O'Neill gives his backing for a United Ireland team

[kingdomkerry]

£400m is a tidy sum indeed.



I think a few simple signs along the road would do just fine, 'Built with the generous assistance from the people of the Republic of Ireland' along with a nice shamrock graphic.


Haven't we acknowledged the financing of our roads by the EEC with a few signs expressing gratitude? :)



Or they could paint the lines on the side of the road yellow rather than white;)

[EalingGreen]

£400m is a tidy sum indeed.
I think a few simple signs along the road would do just fine, 'Built with the generous assistance from the people of the Republic of Ireland' along with a nice shamrock graphic.
Haven't we acknowledged the financing of our roads by the EEC with a few signs expressing gratitude? :)

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm

[geysir]

That's old news, we are spreading it around the EEC now.

Not even a 'thank you Republic Of Ireland for sharing'.:eek:
Times have certainly changed when it takes the Republic to build the roads in the North.
Maybe the NI assembly should have asked us to build that M1 motorway exit to the Maze.

[kingdomkerry]

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm

Ha ha your some sad *******:p

[Maroon 7]

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm

That's the way Europe works. We received help (mainly from the far stronger German economy rather than the UK) and now we are helping eastern European states and other impoverished regions.

[tetsujin1979]

Either lock the thread or move it to another forum, it's little or nothing to do with O'Neill's support for a united ireland team anymore.

[janeymac]

It isn't giving the amount you claimed, or anything like it, and you can't offer any evidence that it is, despite repeated prompting.

From your reaction here to I can see why all the politicians keep it fairly quite about ROI contributions to the development of NI from Unionists. DUP certainly don't want you to know this. As far as I can remember, it was announced prior to the signing of St. Andrews Agreement that the Irish Gov. were willing to invest 4bn in NI. (a quarter of what British Gov. were offering). This money was mainly to go on infrastructure - presumably the building of an electricity station in Derry by the ESB, waterways, lighthouse management, Tourism marketing etc. and such like would be accounted for in this money. Other ROI funding would go to Irish Language Act, or the 5,000 jobs this week, or indeed the money that went recently to repair Orange Order Halls in border regions (grants would be applied for from OO HQ in NI). Due to obvious reasons you won't see the EU signs that we had to put up. By the way, it wouldn't be possible to say put the money intended for Irish Language Act into fixing up Windsor Park - you just won't get it so thats a few quid knocked off the 4bn.




Thanks for the Irish language/ history/ structure of the Oireachteas lesson.But it isn't giving the amount you claimed, or anything like it, and you can't offer any evidence that it is, despite repeated prompting.No bother. See stuff on the ground for evidence as obviously some people in NI don't like taking gifts from the ROI.


You tell me. How is this relevant? We think we need a stadium for about 25,000, and we're confident we'll get it, despite Howard Wells' politicking and your helpful lobbying for the Maze. GAA gets impressive support? Great, good for you.NI football team is not representative of ALL the people of NI - thats how its relevant and an indicator is that you can only get 25K to an INTERNATIONAL in a city with around 1m people.And as I've pointed out before, I don't care where your stadium is.



Belfast is where the huge majority of the fans want trhe stadium to be (this includes fans who live west of the Bann, btw). I'll recap why: there are no plans to make the Maze site more accessible with a railway or road spur (so almost everyone will have to drive in and out on one-lane farm roads). Similarly, there are no plans to provide any bars, restaurants or facilities comparable to those in the city centre. Such facilities wouldn't be commercially viable- not enough events at the stadium, no passing traffic. Well, maybe the plan is for the ROI to pay for the railway & road spur etc.


It isn't 'neutral', it's empty, thus the problems above. Given that Lisburn and the Lagan Valley is a strongly unionist area- nationalist parties got about 14% in recent elections- it isn't neutral at all. The workforce in the notional stadium would be predominantly unionist, ditto the neighbours.But a bit more difficult to get to by those (from both sides of community) who just want to cause trouble on match days?


NI as a whole remains polarised, so you could argue that nowhere is neutral. But NI fans are in favour in principle of at least two sites in the city centre (Ormeau Park and Maysfield) which are close to and reached from strongly nationalist areas.Can they cater the crowd that the GAA draw (40k+). Will the stadium be large enough to hold some of the Olympic games in them that are planned?


We know it's a national stadium (that's planned). What's your point? if the three sports can agree, maybe they'll share it If not, each can make its arrangments. Any of which will cost less than the Maze plan.

