Once the OWC fans get their heads round this, then they will realise they have no case as the IFA is a BRITISH associationQuote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Printable View
Once the OWC fans get their heads round this, then they will realise they have no case as the IFA is a BRITISH associationQuote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Hmm, that's not what I remember from a certain qualifier in The Pale, prior to the 1990 World Cup....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Yes, that's why they had all those players born in Germany, Zambia & Norway, not to mention trying to 'poach' Ade Adebola who'd never even been to The Theme Park, simply on the pretext of a Brit passport. Not to mention numerous journeyman youth internationals who were also eligible for Ireland or the 3 British teams but ultimately may have chosen a future with the North?Quote:
It's a bit convoluted this, isn't it? The Irish FA and its international side predate FIFA and have always followed its rules. You might as well say that RoI football team only picks players from all across Britain due to an excpetion granted by FIFA.
Incidentally, with the possible Cascarino exception, everyone else who played for Ireland was a citizen and eligible for a passport, even Paul Butler.
Nothing to do with a paranoid whim about FIFA.....:rolleyes:
Cascarino's not even a possible exception - he was always fully eligible.
This is something that has only just struck me, but it seems an entirely possible scenario at some point in the future. It would be an interesting prospect were a northern-born player to line out for the FAI all the way through the youth ranks, but, upon failing to make the grade at senior level, decided to switch over to the IFA, assuming they were content to take the player. In theory, the IFA stand to benefit from these players' development through the FAI system as much the FAI stand to benefit from those going in the other direction. That's not to put a specific value on this so-called benefit, if even it is measurable or all that substantial, but it does seriously challenge the arguments and grievances of NI fans along with the cries for compensation for "defectors", contracts of loyalty for under-18s and all that baloney. Have I overlooked something? It seems too obvious to only have just struck me.
Counter-poaching, I suppose you could call it, then. ;)
DI,
That's what one or two others have tried to say on OWB, but they've been 'shot down' in no uncertain terms, such is the tunnel vision on there....
And there must be other examples of people switching availabilty or eligibility around the world, before a full competitive appearance, without the same level of paranoid anguish??
We should all be grateful the criteria for soccer generally, to date, is not as lax as that for cricket or rugby union!!
From what I've read on there of late, the levels of delusion, ignorance and misinformation have reached chronic levels. It's an absolute quagmire of confusion and you'd have to commend anyone with the patience to suffer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Of course, the IFA were perfectly happy to take back Tony Kane and Michael O'Connor under the former statutes after their professional development had benefited from time spent with the FAI's under-21 set-up. A slight hint of hypocrisy there somewhere? :rolleyes:
Noticed on there, what they called the 'Brazilian loophole' has now been closed, but am highly sceptical this is the case as every month or so, read about Brazilans playing for other international sides, nominally on the basis of residency or citizenship based on marriage. And similarly with various Nigerians, though to a far lesser extent.
And even if FIFA claim these loopholes are now closed, am expecting in the next few years to read about far more players switching nationality or eligibility, in keeping with the trends in rigby and cricket.....
:-(
You need to check out Article 17 of the FIFA Eligibility Statutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
I have. And don't believe FIFA will enforce this, or not as they should. Or countries will find other ways round this......
Surprised there is so much faith in the machinations of such an august governing body!!
Are you suggesting that FIFA will turn a blind eye to their own Eligibility Rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
If so, what are the ramifications of that, in your opinion?
Well they're not excatly free of corruption or inconsistency. Not saying it'll definitely happen but be pretty surprised if doesn't repeat itself.
The 'ramifications' are such, that them and most teams will muddle on as always. All rules have relative anomalies, which doubtless will be confirmed shortly.
Why the reference to article 17?
What was that you were saying about "a paranoid whim about FIFA"?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
AB was making some point or other about Brazilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
But I'm/we're not paranoid about FIFA like your crowd. We've seen how they work, 'warts and all' in recent times....Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
@IFK, their whole premise on Duffy seems to be based on Article 17 of FIFA's eligibility statutes. But then seeing the bigger picture is beyond most of that myopic fanbase.....
Article 17 = acquisition of a new nationality.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
As Not Brazil alluded to, the loophole allowing players to switch from one association to another was made more restrictive in 2003 and further tightened up later. A Brazilian who qualifies for another association since 2003, does so by fulfilling the requirements outlined in article 17. If there are any dodgy examples then it would have to require dodgy paperwork. I seriously doubt if FIFA would participate in such a swindle, too much to lose with dubious gain if any.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Pretty much, Blatter and FIFA took a strong and decisive action over this issue in 2003. Later in June 2008, after the revamping the eligibility rules, Blatter stated at a press conference that the issues like the passports for sale to Brazilians was FIFA's main cause of concern in the revamping of the eligibility statutes, not bona fide dual nationals like the Irish/Gibson who qualified automatically.
You're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Duffy is, quite clearly, eligible to play for the Republic Of Ireland. You misrepresent the majority opinion on OWC regarding Duffy - most agree that he is eligible for the Republic Of Ireland.
The IFA's, misguided IMO, premise regarding those they see as having no linkage to the Republic Of Ireland, is based on Articles 15 & 16.
A statement from the IFA read: "We do not take this course of action lightly but, in light of recent events and potential future issues, it believes it has no other choice regarding the resolution of player eligibility.
"The decision is taken purely on the grounds of upholding the FIFA statues of article 15 and 16 and that the current situation that exists puts the IFA at a clear disadvantage over all other 206 associations."
It was you who introduced the issue of Brazilians, and I referred you to Article 17 which deals with that kind of situation.
Anyone who trusts Bl*tter, FIFA or the other dubious characters involved are more naive than a class of infants if they reckon that's an end to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
As for being wrong NB, if you accept it fair enough, but maybe you need to explain this elsewhere!
Strange comments from someone who describes others scepticism about FIFA as a "paranoid whim".Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
However, moving on...
You stated that:
" their whole premise on Duffy seems to be based on Article 17 of FIFA's eligibility statutes"
I have refuted that assertion, stating that the majority of Northern Ireland fans on OWC accept that Duffy is eligible for the Republic Of Ireland.
If you wish to refute my statement, please produce evidence to prove that the majority of OWC posters think that Duffy is not eligible to play for the Republic Of Ireland.
Furthermore, if you can link any post that equates Duffy not being eligible for the Republic Of Ireland with Article 17, please do so.