Eligibility proposal

[IsMiseSean]

A quick question about the Isle of Man
Which country are these guys eligable to play for?

[antrimgreen]

Same probably goes.

What about Rockall, if born there can you play for 7 teams! Scotland, Wales, England, 2 Irish teams, Sweden & Denmark!!

[micls]

So there you have it. I personally would urge foot.ie posters to join and contribute - so long as they desist from Trolling and Flaming etc, and try to put their argument in a coherent way, they can be a welcome addition to the Board. There are, of course, a few foot.ie posters* who likely won't last very long; then again, I suspect they greatly embarrass the majority of other members of this forum with their witterings!


I tried but waiting a week or so now for the Admin to clear it. Used the same username as on here, just interested in gettting the views on there, certainly wouldnt be trying to wind anyone up.

[EalingGreen]

First of all, fair play, since that dazzler/dan fella posted that 'Britishness' thing last night there have been more posts this morning telling him to get lost - although largely along the lines of 'busted', 'so long' etc than openly disagreeing with the statement he made.

Which is the point! The fact is that this forum hasn't even become a 'we're better than you' argument, its become a 'you're worse than us' situation! The fact is that some players and fans associate with our team more than yours, and if the NI supporters community is genuinely committed to ensuring all backgrounds are attracted to your team then comments like I posted above (I notice you and NB have only picked that one out of the selection I posted earlier; what about the rest? Nobody has been criticising them openly) then all posts like that have to be OPENLY attacked for what they truly represent. You can't have it both ways; maybe the majority on that site are open-minded and level-headed, but its very easy to say that, and a different thing altogether to actually demonstrate it, in such ways as banning those who post their bigotted crap and posters rallying to let him know his views do not represent theirs.

Until that happens (and its not just about forums, it goes to other aspects of NI football too) you cannot claim that OWC and therefore the NI support is truly trying to attract people of all background - which is probably why there are the ROI supporters and players choosing to identify with us. If those posts had been responded to with waves of posts telling them how much people disagreed, I would have posted those too. I'm not just picking on OWC for the sake of it (or because I'm a mega-republican or a bigot) but to demonstrate that for a lot of on-the-surface rhetoric about how NI is an all-inclusive cross-community team, there appears to be very little substance to it and very few people actually willing to go the extra mile to back it up (and while I recognise Windsor in now better than it was and FFA and such things, to flash those as if it has solved the problem entirely it completely disregarding the evidence provided on OWC). That is my problem with the site; a steady flow of 'the ROI are the real bigots for encouraging sectarianism whereas we support a cross-community NI team' whereas the truth of the matter is that we have been 99% constructive and unbiased by political issues, and large (and I do mean LARGE) sections of your supporters - OWC, for example - have not. And it ****es me off when those NI fans throw our hugely unusual occurances of sectarianism in our faces, whilst completely ignoring the far, far larger problem that they have in their own support.


Shane,
You are posting from the perspective of an ROI fan browsing (posting?) the site of a rival's supporters. Quite naturally, such fans are challenged by the great majority of OWC posters. And as is always the case, the more "rabid" NI fans make the most noise. However, you should not make the mistake that these latter are representative. As ever, it is the same few (myself included!) who account for the majority of posts, which obsures the fact that OWC now has over 13,000 registered Members (I think). I am quite certain that the majority of those are in the middle of the spectrum, but being moderate, they either don't post often, or their views get swamped by the noisy minority.

Why do I feel this? Because I am an NI fan who posts in the "Ireland" section of foot.ie! Although I have generally tried to avoid personalising the debate and choose my words carefully (at the expense of brevity!), I was somewhat taken aback by the vituperative response which I initially encountered. In fact, I could reproduce your above post virtually word-for-word, but with the labels reversed.

Subsequently, however, I came to appreciate that a relatively few extreme individuals do not actually represent the consensus on foot.ie, just as my experience tells me that that is so with owc.

Therefore, for every offensive/extreme/irrelevant/contentious MOPE on OWC, there is a "Lopez" on foot.ie.

Anyhow, that's my "two cents worth". But I will leave you with one further thought for consideration as we await a final decision by FIFA on this whole issue of eligibility and identity. Those ROI posters or commentators who are most vehement in their condemnation of all those "bigots up there in the North" are invariably those who are also most concerned to see their team united with the NI team into one entity. Has it never occurred to them that any "united" Ireland team which should ever come about will NOT be a "pick and mix" operation? That is, if you are to get our David Healy, you will also get us?

Which is why I personally feel there is about as much chance of the NI team being somehow subsumed into the ROI team as there is of the FAI finally admitting they acted hastily all those years ago and asking to be readmitted into the "real" Irish Football Association - Original and (George) Best!

[Drumcondra 69er]

A quick question about the Isle of Man
Which country are these guys eligable to play for?

