Thanks. "I" might I add too ;) Don't let the side down - especially when using the word intelligent in the same sentence:DQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Printable View
Thanks. "I" might I add too ;) Don't let the side down - especially when using the word intelligent in the same sentence:DQuote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The Ulster Unionist Party is offering to support a possible challenge to the FIFA ruling that footballers born in the North can play for the Republic if they choose.
The party's deputy leader, Danny Kennedy, has written to the Irish Football Association seeking a meeting to discuss the matter.
He has offered any support the UUP can provide if the IFA decides to challenge the ruling, which still has to be ratified by the FIFA executive.
Mr Kennedy says the decision is a recipe for confusion and would damage the quality of the Northern Ireland football team.
So you are supporting the right of any player from the 6C to play for (the Republic of) Ireland, providing he has an Irish passport, hasn't played an 'A' international for NI, or anything else that debars him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
As I have always stated, if an eligible player doesn't want to play for Northern Ireland, my interest in him ends.Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
He can do whatever he wants after that, within FIFA rules. I couldn't give two flying ones.
Now - in future, please desist from misrepresenting my views please.
EG better get onto the IFA about this and start pointing out that 'politcal interference' might get the NI thrown out of the World Cup qualifiers. Then again, is the UUP still in existence? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by elroy
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
To go back to the core off this matter, the IFA is arguing that the Annex should apply to the FAI picking players, in the same way as it does to any other Association. Therefore, if an NI-born player does not have a parent/grandparent from ROI, or 2 years residence, then he is not eligible.
Whereas, by virtue of his (automatic) Irish Nationality, the FAI is arguing that the Annex does not apply.
At which point, notwithstanding my leaning towards the IFA case, I have consistently posted that I can see the rationale behind both cases and so am prepared to wait for FIFA to determine which is correct.
And the latest is that FIFA has declined to make a decision, even after nearly 12 months, and written and personal submissions by both Associations. This is clear proof that the issue is not cut and dried, nor finalised, as you have consistently claimed.
Further, you point to the October 2006 Letter as "proof" of your case. It is my guess (no more) that this was sent out prematurely, without the Legal Department having fully considered the implications for the rest of their (non-Irish) Membership. Otherwise, if FIFA were confident that that Letter is correct and must stand, why would they go through a lengthy process of consultation? Why would they have made their latest suggested compromise?
Moreover, following last month's meetings with the two Associations, they look to have indicated that they would come down on the IFA's side. Now I accept that the IFA may have been capable of misconstruing the "vibes". Alternatively, I guess it is just possible that they were bluffing - although any such bluff was going to make them look incredibly stupid when called!
But these are unlikely (imo), since it is clear that when the FAI returned from Zurich on the Monday evening, even John Delaney seems top have felt that at best, Gibson was OK, but no more than that, since there would be no retrospective change from the status quo ante (i.e. that the FAI was now picking NI-born players).
And even if Delaney (or RTE) also had got it wrong, your certainty of the FAI's case was flatly contradicted when Staunton/Givens/U-23 Manager (name?) were instructed by FIFA NOT to pick NI-born players in the interim, until this matter was definitively resolved.
From my reading between the lines, my guess is that until possibly as recently as last week, FIFA were of the opinion that, following an exhaustive review, the IFA's case was correct. Then very recently something or someone caused them to pull back from saying so. This may have been something internal within FIFA, or it might have been something external (though I personally doubt this latter, notwithstanding the attempts by certain Irish politicians to claim some sort of "credit"). Or, it may even be that their Legal Dept. was embarrassed to have to come down on the IFA's side, since that would have forced them to concede that their Oct. 2006 letter to the IFA (copied to the FAI) was wrong!
If I am correct with the above surmising, then that would explain one of the most puzzling aspects of this whole matter, which is that when asked to choose between two cases (IFA and FAI), FIFA still haven't done so, even after all this time.
It looks to me that it is not that they cannot decide, rather that they don't want to decide.
NB, you're wasting your time appealing to Lopez's integrity, since he has none. Earlier this week he accused me of "smugly jumping the gun" in assuming that the IFA had won its case with FIFA, a complete fabrication on his part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
I provided a post of mine from just a week earlier which made it cystal clear that the complete opposite was true and challenged him to find even one example of from all my many posts on this topic to back his claim.
As is invariably the case, he went silent on this - perhaps in the hope that if he made some other claim, then no-one would notice just what a bullsh1tter he really is.
:D:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
A lot of assumptions there EG. Maybe a letter writing politician is to blame. Don't forget what happened to Kuwait.
