O'Neill gives his backing for a United Ireland team

[RogerMilla]

So you would not object to the UK Parliament passing a law to say that everyone from the ROI is a UK citizen? .


they tried it , we objected...

[youngirish]

Where have I ever denied that there are two national identities in "the north" [sic]?

As for the political claptrap which you seek to insert into the argument, I find it all contemptible.

My view of what the situation should be (as opposed to what FIFA may say it should be) is simple.

There are two Football Associations in Ireland and therefore two international Irish football teams, each equally valid.

Therefore, I simply believe if you are an Irishman born in NI, you should play for the IFA team and if you are an Irishman born in the ROI, you should play for the FAI team.
I applaud you for clarifying on how you would like FIFA to write their rules. Unfortunately not everyone feels the same as you do on this island and wouldn't agree with your oversimplification of the issue at hand as stated above.



On which point, I don't see how representing NI makes one either "more British" or "less Irish", since those are political, not sporting concepts. Rather, it just means you're a Northern Irish footballer.

Beyond that, all I would add is that no-one should be made to feel their off-the-field identity is in any way affected or diminished by the fact they are representing NI on the field, nor should they face any selection criteria other than purely footballing ones.
Yes and the moon is made of cheese and the streets are paved with gold. C'mon EG the world doesn't work like this surely International football is, by the definition of it's title, dependant on the nationalistic leanings of players instead of their other concerns (money, success, fame etc) which have ruined the club game imo (I would argue that nationalistic leanings are at the very core of the game).

If you hold a ROI passport, feel Irish and you've always wanted to represent the ROI football team then it would be a travesty in anyone's minds (bar yours and a few of your OWC mates) to prevent you from playing for your country.

Just follow club football form now on until FIFA iron out all those nationalistic tendencies that ruin International football.

[Blanchflower]

they tried it , we objected...
So you would object. Therefore you are a hypocrite.

[Maroon 7]

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?

Having seen the man in action I wouldn't put it past him.:D

[paul_oshea]

[quote=paul_oshea;955508]



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

ok, i promise then, but surely that should be sad "in" ;)

Seriouslly though, i "tried" to contribute but the hamster is spinning to fast, and the wheel just keeps coming back to the same point, so I gave up. If you don't go off topic and contribute, I promise I will then contribute too!

So when are the IFA going to write to the FAI to inform them of no change in the situation?

[youngirish]

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.

To my knowledge any ROI citizen can play for England anyway if any of their grandparents was born pre 1948 in the ROI (this would cover nearly everyone).

The difference here is that most of our population would rather throw themselves off the top of the Cliffs of Moher than represent England in International football. For any that do though good luck to them.

The situation up the North is therefore not comparable.

[RogerMilla]

So you would object. Therefore you are a hypocrite.

you were speaking of a hypothesis, i was speaking about history.

I voted to repeal articles 2 and 3 , but i firmly believe that northern nationalists should play for us , call me a hypocrite the day your hypothetical event occurs and when i object to it, until then keep your pronouncements about what I am to yourself. i believe there is an internet adage "attack the post , not the poster" you would do well to keep to it .

[Blanchflower]

To my knowledge any ROI citizen can play for England anyway if any of their grandparents was born pre 1948 in the ROI (this would cover nearly everyone).

No it wouldn't - most young players' grandparents would have been born after 1948. Any such eligibility will eventually die out.

[Blanchflower]

you were speaking of a hypothesis, i was speaking about history.

Your answer implied that you would object if it happened now.


I voted to repeal articles 2 and 3 , but i firmly believe that northern nationalists should play for us
Why did you vote to repeal articles 2 and 3 if, deep down, you retain an irredentist and imperialist outlook towards NI?

[RogerMilla]

Your answer implied that you would object if it happened now.

no , it didn't

[RogerMilla]

Why did you vote to repeal articles 2 and 3 if, deep down, you retain an irredentist and imperialist outlook towards NI?

Because it was a step to making Ireland a better place , regardless of what you or anyone else feel my outlook to be.