Like I said, why don't you read what others say instead of throwing around irrelevance and random exclamation marks? I've told you repeatedly why I think 25,000 is a sensible capacity; that with such a capacity, there'll be occasional games with a much higher demand for tickets; that such a capacity and likely crowds compare favourably with many other European countries, if not with the entirely different sport of GAA.Think for the National stadium to be financially viable you need the GAA games to be there. What other footballing country has a population of 1.2m by the way so that you can compare them - and do they have a national stadium and how developed are they?

PS - sorry if the exclimation marks upset you:confused:

[janeymac]

Without wishing in any way to drag this topic (futher) off topic, perhaps the signs might more accurately read:

"Built with the generous assistance of the people of Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, having been diverted via the Republic of Ireland, where it was 'just resting in their account'..."
http://www.finfacts.com/comment/irelandeunetreceiptsbenefits.htm


I'd have no problem with signs thanking the EU and Germany. They have been very good friends to Ireland.

The Spanish & Norwegian fishing fleets could probably have "Big Thank You" signs to Ireland . It hasn't been a one way street you know, like the way its south->north here. :)

[janeymac]

Either lock the thread or move it to another forum, it's little or nothing to do with O'Neill's support for a united ireland team anymore.

Probably went down this route because it would seem that a lot of people might think the same way as O'Neill & Jennings about the team as they really should be able to attract more supporters to games than what they are getting now.

[Gather round]

Janey, I hope you'll accept my apology for accusing you of dishonesty above. Bit out of order, that.

Ditto for calling As-I-say a halfwit.


From your reaction here to I can see why all the politicians keep it fairly quite about ROI contributions to the development of NI from Unionists. DUP certainly don't want you to know this... see stuff on the ground for evidence as obviously some people in NI don't like taking gifts from the ROI

This may be generally true of unionists, but I hope I have an open mind. I'm certainly in favour of mutual economic co-operation between North and South. I didn't even bother to check the figures with the DUP, a party I've long mistrusted and never supported. That's why I quoted from the Republic's government's official sources. Effectively I was quoting Bertie and Biffo, not Robinson and Dodds.


As far as I can remember, it was announced prior to the signing of St. Andrews Agreement that the Irish Gov. were willing to invest 4bn in NI...due to obvious reasons you won't see the EU signs that we had to put up

Probably not. But all I'm asking you to do is quote a source for the €4 billion, as it's not in the Agreement nor the latest RoI Budget.


NI football team is not representative of ALL the people of NI - thats how its relevant and an indicator is that you can only get 25K to an INTERNATIONAL in a city with around 1m people.And as I've pointed out before, I don't care where your stadium is

It's not relevant because it's quoting the wrong figures. NI football is obviously representative of all who support it. That number is much greater than 25,000 which- as I have to keep repeating ad nauseam- is what we see as a sensible capacity, not the greatest conceivable demand for tickets for a one off basis. Similarly, I'm sure you'd agree that the support base in the South is much greater than the 80,000 who might fill Croke- itself much greater than the capacities of Lansdowne before and after, and indeed Dalyer where I;ve watched a couple of games in the dim and distant.

Earlier this season, NI played an international in Riga, a rather larger city in a similar-sized country. Riga's national stadium (built only in 2000) has a capacity of 10,000, less even than the current Windsor. Our plans are sensibe, if modest, and comparable to many other nearby countries.

You do seem to be unnaturally interested in how large or small our (planned) stadium is, even though we've explained it at length.


Well, maybe the plan is for the ROI to pay for the railway & road spur etc

You're stirring again. There are no plans for a road spur, which just reflects the arrogance and poor planning of the Maze lobby, and goes a long way to explain why the plan will be abandoned.


But a bit more difficult to get to by those (from both sides of community) who just want to cause trouble on match days?

I've explained how it'll be more difficult for almost everyone. to get there.


Can they cater the crowd that the GAA draw (40k+). Will the stadium be large enough to hold some of the Olympic games in them that are planned?

Both plans have envisaged about 25,000. If the GAA want to use that, fine in principle, if not equally so. 25,000 all-seated is a step up from their current facilities- almost everyone watching at Casement has to stand, in the open. As I've said above, this isn't a dig at the GAA. They can make up their own mind; if they need a much bigger ground than Casement, there's always Croke.

I assume the Olympics reference is a joke. In the unlikely event of NI getting any events, the likely demand for tickets to watch foreign U-21 teams will be at best comparable to the Milk Cup. Much of it is played on park pitches in Coleraine and the surrounding towns.


