Eligibility proposal [Archive] - Page 6

bwagner

09/11/2007, 1:06 PM

We are a different race Paul . Not Brazil I seriously appologise if I sounded rude.I honestly like the Northern team and followed them even in the bad days. I even wear the training top to which I bought in Newry.
I did apply but never got a reply from the admin at all.

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!

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

ifk101

09/11/2007, 1:20 PM

In the absence of any explanation from any source, I have made no "assumptions" at all, merely guesses.

P.S. I'm hardly likely to have forgotten the example of the Kuwait FA, since it was I who first referred to them on this Board! ;) Besides, as I have attempted to explain to (the intellectually or ethically challenged) Lopez, above, the IFA enlisting help from Unionist politicians or the FAI enlisting help from their Nationalist counterparts is nothing like what happened in Kuwait.

Yes but why did you bring Kuwait into the argument? What relevance does it have?

You are also guessing that something behind the scenes in the FIFA corridors has occurred to the deteriment of the IFA and the Northern Ireland team. Your guessing suggests that its the FAI, an Irish politican, or something internal in the FIFA that has occured. Why don't you guess that maybe it is related to the IFA or somebody/something sharing the IFA's viewpoint? Perhaps something the IFA/or those supporting the IFA have done has changed FIFA's viewpoint. Is this plausible?

youngirish

09/11/2007, 1:26 PM

Why don't you guess that maybe it is related to the IFA or somebody/something sharing the IFA's viewpoint? Perhaps something the IFA/or those supporting the IFA have done has changed FIFA's viewpoint. Is this plausible?
I don't believe FIFA's viewpoint has ever changed. I doubt that there's been the turnaround within the corridors of FIFA that EG or the IFA seem to be indicating.

Perhaps the IFA just misread the situation, very prematurely.

ifk101

09/11/2007, 1:33 PM

Perhaps the IFA just misread the situation, very prematurely.

That's what I suspect happened. The IFA believed that that a ruling in their favour was forthcoming and became complacent. My guessing is that the FAI were "better prepared" for the Zurich meeting than what the IFA were. Simply put - the FAI presented their viewpoint better than what the IFA did.

Ireland4ever

09/11/2007, 1:35 PM

13 Pages on this muck....yawn!:confused:

geysir

09/11/2007, 1:37 PM

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.

Ealing Green, you haven�t been correct about anything FIFA related so far, why should we believe that now all of a sudden that you have the amazing ability to surmise based on your ability to read (conspiracies) between the lines.
You can't even read the lines when they are in black and white in front of you.
Probably that is the most imbecilic post you have ever written but I stand open to correction on that observation.

gustavo

09/11/2007, 1:52 PM

13 Pages on this muck....yawn!:confused:
and yet you felt the need to not only open the thread but reply to it :rolleyes:

EalingGreen

09/11/2007, 2:11 PM

Yes but why did you bring Kuwait into the argument? What relevance does it have?

You are also guessing that something behind the scenes in the FIFA corridors has occurred to the deteriment of the IFA and the Northern Ireland team. Your guessing suggests that its the FAI, an Irish politican, or something internal in the FIFA that has occured. Why don't you guess that maybe it is related to the IFA or somebody/something sharing the IFA's viewpoint? Perhaps something the IFA/or those supporting the IFA have done has changed FIFA's viewpoint. Is this plausible?

Throughout the whole Gibson thread, a consistent them from many posters was that if FIFA determined against the FAI, then the Irish Government etc would react to overturn this (legal challenges etc). I equally consistently pointed out that FIFA would not brook such political interference either in their own affairs or that of any of its Members.

Latterly, I desisted from adding to the Gibson thread whilst I waited for FIFA to decide. However, I did note FIFA's latest suspension of a Member for political interference (Kuwait) as a topical illustration of my earlier point. Nothing more, really.

As for what may very recently have caused FIFA to back away from their apparent support of the IFA after their meeting the two Associations, I really can't think why the IFA should want to deflect FIFA from giving them the verdict they sought, especially since FIFA are suggesting replacing it with a "compromise" which is totally unacceptable to the IFA.

They may be capable of scoring own goals by accident, but not even the IFA is going to do so by design! :eek:

I don't believe FIFA's viewpoint has ever changed. I doubt that there's been the turnaround within the corridors of FIFA that EG or the IFA seem to be indicating.

Perhaps the IFA just misread the situation, very prematurely.

The IFA were clearly premature in indicating "off-the-record" that FIFA was going to go the IFA's way, as apparently was Delaney (though it may actually have been more of a case of journalists overstating the case). Whether they (IFA) were premature, and to what extent, in assuming they had won is another matter.

On which point, FIFA's Legal Department sent out a letter in October 2006 which the FAI was using as the basis of its selection of NI-born players. If FIFA weren't at least reconsidering that position, why didn't they merely tell the IFA to sling their hook, rather than inviting them (and the FAI) to submit their case?

Why did they instruct three FAI managers not to pick NI-born players after they had previously done so? And why did those managers comply?

Indeed, why have FIFA come out with the present suggested "compromise", rather than stand by their October 2006 Letter?