Is it that you are incapable of understanding simple concepts, or that you are so determined to score points, that you simply ignore them should they prove inconvenient?Quote:
Originally Posted by lopez
It is clear that FIFA does not brook political interference either in the affairs of one of their Members, or in an attempt to thwart or frustrate FIFA itself. Their latest suspension of the Kuwaiti FA is a case in point:
At last weekend's Meeting of FIFA's Associations Committee, they expressed great concern about political interference in the running of certain National Associations, with the Kuwait FA now being suspended from FIFA for just that reason:
"Kuwait - Contrary to the road map established by FIFA and the AFC, the Kuwaiti Public Authority for Youth and Sport has continued to interfere. Elections were held on 9 October in direct violation of the FIFA Executive Committee's May 2007 decision to the contrary. As a consequence, the committee recommend to the FIFA Executive Committee that the Kuwait Football Association be suspended"
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federa...ciples+members
When I pointed this out to you, you came back with complete nonsense about the British Government putting money into Wembley, or even Windsor Park, as constituting political "interference".
The fact is, any National Association is perfectly free to enlist the assistance, financial or otherwise, of governments or politicians in furthering their aims. The key to this is that it must be voluntary on the Association's part, with no strings attached. Otherwise, no Association would ever e.g. be allowed to receive grants etc from their own Governments*.
In the campaign to resolve this matter, each Association is perfectly entitled to enlist the assistance of any politicians they like (though whether FIFA will entertain them is another matter!)
What will not be tolerated is politicians or Governments seeking to instruct FIFA what they must do in such cases. Further, following an instruction by FIFA to one of their Member Associations to act in a certain manner, FIFA will not tolerate it if political elements in the country concerned were to instruct the Member to disregard FIFA. In such cases, FIFA may suspend/expel the Association, even where the Association itself had not welcomed the political interference.
It's not difficult, really...
* - If Governments weren't allowed to fund Associations, none of them would ever have able to host World Cups or European Championships etc for the last 50 years...:eek:
A lot of surmising and reading between lines there.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Jaysus, I'd need a few lines to keep me awake to scrutinise the who, what, why's and wherefore's of all this.
In the absence of any explanation from any source, I have made no "assumptions" at all, merely guesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
P.S. I'm hardly likely to have forgotten the example of the Kuwait FA, since it was I who first posted a reference to them on this Board! ;) Anyhow, as I have attempted to explain to (the intellectually or ethically challenged) Lopez, above, the IFA enlisting help from Unionist politicians or the FAI enlisting help from their Nationalist counterparts is nothing like what happened in Kuwait.
We are a different race Paul . Not Brazil I seriously appologise if I sounded rude.I honestly like the Northern team and followed them even in the bad days. I even wear the training top to which I bought in Newry.
I did apply but never got a reply from the admin at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Yes but why did you bring Kuwait into the argument? What relevance does it have?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
You are also guessing that something behind the scenes in the FIFA corridors has occurred to the deteriment of the IFA and the Northern Ireland team. Your guessing suggests that its the FAI, an Irish politican, or something internal in the FIFA that has occured. Why don't you guess that maybe it is related to the IFA or somebody/something sharing the IFA's viewpoint? Perhaps something the IFA/or those supporting the IFA have done has changed FIFA's viewpoint. Is this plausible?
I don't believe FIFA's viewpoint has ever changed. I doubt that there's been the turnaround within the corridors of FIFA that EG or the IFA seem to be indicating.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Perhaps the IFA just misread the situation, very prematurely.
That's what I suspect happened. The IFA believed that that a ruling in their favour was forthcoming and became complacent. My guessing is that the FAI were "better prepared" for the Zurich meeting than what the IFA were. Simply put - the FAI presented their viewpoint better than what the IFA did.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
13 Pages on this muck....yawn!:confused:
Ealing Green, you havenīt been correct about anything FIFA related so far, why should we believe that now all of a sudden that you have the amazing ability to surmise based on your ability to read (conspiracies) between the lines.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
You can't even read the lines when they are in black and white in front of you.
Probably that is the most imbecilic post you have ever written but I stand open to correction on that observation.
and yet you felt the need to not only open the thread but reply to it :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland4ever
Throughout the whole Gibson thread, a consistent them from many posters was that if FIFA determined against the FAI, then the Irish Government etc would react to overturn this (legal challenges etc). I equally consistently pointed out that FIFA would not brook such political interference either in their own affairs or that of any of its Members.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Latterly, I desisted from adding to the Gibson thread whilst I waited for FIFA to decide. However, I did note FIFA's latest suspension of a Member for political interference (Kuwait) as a topical illustration of my earlier point. Nothing more, really.