Think for the National stadium to be financially viable you need the GAA games to be there

Political and financial viability are different. If Windsor- or a new build in Belfast city- had 25,000 seats, it would be financially viable. Windsor isn't at the moment, because we are turning away income. Ravenhill is still financially viable- the Ulster branch isn't losing money playing there. Maze would be financially unviable, as NI football and Ulster rugby crowds would probably fall, based on supporter survey. If it would be viable for the GAA to use alone, fine. Although that would be to consider just running costs- there'd still be the £200 million plus to build it and surrounding infrastructure. A waste of money, they could put thousands of seats in Casement for far less.


What other footballing country has a population of 1.7m by the way so that you can compare them - and do they have a national stadium and how developed are they?

I've quoted Latvia above. Estonia and Slovenia are also comparable. Both national stadia are smaller than current Windsor.


PS - sorry if the exclimation marks upset you:confused:

They're mildly irritating, mainly because they seem to be there to impress that your posts are indisputable and self-evident.

They aren't.

Mind you, Geysir found my boldfaced quotes a pain, so fair enough ;)

[EalingGreen]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/fifa_congress_08_agenda_47752.pdf

With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.

[youngirish]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/fifa_congress_08_agenda_47752.pdf

With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.
Typical EG. Let it go. Why do you have to depict this dispute in terms of a war (even if as you claim you are referencing someone else on the other side of the trenches)? It's not a war or battle ffs it's a relatively minor dispute between two football associations over the elligibility of players.

Anyway your information I'd say is sh*te. There's not a chance that FIFA will prevent NI born players with Irish nationality from playing for the Republic. Even if they do attempt to change the rule then this will be open to be challenged by the FAI. The only way I could ever see such a restriction being imposed is if the FAI agree to some compromise on the matter.

[RogerMilla]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, .


gutted if true EG but i reckon this is far from over...

[geysir]

Anyway your information I'd say is sh*te. There's not a chance this FIFA will prevent NI born players with Irish nationality from playing for the Republic.
Sometimes your instincts are sharp :)

FIFA do no propose any change to the eligibility criteria that Irish citizens - born on the wrong side of the border - use to declare for the Republic.
Permanent Irish nationality is given to Northern born and it is not dependent on residency.
We have always used article 15.

New text for Article 15
'15. Principle
1 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.'

You see this bit
the proposed new article 16

16 Nationality entitling
players to represent more
than one Association
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality, may play in
an international match for
one of these Associations
only if, in addition to having
the relevant nationality, he
fulfi ls at least one of the
following conditions:

Article 16 Does not apply because Irish nationality does not entitle one to play for the North.
Irish Nationality only allows a player to play for the Republic.

[geysir]

Why have the eligibility posts been dumped into this useless defunct thread?


Put them in a new thread
name it "New FIFA Proposals"
or
OWC go here - New FIFA Proposals, aka OWC RRS again!

[Maroon 7]

and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.


There's a surprise.:D

[EalingGreen]

Typical EG. Let it go.

There has been a recent new development within FIFA which may affect the eligibility situation vis-a-vis the FAI and IFA. This is of interest to fans both of NI and ROI and since it had not been picked up upon by anyone else, i sought to post details on here. But if you are not interested, then you should let it go, not me.


Why do you have to depict this dispute in terms of a war (even if as you claim you are referencing someone else on the other side of the trenches)? It's not a war or battle ffs

Why not direct that question to the CEO of your Association, seeing as it was he who introduced the metaphor (usefully, imo) into the debate?


it's a relatively minor dispute between two football associations over the elligibility of players.


It may be a "relatively minor dispute" for you, and maybe even your fellow ROI fans, but it counts for rather more than that for the other side to the dispute.



Anyway your information I'd say is sh*te. There's not a chance that FIFA will prevent NI born players with Irish nationality from playing for the Republic. Even if they do attempt to change the rule then this will be open to be challenged by the FAI. The only way I could ever see such a restriction being imposed is if the FAI agree to some compromise on the matter.

There is a world of difference between a rant and a logically constructed argument, the former usually constituting sh ite (if I may borrow one of your terms).
Any chance of an example of the latter from you?

[Krstic]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/fifa_congress_08_agenda_47752.pdf

With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.


Derry Born players will still be eligable for ROI then:D

[EalingGreen]

Article 16 Does not apply because Irish nationality does not entitle one to play for the North.
Irish Nationality only allows a player to play for the Republic.

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?

[EalingGreen]

Why have the eligibility posts been dumped into this useless defunct thread?