[Blanchflower]

no , it didn't
Well, that's how I read it and I haven't read anything else to indicate otherwise.

[Blanchflower]

Because it was a step to making Ireland a better place , regardless of what you or anyone else feel my outlook to be.
You don't genuinely believe in the principle behind it, then, it was just an expedient move?

[paul_oshea]

To my knowledge any ROI citizen can play for England anyway if any of their grandparents was born pre 1948 in the ROI (this would cover nearly everyone).

The difference here is that most of our population would rather throw themselves off the top of the Cliffs of Moher than represent England in International football. For any that do though good luck to them.

The situation up the North is therefore not comparable.

I think its actually 47. I also think it has to be a parent and not a grandparent. Your parent if s/he was born before 1947 can apply for a British passport and therefore you can also apply for one.

[RogerMilla]

You don't genuinely believe in the principle behind it, then, it was just an expedient move?

I believed in the principles behind articles 2 and 3 but to my mind they are now irrelevant. we can move to PM if you want to learn more about my views. ( i doubt you do. )

I voted for the good friday agreement and that enshrined the rights of people born in the north to be Irish citizens , or was i mistaken ?

so the bottom line is for me that anyone up there can apply for and get an irish passport. therefore they can play for the ROI team. am i mistaken again?

now young fellas declaring for one and then changing to another is another can of worms and i have sympathy for both associations when they lose a player that way.

[Schumi]

No it wouldn't - most young players' grandparents would have been born after 1948. My two grandparents who are still alive were born in 1917 and 1922 and I'm only 28. It'll be a while yet before that's the case (the Northside excepted perhaps ;)).

[paul_oshea]

so the bottom line is for me that anyone up there can apply for and get an irish passport. therefore they can play for the ROI team. am i mistaken again?

That, in my opinion ( is that alright with you GBV? :) ), is another debate altogether. So many diferent sums come into the equation, funding, structure etc. It could be an eventual step that would lead to the FAI coaching in NI (nationalist probably) areas, which I'm sure is one of the things NI supporters fear, justifiably so. That in turn would mean complete interference in NI footballing territory, but it could negate the poaching problem, however it would open up a whole load more problems.

[Blanchflower]

I believed in the principles behind articles 2 and 3

Yet you support irredentist citizenship laws?


I voted for the good friday agreement and that enshrined the rights of people born in the north to be Irish citizens , or was i mistaken ?

They already had that right.


so the bottom line is for me that anyone up there can apply for and get an irish passport. therefore they can play for the ROI team. am i mistaken again?

Thanks for stating the obvious yet agin:( The point we're now discussing is what should be the case not what is the case

[RogerMilla]

Thanks for stating the obvious yet agin:( The point we're now discussing is what should be the case not what is the case

and i repeat , i believe what is the case is what should be the case and no matter how you "discuss" will you change my mind or indeed that of most of the posters here, good on you for trying but not a snowballs in hell.

you have said yourself that the latest UEFA diktat changes nothing..

[RogerMilla]

They already had that right.

thats why i used the word enshrined rather than created

[RogerMilla]

Yet you support irredentist citizenship laws?



tell me this , is the granting of israeli passports or german passports to people in the former soviet union irredentist?

[EalingGreen]

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


Actually, my point was that the final part of Article 16 (Associations coming to an agreement, as the four British Associations have done) neither excludes or includes the FAI/ROI within Article 16.
But I am coming to the conclusion that inter alia, an NI-born player who wishes to opt for the FAI will (must?) come within the definition of Article 15 (i.e. " a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country"), in which case Article 16 also should apply (i.e. "A player who, under the terms of Article 15 is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality")



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


It is essentially clarification of the situation as per Annex 2, Circular 1093 etc. However, since that was hurredly rushed in, in response to the Brazil/Qatar case etc, I don't think it was designed specifically to address the Irish situation. Therefore from my reading of subsequent events, plus the wording of the new Articles, I am inclined to think FIFA now does intend this to apply to Irish players born outwith the FAI's footballing territory, inc. NI.



