O'Neill gives his backing for a United Ireland team

[Blanchflower]

Really? Your argument is that by virtue of having been born in e.g. Derry, a footballer is automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, therefore should be entitled to represent the ROI, without any other qualifying criteria needing to be applied.

But by exactly the same token, such an individual is also automatically entitled to UK citizenship, and must therefore be entitled to represent the appropriate British Association (in this case the IFA) whether he chooses to, or not.

Therefore by Article 16, mustn't such an individual actually be "eligible to represent more than one Association", and so must meet at least one of the four specified conditions in order to represent his chosen Association?
You need to read Article 15. Article 16 doesn't apply to the NI/ROI situation.

[ifk101]

NI players are still eligible for the South.:mad:

South :confused:

The name of the country is Mexico. And while I'm at it - Welcome Sven Göran! South Africa here we come.

[Newryrep]

EG , single nationality, more than one association, Denmark and Faroes; China and Hong Kong; France and Guadeloupe; Netherlands and Aruba, etc and of course British. If you check out the debate on Slugger, some of your compatriots agree with Geysir on the principal point -

the nationality it refers to is a single nationality not multiple
nothing has changed
The IFA should of argued for a change in the rules not enforcement of the rules
Irish nationality on its own does not entitle anybody to play for the IFA

[Blanchflower]

Correct, Newryrep

[geysir]

This is the new amendment, and I think that this -
1 A player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality,
- is the key sentence.

Gesysir's interpretation is that the word 'nationality' refers to a single nationality which makes a player eligible for more than one association. But as nationality of ROI alone does not qualify a player to play for NI, article 16 is irrelevant.

Ealing Green's interpretation is that the word 'nationality' refers to a dual or multiple nationality which makes a player eligible for more than one association. In this case article 16 is relevant, and further criteria are imposed.

It comes down to how the word 'nationality' is to be interpreted - is that correct?
If you are talking about the difference in this matter, between me and EG, comes down to the interpretation of Nationality as used in article 16?
That like saying the difference between the Shinners and the DUP in the negotiations over the GFA was about the interpretation of the word permanent

There are many key sentences in the new FIFA wording
The "Explanation" which preambles the statutes spells it out in black and white.
No change to the legality.
Just a tidying up operation.

[ifk101]

So any up and coming players you want to recommed for us Blanchflower?

[kingdomkerry]

:confused:
I am somehow responsible for making a case for you to conclude differently :eek:

Unfortunately for our Board, your addiction to seeking attention far surpasses your ability to comprehend and conclude anything different to your alternate owc universe.
In fact your ability to comprehend is not very different to a long running soap opera, plenty of episodes but no plot or character development.

Article 16 does not apply to Irish citizens.
It is obvious that article 16, for example, applies to British nationality.
the last part of article 16
states
"Regardless of par. 1 above,
Associations sharing a
common nationality may
make an agreement
under which item (d) [residency] of
par. 1 of this article is
deleted completely or
amended to specify a
longer time limit. Such
agreements shall be lodged
with and approved by the
Executive Committee."
The 4 UK federations sharing the same UK nationality have lodged an agreement with FIFA determining their terms of eligibility.


The preamble to the FIFA articles of eligibility also require some study.
There is no alteration of the current legal situation.
There is just clarification of what was previously agreed upon.
All the bits and pieces have been put into the statutes without changing the legal situation.
Instead of ONE FIFA statute and 3 bits of paper (the 2 circulars and the annex) flying around,
we now still have the FIFA statute 15 and added some new statutes 16, 17, 18

FIFA statute 15 is re worded to make it crystal clear to everybody who lives outside the OWC universe that
Any person holding a
permanent nationality
that is not dependent
on residence in a certain
country is eligible to play
for the representative teams
of the Association of that
country
Thats us, you and us. They wrote that for Howard. Will he get it? will he féck:D

FIFA preamble to the eligibility statutes
Explanation:
"The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisions
within the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legal
situation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular 901 (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/ps_901_en_90.pdf) and circular_1093 (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/circular_1093_en_33447.pdf) dated 21 June
2007). Under the proposal approved by the Executive Committee, all relevant
provisions have been summarised and added to the Regulations Governing the
Application of the Statutes.
Accordingly, art. 15 in the chapter “Eligibility to play for representative teams” of
the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes should be amended
and new art. 16 to 18 should be included."

Good work Geysir,

I was watching BBC newsline at half six yesterday and they reported like the rules had changed. Jumped the gun again.