Can anyone from amongst those supporters of the FAI's case answer any of these questions. (I'm not stirring, merely genuinely perplexed)

Ealing Green, you haven�t been correct about anything FIFA related so far, why should we believe that now all of a sudden that you have the amazing ability to surmise based on your ability to read (conspiracies) between the lines.
You can't even read the lines when they are in black and white in front of you.
Probably that is the most imbecilic post you have ever written but I stand open to correction on that observation.

I said all along that the case is yet to be decided by FIFA. You have said all along (on the basis of the October 2006 Letter) that it has been decided.

FIFA's most recent Letter to both Associations (the suggested "compromise") proves that I am correct on this and that you are wrong.

Therefore, you are in no position to make your frankly insulting assertions against me, especially since at no stage do I recall ever having behaved similarly towards you.

P.S. The ability to "surmise" (whether accurately or otherwise) is open to eveyone, so it's hardly "amazing". Neither have I ever alleged a "conspiracy" (your term) by FIFA in this matter.

ifk101

09/11/2007, 2:31 PM

Throughout the whole Gibson thread, a consistent them from many posters was that if FIFA determined against the FAI, then the Irish Government etc would react to overturn this (legal challenges etc). I equally consistently pointed out that FIFA would not brook such political interference either in their own affairs or that of any of its Members.

Latterly, I desisted from adding to the Gibson thread whilst I waited for FIFA to decide. However, I did note FIFA's latest suspension of a Member for political interference (Kuwait) as a topical illustration of my earlier point. Nothing more, really.

As for what may very recently have caused FIFA to back away from their apparent support of the IFA after their meeting the two Associations, I really can't think why the IFA should want to deflect FIFA from giving them the verdict they sought, especially since FIFA are suggesting replacing it with a "compromise" which is totally unacceptable to the IFA.

They may be capable of scoring own goals by accident, but not even the IFA is going to do so by design! :eek:

Not necessarily what I'm implying. I'm suggesting that the IFA had a belief that the decision forthcoming from FIFA was a foregone conclusion. I not saying that they tried to deflect or scored an own goal. I'm saying that perhaps their belief that the decision was a foregone conclusion led to complacency and that their "performance" in the Zurich was less/ weaker that the FAI's "performance".

What's interesting is that you see the rationale behind both sides of the fence yet FIFA's proposal has led you to guess that something behind the scenes has taken place by the FAI, people supporting the FAI or internally in FIFA. Whilst you list your guesses as to why FIFA has put forward this proposal who don't guess that perhaps IFA's actions/ inactions have influenced the FIFA proposal.

I think you need to factor in the IFA's roll in FIFA's proposal and not ignore it. Perhaps previous comments from IFA employees has influenced FIFA.

EalingGreen

09/11/2007, 2:41 PM

Not necessarily what I'm implying. I'm suggesting that the IFA had a belief that the decision forthcoming from FIFA was a foregone conclusion. I not saying that they tried to deflect or scored an own goal. I'm saying that perhaps their belief that the decision was a foregone conclusion led to complacency and that their "performance" in the Zurich was less/ weaker that the FAI's "performance".

What's interesting is that you see the rationale behind both sides of the fence yet FIFA's proposal has led you to guess that something behind the scenes has taken place by the FAI, people supporting the FAI or internally in FIFA. Whilst you list your guesses as to why FIFA has put forward this proposal who don't guess that perhaps IFA's actions/ inactions have influenced the FIFA proposal.

I think you need to factor in the IFA's roll in FIFA's proposal and not ignore it. Perhaps previous comments from IFA employees has influenced FIFA.

It is entirely possible for the IFA to misread the signs, become complacent, and therefore prematurely and incorrectly "leak" the result.

Except that after he had led the FAI delegation to FIFA a week later, Delaney also gave this impression to RTE.

Moreover, we know from sources within the FAI that FIFA instructed them (the FAI) not to pick NI-born players in their forthcoming squads, even causing one of them (Kane) and possibly another (O'Connor) to revert to the IFA.

Why would any of this have happened had FIFA not have been switching from what they wrote in October 2006? Why, at some stage within the intervening 12 months, didn't they just come out and say that the FAI had won their case? Why are they even now suggesting (not directing) a "compromise" which avoids backing up their October 2006 Letter (even if it also avoids backing the IFA)?

I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, so I am reduced to assuming/surmising/guessing/speculating etc, like the rest of us. :(

ifk101

09/11/2007, 2:49 PM

It is entirely possible for the IFA to misread the signs, become complacent, and therefore prematurely and incorrectly "leak" the result.

Except that after he had led the FAI delegation to FIFA a week later, Delaney also gave this impression to RTE.

Moreover, we know from sources within the FAI that FIFA instructed them (the FAI) not to pick NI-born players in their forthcoming squads, even causing one of them (Kane) and possibly another (O'Connor) to revert to the IFA.

Why would any of this have happened had FIFA not have been switching from what they wrote in October 2006? Why, at some stage within the intervening 12 months, didn't they just come out and say that the FAI had won their case? Why are they even now suggesting (not directing) a "compromise" which avoids backing up their October 2006 Letter (even if it also avoids backing the IFA)?