NI, England, Scotland or Wales, it's their choice as holders of a UK of GB & NI passport.

[EalingGreen]

A quick question about the Isle of Man
Which country are these guys eligable to play for?

Christ, you weren't over for the TT Races and unearthed the next footballing superstar*, were you? Now that would have the potential to cause a bit of a row!

Anyhow, assuming you're serious, I would expect that IOM players would be treated the same as Channel Islanders. That is, in the absence of a National team for them to represent in international competition, FIFA would look to their individual circumstances to see which country they might most reasonably represent. And although they have autonomous self-government and are not EU-members, for example, the IOM also has a somewhat unique relationship with the UK - travelling on UK Passports etc.

Therefore, if the individual has a parent/grandparent from one of the four home" nations, or has resided in one continuously for at least two years, he will be tied to the respective Association. However, in the absence of one of these, he may choose which of the four he may represent. (

* - Personally, we could do with a good young keeper sometime soon to replace Big Maik

[paul_oshea]

How ironic that that this should have been on a thread entitled "Eligibility Finalised"!

That was down to my lys dexia EG ;)

[EalingGreen]

I tried but waiting a week or so now for the Admin to clear it. Used the same username as on here, just interested in gettting the views on there, certainly wouldnt be trying to wind anyone up.

With so many members (13k?), the server sometimes crashes at times of high activity, despite their having purchased extra band-width several times already this year.

Also, times like these attract a higher than usual number of trolls from out beneath their rocks.

Consequently, the Board occasionally suspends new membership applications and/or access to non-members*, until things quieten down.

Keep trying, though with our vital last two qualification games for Euro2008 both imminent, I suspect that the traffic on the site is going to be heavier than ever for a few weeks!


* - Just occasionally they even temporarily suspend access for Members i.e. go Patrons only

[geysir]

I would expect that IOM players would be treated the same as Channel Islanders. That is, in the absence of a National team for them to represent in international competition, FIFA would look to their individual circumstances to see which country they might most reasonably represent. And although they have autonomous self-government and are not EU-members, for example, the IOM also has a somewhat unique relationship with the UK - travelling on UK Passports etc.

Therefore, if the individual has a parent/grandparent from one of the four home" nations, or has resided in one continuously for at least two years, he will be tied to the respective Association. However, in the absence of one of these, he may choose which of the four he may represent.
I stand well open to correction but I do have some form at interpreting FIFA statutes :)
The agreement between the 4 UK federations - just refers to bloodline connection as criteria apart from obvious birth place..
It is a royalist agreement not republican. (The annex conditions are republican.) Residency does not come into it at all.
A footballer born outside the borders (on one of the Islands) of the 4 UK federations and holding a shared nationality UK passport can choose whatever national team he wants to play for. There are no conditions applied as in residency or blood line and neither of these conditions stand in the way of choice.

FROM FIFA
3. British associations
1 There is a specific agreement, stipulating the conditions to play for a
national team, for the four British associations134. Besides having British
nationality, the player needs to fulfi l at least one of the following
conditions
a) he was born on the territory of the relevant association;
b) his biological mother or father was born on the territory of the
relevant association;
c) his grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the
relevant association.
2 If a player has a British passport, but no territorial relationship as
provided for in conditions a-c above, he can choose for which of the
British associations he wants to play135.

135 e.g. a player who was born on the Cayman Islands and holds British nationality can choose to play
for any of the four British associations if called up by a British association.

[Lionel Ritchie]

A quick question about the Isle of Man
Which country are these guys eligable to play for?

EG has handled this but I do believe Isle of Man has a representative team who, unlike us, didn't ship any goals against San Marino. Couple of links below...

http://www.isleofmanfa.com/FixturesAndResults/Island+Representative+Teams/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man_national_football_team

[geysir]

EG has handled this but I do believe Isle of Man has a representative team who, unlike us, didn't ship any goals against San Marino. Couple of links below...

http://www.isleofmanfa.com/FixturesAndResults/Island+Representative+Teams/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man_national_football_team
EG gave an incorrect answer
he wrote
if the individual has a parent/grandparent from one of the four home" nations, or has resided in one continuously for at least two years, he will be tied to the respective Association. However, in the absence of one of these, he may choose which of the four he may represent

This is not in the agreement

[EalingGreen]

EG gave an incorrect answer
he wrote
if the individual has a parent/grandparent from one of the four home" nations, or has resided in one continuously for at least two years, he will be tied to the respective Association. However, in the absence of one of these, he may choose which of the four he may represent

This is not in the agreement

Surely FIFA's 2006 Annex would supercede the Home Associations' (1984?) Agreement? That is, before the Annex, the Home Agreement determined eligibility both for "British" players born within the territory of one of the four Associations and for those born outwith such territories.