Put them in a new thread
name it "New FIFA Proposals"
or
OWC go here - New FIFA Proposals, aka OWC RRS again!

I did actually start a new thread for this, before someone (Mod?) lumped it in with this one.

[EalingGreen]

Derry Born players will still be eligable for ROI then:D

You may be joking, Krstic, but imo, "the territory of the relevant Association" is the key phrase in this seeming new development from FIFA.

That is, whilst various Governments/Politicians/Institutions/Courts etc might disagree over whether a piece of land "belongs" to one country/Nation/jurisdiction etc or another, FIFA is quite clear what constitutes "territory" from a footballing point of view.

And as far as the two Irish Associations go, the FAI's "territory" extends to the 26 counties (only), whilst the IFA's territory covers the 6 counties (all of them, that is!).

I personally don't think FIFA's choice of wording is coincidental; in fact, I'd say it was precisely chosen for its clarity and unambiguity.

[osarusan]

16 Nationality entitling
players to represent more
than one Association
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality, may play in
an international match for
one of these Associations
only if, in addition to having
the relevant nationality, he
fulfi ls at least one of the
following conditions:

the new Article 16 seems to state that if a player is eligible to represent 2 (or more) associations (as a player born in NI would obviously be) then the conditions set out in article 15 are no longer the only conditions by which eligibility will be judged. Further criteria will be imposed.

What are the 'following conditions'.......could anybody fill me in?

[geysir]

the new Article 16 seems to state that if a player is eligible to represent 2 (or more) associations (as a player born in NI would obviously be)
Focus a bit here,
tell me
how do you read that from

Article 16
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality....

Where does it say "born" ?
it doesn't, it says nationality.
Irish Nationality is not the same as being born in NI.
Irish Nationality alone does not entitle you to play for another federation.

[osarusan]

Am I right in saying that a person born in Northern Ireland would be given Irish nationality but would also have NI nationality?

Would that not give the person 2 nationalities?

[geysir]

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.
I read them rules
FIFA statute 15
- permanent citizenship is given without residency qualification


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.
Read the rule it says, whose nationality entitles them to play for another federation.
Since when does Irish nationality alone allow one to play for 2 teams?
It doesn't.

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?
No.
Article 16 is for players whose nationality entitles them to play for 2 federations. Irish nationality does not alone entitle you play for NI.

Remember the terms of the compromise proposal?
The IFA could have negotiated for all Island of Ireland born to be eligible to play for NI.
They were not interested.
The situation remains unchanged
Irish born Nationals are not eligible to play for NI.
Article 16 should not apply.

[geysir]

Am I right in saying that a person born in Northern Ireland would be given Irish nationality but would also have NI nationality?

Would that not give the person 2 nationalities?

There is no such thing as NI nationality.
There is such a thing as as British nationality.

A British national is not eligible to play for the Republic.
An Irish national is not eligible to play for NI.

Article 16 clearly states that it is for a player whose nationality allows him to play for another country.
It does not refer to a player whose place of birth allows him to play for 2 different countries.

[osarusan]

There is no such thing as NI nationality.
There is such a thing as as British nationality.

A British national is not eligible to play for the Republic.
An Irish national is not eligible to play for NI.

Article 16 clearly states that it is for a player whose nationality allows him to play for another country.
It does not refer to a player whose place of birth allows him to play for 2 different countries.
Would a person born in Northern Ireland not be a British national as well as an Irish national?

You seem very confident on this, so I'm wondering if I've got it wrong, but would a person not hold dual nationalities by virtue of being born in NI, and thus fall under article 16?

[geysir]

Would a person born in Northern Ireland not be a British national as well as an Irish national?
A person who is born in the North who avails of their right to Irish Citizenship
is defined as a multiple citizen.

You seem very confident on this, so I'm wondering if I've got it wrong, but would a person not hold dual nationalities by virtue of being borh in NI, and thus fall under article 16?

Article 16 refers to nationality - not dual nationality - not place of birth.
It refers to a Nationality that qualifies a player to declare for 2 federations.

Irish nationality does not qualify you to play for the North.
British Nationality does not qualify you to play for the Republic.

The conditions that Article 16 seeks to impose do not apply to Irish citizens.

Article 15 Eligibility applies to NI born Irish citizens, permanent citizenship without residency conditions.

It's just another case of premature OWC ejaculation.

FIFA with their proposals are clarifying the situation using more clear language.