I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, so I am reduced to assuming/surmising/guessing/speculating etc, like the rest of us. :(

The IFA challenged the eligibility of the above players. Naturally this challenge would need to be reviewed and that review takes time. Accordingly, it's naturally that the FIFA would say to the FAI to not pick these players as their eligibility has been called into question and we need the time to review this challenge. I think it's as simple as that.

micls

09/11/2007, 2:50 PM

What username had you been trying to register under Gustavo?

And me please :)

Fair enough if your getting sick of it :D Same username as here. Tried a couple of times, the most recent about a week or so ago

youngirish

09/11/2007, 2:51 PM

On which point, FIFA's Legal Department sent out a letter in October 2006 which the FAI was using as the basis of its selection of NI-born players. If FIFA weren't at least reconsidering that position, why didn't they merely tell the IFA to sling their hook, rather than inviting them (and the FAI) to submit their case?

I wouldn't dare to suggest that FIFA weren't at least open to the fact of considering their position. I'd imagine FIFA felt that once the issue had been raised by the IFA they would need to hear the arguments of both associations to see if there was a case for them changing the status quo.

Why did they instruct three FAI managers not to pick NI-born players after they had previously done so? And why did those managers comply?

To prevent them being dragged further into the quagmire if a subsequent ruling against NI born players representing the Republic had indeed been granted it makes sense for their part to instruct the FAI not to pick NI born players in the short term until the matter was cleared. This would also have shown to the IFA that they were looking into the situation and taking their objection seriously.

At no time however has it appeared they were willing to rule against the FAI on the matter of NI born players as per the suggestions emanating from the IFA camp a few weeks ago.

Cowboy

09/11/2007, 2:52 PM

I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, so I am reduced to assuming/surmising/guessing/speculating etc, like the rest of us. :(

I would speculate that the legal dept of FIFA are of the opinion that to sustain the IFA's position that a change of rule 15 would become necessary. The earlier suggestion that a FIFA official suggested the compromise (not being aware that this would be totally unacceptable) to the IFA seems plausable to me.

EalingGreen

09/11/2007, 2:55 PM

And me please :)

Fair enough if your getting sick of it :D Same username as here. Tried a couple of times, the most recent about a week or so ago

Tbf, it's entirely possible that the Mods simply haven't the time to deal with new applications. The Board has over 13k members (I think) and has never been busier. My guess is that with this Gibson row, it's as much as they can do to sift out Trolls of the "Dazzler32/Dan Clancy" variety!

[Besides, we've two games coming up which are vital to our hopes of qualifying, so perhaps they might be forgiven if new member applications are not quite at the top of their list of things to worry about! ;)]

micls

09/11/2007, 2:58 PM

Tbf, it's entirely possible that the Mods simply haven't the time to deal with new applications. The Board has over 13k members (I think) and has never been busier. My guess is that with this Gibson row, it's as much as they can do to sift out Trolls of the "Dazzler32/Dan Clancy" variety!

[Besides, we've two games coming up which are vital to our hopes of qualifying, so perhaps they might be forgiven if new member applications are not quite at the top of their list of things to worry about! ;)]

I understand that but its not the first time Ive tried (a few times over the last few months). Just wondering if its a specific problem

RogerMilla

09/11/2007, 3:06 PM

. Neither have I ever alleged a "conspiracy" (your term) by FIFA in this matter.

have to step in here EG , you did say they had been "got at" can i put it down to sour grapes and say that you have revised that position ?

EalingGreen

09/11/2007, 3:15 PM

have to step in here EG , you did say they had been "got at" can i put it down to sour grapes and say that you have revised that position ?

I initially used that term ill-advisably and later retracted it by explaining that I should have said FIFA were "persuaded", "influenced", "caused" (or somesuch) instead.

But in my own defence, even though the phrase "got at" has perjorative connotations, it's not as if I accused anyone specifically of having "got at" FIFA.

For the record, my present position is that it looks to me that up until last weekend, FIFA looked as though they were coming down on the side of the IFA, when something or other caused them to row back and instead suggest a "compromise".

P.S. Being "got at" is NOT the same as being party to a "conspiracy". I could approach you and say "Here's €1m, for you to do as I want" and if you accepted, you'd have been "got at". Whereas, for a conspiracy to have taken place, the two of us would have got together and come to an arrangement, whereby I got what I wanted and you got your million yoyos. I don't believe FIFA are party to any conspiracy in this issue. Nor do I believe that anyone in FIFA has been "got at" in the sense that they had cause to change their stance at the last minute for sinister reasons (before anyone jumps on my back over that, either!)

geysir

09/11/2007, 3:35 PM

I said all along that the case is yet to be decided by FIFA. You have said all along (on the basis of the October 2006 Letter) that it has been decided.

No My arguement was consistantly based on my interpretation of FIFA statutes, That an Irish citizen born on the Island has automatic right to declare for the Republic, the letter was one part of the basis of my arguement.

FIFA's most recent Letter to both Associations (the suggested "compromise") proves that I am correct on this and that you are wrong.