Now the only thing to do is make ensure every player from kerry to derry antrim to waterford who is good enough and wants to play for Ireland does.

"North men south men comrades all dublin belfast cork and donegal were on the one road singing along singing a soldiers song........."

[geysir]

It's just unfortunate that there is a ring of truth in Pat Spillanes famous putdown of the Nordies ..... Puke football :D

[ifk101]

I have a degree of sympathy for the IFA but their jumping of the gun on not one but two occasions has been good for a giggle especially after reading the following on the IFA website - "The IFA’s Chief Executive says that it is his intention to write to the Football Association of Ireland with regards to the clarification of the matter."

However future cooperation between the two associations, for example the joint FAI/IFA bid for a Euro U21 Championships that's probably dead in the water now, are going to be strained and I don't think that's something we want.

[Blanchflower]

I have a degree of sympathy for the IFA but their jumping of the gun on not one but two occasions has been good for a giggle especially after reading the following on the IFA website - "The IFA’s Chief Executive says that it is his intention to write to the Football Association of Ireland with regards to the clarification of the matter."

However future cooperation between the two associations, for example the joint FAI/IFA bid for a Euro U21 Championships that's probably dead in the water now, are going to be strained and I don't think that's something we want.
A very embarrassing gaffe by the IFA, but the case still remains that - notwithstanding the FIFA rules (under which Northerners have always been eligible anyway) - the FAI is breaking a gentleman's agreement by picking NI players. The IFA should refuse any co-operation with the FAI until some sort of agreement is reached.

[youngirish]

If all you're concerned about is my borrowing of a metaphor from one of the centrally involved figures, then I will gladly replace "battle" and "war", with "sprint" and "marathon" (or whatever else non-militaristic phrase you prefer). Hell, I'll even throw in an unconditional apology for my injury to the sensitivities of all the untold millions who've suffered in warfare in the history of mankind. OK?

P.S. Have you anything substantive to add to the debate, following these new developments in Sydney? :rolleyes:

Yes NI born Irish nationals will still be able to play for the Republic even if they have no ancestors that originated South of the Border. So as geysir has already stated in a practical sense nothing has changed regarding the situation existing between the two Irish football teams.

[paul_oshea]

This is the new amendment, and I think that this -
1 A player who, under the terms of art. 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality,
- is the key sentence.

Gesysir's interpretation is that the word 'nationality' refers to a single nationality which makes a player eligible for more than one association. But as nationality of ROI alone does not qualify a player to play for NI, article 16 is irrelevant.

Ealing Green's interpretation is that the word 'nationality' refers to a dual or multiple nationality which makes a player eligible for more than one association. In this case article 16 is relevant, and further criteria are imposed.

It comes down to how the word 'nationality' is to be interpreted - is that correct?

Thats the nail on head there, but I am assuming that FIFA would fully understand that when re-wording and if so then I definitely would go with geysir here, however if somehow they found the whole thing a bit fuzzy and actually meant the case covering IFA/FAI, I think FIFAs use of the word nationality here is wrong even though they may not realise it.

[EalingGreen]

The IFA do not yet seem to realise that the vast majority of nationalists do not feel any affiliation to the NI team. They would much rather play for or support the Republic.

I'm sure they do (although they might quibble with "vast majority" and "any").


NI are a British team.

They are also an Irish team, the clue is in the name: "Northern Ireland". Or in "Irish Football Association". But to save confusion, it's best just to call them "Northern Ireland".


It is embarrassing watching, as they play the British national anthem,
Although I personally would prefer if it were changed, GSTQ is the NI anthem.

the token nationalists Chris Baird and Sammy Clingan
Quite disgraceful to label Baird and Clingan as "tokens". The IFA is not in the business of picking players for other than footballing reasons and I am sure neither of these (or the other players from a Nationalist background who represent NI) would accept selection on such a basis.

Chris Baird and Sammy Clingan stand silently, heads bowed, as their British colleagues sing God Save the Queen with gusto.

Distortion. A couple of the NI players sing GSTQ with what might be termed "gusto", a couple more sing it ordinarily, the rest just stand respectfully. Anyhow, whatever their views on the anthem, it doesn't stop Baird, Clingan, Johnson etc ever giving less than 100% in the green shirt. Indeed, when I compare their recent performances with those of certain members of the ROI team in the same period, perhaps the FAI might consider picking a few "tokens", or even scrapping The Soldiers Song, for all the inspiration it seems to provide.

