one explain the Report from RTE where Delaney, in sore need of good news the day before sacking Stan, spun the fact that at least it wouldn't apply to Gibson (i.e. we won the battle, though not the war)?
Perhaps he's a glass half empty man these days.

Further evidence of FIFA's inconsistency followed with their proposed "compromise", whereby they offered the IFA the opportunity to pick players from the FAI's jurisdiction as a quid pro quo. That is, if the Rules are clear and can only be applied in favour of the FAI, why would FIFA offer this sop to one of its Members (IFA) who had evidently brought such a misplaced case before them?
The current arrangement is one sided.

Finally, although I don't have the exact reference to hand, post-Tokyo didn't someone from FIFA say something about a "real case" needing to be brought to the CAS before it would finally be resolved?
It probably does. But how that will change the situation in your favour - players haven't changed nationality; players wishes are paramount, etc. - is beyond me.

This last could be explained by FIFA still being uncertain/unwilling to come out and state definitively that the FAI may pick NI-born players, regardless of parent/g'parent/residence etc, or may not, the implication being that Darron Gibson is not a "real" case, since he defected to the FAI before the Annex was brought in?
The best to be hoped for is either an attempt to bring in a new rule (as Blanchflower suggested, but it seems that the mandarins at the IFA are not the sort to listen to the lowly supporter) which would be unlikely to succeed, or come to an arangement with the FAI (e.g. Legally bounding agreement that a player cannot join the the FAI side once he has represented NI at any level above schools). Sticking the head in the sand is not the answer. I don't think it's in the FAI's interests to pick players who join them because they are either too good (or maybe even too bad) for the IFA, when this is a question of principal on nationality.

[geysir]

I say this because although they (the IFA, inc. Wells) are just capable, I suppose, of seriously misreading the signals, it seems clear that Delaney was also under that impression when he came back from his meeting with FIFA one week later. Otherwise, how does one explain the Report from RTE where Delaney, in sore need of good news the day before sacking Stan, spun the fact that at least it wouldn't apply to Gibson (i.e. we won the battle, though not the war)?
I seriously doubt the contention that Wells etc have been led up the garden path by FIFA.
At most, I guess FIFA were sympathetic and the evidence for that is the compromise proposal put forward by FIFA
The evidence you put forward is weak. In fact you do not put forward evidence (just surmising, as usual :) )
For starters FIFA did review the situation and it was normal enough to ask the FAI to not select anybody from the North with the situation under general review.
Also I heard that interview with Delaney, nothing mysterious with it at all, he replied quite clearly to a question about Gibson, Delaney said that there was no issue with Gibson and never was because he declared before the annex. Something which didn't dawn on Wells until FIFA confined him to a padded cell in November and managed to find a very short 5 second window of opportunity when his concious state was open to receive and accept real information.

Wells has no excuse for repeated demonstrated inability to interpret simple FIFA mesages like this one
'A FIFA spokesman told the Belfast Telegraph: 'The current situation is that for the Irish Football Association, players can choose also to play for the Football Association of Ireland, but the vice-versa is not possible.'

The question Wells never sought to get an answer for or refused to even acknowledge that he received an answer to was
What are the reasons that FIFA give for not applying the annex criteria to the Irish situation?

[janeymac]

Whilst I hold no brief for Wells for a whole host of reasons, I would confidently state that whatever else, he's no fool. Which leads me to one of the most puzzling aspects of this whole affair.

Irrespective of the technical merits of the argument (rules, interpretation, application etc), it seems very clear that following their last submission to FIFA, the IFA must have been given a clear steer that they were going to win their case.

I say this because although they (the IFA, inc. Wells) are just capable, I suppose, of seriously misreading the signals, it seems clear that Delaney was also under that impression when he came back from his meeting with FIFA one week later. Otherwise, how does one explain the Report from RTE where Delaney, in sore need of good news the day before sacking Stan, spun the fact that at least it wouldn't apply to Gibson (i.e. we won the battle, though not the war)?

Further evidence of FIFA's inconsistency followed with their proposed "compromise", whereby they offered the IFA the opportunity to pick players from the FAI's jurisdiction as a quid pro quo. That is, if the Rules are clear and can only be applied in favour of the FAI, why would FIFA offer this sop to one of its Members (IFA) who had evidently brought such a misplaced case before them?