The right for a citizen of Ireland, born on the Island. to have automatic right to play for the Republic enshrined by FIFA statutes has been my consistant arguement from DAY I
So now I am wrong when FIFA confirm this again and again and again. :D

Especially in the light of your FIFA "wisdom" from previous posts

The misinformed
20/08 playing in a friendly international, even at senior level, doesn't tie in a player to any one country

We know Gibson is eligible for the Senior IFA team, but we do not know whether he is eligible for the senior FAI team, nor will we until FIFA gives a definitive answer.

Despite FIFA writing directly to the IFA informing them of his eligibility to play for Ireland oct 2006

I really don't think Gibson's case is clear cut.

It was it was it was as the IFA eventually concurred, conceeding 100% on this matter October 2007 without FIFA even looking at the case.

The flight of fancy
Should FIFA decide that Gibson is not eligible for the ROI and the FAI/Irish Government complains, then FIFA may simply suspend or even terminate the FAI's Membership.

not to mention where I had to expain to you in minute detail so you could understand the term of the UK Agreement and the Annex conditions

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809833&postcount=211

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809948&postcount=215 (http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809948&postcount=215)
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=810220&postcount=221

EalingGreen

09/11/2007, 3:53 PM

No My arguement was consistantly based on my interpretation of FIFA statutes, That an Irish citizen born on the Island has automatic right to declare for the Republic, the letter was one part of the basis of my arguement.

The right for a citizen of Ireland, born on the Island. to have automatic right to play for the Republic enshrined by FIFA statutes has been my consistant arguement from DAY I
So now I am wrong when FIFA confirm this again and again and again. :D

Especially in the light of your FIFA "wisdom" from previous posts

The misinformed
20/08 playing in a friendly international, even at senior level, doesn't tie in a player to any one country

We know Gibson is eligible for the Senior IFA team, but we do not know whether he is eligible for the senior FAI team, nor will we until FIFA gives a definitive answer.

Despite FIFA writing directly to the IFA informing them of his eligibility to play for Ireland oct 2006

I really don't think Gibson's case is clear cut.

It was it was it was as the IFA eventually concurred, conceeding 100% on this matter October 2007 without FIFA even looking at the case.

The flight of fancy
Should FIFA decide that Gibson is not eligible for the ROI and the FAI/Irish Government complains, then FIFA may simply suspend or even terminate the FAI's Membership.

not to mention where I had to expain to you in minute detail so you could understand the term of the UK Agreement and the Annex conditions

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809833&postcount=211

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809948&postcount=215 (http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809948&postcount=215)
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=810220&postcount=221

You have consistently argued that the FAI case is "open and shut". If that is so, then they must be entitled to pick NI-born players without hindrance. Why aren't they currently doing so?

Why did FIFA issue the suggested "compromise" instead of merely telling the FAI to carry on and the IFA to clear off?

Indeed, where does it say in FIFA's current Arts and Regs that ROI-born players, without automatic right to British citizenship or ancestry or residential qualification, are entitled to represent NI (as outlined in FIFA's "compromise")?

Quite simply, you have consistently stated that the FAI have right on their side under the present Arts & Regs and that FIFA would back them up on this. To date, FIFA have patently declined to do so.

Whereas, I considered that FIFA might go either way, albeit that I preferred and increasingly came to believe that they might favour the IFA. Should the "compromise" be rejected by either party, it presumably will fall upon FIFA once more to choose. And such a choice could still go either way.

What I did not foresee was the suggested compromise coming out of "left field", nor did the IFA or the FAI. And neither did you, for that matter, since it does not comply with your interpretation of the Arts and Regs, either.

But, hey, if in order to bolster your sense of self-esteem (self-importance?)you want to go on demonstrating that you can pee higher up the wall than me, then carry on. Just don't expect me to join in. :mad:

geysir

09/11/2007, 11:24 PM

You have consistently argued that the FAI case is "open and shut". If that is so, then they must be entitled to pick NI-born players without hindrance. Why aren't they currently doing so?

Why did FIFA issue the suggested "compromise" instead of merely telling the FAI to carry on and the IFA to clear off?

Indeed, where does it say in FIFA's current Arts and Regs that ROI-born players, without automatic right to British citizenship or ancestry or residential qualification, are entitled to represent NI (as outlined in FIFA's "compromise")?

Quite simply, you have consistently stated that the FAI have right on their side under the present Arts & Regs and that FIFA would back them up on this. To date, FIFA have patently declined to do so.
You use to say my arguement was based on the letter now you say its open or shut. Make your mind up :)
The one line I repeated ad nauseam in my posts, is that Island born = automatic right = Article 15, no Annex need apply
FIFA have consistantly backed the FAI in this since they first called up the 6 county born. Every document stamped by FIFA legal dept means approval.
Fifa are not going to alter from their position that Island born Irish citizens qualify automatically for the Republic. That part of their "compromise" is already FIFA practice. That part will remain untouched no matter what the IFA will reject. Smell the Guinness.
The real compromise is to allow any Irish born to play for the North
So FIFA allow for 2 associations to come up with a special agreement. It is there in the FIFA practice to allow associations come together and make a deal but FIFA retain the right to accept or reject it.
That's FIFA�s sense of fair play. They have a heart so I must applaud them.
Should the IFA reject to enter into discussion about this compromise, FIFA will not change from present practice.