As for what may very recently have caused FIFA to back away from their apparent support of the IFA after their meeting the two Associations, I really can't think why the IFA should want to deflect FIFA from giving them the verdict they sought, especially since FIFA are suggesting replacing it with a "compromise" which is totally unacceptable to the IFA.
They may be capable of scoring own goals by accident, but not even the IFA is going to do so by design! :eek:
The IFA were clearly premature in indicating "off-the-record" that FIFA was going to go the IFA's way, as apparently was Delaney (though it may actually have been more of a case of journalists overstating the case). Whether they (IFA) were premature, and to what extent, in assuming they had won is another matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
On which point, FIFA's Legal Department sent out a letter in October 2006 which the FAI was using as the basis of its selection of NI-born players. If FIFA weren't at least reconsidering that position, why didn't they merely tell the IFA to sling their hook, rather than inviting them (and the FAI) to submit their case?
Why did they instruct three FAI managers not to pick NI-born players after they had previously done so? And why did those managers comply?
Indeed, why have FIFA come out with the present suggested "compromise", rather than stand by their October 2006 Letter?
Can anyone from amongst those supporters of the FAI's case answer any of these questions. (I'm not stirring, merely genuinely perplexed)
I said all along that the case is yet to be decided by FIFA. You have said all along (on the basis of the October 2006 Letter) that it has been decided.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
FIFA's most recent Letter to both Associations (the suggested "compromise") proves that I am correct on this and that you are wrong.
Therefore, you are in no position to make your frankly insulting assertions against me, especially since at no stage do I recall ever having behaved similarly towards you.
P.S. The ability to "surmise" (whether accurately or otherwise) is open to eveyone, so it's hardly "amazing". Neither have I ever alleged a "conspiracy" (your term) by FIFA in this matter.
Not necessarily what I'm implying. I'm suggesting that the IFA had a belief that the decision forthcoming from FIFA was a foregone conclusion. I not saying that they tried to deflect or scored an own goal. I'm saying that perhaps their belief that the decision was a foregone conclusion led to complacency and that their "performance" in the Zurich was less/ weaker that the FAI's "performance".Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
What's interesting is that you see the rationale behind both sides of the fence yet FIFA's proposal has led you to guess that something behind the scenes has taken place by the FAI, people supporting the FAI or internally in FIFA. Whilst you list your guesses as to why FIFA has put forward this proposal who don't guess that perhaps IFA's actions/ inactions have influenced the FIFA proposal.
I think you need to factor in the IFA's roll in FIFA's proposal and not ignore it. Perhaps previous comments from IFA employees has influenced FIFA.
It is entirely possible for the IFA to misread the signs, become complacent, and therefore prematurely and incorrectly "leak" the result.Quote:
Originally Posted by ifk101
Except that after he had led the FAI delegation to FIFA a week later, Delaney also gave this impression to RTE.
Moreover, we know from sources within the FAI that FIFA instructed them (the FAI) not to pick NI-born players in their forthcoming squads, even causing one of them (Kane) and possibly another (O'Connor) to revert to the IFA.
Why would any of this have happened had FIFA not have been switching from what they wrote in October 2006? Why, at some stage within the intervening 12 months, didn't they just come out and say that the FAI had won their case? Why are they even now suggesting (not directing) a "compromise" which avoids backing up their October 2006 Letter (even if it also avoids backing the IFA)?
I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, so I am reduced to assuming/surmising/guessing/speculating etc, like the rest of us. :(
The IFA challenged the eligibility of the above players. Naturally this challenge would need to be reviewed and that review takes time. Accordingly, it's naturally that the FIFA would say to the FAI to not pick these players as their eligibility has been called into question and we need the time to review this challenge. I think it's as simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
And me please :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Fair enough if your getting sick of it :D Same username as here. Tried a couple of times, the most recent about a week or so ago
I wouldn't dare to suggest that FIFA weren't at least open to the fact of considering their position. I'd imagine FIFA felt that once the issue had been raised by the IFA they would need to hear the arguments of both associations to see if there was a case for them changing the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
To prevent them being dragged further into the quagmire if a subsequent ruling against NI born players representing the Republic had indeed been granted it makes sense for their part to instruct the FAI not to pick NI born players in the short term until the matter was cleared. This would also have shown to the IFA that they were looking into the situation and taking their objection seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
At no time however has it appeared they were willing to rule against the FAI on the matter of NI born players as per the suggestions emanating from the IFA camp a few weeks ago.