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


But do the FIFA regulations on Eligibility anywhere specify a distinction between nationality acquired at birth and nationality newly acquired later on? I'm not sure they do. (I know that the new Article 18 does specify what should happen in the event of someone acquiring a new nationality, but Article 18 deals with people switching nationality, not someone seeking to prove his eligibility for the first time.)



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


See above.


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.

If Article 15 applies to someone who is NI-born, but wants to represent the FAI - and I agree it does - then I think that automatically links him to Article 16, inc the four conditions.:
"A player who, under the terms of article 15, is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality, may play an international match for one of those Associations only if, in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions etc"



Meaning that due to his nationality (singular) he can play for more than 1.
This is where I think the article's terminology is ambiguous. I think it has to read to mean nationalities (plural) to make sense.
This is because someone who has Article 15 nationality must also have an additional nationality, by virtue of having been born somewhere else (if he were born in the territory of the Association he wishes to represent, Articles 15 and 16 are all irrelevant).
An analogy is if you had e.g. someone whose racial background is 50% European and 50% African, for instance, you wouldn't say such a person has two ethnicities (plural). Rather you would say he has mixed ethnicity (singular).

As I said elsewhere, you need to test Article 15 with an actual example for it to make sense. A Brazilian who is suddenly granted Qatari citizenship will now have Article 15 nationality (i.e. Qatari). However, he will also have Brazilian Nationality, since that is where he's from. And FIFA clearly intends article 16, inc. conditions, to apply to him.
Ditto, our hypothethetical Derryman has article 15 nationality (Irish), but must also have British nationality from his birthplace.
So that in the absence of an exemption for the FAI, or a specified eligibility distinction re "birth nationals" and "acquired nationals", Article 16 and its conditions must also apply to him.

[RogerMilla]

I am inclined to think FIFA now does intend this to apply to Irish players born outwith the FAI's footballing territory, inc. NI. .

interesting EG, obviously I hope that your inclination is wrong here. it will be interesting to see how this develops and if it does apply in this situation.

[EalingGreen]

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...

You are mixing up two issues here. I don't believe there is any point in trying to force unwilling players to play for any international team, whatever the cause of their reluctance.

But a players desires/inclinations to play (or not) are not the same as his right to do so.

On which latter point, I do not consider it any player's right to represent any international country. Rather, it is a privilege, granted in accordance with the principles laid down by FIFA.

And the basic premise for FIFA granting that privilege is place of birth, qualified in the first place by ancestry etc. And quite evidently no-one can choose where he/she was born, nor where his parents/grandparents etc were born, therefore cannot choose his nationality, therefore has no right to choose - it's the luck of the draw.

In the case of Ireland, there are two Irish football teams. if you are born within one part of the island, you are entitled to represent one of those teams, if you are born within the other part of the island, you are entitled to represent the other.

Further, I happen to believe that this must be a purely sporting issue, not tainted or polluted by baser considerations such as money or politics. Which is where the likes of Darron Gibson comes in. I have nothing against the lad personally, and he is perfectly entitled to hold whatever political views he likes, but I don't see why he should be allowed a choice not open e.g. to a Basque separatist who dislikes having to play for Spain, or e.g. a Palestinian born within Israel, or an ethnic Pakistani born on the Indian side of the border.

Indeed, since I firmly believe that playing for NI doesn't make anyone any "more British" or "less Irish", but merely reflects the fact you're an NI footballer, then if someone like Gibson's political feelings are so strong that he feels they must preclude him from playing for NI, then that is his choice and his alone and he must live with it. This is especially so when he has the rare "get-out clause" of automatically being eligible for another country's (political) nationality, so that with two years residence, he can still effect (footballing) nationality for himself.