Any lingering questions or misunderstandings you need answered about the UK agreement?

Gather round

10/11/2007, 11:02 AM

geysir

10/11/2007, 11:37 AM

The change was that at least one of the parents had to be Irish citizens or entitled to Irish citizenship in order for their child to avail of the constitutional right to Irish citizenship.

Before this, you only had to be born on the sacred turf to avail of the constitutional right.

Gather round

10/11/2007, 11:49 AM

Thanks Geysir. It does seem strange that almost all young players in NI are potentially eligible for you (subject to confirmation by FIFA), while some three-year-old Nigerian or Lithuanian prodigy in Dublin or Cork may not be, if his parents aren't entitled to citizenship ;)

paul_oshea

10/11/2007, 12:26 PM

they would be through residency. This was brought in to stop 7 or 8 month preggars women giving birth,gaining automatic citizenship and then staying in the country. Great idea I believe.

geysir

10/11/2007, 1:48 PM

Do Poland have a cricket team?

lopez

10/11/2007, 2:57 PM

... (the intellectually or ethically challenged) Lopez...Intellectually challenged as in suggesting Irish nationalists sing songs about the armed forces that burnt Cork, killed Irish people at whim during the war of independence, and shot 26 people on bloody sunday. It's as 'intellectually challenged' as suggesting you sing 'say hello to the provos' at WP.

Ethically challenged...as in comparing the IFA taking back Kane like the McCanns finding Madeline McCann.

Bullsh*tter...well I don't need to add anything about that.

I haven't gone away, EG. It's just I do have a life outside internet football forums, which confine me to a few minutes a day most times on this site. You should try it too. However it's sad to see you down about FIFA's recent movements on this subject, but you seem more indignant about me stating you thought you had the decision 'in the bag' and yet you confess:

...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...

Bullsh*tter is the right word for you, mate. Also hypocrite as well. As you start bringing in the 'political interference' argument about the Irish government soliciting an appeal, but have changed your tune about the plitically defunct UUP doing likewise. BTW what's the story about the DUP, AP and the other unionist parties, anyone?

Finally, as for pointscoring rather than debating, etc., remember these words.

"Lopez,
Following another thread, I've come to realise that it's futile for me to debate any such topic with you, not just because I risk allowing myself to get drawn into endless controversy, to the nth degree of pettiness, but also because it seems to me that the style and content of your posts inevitably say more about you and your opinions than I ever could.
So by all means, keep posting, indeed keep posting in response to my posts if you like; just don't expect me to reciprocate."

...Probably that is the most imbecilic post you have ever written but I stand open to correction on that observation.I didn't bother reading too much - it seems that EG is trying to bore us into submission - but I doubt this is the case. He's posted too many caviar nuggets to get a prize for any specific post.

lopez

10/11/2007, 2:58 PM

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.Sooooo sorry, NB for hurting your feelings there chum. Tell you what: You don't put up posts that leave you open to contradiction, and I won't allow my mind to go walkies about what you are trying to actually say.

lopez

10/11/2007, 3:13 PM

Can anyone clear up a small point re citizenship? Am I correct in thinking that since the amendement to the South's constitution in 2004, not everyone born in RoI (or NI) has an automatic constitutional right to Irish citizenship? I believe this change had the support of about 80% in a referendum.The law is similar to British citizenship law - which is based less on Ius Soli and more on Ius Sanguinnis (I know you love me bringing up that, but it's been a while since we had a chat, that you'll need to check the spelling) - except that the area of people that are 'of the blood' extends outside the current border of the state. I suspect - but open to correction - that all EU countries have moved to a mix of both with the 'blood' still being more important than 'soil'; after all the Irish referendum was a move to more 'harmonisation'.

Hence those of purely Turkish descent playing for Germany, where in the past they would have found gaining German citizenship virtually impossible. On the other hand, the DFB may be able to play them as they fall into at least two of FIFA's criteria to play for Germany - one. they were born in Germany and two. that they have lived there for more than two years - without actually having German citizenship themselves. Is there any reason why this isn't the case and that this is the reason that FIFA said 'fine by us' when the IFA wanted permission to play 6C footballers with Irish passports?

EalingGreen

10/11/2007, 4:58 PM

You use to say my arguement was based on the letter now you say its open or shut. Make your mind up :)
The one line I repeated ad nauseam in my posts, is that Island born = automatic right = Article 15, no Annex need apply
FIFA have consistantly backed the FAI in this since they first called up the 6 county born. Every document stamped by FIFA legal dept means approval.
Fifa are not going to alter from their position that Island born Irish citizens qualify automatically for the Republic. That part of their "compromise" is already FIFA practice. That part will remain untouched no matter what the IFA will reject. Smell the Guinness.
The real compromise is to allow any Irish born to play for the North
So FIFA allow for 2 associations to come up with a special agreement. It is there in the FIFA practice to allow associations come together and make a deal but FIFA retain the right to accept or reject it.
That's FIFA�s sense of fair play. They have a heart so I must applaud them.
Should the IFA reject to enter into discussion about this compromise, FIFA will not change from present practice.