The IFA press ahead with their attempts to force players to play for a team that they do not wish to play for.
Now you're getting silly. How can the IFA "force" anyone to play for them? Who have they attempted to "force"? How many cry-offs through suspicious "injuries" (or dead grannies:eek:) did the NI squad suffer during the last qualifying campaign, compared with certain other comparable international sides? Seeking to prevent someone who is clearly eligible for you from playing for another team for whom you consider him ineligible is NOT the same as "forcing someone to play for you" (even if that were physically possible)

I can only assume you base your opinions not on attending NI games, but on second-hand "information", since my experience of following the team, home and away, in the period since this eligibility row has flared up, has been of a team whose players without exception have played with absolute pride, passion and belief.

If you are an ROI supporter, can you say the same for your team? :rolleyes:

[kingdomkerry]

A very embarrassing gaffe by the IFA, but the case still remains that - notwithstanding the FIFA rules (under which Northerners have always been eligible anyway) - the FAI is breaking a gentleman's agreement by picking NI players. The IFA should refuse any co-operation with the FAI until some sort of agreement is reached.

Well if the IFA do refuse to cooperate with the FAI, let them as it is they who will loose out, The FAI should not compromise on this!

[Blanchflower]

Well if the IFA do refuse to cooperate with the FAI, let them as it is they who will loose out, The FAI should not compromise on this!

Loose out?:(

[geysir]

When the sad truth sinks in to Ealing Green, although he doesn't quite understand how his OWC have been fécked over again by FIFA, he will deny falling hook line and sinker for the IFA screaming victory once again.

He knows enough to know he got it wrong but not much more than that.
That's why he keeps getting suckered.

Once all that debate is over then
Ealing Green and others usually start, continue or take up a debate about flags, anthems,
about how only 10 booed Neil Lennon,
that 10p phonecall,
that Neil actually loves the owc,
that they only want players who want to play for queen and or country,
that he usually takes a pee while GSTQ is being belted out,
that the FAI are the ungentlemanly lot
that because the republic has extra territorial ambitions and give out citizenship ...
that zzzzzzzzzzz.

[EalingGreen]

EG , single nationality, more than one association, Denmark and Faroes; China and Hong Kong; France and Guadeloupe; Netherlands and Aruba, etc and of course British. If you check out the debate on Slugger, some of your compatriots agree with Geysir on the principal point -

the nationality it refers to is a single nationality not multiple
nothing has changed
The IFA should of argued for a change in the rules not enforcement of the rules
Irish nationality on its own does not entitle anybody to play for the IFA


None of the four British Associations is allowed to pick a player from any other part of the UK without there being a connection (parent/grandparent/residence etc), so that has no bearing on the FAI/IFA dispute.
And as for the other examples you cite, can you confirm for me whether the Faroe Islands FA is allowed to pick players from anywhere in Denmark, or vice versa? May the HKFA pick players from throughout the rest of China (or vv)? Ditto Fr/Guad and Neth/Aruba?

And even if they may, the UK, China, Denmark, France and Denmark are nations which have more than one Football Association within their jurisdiction. Consequently, they do not compare with, or create a precedent for, a nation (Irish Republic) which has only one, but which is attempting to select players from outside of their jurisdiction (political or footballing).

As for "Slugger", I am well aware that some NI fans feel the FAI's case prevails, others the IFA. I personally am not certain which view is correct, though I am increasingly inclined towards the IFA's case.

[Blanchflower]

None of the four British Associations is allowed to pick a player from any other part of the UK without there being a connection (parent/grandparent/residence etc), so that has no bearing on the FAI/IFA dispute.

Under Article 16, yes - which has no bearing on the ROI/NI situation.


And as for the other examples you cite, can you confirm for me whether the Faroe Islands FA is allowed to pick players from anywhere in Denmark, or vice versa? May the HKFA pick players from throughout the rest of China (or vv)? Ditto Fr/Guad and Neth/Aruba?

If you read Article 16 you'll see that they can't!


The UK, China, Denmark, France and Denmark are nations which have more than one Football Association within their jurisdiction. Consequently, they do not compare with, or create a precent for, a nation (Irish Republic) which has only one, but which is attempting to select players from outside of their jurisdiction (political or footballing).
Exactly - which is why Article 16 applies to those nations and not to ROI, for which ARticle 15 is relevant.

