In an underground car park?
Printable View
In an underground car park?
Alas not. I will send a reminder on Monday next.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Horses mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Yeah, that will work....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
And the horse is dogfood now??
CAS Ruling in full....
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...ard%202071.pdf
I presume item 3 in the conclusion was the awarding of costs?
I expect an IFA appeal on the basis that this was your 666th post and therefore the FAI are clearly in league with the devil. :)Quote:
Just had a quick perusal of the ruling. I felt like I was revising...
The references made to the "1950 FIFA Ruling" by the IFA (and previously known as the supposed Gentleman's Agreement between the FAI and IFA) are quite interesting. Especially the part where the IFA confirm they could not produce the contents of this ruling (they were currently looking for them) but that the IFA "was not uncertain of the form it took". :bigsmile:
Edit: reading on; while the IFA and its supporters have constantly referred to the existence of a "Gentleman's Agreement" between the two associations, it is revealed that the FAI was not actually party to said agreement. Essentially this supposed "Gentleman's Agreement" is a letter from FIFA to the IFA telling the IFA "it was inadmissible to select players, being citizens of Eire" for its represenative teams.
Sounds like this 'Gentleman's agreement' existed only in the heads of the IFA grand wizards.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
The FAI for its part contends that the status of Irish citizens living in N. Ireland has never been discussed and that the FAI has never accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its team, whether they live in NI or elsewhere.
After last weeks IFA EGM some already believed that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Just seen that Preston youngfella Adam Barton pulled out of the NI full squad to keep his "Options Open"... Is he elligable for us??? Or is his "Option" England in this case??
It's quite comical tbh. The IFA are "not uncertain of the form it (the Gentleman's Agreement) took" but it wasn't agreed with the FAI and the FAI wasn't notified of its existence. And this 1950's "agreement" formed the basis of their appeal to the CAS.Quote:
Originally Posted by co. down green
In fairness, a gentlemen's agreement, by its nature is frequently unprovable, as it stands on both parties being gentleman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gentlemen's_agreement
Some interesting revelations - at least to me.
The FAI did accept the FIFA compromise proposal in Nov 2007 but it was rejected by the IFA.
Page 18
64
7 March 2007,
'FIFA Legal Committee invited the FAI voluntarily to confine itself to selecting for its association teams Northern Irish players who meet one of the following requirements: a) the player was born in the Republic of Ireland, b) his biological mother or father was born in the Republic of Ireland, c) his grandmother or grandfather was born in the Republic of Ireland, or d) he has lived continuously, for at least two years, in the Republic of Ireland'.
'On 5 November 2007, FIFA informed the IFA that the FAI did not accept its proposal of 7 March 2007'.
'The FIFA Legal Committee made a “new proposal” and invited the IFA as well as the FAI to express its position on the following “suggested approach” …..' (aka the compromise)
'On 8 November 2007, the IFA expressed its disagreement with the proposal of the FIFA Legal Committee, which was however accepted by the FAI on 20 November 2007'.
page 23
'If the IFA analysis were correct, it would follow that the first and third sentences would deal with the exactly same situation, which would (be) inconsistent with any intelligible intention to be attributed to the rule-maker'. :D
Really makes the IFA out to be quite amateurish.
The FAI, on the other hand, employed a swiss lawyer who referenced the Swiss Civil Code. Impressive.
True but the IFA in their appeal refer to the Gentleman's Agreement as the "1950 FIFA Ruling" and told the Court "that it was currently in the process of seeking a copy of the original ruling". But of the evidence produced, it is revealed that if there was a Gentleman's Agreement it was between FIFA and the IFA, as there isn't any evidence to show that the FAI was party to such agreement. And this "agreement" did not have the scope of application as preceived by the IFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Fast forward to 1999 and Jim Boyce the then IFA President is quoted as saying the following "The issue of Northern Ireland's eligible players opting to play for the Republic was discussed at length with the FAI. It was also stressed that if a player made an approach himself, there was little the FAI could do unless FIFA was to change legislation. That, we accept. But at least we have agreed to notify one another should this happen." Jim Boyle is also quoted as saying he is "delighted" with the outcome of these talks with the FAI.