Of course, some people ask why, if he doesn't want to play for NI, the IFA should prevent him playing for another country, to which there are two answers.
First, the IFA has no desire to prevent anyone from representing another country, providing he meets the same eligibility criteria as everyone else in the world (inc. NI players). But why should we risk permitting someone a special exemption from the normal criteria applicable to everyone else in the world, esp when that player could come back to punish us in a subsequent game?
The second comes back to the idea that representing ones country should be a privilege i.e. not something to be switched around or modified to suit the personal preferences of the individual player. For example, some players don't much care for international football per se, only for what it brings in in terms of extra money, prestige etc. So if such a player happens to be a star in a crap team e.g. Luxembourg, should one permit him to switch to, say, Germany and earn big bucks etc, just because he has a Teutonic name and heritage from a couple of hundred years back?
Or if a player happens to fall out with a particular manager/coach etc, should he be allowed to slope off somewhere else? I recall Chris Sutton falling out with Glenn Hoddle, who made it perfectly clear he would never pick him again for England. With Sutton living in Scotland, playing for a Scottish club and carrying a British Passport, the same as every Scotsman, should he have been allowed to switch to the Jocks?
I hardly think so.

Finally, there will be players who don't actually give a damn about politics etc, so that if you give them a choice, they will immediately pick the team which suits their own personal circumstances best. Fans of the ROI will be familiar with the odd "plastic" who wasn't good enough to play for what would have been their first choice (e.g. England?), so instead opted to be Irish, out of convenience. This might be fair enough where their country of birth doesn't want them, but that is a deal different from NI's case, where we have a small enough pool of players as it is. Moreover, this is exacerbated by the fact that only the best NI-born players are likely to be of interest to the FAI i.e. those we can least afford to lose.
Worst of all, is when this is a player whom we have spotted, coaxed away from GAA or Rugby etc, spent scarce resources on developing through the youth ranks, only for this to bring him to the attention of the FAI, who then come in and take advantage of the fruits of our labour.

Sorry, but that's not my idea of what international football is, or at least should be, about. :(

[Guidedbyvoices]

ok, i promise then, but surely that should be sad "in" ;)

Seriouslly though, i "tried" to contribute but the hamster is spinning to fast, and the wheel just keeps coming back to the same point, so I gave up. If you don't go off topic and contribute, I promise I will then contribute too!

So when are the IFA going to write to the FAI to inform them of no change in the situation?

ha ha moda fooka my good buddy Mr O Shea. I could not possibility answer this question or get involved in this debate!! You know the reason why my friend? I know sod all about the stuff just like yourself matey but in my case your honour I have more knodle than to get into a debate i know naaathing about But carry on an Pauline as your a laugh a minute

[Maroon 7]

Indeed, since I firmly believe that playing for NI doesn't make anyone any "more British" or "less Irish", but merely reflects the fact you're an NI footballer, then if someone like Gibson's political feelings are so strong that he feels they must preclude him from playing for NI, then that is his choice and his alone and he must live with it. This is especially so when he has the rare "get-out clause" of automatically being eligible for another country's (political) nationality, so that with two years residence, he can still effect (footballing) nationality for himself.


I think the oft said retort on OWC that if any youngsters wants to play for the south they can go and live there for two years is a bit of a red herring seeing as any half decent promising young footballer is likely to be on the books of an English club before their balls have even dropped making a move to Tubbercurry a completely unrealistic option.

[geysir]

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?
You are not in any hole, you are just asking the questions that will get you to the answers you need to understand it.
The compromise we were told by FIFA was not accepted by both the IFA and the FAI.

I wondered about that compromise proposal from last November/ December.
It looks to me that the FIFA legal board were planning this rewording and tidying up the Statutes for some time before the compromise proposal

If the compromise was agreed, then an Irish born would have been eligible for 2 teams - NI and ROI
Imo that would have meant Statute 16 applies with a signed and sealed agreement between the two federations, the IFA and the FAI, lodged with FIFA after gaining FIFA approval for the wording.
The last part of Statute 16 says that the Federations affected can meet and hammer out an agreement as regards to the length of residency needed. No other statute has that option.
Howard Wells outright rejection of the compromise could well have boomeranged.
I think he rejected it for the wrong reasons.
And Delaney rejected it for the right reasons.
Delaney sure knows how to play the cute hoor bit.

[kingdomkerry]

Bottom Line

The simple fact is that nothing has changed and that the FAI team can continue to select northern born players. The article that applies is the reword Article 15:

"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."