Any lingering questions or misunderstandings you need answered about the UK agreement?

Disingenuous, Geysir, as I'm sure you know.

Throughout this debate, you have consistently claimed the FIFA's Arts & Regs permit NI-born players to represent the ROI entirely legitimately and that the Annex had no application to their case. As evidence for this interpretation of yours, you cited the October 2006 FIFA Letter. Which is fair enough, except that more recent developments have cast significant doubt over this interpretation.

These are:
1. When the IFA sought to challenge this at FIFA, even after 12 months and lengthy submissions by both Associations, FIFA has declined to confirm your assertion;
2. Very recently, and following their correspondance with FIFA etc, the FAI instructed two (three?) of their National team managers NOT to select certain NI-born players (at least pro tem);
3. The most recent correspondence from FIFA, which could allow NI-born players to represent ROI without needing to comply with the Annex Conditions is NOT in the form of a Ruling, rather it is in the form of a suggested "compromise", which requires inter alia the agreement of the IFA in order to be implemented. Moreover, this "compromise" includes an offer to the IFA which they had never even sought (the right of select ROI-born players with no Annex connections), presumably in order to make the IFA more amenable to accepting the "compromise". Consequently, one must assume that if the IFA were to reject this "compromise", then we are back to square one over the Annex.

Therefore, you have quite simply been proven wrong when you have stated that FIFA have been entirely happy all along for the FAI to select NI-born players who do not also meet the Annex criteria for ROI teams.

At the very least, the FAI is not so convinced of their case as before, otherwise they would have persisted with selecting Kane, Higgins etc.

Whereas I, some minor and not actually relevant technical points notwithstanding, have been vindicated by my consistent stance that it is unclear whether the Annex applies, and will continue to be so, until FIFA provides a definitive Statement one way or the other.

P.S. Thank you for your kind offer re. the UK Agreement. I have only one further question on this point: what relevance does it have to the subject of this thread, which in case you have forgotten, concerns NI-born players with Irish Nationality, who do not wish to play for any of the four "Home" Associations, but who do wish to represent the ROI?

lopez

10/11/2007, 5:08 PM

P.S. Thank you for your kind offer re. the UK Agreement. I have only one further question on this point: what relevance does it have to the subject of this thread, which in case you have forgotten, concerns NI-born players with Irish Nationality, who do not wish to play for any of the four "Home" Associations, but who do wish to represent the ROI?

...In fact, there was a very recent case of a young English-born lad whose family had moved him to Scotland at a young age. He plays for a Scottish club and wanted to declare for Scotland. Despite his having played for Scotland Schools, the English FA objected to his representing Scotland at any higher level, on the basis that the "Home" Agreement states that birthplace overrides all other considerations in case of dispute over eligibility between the four. The SFA accepted this.Welcome to the double standards world of Ealing Green, where he can waffle on ad nauseum about something irrelevent to the thread, but you can't. You could call it an Ealing Green Comedy...if it was funny.

EalingGreen

10/11/2007, 5:51 PM

Intellectually challenged as in suggesting Irish nationalists sing songs about the armed forces that burnt Cork, killed Irish people at whim during the war of independence, and shot 26 people on bloody sunday.

I did NOT advocate that Irish Nationalists should sing British Army songs etc at football matches, as you continue to allege. Rather, in response to a post where you stated that it was perfectly acceptable to sing certain IRA songs at ROI matches, I countered by wondering whether you also consider it appropriate to sing songs sung by another set of Irish soldiers from the same period, such as "It's a Long Way to Tipperary"?
My clear point was that I believe it inappropriate to sing any such political/military songs at any football match (National Anthems aside).
However, despite my having explained this frequently, you continue to trot out your blatant lie at intervals (perhaps in order to persuade newcomers to the debate, who do not know the background to the point?).

However it's sad to see you down about FIFA's recent movements on this subject, but you seem more indignant about me stating you thought you had the decision 'in the bag' and yet you confess:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
"...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..."

I have every right to be indignant at your continuing efforts to misrepresent me with your willing fabrications, even lies. You accused me of "smugly" having declared that the IFA had FIFA's endorsement "in the bag", when anyone who had read my posts in the appropriate thread would know the exact opposite to be the case. But even after I provided a clear post of mine from as recently as a couple of weeks ago to prove my case, and challenged you to find one single post of mine to back up your case, rather than doing so, you continue to misrepresent me. (That selective quotation of yours came after all my posts on the subject and since it was my attempt to guess, ex post facto, which way FIFA's deliberations may have been going, it has no relevance whatever to your false allegation, nor my clear rebuttal. But doubtless you know that)

Bullsh*tter is the right word for you, mate. Also hypocrite as well. As you start bringing in the 'political interference' argument about the Irish government soliciting an appeal, but have changed your tune about the plitically defunct UUP doing likewise. BTW what's the story about the DUP, AP and the other unionist parties, anyone?