If the Gentleman's Agreement of the 1950's existed as presented by the IFA, why would Jim Boyce be "delighted" with the outcome of talks between the two associations in 1999?
Page 23
79. 'The Panel noted that IFA also advanced an alternative argument that Mr Kearns had shared nationality because, as an Irish national (irrespective of his British nationality), he could play for either IFA or FAI and Mr Hunter asserted that it had always been the case that the IFA could select Irish nationals with a territorial connection to Northern Ireland. The absence of Irish nationality from the commentary on Annexe 2 is, he submitted, inconclusive. It was apparent to the Panel that the factual basis for the assertion was controversial and disputed by the FAI’s counsel. Since neither the factual nor legal basis for this argument was sufficiently established, the Panel is in no position to find in its favour'.
The correct answer is the IFA can only select British citizens for its representative teams. Yes it is a dual national statelet but it is still inside the UK, therefore only the British nationality is relevant to selection for the IFA teams.
Page 25 /26Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
88. In contrast to non-binding rules of conduct such as gentlemen’s agreements, contracts forming a binding agreement require the mutual agreement of the parties. Such agreement may be either express or implied (Article 1 of the Swiss Code of Obligations). There is an implied agreement only when the behaviour of the party alleged to have agreed is consistent only with its having done so. In general, a passive behaviour cannot be held to amount to an agreement to be bound by a contract (ATF 123 III 53, 59). In other words, silence does not imply consent (François Dessemontet, in Commentaire Romand, Code des Obligations I, Bâle 2003, p. 14, ad. Art. 1, N. 32).
Finally, the existence of a “contract implied by conduct” is denied by the FAI, which disputes that it has ever discussed the status of Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland or accepted that Irish citizens could not be selected for its teams, whether living in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. The contrary has not, in the Panel’s view, been established by the IFA. In any event the IFA’s evidence fell short of establishing the binding nature of the alleged agreement or the legal/regulatory basis which would allow it to supersede Articles 15 to 18 of the 2009 Application Regulations.
'In any event, the alleged tacit agreement may not be used to defeat the claim of Mr Kearns, who was of course not a party to any such agreement and who, in any event, is entitled to exercise his rights as provided under Article 15 and 18 of the 2009 Application Regulations.'
In a nutshell, IN ANY EVENT the alleged gentleman's agreement does not apply to Daniel Kearns.
Seriously ****-poor journalism by BBC NI.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...sh/9044215.stm
Hard to beleive that the guy who penned this article gets paid for a living!
'The Court of Arbitration for Sport has admitted that the ruling regarding N Ireland-born players opting for the Republic is "unfair" on the IFA.'
Where exactly do CAS state that the FIFA rules were unfair?
Simple answer is, they don't - not in the slightest.
And, the IFA refused to an agreement proposed by FIFA aloing those exact lines. The FAI were willing to agree that citizens of Ireland, regardless of where they resided, could play for Northern IrelandQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
They mention that the "one way" system of NI lads being able to play for ROI but not the other way arund is unfair.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
EDIT; page 21, Art 70.
And BTW I'm not for one second defending the article which seems to select a tiny morsel of comfort for the IAF in a pretty damning overall judgement
Not quite.
The Court is required to give an account of the evidence presented. Part of that evidence is documentation which preceded the compromise proposal. CAS do not interpret FIFAs rules as being unfair they simple state FIFA's reason for offering the proposal. Part of that reason was that the regulation resulted in unfair “one-way situation”.. This was FIFA wording at the time pre compromise proposal.
Sorry, I misread your original post. of course the "unfair" comment was talking about the letters between IFA and FIFA
It's his English optionQuote:
Originally Posted by dr_peepee
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...sh/9044523.stm
OTF with him then.
If he qualifies to play for Northern Ireland wouldn't that mean that he qualifies for us then?Quote:
Originally Posted by SaucyJack
Yes he qualifies for us, the FAI's territory includes the 6 counties and therefore those descended from those born in the 6 counties qualify for both the IFA and the FAI.
'FAI territory' is that space of land where the new born are automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, not just the piece of land it has football jurisdiction over.
The IFA have been dealt a 'double-whammy' today. The full CAS ruling released, exposing the IFA as being foolish, and another fast-tracked youngster pulling out of their squad.
