Can Derry City join the LoI?

[Mr_Parker]

I do find it strange why this particular and crucial part of this topic is being blocked from discussion. The entire thread, as with many other threads, goes round and round on various aspects, discussing the membership criteria is hardly pushing the bounds of reasonable debate.

[MariborKev]

I do find it strange why this particular and crucial part of this topic is being blocked from discussion. The entire thread, as with many other threads, goes round and round on various aspects, discussing the membership criteria is hardly pushing the bounds of reasonable debate.

Yeah Mr P, but no one has any definitive information either way?

[Mr_Parker]

Yeah Mr P, but no one has any definitive information either way?

Hardly unique in any debate on a football forum is it. Though I would suggest a quote from an IFA Article is "definative information." No?

[pineapple stu]

I do find it strange why this particular and crucial part of this topic is being blocked from discussion.

Read back through the thread and you'll find out why.

Both sides have made their points, neither agrees with the other, neither is prepared to let the other have the last word. It's not a conspiracy to avoid saying bad things about Derry or anything like that, so let's leave it lie.

[dcfcsteve]

I'd be very interested if you could produce any objective evidence to support your assertion that "All that is needed for this to happen is for the recipient league's members to accept them". Restraint of trade laws are very difficult to apply to a sporting context. It would be possible to argue that all sorts of routine aspects of football are restraints of trade. I really don't think it's as simple as you make out.

Look into the rulings from the 1994 English High Court case of Newport Co etc al v the FA of Wales.

Beyond that, ingratiate yourself with Alun Evans (former head of the Welsh FA and member of numerous FIFA and UEFA governing bodies) and see if he'll explain it all to you as well.

The Old Firm situation is completey different. From a legal perspective, it's 2 UK clubs attempting to gain entry to a different league based in the UK. The new DCFC is a club based in the UK trying to gain entry to a league based in a different EU Member State - as such a completely different proposition.

But the point of the EU post-Maastricht is that there is only ONE state for commercial/competition purposes, so differences between member states in political terms don't actually matter.

Having said that, the media coverage of the Old Firm proposal indicates that the national associations on both sides of the border would need to agree. It was also widely reported that UEFA said they wouldn't object, but that doesn't mean they don't need to give approval. See this as an example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/foot...em/8006934.stm

It would be unlike the media to get something wrong I guess.....

More importanly - why would UEFA give consent to a change that would risk completely undermining Scottish domestic football (the second oldest league in the world) and set an extremely dangerous footballing precedent ? Well - maybe it's because they know they have no choice.....

[passerrby]

this whole debate hinges on weather the ifa lodge an objection if and when a licence has been issued otherwise this will not require any imput from anybody else. so there is only two questions
1. will derry apply to the ifa to play outside the juristriction (and would it **** the ifa of if the dont) and
2. have the ifa commented on the matter

[dcfcsteve]

this whole debate hinges on weather the ifa lodge an objection if and when a licence has been issued otherwise this will not require any imput from anybody else. so there is only two questions
1. will derry apply to the ifa to play outside the juristriction (and would it **** the ifa of if the dont) and
2. have the ifa commented on the matter

Passerby - you've misssed the whole point here.

We don't need any approval from the IFA to play in the LOI.

All we need from the IFA is to be members of them, as clubs have to be registered within their own footballing jurisdiction. And the IFA won't be able to deny us membership - or certainly not on spurious grounds like attempting to stop us form playing in another league. If any two-bit local pub team that meets the basic footballing criteria is granted IFA membership, they'd need a pretty damn good reason to deny it to us even if they wanted to..

So the IFA role in all of this is completely incidental.

[Nedser]

Look into the rulings from the 1994 English High Court case of Newport Co etc al v the FA of Wales.

Beyond that, ingratiate yourself with Alun Evans (former head of the Welsh FA and member of numerous FIFA and UEFA governing bodies) and see if he'll explain it all to you as well.

Maybe you could find out what producing "objective evidence" means. The above statements amount to hearsay, not objective evidence. I have no issue with you presenting hearsay, but just be clear that's all it is.

But the point of the EU post-Maastricht is that there is only ONE state for commercial/competition purposes, so differences between member states in political terms don't actually matter.

I know from my own professional experience that is 100% not true. I think like most people you have a reasonable understanding of the principles behind EU free market regulations, but those of us who have to contend with them in practice know that it is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. I'm not an expert in EU law, but you clearly aren't either, and all I'm saying is that unless you have had expert advice on this specific issue, then you're just speculating, and it would be no surprise if you're incorrect.

It would be unlike the media to get something wrong I guess.....

Are you disputing the fact that UEFA publicly stated that the Scottish authorities would have to agree to any move?

More importanly - why would UEFA give consent to a change that would risk completely undermining Scottish domestic football (the second oldest league in the world) and set an extremely dangerous footballing precedent ? Well - maybe it's because they know they have no choice.....

a) Just in case you misread either the BBC article or my previous post, UEFA have not given consent. They said they would not object and would leave it to the national associations in England and Scotland to decide.
b) Why would they not object? Because they take the view that it's up to the SFA to decide whether it would be detrimental to Scottish football, and if that is their decision then the move can't happen.

If you still believe the Old Firm and DCFC situations are identical, then by the same token the IFA could object to the new DCFC joining the League of Ireland. That doesn't mean they will, but it certainly is something that needs to be considered, and I would say discussed with the IFA at the earliest possible opportunity.

[dcfcsteve]

Maybe you could find out what producing "objective evidence" means. The above statements amount to hearsay, not objective evidence. I have no issue with you presenting hearsay, but just be clear that's all it is.

Or maybe you could read ? A High Court ruling is hardly "hearsay" or subjective evidence.....

I know from my own professional experience that is 100% not true. I think like most people you have a reasonable understanding of the principles behind EU free market regulations, but those of us who have to contend with them in practice know that it is nowhere near as simple as you suggest. I'm not an expert in EU law, but you clearly aren't either, and all I'm saying is that unless you have had expert advice on this specific issue, then you're just speculating, and it would be no surprise if you're incorrect.

I'll take the view of the football administrator who came out the wrong side of a court case over tthis whole issue as "expert advice" if that's ok. A football administrator who also sat at FIFA and UEFA's top tables. If you think you know better than him then fair enough, but he'll do for me in the absnece of any even vaguely credible alternative "expert advice" being presented on here.

Are you disputing the fact that UEFA publicly stated that the Scottish authorities would have to agree to any move?

No. I'm just disputing whetehr they have the legal aurhority to do so.

a) Just in case you misread either the BBC article or my previous post, UEFA have not given consent. They said they would not object and would leave it to the national associations in England and Scotland to decide.
b) Why would they not object? Because they take the view that it's up to the SFA to decide whether it would be detrimental to Scottish football, and if that is their decision then the move can't happen.

Going round in circles here. I received the "expert advice" you were craving on this matter. In fact, the case of the Old Firm was specifically used in that as an example of a league switch which couldn't be stopped.

If you still believe the Old Firm and DCFC situations are identical, then by the same token the IFA could object to the new DCFC joining the League of Ireland. That doesn't mean they will, but it certainly is something that needs to be considered, and I would say discussed with the IFA at the earliest possible opportunity.

Your 'logic' here just doesn't make sense. Regardless - you know what my base supposiiton here is. If someone can present alternative informed opinion to counter it, I'll listen to it. In the absence, I'll take the view of a former FIFA/UEFA official over any random on the internet any day. Until then, I see no point in going round in circles on this.

[Nedser]

Or maybe you could read ? A High Court ruling is hardly "hearsay" or subjective evidence.....

A High Court ruling would indeed be objective evidence, but you have not provided a High Court ruling. You have told us what a High Court ruling apparently says. That's hearsay.

If you have a link to the High Court ruling, and can show me where it specifically states that 'All that is needed for this to happen is for the recipient league's members to accept them", AND that this applies to a situation where the recipient league is not in the UK, then that would be objective evidence.

I'll take the view of the football administrator who came out the wrong side of a court case over tthis whole issue as "expert advice" if that's ok.

I think the fact that he came out the wrong side of a court case in itself shows how much of an expert he is.

A football administrator who also sat at FIFA and UEFA's top tables. If you think you know better than him then fair enough, but he'll do for me in the absnece of any even vaguely credible alternative "expert advice" being presented on here.

I don't think I know better than him, I have already said I'm not an expert in EU law. Neither is Alun Evans, and I'm guessing here, but neither are you. As such, none of us can definitively state what is or is not permitted by EU law. PS: in case it wasn't clear what I meant by expert advice, I'm talking about a law firm with specific experience in this area. Without that you can't know for a fact where you stand legally.

In fact, the case of the Old Firm was specifically used in that as an example of a league switch which couldn't be stopped.

Again, please back up your claim that the Old Firm switch "couldn't be stopped". I have not read or heard a single person other than you who seems to believe that agreement from the SFA was not required. As such, I believe the Old Firm issue is an example of a league switch that could be stopped by the FA in the jurisdiction in which they are based.

Your 'logic' here just doesn't make sense. Regardless - you know what my base supposiiton here is. If someone can present alternative informed opinion to counter it, I'll listen to it. In the absence, I'll take the view of a former FIFA/UEFA official over any random on the internet any day. Until then, I see no point in going round in circles on this. Provide credible advice to support your view here, or save me the key strokes...

Ah, finally you admit that your posts are just "supposition" and "opinion". That's fine. You might be right, you might be wrong. My reason for responding was that you have repeatedly claimed that you know the answer for a fact and that there is no valid question here. I wouldn't mind if you were just saying, "in my opinion" etc, but that's not what you have been doing - e.g. in the original post that I responded to you said "I think you'll find that I've detailed the correct answer to this at varying lengths more than a dozen times".

My point is simply that this is a valid question and it has not been definitively answered yet.

[dcfcsteve]

Ah, finally you admit that your posts are just "supposition" and "opinion". That's fine. You might be right, you might be wrong. My reason for responding was that you have repeatedly claimed that you know the answer for a fact and that there is no valid question here. I wouldn't mind if you were just saying, "in my opinion" etc, but that's not what you have been doing - e.g. in the original post that I responded to you said "I think you'll find that I've detailed the correct answer to this at varying lengths more than a dozen times".

My point is simply that this is a valid question and it has not been definitively answered yet.

The word 'supposition' was my mistake. Should have been more along the lines of 'position'.

That aside - I've outlined where my information has come from, and have no interest in continuing to go round in circles on this. If you have more informed opinion than I've presented, then please recount it and I will gladly digest and debate it. In the absence of anything informed in response to what I've presented, this cyclical arguement is just moot/pointless.

P.S. Alun Evans came out on the wrong side of a court case because he was using your argument as the FAW's defense i.e. that a league can stop one of its members playing in anotehr footballing jurisdiction. So even though he did lose the case, he learned all about it the hard way. So I'll still take his advice on this over yours - more so because he lost whilst using the same argument as you are now.

[Mr_Parker]

Passerby - you've misssed the whole point here.

We don't need any approval from the IFA to play in the LOI.

All we need from the IFA is to be members of them, as clubs have to be registered within their own footballing jurisdiction. And the IFA won't be able to deny us membership - or certainly not on spurious grounds like attempting to stop us form playing in another league. If any two-bit local pub team that meets the basic footballing criteria is granted IFA membership, they'd need a pretty damn good reason to deny it to us even if they wanted to..

So the IFA role in all of this is completely incidental.

Good to hear that you won't be seeking to transfer Derry City's IFA membership. 'directly or indirectly.' What name will you be registering?

[garyderry]

Good to hear that you won't be seeking to transfer Derry City's IFA membership. 'directly or indirectly.' What name will you be registering?

Its not any of you concern is it, as we are FAI club.

[passerrby]

Passerby - you've misssed the whole point here.

We don't need any approval from the IFA to play in the LOI.

All we need from the IFA is to be members of them, as clubs have to be registered within their own footballing jurisdiction. And the IFA won't be able to deny us membership - or certainly not on spurious grounds like attempting to stop us form playing in another league. If any two-bit local pub team that meets the basic footballing criteria is granted IFA membership, they'd need a pretty damn good reason to deny it to us even if they wanted to..

So the IFA role in all of this is completely incidental.

dont think i have steve if you are a new club affilated to the ifa they can if they wish object to uefa for you to play outside there juristiction without there permission thats not to say they would be successful but they are well within there rights i would imagine.

[Mr_Parker]

Its not any of you concern is it, as we are FAI club.

No, you are/were an IFA club with dispenstion to play under the umbrella of the FAI.

[shantykelly]

and your point of concern with this is what exactly? seems to me all you want to do is spoil the party, as it were.

if the fai viewed monies owed to cliftonville as a footballing debt, a debt of honour if you will, then the new entity will have to square this away to get any chance of a licence being awarded. if however they dont, then ultimately cliftonville will have to join the line of creditors to wellvan enterprises, along with a not insubstantial number of derry supporters and local businesses. this to me is fairly clear cut, and it isnt up to the new club and its board to decide what is and isnt a footballing debt.

throwing the issue of affiliation/registration/jurisdiction into the mix is, from what i can see, mischief making on your part. you keep seeking answers on an internet forum, where experience really should have told by now that all you will get is arguments, lies, and a modicum of reasonable debate. to me, its a blatent attempt at a wind up which really wont work and for one simple reason - derry people have been ignoring belfast and its inhabitants as much as possible for a long time now. we've gotten very good at it.

[dcfcsteve]

Good to hear that you won't be seeking to transfer Derry City's IFA membership. 'directly or indirectly.' What name will you be registering?

I won't be registering anything.

I'm not sure what part you missed of me saying that this cyclical argument was pointless and I wouldn't be partaking in it anymore ?

So here's a crazy idea - why don't we all take a deeeeep breath, sit on our hands and.... wait for it..... just see what actually happens !?!? Then we can discuss something reall, not a makey uppey argument about something that the footballing authorities seem to have dramatically less concern about.

It's a crazy idea, granted - but it just might work...

[Celdrog]

What happens if the FAI give the new Derry a licence and the clubs in the Republic object?

[osarusan]

What happens if the FAI give the new Derry a licence and the clubs in the Republic object?

The world implodes, causing this thread to be locked.

[Mr_Parker]

and your point of concern with this is what exactly? seems to me all you want to do is spoil the party, as it were.

if the fai viewed monies owed to cliftonville as a footballing debt, a debt of honour if you will, then the new entity will have to square this away to get any chance of a licence being awarded. if however they dont, then ultimately cliftonville will have to join the line of creditors to wellvan enterprises, along with a not insubstantial number of derry supporters and local businesses. this to me is fairly clear cut, and it isnt up to the new club and its board to decide what is and isnt a footballing debt.

throwing the issue of affiliation/registration/jurisdiction into the mix is, from what i can see, mischief making on your part. you keep seeking answers on an internet forum, where experience really should have told by now that all you will get is arguments, lies, and a modicum of reasonable debate. to me, its a blatent attempt at a wind up which really wont work and for one simple reason - derry people have been ignoring belfast and its inhabitants as much as possible for a long time now. we've gotten very good at it.

My concern is two-fold. 1. Yes I would like to see Cliftonville get what is due to them and find it a bit rich for Derry fans to argue they are club 'a' on one hand and club 'b' on another in some sort of Mexican quick-step to use such cover when it suits. 2. I have a particular interest in how clubs, associations are constituted and how the various rules and articles are applied. Some people have a passion for cooking were as mine is for rule books. There is no attempt at a wind-up with Derry as my interest in such things is not unique to them, the Cork soap opera is much more interesting. As for Derry people ignoring Belfast, it would seem that not all your brethern share your thoughts given those Derry City fans who went along to support Donegal Celtic v Linfield on Saturday past.

I won't be registering anything.

I'm not sure what part you missed of me saying that this cyclical argument was pointless and I wouldn't be partaking in it anymore ?

So here's a crazy idea - why don't we all take a deeeeep breath, sit on our hands and.... wait for it..... just see what actually happens !?!? Then we can discuss something reall, not a makey uppey argument about something that the footballing authorities seem to have dramatically less concern about.

It's a crazy idea, granted - but it just might work...

How do you know the football authorities are not concerned about it?