[seanfhear]

It is great to see such passion from some supporters about who can or cannot play for their team especially when some players are not that bothered and when even medicore clubs in england coerce players into faking injury[even with underage teams] so that they do not have to turn out for their international teams.This does seem to happen a lot more to countries that these clubs believe do not have the the same influence as others.Perhaps supporters should unite in protecting international football from the dangers that threaten all international sides

[Blanchflower]

It is great to see such passion from some supporters about who can or cannot play for their team especially when some players are not that bothered and when even medicore clubs in england coerce players into faking injury[even with underage teams] so that they do not have to turn out for their international teams.This does seem to happen a lot more to countries that these clubs believe do not have the the same influence as others.Perhaps supporters should unite in protecting international football from the dangers that threaten all international sides
Well said. Unfortunately most ROI supporters seem keener to shaft their neighbours than to stand alongside them.

[kingdomkerry]

Well said. Unfortunately most ROI supporters seem keener to shaft their neighbours than to stand alongside them.

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Newryrep]

None of the four British Associations is allowed ....................to pick a player from any other part of the UK without there being a As for "Slugger", I am well aware that some NI fans feel the FAI's case prevails, others the IFA. I personally am not certain which view is correct, though I am increasingly inclined towards the IFA's case.

EG, Blanchflower has kindly answered your question probably better and quicker than I ever could. However FIFA have more things on their mind than the FAI/IFA dispute and has been pointed out previously do not seem inclined to do much more about it. I personally cant get my head around playing for somebody (IFA) underage and then switching (FAI) but that is just me.

I dont think it will start a tidal wave of players choosing to play for the FAI as oposed to the IFA, but the fact that you are activately preventing players (who choose for what ever reason) does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

I do have a certain sympathy with the IFA but if you look up sympathy in the dictionary it is between sh1t and syphilis.

[Newryrep]

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


KK, your 'debating' skills on this particular topic are juvenile to say the least .

[RogerMilla]

The IFA should refuse any co-operation with the FAI until some sort of agreement is reached.

yes indeed , thats the way to go about things... :cool:

[RogerMilla]

Well said. Unfortunately most ROI supporters seem keener to shaft their neighbours than to stand alongside them.

so a nationalist born in the six counties who wishes to declare for the ROI is not being shafted by his neighbours ( the IFA ,its supporters and members) who wish to deny him the right to play for the ROI?

[Blanchflower]

so a nationalist born in the six counties who wishes to declare for the ROI is not being shafted by his neighbours ( the IFA ,its supporters and members) who wish to deny him the right to play for the ROI?
No. He shouldn't have such a "right" if he's not from there.

[paul_oshea]

[QUOTE=geysir;955447]He knows enough to know he got it wrong but not much more than that.
That's why he keeps getting suckered.QUOTE]

In fairness to him though, he would "bamboozle" manys a folk with his cloudy dialogue, so much so that you end up forgetting what you were supposed to be reading/arguing, geysir, you do well to stay on the point at hand ;) :D

[youngirish]

No. He shouldn't have such a "right" if he's not from there.

Pretty simplistic take on the whole Northern Ireland nationalist/unionist situation Blanchflower. I take it then you're not British as you're not from the Britain that appears on any of my maps?

All those footballers throughout the world who play for countries whose borders their mother didn't happen to find herself in at the time of their birth should just pack up then and stick to club football from now on?

[Blanchflower]

I take it then you're not British as you're not from the Britain that appears on any of my maps?

Why do you take that? And of what relevance is the question? :confused:


All those footballers throughout the world who play for countries whose borders their mother didn't happen to find herself in at the time of their birth should just pack up then and stick to club football from now on?
Players such as who?:eek:

[RogerMilla]

No. He shouldn't have such a "right" if he's not from there.

And there Blanchflower is where you and I disagree.

[youngirish]

Why do you take that? And of what relevance is the question? :confused:


Players such as who?:eek:

Didn't you state that only players born (or possibly you meant raised as you used an ambiguous term "from") within the boundaries of a country should be able to play for that same country?

Let's see who that would rule out - Maik Taylor, Vieria, Thuram, Klose, Podolski, Eusebio, Vieri and others too numerous to mention.

[Wolfie]

Let's see who that would rule out - Maik Taylor, Vieria, Thuram, Klose, Podolski, Eusebio, Vieri and others too numerous to mention.

..........Lawrie Sanchez.