[paul_oshea]

[QUOTE=geysir;955061]It's just another case of premature OWC ejaculation.QUOTE]


Thats the best quote I have ever used on this forum. Absoloutely brilliant :D

[youngirish]

It may be a "relatively minor dispute" for you, and maybe even your fellow ROI fans, but it counts for rather more than that for the other side to the dispute.


This statement was used by me when referring to your usage of the far more severe (imo) terms of war and battle in your original post but if you don't believe this dispute to be relatively minor in comparison to the darkest periods of mankind's history when man acts in his most inhumane and cruel manner towards his fellow man then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Personally I would consider it relatively minor in comparision to World War II for instance.

As for your point about the CEO of our association let me just say that if you think it's ok to use inflammatory language just because John Delaney, a well known colossal tool on both sides of the border has also chosen to do so then that's your perjogative. He doesn't post on here though to my knowledge so you probably should have mailed him directly if, as you state, he even used such words.

As for your so called "victory" I wouldn't start celebrating VE day just yet.

[EalingGreen]

Focus a bit here,


Where does it say "born" ?
it doesn't, it says nationality.
Irish Nationality is not the same as being born in NI.
Irish Nationality alone does not entitle you to play for another federation.

It doesn't say "born" - just as it doesn't anywhere specify that e.g. Qatari Nationals have to be born in Qatar, either.

It is quite clear, however, that where a Qatari citizen has been born, say, in Brazil, that that "Qatari" also has to satisfy one of the four conditions set out in Article 16.

From my reading of the new rules - specifically article 15, when read in conjunction with article 16 - it appears that all dual nationals have to comply with one of the four conditions to be eligible for their chosen Association, regardless of whether one or more of their nationalities was acquired by birth, or by some other means. And as such, people born within NI are "dual nationals" within FIFA's understanding, since they automatically qualify for both British and Irish nationality*.

I do not see anything which exempts the FAI from such an interpretation. Rather, by FIFA's studied use of the phrase "...the territory of the relevant Association", I think the clear implication therein actually strengthens the IFA's case.

After all, one might argue over political concepts like 'Nationality', or 'Irishness' etc, but i have no doubt that for FIFA's purposes, the "territory" of the IFA encompasses six of the counties in Ireland, and the "territory" of the FAI the other 26.


* - Whether e.g. an NI Unionist declines to take up his Irish nationality, or a Six Counties Nationalist declines to take up his British nationality is neither here nor there to FIFA, so long as he doesn't try to play for both Irish teams at the same time, and/or that he complies with Article 18, should he decide to switch from one to the other.

[kingdomkerry]

It doesn't say "born" - just as it doesn't anywhere specify that e.g. Qatari Nationals have to be born in Qatar, either.

It is quite clear, however, that where a Qatari citizen has been born, say, in Brazil, that that "Qatari" also has to satisfy one of the four conditions set out in Article 16.

From my reading of the new rules - specifically article 15, when read in conjunction with article 16 - it appears that all dual nationals have to comply with one of the four conditions to be eligible for their chosen Association, regardless of whether one or more of their nationalities was acquired by birth, or by some other means. And as such, people born within NI are "dual nationals" within FIFA's understanding, since they automatically qualify for both British and Irish nationality*.

I do not see anything which exempts the FAI from such an interpretation. Rather, by FIFA's studied use of the phrase "...the territory of the relevant Association", I think the clear implication therein actually strengthens the IFA's case.

After all, one might argue over political concepts like 'Nationality', or 'Irishness' etc, but i have no doubt that for FIFA's purposes, the "territory" of the IFA encompasses six of the counties in Ireland, and the "territory" of the FAI the other 26.


* - Whether e.g. an NI Unionist declines to take up his Irish nationality, or a Six Counties Nationalist declines to take up his British nationality is neither here nor there to FIFA, so long as he doesn't try to play for both Irish teams at the same time, and/or that he complies with Article 18, should he decide to switch from one to the other.

Get a life EG nothing has changed.

[EalingGreen]

Remember the terms of the compromise proposal?
The IFA could have negotiated for all Island of Ireland born to be eligible to play for NI.
They were not interested.
The situation remains unchanged
Irish born Nationals are not eligible to play for NI.
Article 16 should not apply.

If "the situation remains unchanged", why is FIFA seeing fit to alter the wording of Articles 15 and 16?
Why do they wish to introduce the phrase "within the territory of the relevant Association"?
Why, when the Qatari/Brazilian situation is so vexed, are they not making a clear distinction between people born outwith the jurisdiction of their nationality and those born within, as well as a distinction between those who have Nationality by birth (anywhere) and acquired, or new, Nationality?