The residency qualifications only comes in with the later article (18) which applies to players with dual nationalities. However as the GFA gives northerners the option on Irish or British or dual nationality then Article 15 as worded above can apply i.e. they can claim to be Irish citizens, not British or dual and as such they have a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence.

Simply,
The GFA does not only offer dual citizenship it also offers Irish citizenship i.e without British citizenship. That's why the new FIFA articles do not prevent northern born players declaring for the south


The IFA have again claimed victory prematurely on this.

While I am 100% sure Ireland can still pick players from the North I think it will not be until the next player from the north is picked for Ireland that the tickos in unionism and/or the IFA get the message.

[EalingGreen]

I think the oft said retort on OWC that if any youngsters wants to play for the south they can go and live there for two years is a bit of a red herring seeing as any half decent promising young footballer is likely to be on the books of an English club before their balls have even dropped making a move to Tubbercurry a completely unrealistic option.

You make the common enough mistake of considering that these Rules & Regs were framed solely with Ireland in mind: they weren't.

What FIFA is saying is that where someone with dual nationality was not born in the territory of the Association he wishes to represent, (nor his parent/g'parent), he may still be eligible following a period of residency of two years. I daresay they will have had in mind the situation of e.g. Brazilian footballers needing to cross the Atlantic to play for Qatar or Cape Verde etc, rather than Derrymen having to cross Lough Swilly.

Anyhow, it is increasingly common for teenagers to move "overseas" with their family etc, in order to further their career. For example, in order to be able to sign Cesc Fabregas at 16 (2 years younger than the Spanish FA would allow him to turn fully pro in Spain), Arsenal moved his entire family to London and got his father a job. Similarly, when Man U signed Jonny Evans and his younger brother Corey, they moved the Evans family to England.

Therefore, it is hardly FIFA's fault if this option more often works in favour of some Nationals than others; once again, it is an accident of birth - the fundamental basis for all international eligibility.

[Maroon 7]

You make the common enough mistake of considering that these Rules & Regs were framed solely with Ireland in mind: they weren't.


It's not me saying it. I'm just repeating the mantra on OWC.

"If they want to play for the beggars so much they can go and move there for two years, etc, etc".

[Maroon 7]

Bottom Line

The simple fact is that nothing has changed and that the FAI team can continue to select northern born players. The article that applies is the reword Article 15:

"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."

The residency qualifications only comes in with the later article (18) which applies to players with dual nationalities. However as the GFA gives northerners the option on Irish or British or dual nationality then Article 15 as worded above can apply i.e. they can claim to be Irish citizens, not British or dual and as such they have a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence.

Simply,
The GFA does not only offer dual citizenship it also offers Irish citizenship i.e without British citizenship. That's why the new FIFA articles do not prevent northern born players declaring for the south


The IFA have again claimed victory prematurely on this.

While I am 100% sure Ireland can still pick players from the North I think it will not be until the next player from the north is picked for Ireland that the tickos in unionism and/or the IFA get the message.

Certainly seems pretty clear in Article 15 that dual nationals can play for either country for which they have citizenship.

[EalingGreen]

Howard Wells outright rejection of the compromise could well have boomeranged.
I think he rejected it for the wrong reasons.
And Delaney rejected it for the right reasons.
Delaney sure knows how to play the cute hoor bit.

I suspect the proposed compromise was a well-meaning, but naive and ill-informed suggestion by FIFA, who were hoping to have to avoid coming down off the fence and decide in favour of one Association or the other.

I don't know whether Delaney/FAI did reject it or not, but it was never going to be acceptable to the IFA. First, in principle, we have no desire to pick players from the ROI who have no more connection with NI than, say, English, Scottish or Welsh players with no connection.

Second, in practice it is never going to produce equal numbers and quality of players for us, compared with what we stand to lose the other way.

However, I still feel it strange why, if the FAI was always properly entitled to select NI-born players, that wasn't the end of it? Why did they offer a form of "compensation" to the IFA, if FIFA might just as easily have said: "Our Rules are clear, the FAI can pick from NI, so the IFA must just get on with it"?