I would speculate that the legal dept of FIFA are of the opinion that to sustain the IFA's position that a change of rule 15 would become necessary. The earlier suggestion that a FIFA official suggested the compromise (not being aware that this would be totally unacceptable) to the IFA seems plausable to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Tbf, it's entirely possible that the Mods simply haven't the time to deal with new applications. The Board has over 13k members (I think) and has never been busier. My guess is that with this Gibson row, it's as much as they can do to sift out Trolls of the "Dazzler32/Dan Clancy" variety!Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
[Besides, we've two games coming up which are vital to our hopes of qualifying, so perhaps they might be forgiven if new member applications are not quite at the top of their list of things to worry about! ;)]
I understand that but its not the first time Ive tried (a few times over the last few months). Just wondering if its a specific problemQuote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
have to step in here EG , you did say they had been "got at" can i put it down to sour grapes and say that you have revised that position ?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
I initially used that term ill-advisably and later retracted it by explaining that I should have said FIFA were "persuaded", "influenced", "caused" (or somesuch) instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by RogerMilla
But in my own defence, even though the phrase "got at" has perjorative connotations, it's not as if I accused anyone specifically of having "got at" FIFA.
For the record, my present position is that it looks to me that up until last weekend, FIFA looked as though they were coming down on the side of the IFA, when something or other caused them to row back and instead suggest a "compromise".
P.S. Being "got at" is NOT the same as being party to a "conspiracy". I could approach you and say "Here's €1m, for you to do as I want" and if you accepted, you'd have been "got at". Whereas, for a conspiracy to have taken place, the two of us would have got together and come to an arrangement, whereby I got what I wanted and you got your million yoyos. I don't believe FIFA are party to any conspiracy in this issue. Nor do I believe that anyone in FIFA has been "got at" in the sense that they had cause to change their stance at the last minute for sinister reasons (before anyone jumps on my back over that, either!)
No My arguement was consistantly based on my interpretation of FIFA statutes, That an Irish citizen born on the Island has automatic right to declare for the Republic, the letter was one part of the basis of my arguement.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
The right for a citizen of Ireland, born on the Island. to have automatic right to play for the Republic enshrined by FIFA statutes has been my consistant arguement from DAY IQuote:
FIFA's most recent Letter to both Associations (the suggested "compromise") proves that I am correct on this and that you are wrong.
So now I am wrong when FIFA confirm this again and again and again. :D
Especially in the light of your FIFA "wisdom" from previous posts
The misinformed
20/08 playing in a friendly international, even at senior level, doesn't tie in a player to any one country
We know Gibson is eligible for the Senior IFA team, but we do not know whether he is eligible for the senior FAI team, nor will we until FIFA gives a definitive answer.
Despite FIFA writing directly to the IFA informing them of his eligibility to play for Ireland oct 2006
I really don't think Gibson's case is clear cut.
It was it was it was as the IFA eventually concurred, conceeding 100% on this matter October 2007 without FIFA even looking at the case.
The flight of fancy
Should FIFA decide that Gibson is not eligible for the ROI and the FAI/Irish Government complains, then FIFA may simply suspend or even terminate the FAI's Membership.
not to mention where I had to expain to you in minute detail so you could understand the term of the UK Agreement and the Annex conditions
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809833&postcount=211
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809948&postcount=215
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=810220&postcount=221
You have consistently argued that the FAI case is "open and shut". If that is so, then they must be entitled to pick NI-born players without hindrance. Why aren't they currently doing so?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Why did FIFA issue the suggested "compromise" instead of merely telling the FAI to carry on and the IFA to clear off?
Indeed, where does it say in FIFA's current Arts and Regs that ROI-born players, without automatic right to British citizenship or ancestry or residential qualification, are entitled to represent NI (as outlined in FIFA's "compromise")?
Quite simply, you have consistently stated that the FAI have right on their side under the present Arts & Regs and that FIFA would back them up on this. To date, FIFA have patently declined to do so.
Whereas, I considered that FIFA might go either way, albeit that I preferred and increasingly came to believe that they might favour the IFA. Should the "compromise" be rejected by either party, it presumably will fall upon FIFA once more to choose. And such a choice could still go either way.
What I did not foresee was the suggested compromise coming out of "left field", nor did the IFA or the FAI. And neither did you, for that matter, since it does not comply with your interpretation of the Arts and Regs, either.
