O'Neill gives his backing for a United Ireland team

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blanchflower

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


Players such as who?:eek:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngirish

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

And there Blanchflower is where you and I disagree.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by youngirish

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

---

Having seen the preamble, which I previously hadn't, particularly this part -

Quote:

---

FIFA preamble to the eligibility statutes
Explanation:
"The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisions
within the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legal
situation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular 901 and circular_1093 dated 21 June
2007).

---

I have to agree that it doesn't change the previous ruling by FIFA.

Serves me right for not researching it properly.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

Article 16 does not apply to Irish citizens.
[/I]

---

So you say. However, that does not make it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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


FIFA preamble to the eligibility statutes
Explanation:
"The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisions
within the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legal
situation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular 901 and circular_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."[/I

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

---

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

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

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

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

Which once again catches out our hypothetical Derryman.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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

---

No that would have been a new rule applicable only between NI and ROI, so Article 16 wouldn't have applied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blanchflower

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blanchflower

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

---

LOL :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blanchflower

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paul_oshea

LOL :D

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

Because i am happy to see that you admit to wishing to deny the players who would wish to play for ROI their right to do so.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EalingGreen

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

---

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

[quote=paul_oshea;955508]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geysir

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blanchflower

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

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

---

So you would not object to the UK Parliament passing a law to say that everyone from the ROI is a UK citizen? And then the FA using said law to pick ROI players to play for England.