Cheers for that earlier Danny, all sorted. :good: Your PM folder is full btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Printable View
Cheers for that earlier Danny, all sorted. :good: Your PM folder is full btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
They might well have been talking out of their hoop, but I can only interpret their published pronouncements in good faith. And why propose it if they'd later have reneged on it? What would have happened had both associations been all for it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Without having to overhaul articles 5 and 6 of the statutes (although possibly they were prepared to do that), couldn't FIFA have just passed an addendum stating that a different set of criteria were to be applied to eligibility for the IFA and FAI? It would indeed have defied logic and equality, but the 2007 proposal clearly wasn't rooted in such notions; the aim of reaching an amicable solution took priority.
Why would nationalists have been angry though? The FAI accepted the proposal without nationalist protest.
Which eligibility rules, salient to the Irish dispute, were "scattered around various pages" in November 2007?Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Fact is, the relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60.
If FIFA were serious about their November 2007 proposal, they should have been aware that Article 15, Paras 1 & 3would had to have been re-written, or an addendum put in place stating: "applicable everywhere in the world, except in Ireland":D
That wasn't going to happen, mo chara.
May 2008 was proposed the following alterations which were passed in June 2008Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
3.2 REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES13.2.1 Eligibility to play for representative teams
Explanation:
The objective is the complete integration of the various circulars and provisionswithin the regulations into the FIFA Statutes without altering the current legalsituation (cf. Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,circular no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and circular no. 1093 dated 21 June2007). Under the proposal approved by the Executive Committee, all relevantprovisions have been summarised and added to the Regulations Governing theApplication of the Statutes.
Not so, fact!Quote:
Fact is, the relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60.
I see no reason to presume FIFA were not serious about their proposal. There is no evidence to support that. There is plenty of evidence to support that they seriously tried to facilitate a compromise situation.Quote:
If FIFA were serious about their November 2007 proposal, they should have been aware that Article 15, Paras 1 & 3would had to have been re-written, or an addendum put in place stating: "applicable everywhere in the world, except in Ireland":D
That wasn't going to happen, mo chara.
Afaiu, the 2nd proposal had to be voluntarily entered into, mutually agreed to, voluntarily subscribed to and would be allowed to happen by FIFA, cocooned from the Statutes. The proposal came from the FIFA legal dept and I doubt that they would propose something that they could not make work and they did not have to change the statutes to allow it to happen.
Hence the can of worms, much bigger than an "Irish dispute", being opened.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Dangerous.
I'm sure I read something in the Statutes about equality...must look it up.
Amongst the, numerous, questions arising from other FIFA members, one springs to mind immediately.
Does a player without British Nationality representing a British Association make a mockery of International football?
I think they'd have a point.
Like I said, all saliant eligibilty rules pertaining the the Irish dispute - at the time of the FIFA prosposal in November 2007 - where contained on page 60 of the FIFA Statutes applicable at that time.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
No need for your veneer of irrelevancy.
I would have considered article 16 was salient, certainly the IFA thought so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
This is not the first time you have engaged in these type of tiresome petty snide remarks of a personal nature. At the very least, engage yourself in the discussion with a veneer of a maturity.Quote:
No need for your veneer of irrelevancy
Every now and again the mask slips.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Don't think so, mo chara.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
In Novemer 2007, Article 16 read as follows:
Amendments to the Laws
1 FIFA shall notify its Members of any amendments and decisions
regarding the Laws of the Game within one month of the ordinary
annual meeting of IFAB.
2 The Members shall enforce these amendments and decisions no
later than 1 July following IFAB’s annual meeting. Exceptions may be
granted only to Members whose football season has not terminated
by this date.
3 Members may apply such amendments and decisions as soon as
they have been issued by IFAB.
And, that was relevant how?
Perhaps you really meant Article 15 Para 3?
Deary me.
What "mask" is that crafty?Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
Have you anything sensible, or relevant, to add to the discussion?