My reading of this whole affair is that as a basis for footballing eligibility, the situation whereby a country could grant nationality to someone who was neither born within their jurisdiction, nor had parents/grandparents so born, was almost unique to Ireland. (Most countries restrict nationality, not widen it)

And although this created a "loophole" within FIFA's Rules which the FAI could exploit, for a long time it wasn't really a problem for the "aggrieved" party (IFA), initially whilst the Gentlemens' Agreement was equally observed by both parties and latterly, when it was only a few nondescript teenagers who were involved.

However, the case of Darron Gibson brought it up the Agenda for the IFA, coincidentally at the same time as the Qatari case did so for FIFA. And as I read things, the basic principle as far as FIFA were concerned, was that whilst the FAI might formerly have been entitled to pick NI-born players, there was no technical reason why they should qualify for an exemption from the new "Qatari" conditions (birth/parent/grandparent/residence) which FIFA now feels compelled to introduce.

Which would explain why the FAI imposed a moratorium on their managers picking NI-born players whilst FIFA were considering the issue, also why, after the final submissions by the two Associations to FIFA, the IFA seemed confident their case had prevailed, and the FAI seemed to accept that theirs hadn't (see Delaney's reported comment from Dublin Airport on RTE).

Of course, there was then the statement by the FAI that they they had "won", and their resumption of selection of NI-born players. However, I now suspect that they were taking advantage of an interim period, during which FIFA were making their final effort to satisfy everyone with their suggested "compromise".

So that when this compromise was rejected by the IFA, and the Sydney Congress came round, FIFA could fudge the issue no longer, hence the new Articles. And the more I read these, the more optimistic I am that FIFA has come up with a form of wording which means that the mere holding of nationality, whether by birth or by acquisition, is not enough to establish international eligibility for any given Association i.e. a player must also demonstrate compliance with one of the four Article 16 conditions.

[eelmonster]

people born within NI are "dual nationals"

Are they though? Legally, people born in Northern Ireland are Irish (article 15 applies), British (article 15 applies), or dual (in which case article 16 would apply) nationals.

[EalingGreen]

This statement was used by me when referring to your usage of the far more severe (imo) terms of war and battle in your original post but if you don't believe this dispute to be relatively minor in comparison to the darkest periods of mankind's history when man acts in his most inhumane and cruel manner towards his fellow man then we'll have to agree to disagree.

Personally I would consider it relatively minor in comparision to World War II for instance.

As for your point about the CEO of our association let me just say that if you think it's ok to use inflammatory language just because John Delaney, a well known colossal tool on both sides of the border has also chosen to do so then that's your perjogative. He doesn't post on here though to my knowledge so you probably should have mailed him directly if, as you state, he even used such words.

As for your so called "victory" I wouldn't start celebrating VE day just yet.

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:

[geysir]

It doesn't say "born" - just as it doesn't anywhere specify that e.g. Qatari Nationals have to be born in Qatar, either.

It is quite clear, however, that where a Qatari citizen has been born, say, in Brazil, that that "Qatari" also has to satisfy one of the four conditions set out in Article 16.

From my reading of the new rules - specifically article 15, when read in conjunction with article 16 - it appears that all dual nationals have to comply with one of the four conditions to be eligible for their chosen Association, regardless of whether one or more of their nationalities was acquired by birth, or by some other means. And as such, people born within NI are "dual nationals" within FIFA's understanding, since they automatically qualify for both British and Irish nationality*.

I do not see anything which exempts the FAI from such an interpretation. Rather, by FIFA's studied use of the phrase "...the territory of the relevant Association", I think the clear implication therein actually strengthens the IFA's case.

After all, one might argue over political concepts like 'Nationality', or 'Irishness' etc, but i have no doubt that for FIFA's purposes, the "territory" of the IFA encompasses six of the counties in Ireland, and the "territory" of the FAI the other 26.
The old Ealing Green had died and a new one has been reborn
as one
who claims he can now read FIFA rules,
and that his wishes are somehow transformed into a rational interpretation of FIFA rules by rubbing extra hard on his "genie".

OR
its the same old Ealing Green and that when he writes "it appears", that actually means in the biblical "Angel Gabriel" sense of appearances.

OR
and that when he writes "I do not see anything" he thinks that everybody else is blind.

OR
That when he writes "i have no doubt that for FIFA's purposes" he is clearly delusional and should be sectioned along with Gazza.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The North are lucky to even have a team;they should just accept the minority of their population who actually want to play for them....