But, hey, if in order to bolster your sense of self-esteem (self-importance?)you want to go on demonstrating that you can pee higher up the wall than me, then carry on. Just don't expect me to join in. :mad:
You use to say my arguement was based on the letter now you say its open or shut. Make your mind up :)Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
The one line I repeated ad nauseam in my posts, is that Island born = automatic right = Article 15, no Annex need apply
FIFA have consistantly backed the FAI in this since they first called up the 6 county born. Every document stamped by FIFA legal dept means approval.
Fifa are not going to alter from their position that Island born Irish citizens qualify automatically for the Republic. That part of their "compromise" is already FIFA practice. That part will remain untouched no matter what the IFA will reject. Smell the Guinness.
The real compromise is to allow any Irish born to play for the North
So FIFA allow for 2 associations to come up with a special agreement. It is there in the FIFA practice to allow associations come together and make a deal but FIFA retain the right to accept or reject it.
That's FIFAīs sense of fair play. They have a heart so I must applaud them.
Should the IFA reject to enter into discussion about this compromise, FIFA will not change from present practice.
Any lingering questions or misunderstandings you need answered about the UK agreement?
Can anyone clear up a small point re citizenship? Am I correct in thinking that since the amendement to the South's constitution in 2004, not everyone born in RoI (or NI) has an automatic constitutional right to Irish citizenship? I believe this change had the support of about 80% in a referendum.
The change was that at least one of the parents had to be Irish citizens or entitled to Irish citizenship in order for their child to avail of the constitutional right to Irish citizenship.
Before this, you only had to be born on the sacred turf to avail of the constitutional right.
Thanks Geysir. It does seem strange that almost all young players in NI are potentially eligible for you (subject to confirmation by FIFA), while some three-year-old Nigerian or Lithuanian prodigy in Dublin or Cork may not be, if his parents aren't entitled to citizenship ;)
they would be through residency. This was brought in to stop 7 or 8 month preggars women giving birth,gaining automatic citizenship and then staying in the country. Great idea I believe.
Do Poland have a cricket team?
Intellectually challenged as in suggesting Irish nationalists sing songs about the armed forces that burnt Cork, killed Irish people at whim during the war of independence, and shot 26 people on bloody sunday. It's as 'intellectually challenged' as suggesting you sing 'say hello to the provos' at WP.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Ethically challenged...as in comparing the IFA taking back Kane like the McCanns finding Madeline McCann.
Bullsh*tter...well I don't need to add anything about that.
I haven't gone away, EG. It's just I do have a life outside internet football forums, which confine me to a few minutes a day most times on this site. You should try it too. However it's sad to see you down about FIFA's recent movements on this subject, but you seem more indignant about me stating you thought you had the decision 'in the bag' and yet you confess:
Bullsh*tter is the right word for you, mate. Also hypocrite as well. As you start bringing in the 'political interference' argument about the Irish government soliciting an appeal, but have changed your tune about the plitically defunct UUP doing likewise. BTW what's the story about the DUP, AP and the other unionist parties, anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
Finally, as for pointscoring rather than debating, etc., remember these words.
"Lopez,
Following another thread, I've come to realise that it's futile for me to debate any such topic with you, not just because I risk allowing myself to get drawn into endless controversy, to the nth degree of pettiness, but also because it seems to me that the style and content of your posts inevitably say more about you and your opinions than I ever could.
So by all means, keep posting, indeed keep posting in response to my posts if you like; just don't expect me to reciprocate."
I didn't bother reading too much - it seems that EG is trying to bore us into submission - but I doubt this is the case. He's posted too many caviar nuggets to get a prize for any specific post.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Sooooo sorry, NB for hurting your feelings there chum. Tell you what: You don't put up posts that leave you open to contradiction, and I won't allow my mind to go walkies about what you are trying to actually say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
The law is similar to British citizenship law - which is based less on Ius Soli and more on Ius Sanguinnis (I know you love me bringing up that, but it's been a while since we had a chat, that you'll need to check the spelling) - except that the area of people that are 'of the blood' extends outside the current border of the state. I suspect - but open to correction - that all EU countries have moved to a mix of both with the 'blood' still being more important than 'soil'; after all the Irish referendum was a move to more 'harmonisation'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Hence those of purely Turkish descent playing for Germany, where in the past they would have found gaining German citizenship virtually impossible. On the other hand, the DFB may be able to play them as they fall into at least two of FIFA's criteria to play for Germany - one. they were born in Germany and two. that they have lived there for more than two years - without actually having German citizenship themselves. Is there any reason why this isn't the case and that this is the reason that FIFA said 'fine by us' when the IFA wanted permission to play 6C footballers with Irish passports?