The one whereby if you spy gap in someones point or argument, you can tend toward the personal in your riposte, toward the put down even. Its a quality I don't find endearing, but each to their own, as it were.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
What did you think I meant ? That you wear a cloak of reasoned debate only, and behind that are less PC views perhaps? Not at all old chap, not at all.
Carry on.
I didn't know what you meant Crafty, that's why I asked you what you meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
Thanks for replying.
In the case of the other poster concerned, in his mock outrage, you should know that he has a history of 'put downs' and dishing out insults on this board. In addition, he has a history of colourful exaggeration and fanciful ramblings not centred on fact.
Take with a pinch of salt.
I referred to article 16 (the UK association agreement) that was absent from the statutes in 2007 but was incorporated after a vote in mid 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Please find one example of a personal insults I have made in this thread, a thread of 195 pages where we have been active enoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
(Ealing Green excepted, he´s fair game). Should not be too difficult seeing as I'm supposed to have a history of it and you retain a clear memory of the insult.
You're all confused again.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Rules pertaining to players with a nationality entitling them to represent more than one Association (for example, British Citizens) were already in place in the Statutes in November 2007 - Article 15, Paragraph 3.
Stop digging...It's excruciatingly cringeworthy.
You answered your own question, before I could be arsed looking further.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
You're the gift that just keeps giving.
You can't spot the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
FIFA Statutes 2007
- article 15 .3
If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a newnationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several Associations’teams due to nationality, he may, up to his 21st birthday, requestto change the Association for which he is eligible to play interna-tional matches to the Association of another country of which heholds nationality, subject to the following conditions:
- (a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) at “A” inter-national level for his current Association, and if at the time of hisfirst full or partial appearance in an international match in anofficial competition for his current Association, he already hadthe nationality of the Association’s team for which he wishes toplay.
- (b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any com-petition in which he has already played for his previous Associa-tion. A player may exercise this right only once.
FIFA Statutes 2008
Art. 16 – Nationality entitling players to representmore than one Association (new).
Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association.
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 fulfils at least one of the following conditions:
- (a) he was born on the territoryof the relevant Association;
- (b) his biological mother
or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
- (c) his grandmother orgrandfather was bornon the territory of the relevant Association;
- (d) he has lived on the territory of the relevantAssociation for at least two years without interruption.
[QUOTE=geysir;1598608]You can't spot the difference?
[/uQUOTE]
Of course.
And the relevance of the "difference" in November 2007 when FIFA made their ridiculous proposal, in the context of the discussion is what, exactly?
If the FIFA proposal of November 2007 was put back on the table now, what's the difference in consequences?
No difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not BrazilOf course.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
And the relevance of the "difference" in November 2007 when FIFA made their ridiculous proposal, in the context of the discussion is what, exactly?
If the FIFA proposal of November 2007 was put back on the table now, what's the difference in consequences?
Big difference, as it transpires.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
Then you should have acknowledged that simple fact instead of stating this nonsenseQuote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
"Rules pertaining to players with a nationality entitling them to represent more than one Association (for example, British Citizens) were already in place in the Statutes in November 2007 - Article 15, Paragraph 3."
Which indicated you hadn't a clue
The relevance of that difference is that it supports what I wrote, and countered your claim in which you statedQuote:
And the relevance of the "difference" in November 2007 when FIFA made their ridiculous proposal, in the context of the discussion is what, exactly?
,"all saliant eligibilty rules pertaining the the Irish dispute - at the time of the FIFA prosposal in November 2007 - where contained on page 60 of the FIFA Statutes applicable at that time."
Clearly to any acute student of the eligibility debate, Article 16 was a highly relevant issue in the whole eligibility debate, it formed a large part of the IFA case to CAS.
It was not present in the statutes in 2007 when FIFA made their proposal, it was incorporated afterwards in 2008.
You, for some reason sought to dispute this and made an almighty fuss, complete with condescension and haughtiness.
Be more specific with your question.Quote:
If the FIFA proposal of November 2007 was put back on the table now, what's the difference in consequences?
And in future please make the effort to refrain from snide personal comments to any poster on this board.
What's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
If it's the addition of Article 16 as it is now. That was part of the eligibility rules at the time, it just wasn't on page 60 of the statutes. It was in the Annexe 2 of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2005).
NB claimed it was already there in the 2007 statutes and lost the run of himself and made a big issue out of nothing
Don't worry, I've been following. Clearly not all relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60. As you've said already,Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players,
circular no. 901 dated 19 March 2004 and
circular no. 1093 dated 21 June2007
were all part of eligibility rules just not included in the statutes at the time.
In the context of a discussion on a FIFA proposal in November 2007, Article 16 is not "highly relevant" - as it was not introduced until 2008.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
In the context of a discussion on the consequences of FIFA's proposal in 2007, the IFA's case to CAS, based on Article 16 (as applicable in 2009) is, therefore irrelevant.
These are basic facts of logic - which you concede.
I don't claim to be an "acute student of the eligibility debate" (cringe!).
I am an interested observer in the eligibility debate, willing to offer and discuss my opinions with those with different opinions.
In what way were they relevant to the "Irish dispute"?Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
What is now article 6 of the Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes was then article 1.1 of Annexe 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of players. It related to shared nationalities and was the same in effect then as it is now. FIFA's 2007 proposal to make Irish nationality a shared nationality would had to have been exempt from this regulation to operate as expressly intended.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Annexe 2 above is effectively Article 16, and affected eligibility as much as article 16 does now. Nothing has changed since 07, just annexes and circulars being included in the wording of the statutes. The rules are still the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Could you kindly post a copy of that DI?Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Circulars 901 and 1093, as cited by Joe, seem irrelevant to me, in context.
Edit: Forget that request DI- got it!
The relevant information/chronology is outlined between paragraphs 60 and 64 of the Kearns judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Here are the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe..._en_122007.pdf
Scroll down to page 30 for Annexe 2.
Article 16 is Article 6 now.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
I really must get into the analysis of the legislation a bit more.
DI, what are the key FIFA statutes that govern player eligibility?
I stand corrected Joe - the salient eligibility rules, as pertaining to the Irish dispute, we're effectively contained on two pages, not one.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe_denilson
I had overlooked Annex 2.
Circular 901 in 2004 dealt with players acquiring a new nationality.
Circular 1093 in 2007 basically strengthened Article 15 Para 1, to close a loophole regarding temporary nationality.
I would contest that neither were core to the Irish dispute in November 2007 - I don't believe the IFA ever contested that Republic Of Ireland Nationals born in Northern Ireland were acquiring a new nationality, or that the nature of their
Citizenship of the Republic of Ireland was not permanent.
Thanks for the clarification DI.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
I find it quite incredible that FIFA were prepared, for the sake of Republic Of Ireland Nationals, to create an inequality (discrimination) in their eligibility rules - as you suggest.
Every Nationality in the world which would ordinarily permit a player to play for more than one Association treated differently, and disadvantageously, to Republic Of Ireland Nationals.
That simply would have been an explosion waiting to happen, and in total breach of FIFA own Statutes on discrimination.
Thanks, I was aware of that, typo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Agreed, I only mentioned 901 and 1093 as part of a full quote, and I didn'nt mention them in a reply to you, but in the reply to geysir. Anyway, glad it's all been cleared up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
I have thoroughly explained that article 16 was incorporated into the FIFA statutes in May 2008. Before that date it was contained in a separate document.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
This you sought to dispute.
And now you chose to dispute the relevancy of article 16 in the Irish dispute, in a debate on one nationality representing two or more association,
which is the core issue on the FIFA compromise in 2007. And the relevance of article 16 in the IFA case to CAS which is also a part of the discussion.
Article 6 as it is now known, has had a relevancy all along, even when it was not incorporated into the statutes. The core details of the FIFA compromise of 2007 proves that relevancy beyond doubt.
I have stated, that I believed the FIFA legal board were serious when they offered this 2007 compromise, they believed with the benefit of their legal knowledge that it would pass legal scrutiny as long as the two associations willingly entered into the agreement. The agreement would be cocooned from the statutes.
And they believed that they did not have to change the statutes in order for it to work.
As the Irish dispute is a unique situation, to some extent allows for those possibilities to happen. In 2007 the most similar eligibility rule was the UK agreement, that UK agreement was contained in a separate document away from the statutes, yet it had statute status.
Maybe it has relevancy or maybe no relevancy at all, but FIFA chose to move that 1993 UK agreement into the statutes in 2008, and this was an agreement which predated other annexed document. My point was simple, maybe in 2007 a separate unique agreement could be made and cocooned but maybe not possible to have an unique agreement after 2008 when the statutes and annexed documents were incorporated
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Point of Information;It's Irish Nationals...
It was indeed an incredible proposal but I see no reason to suspect they were bull****ting. I dunno if it's entirely correct to frame it as being for the sake of Irish nationals though, as if to suggest either the FAI or Irish nationals sought this inequality. Rather, it was an attempt on FIFA's misguided behalf to appease the IFA and, had it come to pass, would have created an anomaly favouring them over all other associations who would naturally have been the representatives of a mere one nationality as standard. In saying that, the IFA didn't seek it either and went as far as rejecting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Brazil
Exactly. A problem which never happened.
I don't see why that should be the case. When previous circulars or annexes were passed, the statutes as they then would have existed would have amounted to the incorporation or bringing together of even earlier circulars and annexes, or documents similar in effect. In essence, FIFA can pass addenda whenever they like, surely? They've never stated that the present rules are the final edit, if you will, and will be subject to no further changes. If FIFA see a need for amendment, I'd imagine they'll happily pass an addendum.Quote:
Originally Posted by geysir
The rules that presently govern eligibility are to be found in articles 5 to 8 of the 2011 Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...uten2011_e.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by Olé Olé
(Is that file working properly for others? Hasn't been loading properly for me the past two days.)
If that doesn't work, here's the 2010 edition: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...uten2010_e.pdf
You'll find what are now articles 5 to 8 on page 66. They were then named articles 15 to 18.
What is now article 5 outlines the general principle of eligibility. Article 6 governs eligibility for associations who share a nationality, such as the FA, SFA, IFA and FAW who all share the British nationality, and invokes additional criteria requiring their players to satisfy a territorial connection. Article 7 deals with players who acquire a new nationality and article 8 deals with players switching association.
Circulars and annexes that have been mentioned above have more or less been addenda or amendments FIFA have made over the years that have since been incorporated into the overall rules.
There's a Wikipedia article featuring a general overview of some modern changes, such as the introduction of the right to switch association once before the age of 21 in 2004 and the later lifting in 2009 of that age-cap of 21 to allow players to switch once at any age: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_el...Modern_changes
Although obviously tinged with other factors and complexities, I suspect that rule-change to be one of the most significant causes of the greater numbers of northern-born Irish nationals (from zero in the decades prior to the 1990s to two or three per year post-2004) declaring for the FAI in recent years and outlined my reasoning here: http://backpagefootball.com/general/...tions-for-fai/
Given Wiki's nature, just be careful to double-check anything you read there though. It states, for example:
"There are no restrictions on players that wish to switch national associations at youth level. Alex Zahavi has represented the Israel under-21s, the United States under-20s, the Portugal under-19s, the Portugal under-18s and the Portugal under-17s."
I don't think that's actually correct. There are, of course, restrictions, but they apply to competitive fixtures obviously. Likewise, we're not certain what exactly effects a player's solitary switch; whether it is any competitive fixture for his new association or merely a senior competitive fixture...
To be honest, however, if one wants to understand the eligibility statutes and their historical development since the 1950s, especially in relation to Ireland, the Court of Arbitration for Sport did a fantastic job of explaining the exact application and interpretation of each statute in the 2010 case of IFA v. FAI, Kearns and FIFA: http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/docu...ward202071.pdf
CAS was dealing with the regulations when they were articles 15 to 18 so will refer to them as such. The text of the articles is still identical, but I'd recommend a read of the judgment from page 11 onward. The whole thing could be read in an afternoon actually. Scroll through some of the headings and you'll find where they clarify the meaning behind each statute.