Finally, although I don't have the exact reference to hand, post-Tokyo didn't someone from FIFA say something about a "real case" needing to be brought to the CAS before it would finally be resolved?

This last could be explained by FIFA still being uncertain/unwilling to come out and state definitively that the FAI may pick NI-born players, regardless of parent/g'parent/residence etc, or may not, the implication being that Darron Gibson is not a "real" case, since he defected to the FAI before the Annex was brought in?

[Btw, I'm not seeking with this post to re-open the whole debate about which Association is right or wrong etc, merely genuinely puzzled by one particular aspect of the whole affair which doesn't add up for me]

EG - I think IFA/Wells are (arrogant) fools. A question was asked (twice) during the NI Assembly whether legal advice was sought. Since it was not answered, one can only presume no legal advice was sought. And then these amateur lawyers go talk to FIFA's Legal committee.:confused:

As an aside (from NI Assembly debate), amused me!

Mr Shannon: If FIFA makes the ruling that has been suggested, it will mean that only Protestants will ever play for the Northern Ireland team, because any Catholic who wants to play, and has the ability to do so, will be pressured into playing for the Republic of Ireland —whether or not he wants to. Not so long ago, the Republic of Ireland team were known as the “England B team”. I am sure that that sent shock waves through the Republic of Ireland supporters and players. :D

Assembly debate here:
http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2007/071211.htm#4

I'm reassured though that people other than myself have difficulty in understanding this whole Irish/British/both nationality thing.

Quote from debate:
Mr McNarry: In our efforts to stabilise our country, we have stretched the art of compromise almost beyond belief in this place. We have even confused ourselves to the extent that we have almost outwitted each other in pursuit of some hybrid definition of an Irish person, which meets the deeply-held convictions to be both Irish and British at the same time, or only Irish or only British.

[EalingGreen]

Link please.


Can't find the exact link just now, but the Examiner of the following day (23/10) would appear to back up my recall:
"There was also some mixed news for the FAI out of Zurich yesterday, after an FAI delegation lead by John Delaney met with FIFA officials to discuss the vexed issue of players born in Northern Ireland declaring for the Republic. The good news for the FAI is that any proposed change in FIFA policy on the matter will not be applied retrospectively, which means that Manchester United midfielder Darren Gibson is cleared to continue playing for the Republic.
However, in the absence of a definitive judgement from FIFA it remains a possibility that football’s world governing body will amend its rules so that players born in the North will no longer be able to play for the Republic unless they qualify under the parentage rule. This would be the outcome for which the IFA in Belfast have been lobbying for some time"
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=2115770&p=zyy58y6&n=2115858



They didn't offer anything - it was a proposal to induce dialogue between the two associations on the subject at hand.


If FIFA are entirely satisfied that the FAI's case is so clear-cut that they have done no wrong, why would they (FAI) be interested in a dialogue about a proposal, however unlikely, which could only harm them (i.e. by losing ROI-born players to the IFA)? What did FIFA "owe" to the IFA such that they (FIFA) would make such a suggestion to the FAI?



Grasping at straws methinks. If the IFA wish to further challenge existing rules they need to present their case to the CAS. There's nothing more to it - there's no reading between the lines, no subliminal message, there's nothing else there to understand.

Again, if the FAI's case is rock-solid, why would FIFA risk wasting everybodys time by even alluding to the possibility of a challenge?

[kingdomkerry]

The debate is over really.

Under the GFA all Irish citizens in all 32 counties can claim Irish citezenship therefore they can choose to play for Ireland if they wish. Players from the six counties can also play with the IFA team if they want. (We all know why many will not)

The IFA challenged this as they wanted to force all players in the six counties to play for them under symbolism which does not represent them (to put it mildly).

They failed. FIFA were never going to overrule an internationally binding agreement.

End of!!! Unless the IFA take the matter to the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS). Leave them if they are so stupid to do so. There is'nt a snowballs chance in hell the CAS are going to deny nationalist people in the north of ireland their human right to represent the country of their citizenship.

Now we should be talking about the next players from the 6 counties that may be good enough to grace croke park/lansdown road?