Regarding the latter - e.g. Maik Taylor - the Annex now supercedes the Agreement. Therefore a new Maik Taylor would NOT be allowed by FIFA to represent NI, but could represent Germany (birth) or South Africa or England (residence).

Consequently, the Home Agreement only has practical effect in determining eligibility for players born within the territory of E,S, W or NI (i.e. not IOM or CI). A recent example is that of Andrew Driver of Hearts (cited earlier)

[geysir]

If born in one of those territories then the agreement conditions rule.
A Channel Islander can choose whichever of the 4 federation.


135 e.g. a player who was born on the Cayman Islands and holds British nationality can choose to play
for any of the four British associations if called up by a British association.

Maik Taylor was not born in the UK so annex conditions apply

[Drumcondra 69er]

If born in one of those territories then the agreement conditions rule.
A Channel Islander can choose whichever of the 4 federation.



Maik Taylor was not born in the UK so annex conditions apply

....is the correct answer.

[EalingGreen]

If born in one of those territories then the agreement conditions rule.
A Channel Islander can choose whichever of the 4 federation.

Quote:
135 e.g. a player who was born on the Cayman Islands and holds British nationality can choose to play
for any of the four British associations if called up by a British association.


Maik Taylor was not born in the UK so annex conditions apply

Taylor was not born within the UK, so the Annex would apply if his case came up now - Agreed.

But players born e.g. in Channel Islands, or the IOM, or the Cayman Islands will also have been born outside of the UK, since none of these islands is a constituent part of the UK (constitutionally), nor do they represent any part of the territory of the four home Associations.

Therefore, why won't the Annex now apply equally to them? :confused:

[Réiteoir]

The IOM have their own team (same as the consituent members of the Channel Islands)

Both them and Jersey are in the process applying for full membership of UEFA/FIFA (Jersey have recently been upgrading the national stadium at Footes Lane to meet the stadia standards)

[EalingGreen]

The IOM have their own team (same as the consituent members of the Channel Islands)

Both them and Jersey are in the process applying for full membership of UEFA/FIFA (Jersey have recently been upgrading the national stadium at Footes Lane to meet the stadia standards)

True, but like, eg Gibraltar, unless they achieve full FIFA Membership, they won't be able to play recognised competitive Internationals.

In the meantime, any player who may be good enough for such competition will have to find some other team to represent. Which is where the eligibility question comes in. As I said, I feel the Annex would govern any effort by someone to represent a UK team, but in the unlikely event (imo) that that were not relevant (i.e the player had no parent/grandparent from the UK, nor hadn't yet resided two years in one of the home countries), then the Home Agreement would take effect.

Geysir appears to think differently, I'm open to correction.

[Not Brazil]

If thats true, and from OWC it looks like it is, then the guys a tw*t and you've done the right thing booting him off.

Care to explain the rest?


Aye - a proper little wannabe James Bond.

Explain what?

[geysir]

Taylor was not born within the UK, so the Annex would apply if his case came up now - Agreed.

But players born e.g. in Channel Islands, or the IOM, or the Cayman Islands will also have been born outside of the UK, since none of these islands is a constituent part of the UK (constitutionally), nor do they represent any part of the territory of the four home Associations.

Therefore, why won't the Annex now apply equally to them? :confused:
The Annex does not apply to people who are citizens of a country by virtue of their birthplace. Those Islanders are granted full unconditional UK citizenship by virtue of their birth place.
I have spent a lot of time trying to explain this to you, if you had understood this point then you would have been in the privileged position to contribute to peace, love and reconciliation on this Island, instead you, along with Howard Wells, carry the burden of the divisive mass outbreak of ignorance north of the border about the FIFA statutes.
The Cayman Islands etc for reasons we all know are allowed a full UK passport. Those born in such "territories" which have that "privilege" are subject to terms of the 4 country UK Agreement (which has been lodged with FIFA and is written in to the statutes) should they choose to exercise the right to declare for an UK federation. As full holders of a full UK passport by virtue of their birthplace they can play for any UK national team,
the agreement clearly states that they have free choice over which UK team they want to play for.

I think I am repeating myself here :)

the annex conditions and UK agreement are explained in the latter part of this commentary document
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/transfer%5fcommentary%5f06%5fen%5f1843.pdf

[EalingGreen]

The Annex does not apply to people who are citizens of a country by virtue of their birthplace. Those Islanders are granted full unconditional UK citizenship by virtue of their birth place.
I have spent a lot of time trying to explain this to you, if you had understood this point then you would have been in the privileged position to contribute to peace, love and reconciliation on this Island, instead you, along with Howard Wells, carry the burden of the divisive mass outbreak of ignorance north of the border about the FIFA statutes.
The Cayman Islands etc for reasons we all know are allowed a full UK passport. Those born in such "territories" which have that "privilege" are subject to terms of the 4 country UK Agreement (which has been lodged with FIFA and is written in to the statutes) should they choose to exercise the right to declare for an UK federation. As full holders of a full UK passport by virtue of their birthplace they can play for any UK national team,
the agreement clearly states that they have free choice over which UK team they want to play for.