I wonder will young Barton be castigated in the media and by their fans as severely as Shane Duffy, Darron Gibson and Daniel Kearns were?
That ruling really does make the IFA (or maybe it's more fair to say the IFA's lawyers) look like total idiots. Their case pretty much amounted to not being able to read. Relying on a 'linguistically strained' (as we in the business say) interpretation of the FIFA Statutes, which made absolutely no sense, and attempting to interpret the 2009 Eligibility regulations in the light of on an informal agreement from SIXTY years ago in an area which has changed out of all recognition in that time, is outright lunacy. A first year law student could see that this was a totally, totally unrealistic position.
It should never have gone this far, but please now it's done.
Possibly. I wouldn't waste your sympathy though- if he didn't want to play, he could have told Worthy privately any time in the week between his invitation and the public announcement. It looks like he, or his agent, have deliberately created a story which might help him get a transfer into the Prem. I imagine that's more of a priority for them than an international cap- he's much less likely to get one from England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
Fair point and something I actually overlooked, but how likely is it? These media storms can certainly help to boost the profile of a player, but by how much, I'm not so sure.
Did Barton merit inclusion based on his form? Or is it likely that Worthington included him simply in order to tie him to the IFA? Being cynical, I'd guess that it was the latter and, while I can understand why Worthington would do so, I don't think it is the best course of action - especially when one considers that it has already backfired twice. However, I suppose the IFA will feel that the odd media storm in a teacup can be tolerated if it means one talented youth gets tied.
I wouldn't be surprised if PNE were in the lads ear to hang about. Worth way more to them as a future England international than pretty much any other nationality out there.
It's certainly been successful, at least as a first step- plenty of nationwide BBC coverage today, not just in NI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
I think teenage footballers are less naive than widely assumed- and even where they are, almost invariably streetwise agents are about.
On form, I'd say no. He's played 11 games in D2, I believe. People like McCann and Feeney, although now dropped down a level, are more experienced which we'll need against Italy. And realistically Worthy can't take the Faeroes lightly, even if the players do. We'd be quite pleased to scrape a 1-0 win. So no rush of debuts for fringe players there.Quote:
Did Barton merit inclusion based on his form? Or is it likely that Worthington included him simply in order to tie him to the IFA? Being cynical, I'd guess that it was the latter and, while I can understand why Worthington would do so, I don't think it is the best course of action - especially when one considers that it has already backfired twice. However, I suppose the IFA will feel that the odd media storm in a teacup can be tolerated if it means one talented youth gets tied.
Agree that the manager is being cynical and I too think it unwise. I suppose the justification would be that with such a small pool we have to try everything.
As I'm sure you'll agree, no-one is strictly tied: if they can't be bothered to commit, like S. Ireland or Biggles McCartney, they'll just bugger off. The players just don't seem as hardcore as you or I :teeth:
Perhaps, but the realistic alternatives were him leaving Preston in January as a NI international, or as just another promising D2 youngster. Capello won't cap a championship player, except maybe as a keeper in a brainstorm.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie
That's my line of thinking as well (ie tie him to NI asap) which I suspected was also the case with Johnny Gorman's inclusion in the NI squad for the game against Slovenia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Predator
There was a video interview with Nigel yesterday on the BBC site where he said he last talked to Adam Barton six weeks ago to gauge his interest in playing for the NI seniors (Barton was subsequently contacted by Beaglehole 10 days - 2 weeks ago to tell him he was in the squad). If I'm not mistaken it was just six weeks ago that Barton was coming into the Preston first team. Therefore I don't think Nigel's initial approach had anything to do with Barton's "current" league form. Similar to the capping of Johnny Gorman with a minute to go in a competitive fixture, Barton's inclusion in the squad was to tie him down to NI before the beggars came a knocking.
It's probable that with Shane Duffy and the CAS ruling, Nigel and the IFA believe this is the approach they need to take from now on - ie cap them young and early.
You hardly ever hear a car backfiring these days but the IFA are bucking the trend like a mistimed Trabant.
I reckon there must be an FAI agent somewhere in the IFA Board Of Management.
They bring incompetence to new levels!!