[Blanchflower]

And there Blanchflower is where you and I disagree.
Er, I know.:eek::confused: Thanks for that useful contribution. Any other novel pieces of information you want to provide me with - water is wet? the Pope's an RC?

[Blanchflower]

Didn't you state than only players born (or possibly you meant raised as you used an ambiguous term "from") within the boundaries of a country should be able to play for that same country?

Obviously I meant the normal criteria should apply re. birth, parentage, grandparentage.

[osarusan]

There are many key sentences in the new FIFA wording
The "Explanation" which preambles the statutes spells it out in black and white.
No change to the legality.
Just a tidying up operation.
Having seen the preamble, which I previously hadn't, particularly this part -

FIFA preamble to the eligibility statutes
Explanation:
"The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisions
within the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legal
situation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular 901 and circular_1093 dated 21 June
2007).
I have to agree that it doesn't change the previous ruling by FIFA.

Serves me right for not researching it properly.

Now, at the risk of digging myself an even deeper hole, there was (if I remember correctly) a proposal whereby people born anywhere on the island of Ireland would have been eligible for the NI team, but this proposal was rejected by the IFA. Is that correct?

And if that is correct, then the ROI nationality would have made players eligible for 2 national sides.....in which case Article 16 would have applied?

[EalingGreen]

I am somehow responsible for making a case for you to conclude differently :eek:

Unfortunately for our Board, your addiction to seeking attention far surpasses your ability to comprehend and conclude anything different to your alternate owc universe.
In fact your ability to comprehend is not very different to a long running soap opera, plenty of episodes but no plot or character development.


Yeah, yeah, all very clever...:rolleyes:



Article 16 does not apply to Irish citizens.
[/I]
So you say. However, that does not make it so.




It is obvious that article 16, for example, applies to British nationality.
the last part of article 16
states
"Regardless of par. 1 above,
Associations sharing a
common nationality may
make an agreement
under which item (d) [residency] of
par. 1 of this article is
deleted completely or
amended to specify a
longer time limit. Such
agreements shall be lodged
with and approved by the
Executive Committee."
The 4 UK federations sharing the same UK nationality have lodged an agreement with FIFA determining their terms of eligibility.


Inter alia, it may be applied to the four British Associations. However, that in itself does not mean this last part applies/doesn't apply to the FAI i.e. that NI-born players must be, or are not, subject to Article 16 for the purposes of eligibility for FAI teams. The key word is "Regardless".



The preamble to the FIFA articles of eligibility also require some study.
There is no alteration of the current legal situation.
There is just clarification of what was previously agreed upon.
All the bits and pieces have been put into the statutes without changing the legal situation.
Instead of ONE FIFA statute and 3 bits of paper (the 2 circulars and the annex) flying around,
we now still have the FIFA statute 15 and added some new statutes 16, 17, 18


FIFA preamble to the eligibility statutes
Explanation:
"The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisions
within the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legal
situation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular 901 (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/ps%5f901%5fen%5f90.pdf) and circular_1093 (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/circular_1093_en_33447.pdf) dated 21 June
2007). Under the proposal approved by the Executive Committee, all relevant
provisions have been summarised and added to the Regulations Governing the
Application of the Statutes.
Accordingly, art. 15 in the chapter “Eligibility to play for representative teams” of
the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes should be amended
and new art. 16 to 18 should be included."[/I


Agree that this is a tidying-up/clarification exercise. Just am not yet convinced that the final version confirms your case.



FIFA statute 15 is re worded to make it crystal clear to everybody who lives outside the OWC universe that
Any person holding a
permanent nationality
that is not dependent
on residence in a certain
country is eligible to play
for the representative teams
of the Association of that
country
Thats us, you and us.
]

At last, the nub of the matter! As we know, this whole issue has arisen not because of the FAI/IFA dispute (though that is coincidental). Rather, it derives from certain African and Middle Eastern countries granting Nationality (Passports) to South American players with no obvious connection to their new "country".
Consequently, FIFA introduced additional eligibility conditions for such players, now set out formally/permanently in these Articles.
And if you read Article 15, it is clear, for example, that a Brazilian who is granted Qatari citizenship 'out of the blue' is a "...person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country".
I am sure that particular wording was carefully chosen to include all those to whom FIFA wished the new conditions to apply.
But is there anything in such a description which prevents it being applied to e.g. a Derryman who wishes to represent the FAI?
After all, he "holds a permanent nationality" (Irish) that is "not dependent on residence in a certain country" (Irish Republic). As such, is the application of Article 15 to him any different to its application to e.g. our Brazilian who is acquiring Qatari nationality?
Of course, it is obvious that the Brazilian's sudden acquisition of Qatari nationality is not the same as a Derryman who has had Irish Nationality from birth.
But when consolidating the new eligibility arrangements in these articles, FIFA must have been aware of the different between consciously "granted" nationality and automatic "birth" nationality. Yet they do not specify a distinction (or an exception) for the latter.