It is possible (imo), that FIFA realised their Rules were inadequate, in that they failed to take into account the (unique?) possibility of a Government just handing out nationality/Passports from birth, as of right, to people who had never lived within their jurisdiction, which those individuals could then exploit for sporting reasons.

P.S. Since Delaney is the cute hoor we all agree he is, can someone explain to me how/why he seemed to confirm the IFA's feeling that their submission to FIFA had succeeded last year, when he spoke to the RTE journo at Dublin Airport about "Winning the battle, but losing the war"?

[EalingGreen]

It's not me saying it. I'm just repeating the mantra on OWC.

"If they want to play for the beggars so much they can go and move there for two years, etc, etc".

Some may put it that way. Myself, I prefer to ask why certain NI-born players should have to comply with a lesser standard to achieve eligibility for their chosen country than people born and living in any other part of the world?

That is, if two years in Qatar or the Cape Verde Islands is reasonable enough for a Brazilian, why is two years in Donegal any more onerous or unfair for a Derryman?

[SkStu]

mods, can we change the title of this thread to "Avoid Like the Plague"

[Buller]

Oh dear, I see where this is going.....six + pages of arguments between the usual suspects then thread locked....

I'm outta here!

How wrong you were.....

[Not Brazil]

land grabing thieves.....erm i mean unionists.


I am a Unionist.

Born and bred in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland.

I have never stolen, or grabed, any land.

Nor do harbour any intention of stealing, or grabing, any land.

[Not Brazil]

If you are Irish you should play for Ireland if you are loyal to the British crown you should play for the northern team.


In other words, nationalists play for the Republic Of Ireland, unionists for Northern Ireland.

Hooray for our advocate of sporting apartheid, segregation and division.

[geysir]

I am a Unionist.

Born and bred in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland.

I have never stolen, or grabed, any land.

Nor do harbour any intention of stealing, or grabing, any land.
Who gives a féck what your political belief is, where you were born, what cave you grew up in, your denial of a criminal record or your intention not to pursue one.

[Not Brazil]

Who gives a féck what your political belief is, where you were born, what cave you grew up in, your denial of a criminal record or your intention not to pursue one.

Is there a clue in the fact that you responded to it?:D

I was responding to comments made by kerrykingdom....but thanks all the same for your cutting intervention.

[Hibernian]

I am a Unionist.

Born and bred in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland.

I have never stolen, or grabed, any land.

Nor do harbour any intention of stealing, or grabing, any land.

This is not football related and I suppose I dont want to get away from topic.

But its a fair and honest point which us in the Republic have too respect.

I think myself that the FIFA rule is the right one in a sense. I would argue that imo if a player plays from Norn Iron at underage he should only play for Norn Iron from there on.

And if player from Norn Iron plays underage for ROI from underage should only play then for ROI.

Some may question this but I think this makes a more fair system. Its just what I think.

[Blanchflower]

and i repeat , i believe what is the case is what should be the case

Yes, I know - why do you keep stating the obvious?:(

[Blanchflower]

tell me this , is the granting of israeli passports or german passports to people in the former soviet union irredentist?
No. Neither Israel nor Germany extends it citizenship laws arbitrarily to the former USSR. And neither state wishes to annex the former USSR.

[Greenforever]

No. Neither Israel nor Germany extends it citizenship laws arbitrarily to the former USSR. And neither state wishes to annex the former USSR.


if they found a ronaldo they might change thier rules :D:D:D

[kingdomkerry]

This part is interesting

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affeder ... _47752.pdf (http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/fifa_congress_08_agenda_47752.pdf)

13.2 REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES
13.2.1 Eligibility to play for representative teams

'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 no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and circular no. 1093 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.'

Nothing has changed i.e. the new articles 16, 17 and 18 don't apply to northern born players because they qualify under article 15 as I posted above.

The reason all of this has taken a life of it's own is probably that due to the southern holiday yesterday, everyone is running with the IFA press release (there being no holiday in the north).