And it's not as if you can blame any Nationalists/'catholics' (Regardless of whether or not, Irish citizens) for not wanting to play for a team, they haven't any affiliation to!

[Juanace]

Clear as mud then!

FAI dont seem to concerned:

A spokesman for the FAI added: 'We do not believe there has been any change to FIFA's stated position that any player from Northern Ireland is eligible to play for either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.'

[kingdomkerry]

Clear as mud then!

FAI dont seem to concerned:

A spokesman for the FAI added: 'We do not believe there has been any change to FIFA's stated position that any player from Northern Ireland is eligible to play for either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland.'

Can you post the link for this please?

[beepbeep]

i actually cant believe some people are thinking this would be a great idea???? are ye mad in the head, i wouldnt want to support My country Ireland and have the unionist northerens flying their brit flags. not a hope. and give up national anthem aswell? its already a disgrace that the rugby does it.
Republic Of Ireland.KEEP IT THAT WAY.

[EalingGreen]

A person who is born in the North who avails of their right to Irish Citizenship
is defined as a multiple citizen.


By whom? Is this concept of "multiple citizen" contained in FIFA's articles etc?


Article 16 refers to nationality - not dual nationality - not place of birth.
It refers to a Nationality that qualifies a player to declare for 2 federations.


What nationality "qualifies a player to declare for two federations"?

The proposed new Article 16 states:
"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 -
"

I assume you are relying on the use of the singular ("nationality", emboldened) to infer that an Irish National, whether born in Dublin or Derry, can only represent one Association (FAI), so that the four conditions which follow from those "eligible to represent more than one Association", are not applicable in the Irish situation?
However, the title of that article is:
"Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association".
Since (to my knowledge, at least), there is no single nationality which automatically entitles someone to represent more than one Association, then the use of the singular must be read as meaning nationalities (plural).
Consequently, I feel more confident than ever that Article 16 is to be applied generally to individuals who possess more than one Nationality, and hence may in principle be eligible to represent more than one Association.
And since anyone born in NI is eligible in principle for both the FAI and IFA, in the absence of a specific exemption for the FAI (or IFA), he must also comply with one of Article 16's four conditions in order to validate his choice of the two.



Irish nationality does not qualify you to play for the North.
British Nationality does not qualify you to play for the Republic.


Just as e.g. French Nationality does not qualify you to play for China and Chinese Nationality does not qualify you to play for France. So what?

Someone born in e.g. Derry is automatically entitled to Irish nationality, so may in principle represent the FAI, should he choose. But he is also entitled to British nationality, so may represent NI (should he choose).
Therefore, he is someone who has Dual Nationality, and under Article 16 must satisfy one of the four conditions. He obviously may do so for NI (i.e. birth), but unless he has a parent/grandparent from ROI, or has lived there, then I don't see how he can be eligible for FAI/ROI.



The conditions that Article 16 seeks to impose do not apply to Irish citizens.

Why not?


Article 15 Eligibility applies to NI born Irish citizens, [B]permanent citizenship without residency conditions.

This new version of Article 15 recognises that there will be some individuals who may take advantage of a country's nationality, for the purposes of footballing eligibility, without also automatically ever having to have been resident there. Included amongst these are Irish nationals from NI.

But that doesn't help your case; on the contrary, I feel it harms it, since Article 16 states that all such (Article 15) nationals who have more than one Nationality have now to comply with one of the four conditions.



It's just another case of premature OWC ejaculation.

Hilarious.



FIFA with their proposals are clarifying the situation using more clear language.
Indeed. ;)

[eelmonster]

But that doesn't help your case; on the contrary, I feel it harms it, since Article 16 states that all such (Article 15) nationals who have more than one Nationality have now to comply with one of the four conditions.

Yes, but Northern Irish people may have simply one nationality (or regard themselves as 'both' -- and, in my reading of the amendments -- these individuals would be subject to article 16).

[EalingGreen]

The old Ealing Green had died and a new one has been reborn
as one
who claims he can now read FIFA rules,
and that his wishes are somehow transformed into a rational interpretation of FIFA rules by rubbing extra hard on his "genie".

OR
its the same old Ealing Green and that when he writes "it appears", that actually means in the biblical "Angel Gabriel" sense of appearances.

OR
and that when he writes "I do not see anything" he thinks that everybody else is blind.

OR
That when he writes "i have no doubt that for FIFA's purposes" he is clearly delusional and should be sectioned along with Gazza.

You are the one who has maintained a certainty over a situation which most other observers agree is not clear-cut. This betrays (imo) arrogance on your part.