Along with the other evidence, such as the Delaney "Battle/War" metaphor, the FAI's moratorium on selecting NI-born players, the (unnecessary) offer by FIFA to the IFA of the "compromise" etc, plus the renewed bullishness of the IFA following their meeting in Sydney, I am increasingly minded to believe that Article 15 does, indeed, apply to NI-born players wishing to represent the FAI.

In which case, Article 16 must also be applied, since it refers to "A player who, under the terms of article 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association". And if Article 16 is applicable generally, then that must include the four conditions.

Which, if you think about it, is logical. After all, everyone has to be born somewhere! So that if under Article 15, the player in question was actually born in the country which he seeks to represent, then the whole issue is void.
That is, Article 16 and its four conditions are only to be applied to someone who was not born in the country whose "permanent nationality etc" on which he is now relying is a different country to that of his birth.

Which once again catches out our hypothetical Derryman.

Further, I do not think it coincidental that for the first of these conditions, FIFA chose to define the "birthplace" condition thus:
"...born in the territory of the relevant Association"
Do they use this terminology elsewhere in their articles?
Had they used something different, such as "country" or "Nation" etc, this could lead to different interpretations of whether e.g. Derry is in "Ireland" or "Britain" etc. Similarly, there are other politically-disputed territories around the globe.
However, there can be no confusion as to what constitutes the "territory" of an "Association", since FIFA is the final judge on such matters. And as regards the Irish situation, the six counties of NI clearly come exclusively within the IFA's territory only.



They wrote that for Howard. Will he get it? will he féck
]

I am no fan of Wells for a number of reasons, but whatever else he is, he's not the dummy you consistently try to portray him as - far from it, in fact.
On which point, I think the following extract from yesterday's IFA Statement may be telling:

An Irish Football Association spokeswoman said: "FIFA have said that if we deem any player called into the Republic of Ireland's squad ineligible then we can bring that case to FIFA.

"We can appeal if we think they are going against any of the criteria."

If there is no question of these (Article 16) criteria being applicable to NI-born players selected by the FAI, why would FIFA even countenance an IFA appeal? Why not just tell Wells etc that the IFA would be wasting its time?

This will have come directly from Wells, who we know met FIFA officials in Sydney to discuss this issue. Is he likely to have got it so obviously wrong a second time?

After all, the Statement on the IFA's website is specific, even bullish:
http://www.irishfa.com/the-ifa/news/4005/ifa-statement/

Whereas, the FAI's Website makes no reference to this matter; indeed, all they appear to have done is issue a rather bland statement affirming that anyone born in NI is eligible to represent both the IFA and FAI.

I'm still not certain which way this will go, but the more I look at it, the more certain i am that it is by no means "cut and dried".

We may need Trapattoni to select someone new from NI for the IFA to challenge, before we can be certain. And if he should, I wonder will the FAI be happy to countenance his selection? ;)

[Blanchflower]

And if that is correct, then the ROI nationality would have made players eligible for 2 national sides.....in which case Article 16 would have applied?
No that would have been a new rule applicable only between NI and ROI, so Article 16 wouldn't have applied.

[RogerMilla]

Er, I know.:eek::confused: Thanks for that useful contribution. Any other novel pieces of information you want to provide me with - water is wet? the Pope's an RC?

"No. He shouldn't have such a "right" if he's not from there." was your statement.

I am saying that I believe that he should have that right and that the powers that be agree with me, you scold us for not helping out neighbours but you plainly wish to deny your nationalist neighbours their rights. Sadly that is not a novel piece of information...

[Blanchflower]

Inter alia, it may be applied to the four British Associations. However, that in itself does not mean this last part applies/doesn't apply to the FAI i.e. that NI-born players must be, or are not, subject to Article 16 for the purposes of eligibility for FAI teams. The key word is "Regardless".

ROI nationality only entitles you to play for 1 team. Article 16 doesn't apply.



Agree that this is a tidying-up/clarification exercise. Just am not yet convinced that the final version confirms your case.