[Blanchflower]

Actually, my point was that the final part of Article 16 (Associations coming to an agreement, as the four British Associations have done) neither excludes or includes the FAI/ROI within Article 16.

But Art 16(2) - like Art 16 generally - only applies to "Associations sharing a common nationality" - the IFA and FAI don't share a common nationality.


But I am coming to the conclusion that inter alia, an NI-born player who wishes to opt for the FAI will (must?) come within the definition of Article 15 (i.e. " a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country"), in which case Article 16 also should apply (i.e. "A player who, under the terms of Article 15 is eligible to represent more than one Association on account of his nationality")

Er, new Art. 15 says "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"!:o


It is essentially clarification of the situation as per Annex 2, Circular 1093 etc. However, since that was hurredly rushed in, in response to the Brazil/Qatar case etc, I don't think it was designed specifically to address the Irish situation.

The annex to circular 901 deals with the UK situation.


But do the FIFA regulations on Eligibility anywhere specify a distinction between nationality acquired at birth and nationality newly acquired later on?
Actually you seem to be right on that. Article 18 is relevant but doesn't distinguish, although Article 17 is also relevant and deals only with acquisition.


If Article 15 applies to someone who is NI-born, but wants to represent the FAI - and I agree it does - then I think that automatically links him to Article 16
No. Because Article 16 expressly relates only to players who, under the terms of art. 15, are eligible to represent more than one Association on account of their nationality (i.e. the UK scenario).


This is where I think the article's terminology is ambiguous. I think it has to read to mean nationalities (plural) to make sense.
It makes sense meaning nationality singular. If it were plural then Article 18 would not make sense.


This is because someone who has Article 15 nationality must also have an additional nationality, by virtue of having been born somewhere else (if he were born in the territory of the Association he wishes to represent, Articles 15 and 16 are all irrelevant).
Er, no.:( Article 15 applies to everyone - it is the general principle - if you are a national of a country you can play for it. The exceptions and qualifications follow in 16, 17 and 18.

Article 15 refer to "Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country" - it does not say you have to have been born somewhere else. I was born in the UK, for example, but my citizenship is not dependent on residence: if I emigrated I would remain a UK national.


As I said elsewhere, you need to test Article 15 with an actual example for it to make sense. A Brazilian who is suddenly granted Qatari citizenship will now have Article 15 nationality (i.e. Qatari).

But he won't because presumably the Qatari citizenship is dependent on residence.

[kingdomkerry]

I am a Unionist.

Born and bred in Belfast, in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland.

I have never stolen, or grabed, any land.

Nor do harbour any intention of stealing, or grabing, any land.

http://www.hoganstand.com/general/Identity/stories/ulster.htm

Read this and educate yourself

Heres a sample

The native Irish (thats us), who had partaken in the uprisings, were banished to the bogs and hillsides, where they were continually pursued and hunted down like animals. As a result, many of them became outlaws and ‘rapparees’ praying constantly on the settlers who had deprived them of their lands (thats ye guys).

[Blanchflower]

http://www.hoganstand.com/general/Identity/stories/ulster.htm

Read this and educate yourself

Heres a sample

The native Irish (thats us), who had partaken in the uprisings, were banished to the bogs and hillsides, where they were continually pursued and hunted down like animals. As a result, many of them became outlaws and ‘rapparees’ praying constantly on the settlers who had deprived them of their lands (thats ye guys).



**** off, ****.:mad: Take your political and ethnic hatred elsewhere.

[kingdomkerry]

Simply replying to a previous post.

[cheifo]

mods, can we change the title of this thread to "Avoid Like the Plague"

Good Man SKStu.:D

[Not Brazil]

http://www.hoganstand.com/general/Identity/stories/ulster.htm

Read this and educate yourself

Heres a sample

The native Irish (thats us)



I am "native Irish"....so that's the end of that nonsense.

Anyway, I think Blanchflower has the right track on this....in short, any young player born in Northern Ireland, has a choice to play for the Republic Of Ireland or Northern Ireland.

I don't think anything has really changed in that regard since last week following the tweaking of the Eligibility Rules wordings.