You know, I'm never sure whether you not capable of understanding even relatively simple concepts, or whether you are so bitter and prejudiced that you merely ignore them when they prove inconvenient to your point. On the question of FIFA's attitude to politics, in an earlier post (09/11/07, 1.53 pm, #251) I made quite clear the distinction between political support for an Association (acceptable to FIFA) and political interference (unacceptable). Therefore, there is absolutely no "hypocrisy" involved on my part whatever.

Finally, as for pointscoring rather than debating, etc., remember these words.

"Lopez,
Following another thread, I've come to realise that it's futile for me to debate any such topic with you, not just because I risk allowing myself to get drawn into endless controversy, to the nth degree of pettiness, but also because it seems to me that the style and content of your posts inevitably say more about you and your opinions than I ever could.
So by all means, keep posting, indeed keep posting in response to my posts if you like; just don't expect me to reciprocate."

I've emboldened the salient part of my post, in case still don't get it. That is, I refuse to get drawn into political arguments with you, since you invariably use them to deflect from purely footballing issues, to provide you with a platform to trot out your predictable, tired prejudices.

However, where you make a footballing point with which I disagree, or attempt yet again to misrepresent me on some issue or other, I don't see why I should let these pass.

EalingGreen

10/11/2007, 6:00 PM

Welcome to the double standards world of Ealing Green, where he can waffle on ad nauseum about something irrelevent to the thread, but you can't. You could call it an Ealing Green Comedy...if it was funny.

This thread is about the Eligibility of NI-born players to represent the ROI. In the course of it, another poster wondered about the eligibility of Isle of Man players to play international football. Consequently, the thread deviated to the topic of the the Home Associations Agreement, which is where I posted about Andrew Driver (by way of illustration).

However, in response to Geysir's triumphalism at having "caught me out" over an aspect of this side track, I reminded him that it still shouldn't deflect from the main topic of this thread, where I consider his case still to be "not proven".

Gather round

10/11/2007, 8:10 PM

paul_oshea

11/11/2007, 10:12 AM

do you live in cardiff GR?!

Not Brazil

11/11/2007, 10:34 AM

Could you do the same for me NB?
Cheers

I took this up with Admin gustavo, and got the following reply:

"Dont have a Gustavo on the list.

Ask him to rereg and if it does not work, i will set it up.

Sometime people don't click on the email they get back from the site, when they first reg, and sometimes their spam fliter eats it, as them to also look into their spam folders"

Hope that helps!

gustavo

11/11/2007, 10:57 AM

I took this up with Admin gustavo, and got the following reply:

"Dont have a Gustavo on the list.

Ask him to rereg and if it does not work, i will set it up.

Sometime people don't click on the email they get back from the site, when they first reg, and sometimes their spam fliter eats it, as them to also look into their spam folders"

Hope that helps!

Thanks :)

geysir

11/11/2007, 12:25 PM

lopez

11/11/2007, 1:08 PM

Lopez: as you suggest, most European countries now use both ancestry and birth/ residence to determine citizenship. I was thinking of an Irish born footballer playing for you in the future, when those born post 2004 are old enough. Even though he would be citizen of another country.

On the specifics of our/ your players, I think the annoyance of NI fans and gloating from the 'Irish unity inevitable tomorrow' are both exaggerated. We stand to lose a handful of players, I see no threat to the team. Although I would like to see at least a bilateral agreement, if not FIFA diktat, that playing for one international youth or u-21 team bars you from later choosing another.
Some good points and a realistic take on things. NI isn't threatened..its not threatened necessarily by a united Ireland. But then your views are taken on footballing terms and 'realpolitik' of what this decision entails. I think your right about the one choice and stick with it after schoolboys level (like it used to be) should also be included. It cuts out the poaching argument at least.

Re the bit about citizenship: Germany, Switzerland and Austria all had similar laws. However, as you know, these governments would bypass normal citizenship laws so as to get athletes competing for their country (Zola Budd similar case). Therefore, should there be the child of an illegal immigrant born in Ireland who the DofJ sent back to Somalia or wherever, but becomes the next Pele, I'm sure there'll be a passport dispatched before you could say 'ammendment to the consitution.' Never let it be said that I think the Irish government are any less unscrupilous than the British.

I'll be a neutral watching in Cardiff next week, if you're around for a legal Latin chat :). No doubt the Cardiff pubs etc. will show our game later on TV.I heard from the Hood that you'll be in Cardiff, and my first thought is why aren't you at WP? You're still in with a shout of qualification. I'll catch up with you anyways.

EalingGreen

11/11/2007, 2:17 PM

Article entitled "Poots slams FIFA call on eligibility row"
in the Belfast Telegraph
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/article3141272.ece
"They (IFA) believe that the FIFA proposal is inconsistent with its own rules and with what FIFA has already told the IFA. I support that position.
If this principle is to be applied, what is to stop footballers from Northern Ireland who hold British passports, playing for Scotland, Wales or England?"
Poots intends to write to FIFA.

Well, Mr Poots, (the Minister for Sport no less) even Ealing Green could tell you now, the terms of the UK Agreement prevent a NI born UK passport holder from playing for another UK team.
Whatever the FIFA legal dept are getting paid, to have to listen to fools like Poots, it isn't enough.
If Poots can not have a basic grasp of the UK Agreement how can he come remotely close to understanding the application of Article 15?

As Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure in NI, I daresay Poots can claim an interest in this matter. That said, he has never shown any previous interest in football, never mind the intricacies of FIFA's eligibility rules. Therefore, whilst he may write to FIFA, if he wishes, equally, FIFA may regard or disregard any letter or approach entirely as it suits them.

Anyhow, Geysir, seeing as how I appear still to be in your thoughts, do you have any thoughts on my previous post? (10/11/07, 5.58pm, #284)

Not Brazil

11/11/2007, 2:20 PM

Sooooo sorry, NB for hurting your feelings there chum. Tell you what: You don't put up posts that leave you open to contradiction, and I won't allow my mind to go walkies about what you are trying to actually say.

You certainly didn't hurt my feelings.

I didn't post anything that was open to contradiction.

Stop your bull****ing, and we'll get along just fine.

geysir

11/11/2007, 3:33 PM

As Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure in NI, I daresay Poots can claim an interest in this matter. That said, he has never shown any previous interest in football, never mind the intricacies of FIFA's eligibility rules. Therefore, whilst he may write to FIFA, if he wishes, equally, FIFA may regard or disregard any letter or approach entirely as it suits them.
The Belfast Telegraph has banner headlines from the Minister Of Sport on the sports pages quoting this idiot without any qualification or attempt to clarify his ignorance!

Anyhow, Geysir, seeing as how I appear still to be in your thoughts, do you have any thoughts on my previous post? (10/11/07, 5.58pm, #284

post 284 you ask?
Whereas I, some minor and not actually relevant technical points notwithstanding, have been vindicated by my consistent stance that it is unclear whether the Annex applies, and will continue to be so, until FIFA provides a definitive Statement one way or the other.

You might not appreciate that Statutes are also about technicalities and one's ability to comprehend them. It is not irrelevant to this discussion that you have demonstrated a repeated willingness to write about FIFA statutes (the UK agreement, "A" international.) that you were quite blatantly ignorant about. Why should I not laugh that your only consistant stance is that you are unclear.
I must have missed that bit in the FIFA proposal about the Annex. I wonder how they could have ignored the Annex, I mean it�s not as if there is more that a few pages to look at in the Statutes, Maybee the IFA forgot to mention the Annex in their submission?

Therefore, you have quite simply been proven wrong when you have stated that FIFA have been entirely happy all along for the FAI to select NI-born players who do not also meet the Annex criteria for ROI teams.
:D
You may not be aware, but under FIFA statutes when there is a review, FIFA do ask the challenged party to stand down from their position even if that practice was previously supported by FIFA.

livehead1

11/11/2007, 3:51 PM

I've just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading all that ****e! Utter madness

geysir

11/11/2007, 8:27 PM

No place for group hugs in the Purgatory Thread.
Instead of getting banned by Dahamsta you get sent here for a couple of weeks to debate with Ealing G.
My time is up now. I�m cleansed.

Blanchflower

11/11/2007, 11:01 PM

OK F�ck the burden, lost in translation I think
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.

This is correct. And FIFA have now publicly confirmed it.

What the IFA should have been arguing, though, is that the South's extra-territorial citizenship laws create a (presumably) unique situation which requires an annex of its own ... one FIFA member claims all the players of another FIFA member as its own by virtue of an extra-territorial citizenship law.  This is inherently unfair and FIFA should rectify it.

CollegeTillIDie

12/11/2007, 4:23 AM

Well Northern Ireland have always had the option of playing any one entitled to a British passport even those who were not eligible to play for the Republic under any criteria, and who had no direct contact with the wee North unless I am greatly mistaken.
Back in the 1980's Pat Van Den Hauwe , who was born in Belgium but naturalised through his parents moving to the UK declared for Wales but as far as I know he could have been claimed equally by NI, England or Scotland. So if that was the case and remains so NI can pick anyone with a UK passport and ROI can pick anyone entitled to have an Irish passport. Not much of a difference except NI have 59 million more to choose from. And good luck to them if that is the case. Another example might be this...
Maik Taylor was born in Germany but has a UK entitlement to citizenship through his parents. I am not sure of his NI credentials past that . Except he's a good goalkeeper :D

Gather round

12/11/2007, 7:55 AM

I heard from the Hood that you'll be in Cardiff, and my first thought is why aren't you at WP? You're still in with a shout of qualification. I'll catch up with you anyways.

The WP game is a sellout (as many reading will know, this is as much to do with the ramshackle state of the stadium as the importance of the game). I could probably get a ticket but don't fancy touting. Cardiff's a nice day out as I live in the English Midlands at the moment, not south Wales as Paul guessed above. And there's no time clash as the NI game's in the evening.

The thing is, I disagree with yesterday's Indo (basically, they think Euro qualifying is all but over, "nothing to see"). Wrong. This game is still important, for overall position, bragging rights, momentum and the rest of it. As is the one in Belfast. Before it, our chance of qualifying is 1%- 2% ; but if we win and Spain don't against Sweden, that rises tenfold going into the last round on Wednesday week. That would be our biggest game since 1986- bring it on ;)