If you agree it's only clarification then how can you argue that it reverses FIFA's previous statement?




I am sure that particular wording was carefully chosen to include all those to whom FIFA wished the new conditions to apply.
But is there anything in such a description which prevents it being applied to e.g. a Derryman who wishes to represent the FAI?

Yes - because he doesn't "acquire" ROI nationality - he had it from birth.



But when consolidating the new eligibility arrangements in these articles, FIFA must have been aware of the different between consciously "granted" nationality and automatic "birth" nationality. Yet they do not specify a distinction (or an exception) for the latter.

They do - there are different rules for those who acquire a new nationality from those who have dual nationality.



Along with the other evidence, such as the Delaney "Battle/War" metaphor, the FAI's moratorium on selecting NI-born players, the (unnecessary) offer by FIFA to the IFA of the "compromise" etc, plus the renewed bullishness of the IFA following their meeting in Sydney, I am increasingly minded to believe that Article 15 does, indeed, apply to NI-born players wishing to represent the FAI.

Of course Article 15 applies - and under Article 15 NI players may play for ROI so long as they (a) haven't previously played for NI in an "A" international and (b) are over 21.



In which case, Article 16 must also be applied, since it refers to "A player who, under the terms of article 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association".

Meaning that due to his nationality (singular) he can play for more than 1.

[Blanchflower]

"No. He shouldn't have such a "right" if he's not from there." was your statement.

I am saying that I believe that he should have that right

Yes, I know - why do you keep stating the obvious?:confused::eek: What next? The earth isn't flat?

[paul_oshea]

Er, I know.:eek::confused: Thanks for that useful contribution. Any other novel pieces of information you want to provide me with - water is wet? the Pope's an RC?

LOL :D

[RogerMilla]

Yes, I know - why do you keep stating the obvious? What next? The earth isn't flat?

Because i am happy to see that you admit to wishing to deny the players who would wish to play for ROI their right to do so. Much better than EG's "i dont want anyone who doesnt want to play for us " fudge...

[RogerMilla]

LOL :D

nice to see it amuses you paul , was possibly funnier when basil fawlty used the line...

[Blanchflower]

Because i am happy to see that you admit to wishing to deny the players who would wish to play for ROI their right to do so.
Then why didn't you say that instead of making the obvious statement that you disagreed with me?

Presumably you would wish to deny the "right" of people from the South to play for England?

[paul_oshea]

nice to see it amuses you paul , was possibly funnier when basil fawlty used the line...

I liked the line, like the germans. and just like them i also liked line about denial and starting it ;) I was laughing for many different reasons Roger!

[ifk101]

We may need Trapattoni to select someone new from NI for the IFA to challenge, before we can be certain.

Please post your recommendations here, add them to the Irish abroad thread or send them to the following address;
FAI,
National Sports Campus,
Abbotstown,
Dublin 15.


And if he should, I wonder will the FAI be happy to countenance his selection? ;)

As above. Post your recommendations and if there're good enough they'll get a "run out".

[Guidedbyvoices]

[quote=paul_oshea;955508]
He knows enough to know he got it wrong but not much more than that.
That's why he keeps getting suckered.QUOTE]

In fairness to him though, he would "bamboozle" manys a folk with his cloudy dialogue, so much so that you end up forgetting what you were supposed to be reading/arguing, geysir, you do well to stay on the point at hand ;) :D



You are like a school teacher correcting a pupils work. Can you not contribute to the thread in a constructive manner instead of sliding in with your punitive Jibes.I see you have over 6000 posts in a few years which is sad on its own right but judging by most of what you have contributed recently surely most of them are utter sH!te. Anyway you are not in the same league of intelligence as Geysir, Ealing etc etc so don't even attempt to pick any holes in their posts

[RogerMilla]

Then why didn't you say that instead of making the obvious statement that you disagreed with me?

Presumably you would wish to deny the "right" of people from the South to play for England?

No way , if they have a british passport then fine , i reserve the right to boo them heartily though.

[Guidedbyvoices]

No way , if they have an passport then fine , i reserve the right to boo them heartily though.


No such thing Chief so edit it before super brain P O' Shea spots it!!

[Blanchflower]

No way , if they have a british passport then fine , i reserve the right to boo them heartily though.
So you would not object to the UK Parliament passing a law to say that everyone from the ROI is a UK citizen? And then the FA using said law to pick ROI players to play for England.