I think I am repeating myself here :)

the annex conditions and UK agreement are explained in the latter part of this commentary document
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/transfer%5fcommentary%5f06%5fen%5f1843.pdf

Fine. I accept that under the Agreement lodged with FIFA a Cayman Islander etc may still choose which of the four British Associations he wishes to represent.

But having cleared up that particular point, I fail to see why I (and Howard Wells!) am carrying the "burden of the divisive mass outbreak of ignorance north of the border about the FIFA statutes", since the likes of Darron Gibson are a completely different case entirely. :eek:

Or is Derry in the Cayman Islands? Isle of Man? Channel Islands, perhaps? :confused:

[Cowboy]

But having cleared up that particular point, I fail to see why I (and Howard Wells!) am carrying the "burden of the divisive mass outbreak of ignorance north of the border about the FIFA statutes", since the likes of Darron Gibson are a completely different case entirely. :eek:



In what regard do you understand Gibson to be a completely different case. He was born outside the republic but entitled to a Irish passport.

[geysir]

Fine. I accept that under the Agreement lodged with FIFA a Cayman Islander etc may still choose which of the four British Associations he wishes to represent.But having cleared up that particular point, I fail to see why I (and Howard Wells!) am carrying the "burden of the divisive mass outbreak of ignorance north of the border about the FIFA statutes", since the likes of Darron Gibson are a completely different case entirely
OK Féck the burden, lost in translation I think
And some people here think that you have the capacity to make an intelligent arguement :D
Having cleared up that point you say :(
You didn´t even have a sound comprehension about the UK agreement or the application of the annex in the UK context. Yet you try the bluff of extrapolating on all things FIFA. You haven't the foggiest féckin notion of what you are talking about.
Having cleared up that point you say :eek:
I am going to run out of appropriate smilies
Having cleared up that point, demonstrates to those who want to understand the finer points of FIFA statutes, to those who want to understand why FIFA have consistantly backed the FAI, to those who want to understand the rationality behind Article 15 and the rationale behind why the Annex criteria is not applied to people like Darron Gibson
because he is born on the island of Ireland and the Republic gives full unconditional citizenship to all who sails in her since birth.
That´s it.
There is no Annex for that, there is no need, it´s a players automatic right under FIFA statutes to play for the Republic and if previously capped by NI it falls under Article 15.
Why the feck don´t you think FIFA just say okay lets apply the annex
and be done with it?
The ANNEX criteria is for those obtaining citizenship.

[lopez]

If you can post where I have stated that I don't want players not wanting to play for Northern Ireland not playing for anyone else, I will gladly engage you.

Until then, please desist from misrepresenting my views on this issue.

ie. stop making things up.You don't want players playing for you, but you support a policy that prevents them playing for the country to which they hold ciotizenship? Please don't bring up this 'within FIFA rules...their interpretation...annex...' ****e. I'd rather a diginified silence

As for you EG, get a ****ing life man! :rolleyes:

[Not Brazil]

You don't want players playing for you, but you support a policy that prevents them playing for the country to which they hold ciotizenship?


I asked you to desist from mis representing my views on the issue.

Seemingly, you wish merely to continue misrepresenting them.

[bwagner]

I asked you to desist from mis representing my views on the issue.

Seemingly, you wish merely to continue misrepresenting them.

Not Brazil your lucky your even allowed on here, well actually we are not as pathetic and rasict as our northern counterpart's fan page that I couldnt join as I put my username as Dundalk guy....shocking! biggots till the end! The admin wouldnt even reply to a email I sent to him in good faith!
I'm delighted you will continue to lose those ye deserve to lose

[RogerMilla]

Not Brazil your lucky your even allowed on here, well actually we are not as pathetic and rasict as our northern counterpart's fan page that I couldnt join as I put my username as Dundalk guy....shocking! biggots till the end! The admin wouldnt even reply to a email I sent to him in good faith!
I'm delighted you will continue to lose those ye deserve to lose

bwagner do you own the site ? and whats a rasict ?

[Not Brazil]

Not Brazil your lucky your even allowed on here, well actually we are not as pathetic and rasict as our northern counterpart's fan page that I couldnt join as I put my username as Dundalk guy....shocking! biggots till the end! The admin wouldnt even reply to a email I sent to him in good faith!
I'm delighted you will continue to lose those ye deserve to lose

Several of your fellow countrymen contribute, in a most constructive fashion, to the Northern Ireland site.

I'll check out why you were denied access and report back.

I would suggest tho that if your intention is to brand all and sundry as racist and bigoted, it'll not do your cause much good.

[RogerMilla]

Several of your fellow countrymen contribute, in a most constructive fashion, to the Northern Ireland site.

I'll check out why you were denied access and report back.

you're even worse for humouring that rant !

[Not Brazil]

you're even worse for humouring that rant !

Obviously bwagner merely wishes to extend the hand of friendship to the Northern Ireland fans that he would wish to be "united" with some day.

It seems a shame that he be denied that opportunity.;)

[gustavo]

I'll check out why you were denied access and report back.


Could you do the same for me NB?
Cheers

[Not Brazil]

Could you do the same for me NB?
Cheers

What username had you been trying to register under Gustavo?

[Not Brazil]

Not Brazil your lucky your even allowed on here, well actually we are not as pathetic and rasict as our northern counterpart's fan page that I couldnt join as I put my username as Dundalk guy....shocking! biggots till the end! The admin wouldnt even reply to a email I sent to him in good faith!
I'm delighted you will continue to lose those ye deserve to lose

Reply from Admin:

"No Dundalk Guy on the list as being denied and he is not in the waiting validation list.

He sould have got an Email (a clicky here email) Ask him to rereg and if he is still not on the list, I will set the account up for him."

[paul_oshea]

Not Brazil your lucky your even allowed on here, well actually we are not as pathetic and rasict as our northern counterpart's fan page that I couldnt join as I put my username as Dundalk guy....shocking! biggots till the end! The admin wouldnt even reply to a email I sent to him in good faith!
I'm delighted you will continue to lose those ye deserve to lose


wagner, no need for that stuff, really, talk about pot calling the kettle black, you call them racists etc etc, yet you say he shouldn't be allowed on this site etc. Btw I never knew the anglo saxons and the celts were a different "race" now, that channel 4 program has made me even more confused :D

NB and EG, from me at least ( not that ye care either id say :) ) ye are more than welcome on this site. Though then again I am not an admin so does it really matter!


Several of your fellow countrymen contribute, in a most constructive fashion, to the Northern Ireland site.

Who? I might register. Do they let ppl with "O" in their name register ;) *jokes* meant for bwagner!

[Not Brazil]

NB and EG, from me at least ( not that ye care either id say :) ) ye are more than welcome on this site.

Thanks - appreciate your comments.

[gustavo]

What username had you been trying to register under Gustavo?

gustavo

[lopez]

I asked you to desist from mis representing my views on the issue.

Seemingly, you wish merely to continue misrepresenting them.How do you square the circle of claiming on the one hand that you don't want players playing for NI who'd rather play for the Republic, with supporting action that entails its NI or nothing (residency withstanding). There are a number of people on ourweeminds (and forgive me for continuing to quote this site, but we are always told that we must listen to the real fans, then when it suits, the less savoury views are not representative of the so-called 'real fans') who have the honesty to declare their desire that Gibson et al be capped then hope they are humiliated into returning to the NI team or never international football play again.

You stating that you don't want players playing for your team while wanting them debarred from playing for the country that they have opted for citizenship is no different, if more sanitised. I'm not misrepresenting your views, so please don't get all childish because you haven't actually said in any post 'I want Gibson etc only to play for us whatever they think'. But by saying two contradictory things - 'I don't want these players playing for NI' followed by 'FIFA shouldn't allow them to play for the country of their citizenship' you're effectively saying the same thing. If there are players who don't want to play for you, surely if you don't want them, you should just let them go; end of...!

[geysir]

I asked you to desist from mis representing my views on the issue.
Seemingly, you wish merely to continue misrepresenting them.

Here is what you wrote,
What part of "you cannot force a player to play for anybody they don't want to play for" are you struggling with?
This is about clarifying FIFA rules (obviously there is confusion), and making sure they are adhered to.........
The only thing that matters is that the player WANTS to play for Northern Ireland, and gives the shirt 100%.

As you haven't got involved in the FIFA interpretation discussion. I'd assume you are now satisfied that FIFA's rules on this matter are clear they have again recognized the automatic right of Irish citizens born on the Island to play for the Republic.
This has been Fifa's consistent position on full citizens since years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During this whole discussion on the Darron Gibson thread and this thread
Ealing Green has demonstrated a consistent capacity to get it wrong on every major related issue to do with FIFA

At different times in these 2 threads he did not understand and/or argued against.

That FIFA had sent a letter (supporting the FAI) direct to the IFA in October 2006.

That a Friendly "A" international ties up a player to a Federation.

Darron Gibson's transfer was already rubber stamped by FIFA and the transfer would never be the subject of scrutiny.

Residency does not come into the 4 UK Federations agreement.

That FIFA differentiate between automatic citizenship and acquired citizenship.
That there are citizens of the UK (born outside the boundaries of the 4 UK federations) have a free choice over which federation they want to play for.

That the ANNEX criteria is not applied to footballers (born outside the boundaries of the 4 UK federations)

The Annex criteria are not applied to footballers (born outside the boundaries of the 4 UK federations) with full UK citizenship wanting to choose which UK team they want to play for.


And last but certainly not least
that as a full citizen by virtue of being born on the Island of Ireland that a footballer has the automatic right under article 15 to play for the Republic.

[paul_oshea]

Here is what you wrote,
What part of "you cannot force a player to play for anybody they don't want to play for" are you struggling with?
This is about clarifying FIFA rules (obviously there is confusion), and making sure they are adhered to.........
The only thing that matters is that the player WANTS to play for Northern Ireland, and gives the shirt 100%.

As you haven't got involved in the FIFA interpretation discussion. I'd assume you are now satisfied that FIFA's rules on this matter are clear they have again recognized the automatic right of Irish citizens born on the Island to play for the Republic.
This has been Fifa's consistent position on full citizens since years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

During this whole discussion on the Darron Gibson thread and this thread
Ealing Green has demonstrated a consistent capacity to get it wrong on every major related issue to do with FIFA

At different times in these 2 threads he did not understand and/or argued against.

That FIFA had sent a letter (supporting the FAI) direct to the IFA in October 2006.

That a Friendly "A" international ties up a player to a Federation.

Darron Gibson's transfer was already rubber stamped by FIFA and the transfer would never be the subject of scrutiny.

Residency does not come into the 4 UK Federations agreement.

That FIFA differentiate between automatic citizenship and acquired citizenship.
That there are citizens of the UK (born outside the boundaries of the 4 UK federations) have a free choice over which federation they want to play for.

That the ANNEX criteria is not applied to footballers (born outside the boundaries of the 4 UK federations)

The Annex criteria are not applied to footballers (born outside the boundaries of the 4 UK federations) with full UK citizenship wanting to choose which UK team they want to play for.


And last but certainly not least
that as a full citizen by virtue of being born on the Island of Ireland that a footballer has the automatic right under article 15 to play for the Republic.


Geysir, is your point here that, EG, the NI Fans, the IFA and its legal team are getting it wrong all the time, and are therefore alluding to the point that they are less intelligent than their southern counterparts?! ;)

[geysir]

Geysir, is your point here that, EG, the NI Fans, the IFA and its legal team are getting it wrong all the time, and are therefore alluding to the point that they are less intelligent than their southern counterparts?! ;)
Just less intelligent than me.

You just got lucky with your FIFA proposal :D

[Not Brazil]

You stating that you don't want players playing for your team while wanting them debarred from playing for the country that they have opted for citizenship is no different, if more sanitised. I'm not misrepresenting your views, so please don't get all childish because you haven't actually said in any post 'I want Gibson etc only to play for us whatever they think'. But by saying two contradictory things - 'I don't want these players playing for NI' followed by 'FIFA shouldn't allow them to play for the country of their citizenship' you're effectively saying the same thing. If there are players who don't want to play for you, surely if you don't want them, you should just let them go; end of...!

Yet again, you continue to misrepresent my views.

Please put up - by highlighting where I have stated that I don't want those who don't want to play for Northern Ireland playing anywhere else - or, shut up.

[paul_oshea]

Just less intelligent than me.

You just got lucky with your FIFA proposal :D

Thanks. "I" might I add too ;) Don't let the side down - especially when using the word intelligent in the same sentence:D

[elroy]

The Ulster Unionist Party is offering to support a possible challenge to the FIFA ruling that footballers born in the North can play for the Republic if they choose.

The party's deputy leader, Danny Kennedy, has written to the Irish Football Association seeking a meeting to discuss the matter.

He has offered any support the UUP can provide if the IFA decides to challenge the ruling, which still has to be ratified by the FIFA executive.

Mr Kennedy says the decision is a recipe for confusion and would damage the quality of the Northern Ireland football team.

[lopez]

Yet again, you continue to misrepresent my views.

Please put up - by highlighting where I have stated that I don't want those who don't want to play for Northern Ireland playing anywhere else - or, shut up.So you are supporting the right of any player from the 6C to play for (the Republic of) Ireland, providing he has an Irish passport, hasn't played an 'A' international for NI, or anything else that debars him?

[Not Brazil]

So you are supporting the right of any player from the 6C to play for (the Republic of) Ireland, providing he has an Irish passport, hasn't played an 'A' international for NI, or anything else that debars him?

As I have always stated, if an eligible player doesn't want to play for Northern Ireland, my interest in him ends.

He can do whatever he wants after that, within FIFA rules. I couldn't give two flying ones.

Now - in future, please desist from misrepresenting my views please.

[lopez]

The Ulster Unionist Party is offering to support a possible challenge to the FIFA ruling that footballers born in the North can play for the Republic if they choose.

The party's deputy leader, Danny Kennedy, has written to the Irish Football Association seeking a meeting to discuss the matter.

He has offered any support the UUP can provide if the IFA decides to challenge the ruling, which still has to be ratified by the FIFA executive.

Mr Kennedy says the decision is a recipe for confusion and would damage the quality of the Northern Ireland football team.EG better get onto the IFA about this and start pointing out that 'politcal interference' might get the NI thrown out of the World Cup qualifiers. Then again, is the UUP still in existence? :confused:

[EalingGreen]

During this whole discussion on the Darron Gibson thread and this thread
Ealing Green has demonstrated a consistent capacity to get it wrong on every major related issue to do with FIFA


Really?

To go back to the core off this matter, the IFA is arguing that the Annex should apply to the FAI picking players, in the same way as it does to any other Association. Therefore, if an NI-born player does not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or 2 years residence, then he is not eligible.

Whereas, by virtue of his (automatic) Irish Nationality, the FAI is arguing that the Annex does not apply.

At which point, notwithstanding my leaning towards the IFA case, I have consistently posted that I can see the rationale behind both cases and so am prepared to wait for FIFA to determine which is correct.
And the latest is that FIFA has declined to make a decision, even after nearly 12 months, and written and personal submissions by both Associations. This is clear proof that the issue is not cut and dried, nor finalised, as you have consistently claimed.

Further, you point to the October 2006 Letter as "proof" of your case. It is my guess (no more) that this was sent out prematurely, without the Legal Department having fully considered the implications for the rest of their (non-Irish) Membership. Otherwise, if FIFA were confident that that Letter is correct and must stand, why would they go through a lengthy process of consultation? Why would they have made their latest suggested compromise?

Moreover, following last month's meetings with the two Associations, they look to have indicated that they would come down on the IFA's side. Now I accept that the IFA may have been capable of misconstruing the "vibes". Alternatively, I guess it is just possible that they were bluffing - although any such bluff was going to make them look incredibly stupid when called!
But these are unlikely (imo), since it is clear that when the FAI returned from Zurich on the Monday evening, even John Delaney seems top have felt that at best, Gibson was OK, but no more than that, since there would be no retrospective change from the status quo ante (i.e. that the FAI was now picking NI-born players).
And even if Delaney (or RTE) also had got it wrong, your certainty of the FAI's case was flatly contradicted when Staunton/Givens/U-23 Manager (name?) were instructed by FIFA NOT to pick NI-born players in the interim, until this matter was definitively resolved.

From my reading between the lines, my guess is that until possibly as recently as last week, FIFA were of the opinion that, following an exhaustive review, the IFA's case was correct. Then very recently something or someone caused them to pull back from saying so. This may have been something internal within FIFA, or it might have been something external (though I personally doubt this latter, notwithstanding the attempts by certain Irish politicians to claim some sort of "credit"). Or, it may even be that their Legal Dept. was embarrassed to have to come down on the IFA's side, since that would have forced them to concede that their Oct. 2006 letter to the IFA (copied to the FAI) was wrong!

If I am correct with the above surmising, then that would explain one of the most puzzling aspects of this whole matter, which is that when asked to choose between two cases (IFA and FAI), FIFA still haven't done so, even after all this time.

It looks to me that it is not that they cannot decide, rather that they don't want to decide.

[EalingGreen]

Now - in future, please desist from misrepresenting my views please.

NB, you're wasting your time appealing to Lopez's integrity, since he has none. Earlier this week he accused me of "smugly jumping the gun" in assuming that the IFA had won its case with FIFA, a complete fabrication on his part.

I provided a post of mine from just a week earlier which made it cystal clear that the complete opposite was true and challenged him to find even one example of from all my many posts on this topic to back his claim.

As is invariably the case, he went silent on this - perhaps in the hope that if he made some other claim, then no-one would notice just what a bullsh1tter he really is.

[ifk101]

From my reading between the lines, my guess is that until possibly as recently as last week, FIFA were of the opinion that, following an exhaustive review, the IFA's case was correct. Then very recently something or someone caused them to pull back from saying so. This may have been something internal within FIFA, or it might have been something external (though I personally doubt this latter, notwithstanding the attempts by certain Irish politicians to claim some sort of "credit"). Or, it may even be that their Legal Dept. was embarrassed to have to come down on the IFA's side, since that would have forced them to concede that their Oct. 2006 letter to the IFA (copied to the FAI) was wrong!

:D:D:D

A lot of assumptions there EG. Maybe a letter writing politician is to blame. Don't forget what happened to Kuwait.

[EalingGreen]

EG better get onto the IFA about this and start pointing out that 'politcal interference' might get the NI thrown out of the World Cup qualifiers. Then again, is the UUP still in existence? :confused:

Is it that you are incapable of understanding simple concepts, or that you are so determined to score points, that you simply ignore them should they prove inconvenient?

It is clear that FIFA does not brook political interference either in the affairs of one of their Members, or in an attempt to thwart or frustrate FIFA itself. Their latest suspension of the Kuwaiti FA is a case in point:

At last weekend's Meeting of FIFA's Associations Committee, they expressed great concern about political interference in the running of certain National Associations, with the Kuwait FA now being suspended from FIFA for just that reason:
"Kuwait - Contrary to the road map established by FIFA and the AFC, the Kuwaiti Public Authority for Youth and Sport has continued to interfere. Elections were held on 9 October in direct violation of the FIFA Executive Committee's May 2007 decision to the contrary. As a consequence, the committee recommend to the FIFA Executive Committee that the Kuwait Football Association be suspended"
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federa...ciples+members

When I pointed this out to you, you came back with complete nonsense about the British Government putting money into Wembley, or even Windsor Park, as constituting political "interference".

The fact is, any National Association is perfectly free to enlist the assistance, financial or otherwise, of governments or politicians in furthering their aims. The key to this is that it must be voluntary on the Association's part, with no strings attached. Otherwise, no Association would ever e.g. be allowed to receive grants etc from their own Governments*.

In the campaign to resolve this matter, each Association is perfectly entitled to enlist the assistance of any politicians they like (though whether FIFA will entertain them is another matter!)

What will not be tolerated is politicians or Governments seeking to instruct FIFA what they must do in such cases. Further, following an instruction by FIFA to one of their Member Associations to act in a certain manner, FIFA will not tolerate it if political elements in the country concerned were to instruct the Member to disregard FIFA. In such cases, FIFA may suspend/expel the Association, even where the Association itself had not welcomed the political interference.

It's not difficult, really...


* - If Governments weren't allowed to fund Associations, none of them would ever have able to host World Cups or European Championships etc for the last 50 years...:eek:

[Wolfie]

Really?

To go back to the core off this matter, the IFA is arguing that the Annex should apply to the FAI picking players, in the same way as it does to any other Association. Therefore, if an NI-born player does not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or 2 years residence, then he is not eligible.

Whereas, by virtue of his (automatic) Irish Nationality, the FAI is arguing that the Annex does not apply.

At which point, notwithstanding my leaning towards the IFA case, I have consistently posted that I can see the rationale behind both cases and so am prepared to wait for FIFA to determine which is correct.
And the latest is that FIFA has declined to make a decision, even after nearly 12 months, and written and personal submissions by both Associations. This is clear proof that the issue is not cut and dried, nor finalised, as you have consistently claimed.

Further, you point to the October 2006 Letter as "proof" of your case. It is my guess (no more) that this was sent out prematurely, without the Legal Department having fully considered the implications for the rest of their (non-Irish) Membership. Otherwise, if FIFA were confident that that Letter is correct and must stand, why would they go through a lengthy process of consultation? Why would they have made their latest suggested compromise?

Moreover, following last month's meetings with the two Associations, they look to have indicated that they would come down on the IFA's side. Now I accept that the IFA may have been capable of misconstruing the "vibes". Alternatively, I guess it is just possible that they were bluffing - although any such bluff was going to make them look incredibly stupid when called!
But these are unlikely (imo), since it is clear that when the FAI returned from Zurich on the Monday evening, even John Delaney seems top have felt that at best, Gibson was OK, but no more than that, since there would be no retrospective change from the status quo ante (i.e. that the FAI was now picking NI-born players).
And even if Delaney (or RTE) also had got it wrong, your certainty of the FAI's case was flatly contradicted when Staunton/Givens/U-23 Manager (name?) were instructed by FIFA NOT to pick NI-born players in the interim, until this matter was definitively resolved.

From my reading between the lines, my guess is that until possibly as recently as last week, FIFA were of the opinion that, following an exhaustive review, the IFA's case was correct. Then very recently something or someone caused them to pull back from saying so. This may have been something internal within FIFA, or it might have been something external (though I personally doubt this latter, notwithstanding the attempts by certain Irish politicians to claim some sort of "credit"). Or, it may even be that their Legal Dept. was embarrassed to have to come down on the IFA's side, since that would have forced them to concede that their Oct. 2006 letter to the IFA (copied to the FAI) was wrong!

If I am correct with the above surmising, then that would explain one of the most puzzling aspects of this whole matter, which is that when asked to choose between two cases (IFA and FAI), FIFA still haven't done so, even after all this time.

It looks to me that it is not that they cannot decide, rather that they don't want to decide.

A lot of surmising and reading between lines there.

Jaysus, I'd need a few lines to keep me awake to scrutinise the who, what, why's and wherefore's of all this.