Whereas I have always conceded that this issue is by no means straightforward; indeed, I have always acknowledged that the case has two sides to it.

However, the more I study it, the more optimistic I am becoming that the IFA's case will prevail.

So carry on with your jibes if you must, whilst I will pay heed to the old adage "Pride goes before a Fall".


Yes, but Northern Irish people may have simply one nationality (or regard themselves as 'both' -- and, in my reading of the amendments -- these individuals would be subject to article 16).

You may be correct about NI-born players only having "one nationality", though I'm not aware of any facility or procedure within FIFA whereby one may formally renounce* any given Nationality.

One thing which is absolutely clear, however, is that every NI-born player is entitled to represent the IFA (by virtue of birthplace with that association's territory). The question must be, therefore, whether he is also alternatively entitled to represent the FAI.

I am increasingly inclined to believe that as an Article 15 national (i.e. "holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country"), who is also a "dual national" (i.e. Irish and British), he must therefore also comply with one of the four Article 16 conditions for whichever Association he chooses.


* - Obviously, a player over 21 who opts for one given Association is by implication "renouncing" all other Associations for which he may be eligible.

[geysir]

EG Trolling for attention:eek:
Not getting enough attention you have to dig up an older post.

But this particular line has to be awarded special mention in all of the wild things you have written.
"Since (to my knowledge, at least), there is no single nationality which automatically entitles someone to represent more than one Association, then the use of the singular must be read as meaning nationalities (plural)".

Because you don't know something, therefore a singular in a legal document must read as plural.:D

[EalingGreen]

EG Trolling for attention:eek:
Not getting enough attention you have to dig up an older post.


Which particular post is that?



But this particular line has to be awarded special mention in all of the wild things you have written.
"Since (to my knowledge, at least), there is no single nationality which automatically entitles someone to represent more than one Association, then the use of the singular must be read as meaning nationalities (plural)".


You were the one who first referred to "a Nationality that qualifies a player to play for two federations [sic]"

Now that the four British Associations have clarified the procedures whereby in the absence of birth/parent/grandparent, UK nationals may only represent one of the four British associations, I am not aware of any such Nationality. It is hardly "wild" to say so.



Because you don't know something, therefore a singular in a legal document must read as plural.:D

It is not "Because I didn't know something" that I drew that conclusion. Rather if, as I suspect, there is no actual nationality (singular) which by itself qualifies someone for more than one Association, then that is the only logical inference I can think of to draw from that particular phrase in Article 16.

But if you can supply me with an example of such a nationality, then I might conclude differently.

Over to you.

[irishultra]

So has this ruling actually gone through?

Where does this leave Marc Wilson?

[osarusan]

16 Nationality entitling
players to represent more
than one Association
1 A player who, under the
terms of art. 15, is eligible
to represent more than one
Association on account of
his nationality, may play in
an international match for
one of these Associations
only if, in addition to having
the relevant nationality, he
fulfi ls at least one of the
following conditions:
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?

[Carnloughred]

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. NI are a British team. It is embarrassing watching, as they play the British national anthem, the token nationalists Chris Baird and Sammy Clingan stand silently, heads bowed, as their British colleagues sing God Save the Queen with gusto.
The IFA press ahead with their attempts to force players to play for a team that they do not wish to play for.

[geysir]

But if you can supply me with an example of such a nationality, then I might conclude differently.
Over to you.
: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%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."

[Blanchflower]

At their recent Congress in Sydney, FIFA have amended the Rules regarding international eligibility and it seems that one consequence of the amendment will be that NI-born players who do not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or who have not resided in the ROI for at least two years, will no longer be eligible to represent ROI merely by virtue of having Irish nationality.

The relevant section from this FIFA Statement is Section 13.2.1 - Eligibility, specifically Article 15 (as amended) and Article 16 (new):
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/bodies/fifa_congress_08_agenda_47752.pdf

With its reference to "the territory of the relevant Association", the language seems quite clear and unambiguous, and one or two sources in the NI media are already reporting this as a "victory" for the IFA.

Personally, I am remaining cautious over this, as I have done all along, probably until I hear it from someone in the FAI. Nonetheless, unless I am missing something, I am becoming ever more optimistic that the IFA has, indeed, "won the war", even if it did "lose the battle" (over Darron Gibson), to borrow the metaphor used by John Delaney to an RTE reporter at Dublin Airport, as he rushed back from Zurich to sack Staunton the following day.

There is no substantial change in the rules. NI players are still eligible for the South.:mad: