QuoteJust looking at that CAS site and there doesn't seem to be any date for a hearing yet. I wonder when the hearing will actually take place, given that the IFA have kicked up enough of a fuss already since the announcement of Duffy's decision.
Indeed, what puzzles me is how the IFA can think they have any chance with their case. As far as I'm aware, the IFA have gone to CAS in relation to articles 15 and 16 of the FIFA statutes. I would assume, then, that CAS can only arbitrate over the dispute with regard to the interpretation these articles. I don't imagine it can operate outside these statutes or apply new rules of its own to override them if the IFA has requested that these are the ones they look at.Originally Posted by co. down green
Is this relevant from the CAS site?
WHAT LAW DO THE ARBITRATORS APPLY ?
In the context of ordinary arbitration, the parties are free to agree on the law applicable to the merits of the dispute. Failing such agreement, Swiss law applies.
In the context of the appeals procedure, the arbitrators rule on the basis of the regulations of the body concerned by the appeal and, subsidiarily, the law of the country in which the body is domiciled. The procedure itself is governed by the Code of Sports-related Arbitration.
Just looking at that CAS site and there doesn't seem to be any date for a hearing yet. I wonder when the hearing will actually take place, given that the IFA have kicked up enough of a fuss already since the announcement of Duffy's decision.
Lopez called it right, the Star report is bollíx.
However Delaney got it wrong earlier
Delaney confident
"but I’m hopeful that CAS will support us,” he added. “They’ve already done that during the week by allowing Daniel to play for us. So it’s as you were until it’s heard in CAS.”
CAS have nothing to do with allowing Kearns to play. FIFA allow the player to play because the IFA's objection is not recognised by FIFA as having any merit.
Everything is the same as it ever was.
In fact, I don't think FIFA even have to go CAS and throw themselves at the mercy of CAS arbitration. The FIFA statute allows a dissatisfied member one month or so, to appeal a decision with CAS.
We all know that time period has elapsed.
FIFA can just tell the IFA to go and do what we would all like them to go and do.
Has it even been confirmed yet whether CAS will grant a hearing? Can one be granted if the time period has elapsed?
So far it is only the IFA who have confirmed that they intend to go to the CAS.
Delaney appears to indicate that he has been informed of something when he says he thinks the CAS hearing will happen in the next few months.
The IFA could, on their own bat, request an advisory opinion from the CAS which is not binding.
FIFA are not obliged to submit to arbitration.
According to CAS
"For a dispute to be submitted to arbitration by the CAS, the parties must agree to this in writing. Such agreement may be on a one-off basis or appear in a contract or the statutes or regulations of a sports organization. Parties may agree in advance to submit any future dispute to arbitration by the CAS, or they can agree to have recourse to the CAS after a dispute has arisen."
But should FIFA agree to arbitration, then the CAS judgement is binding.
AFAIAA the CAS follow Swiss law. For instance should one of the eligibility statutes be found to have an unclear wording then it has to be interpreted against FIFA.
Unclear wording would be any ambiguity or unclear provisions in the eligibility statutes.
The IFA have no real case with their objections to FIFA interpretation and application of article 15 and 16.
So what's the worst that can happen?
The worst is that FIFA are forced to change the wording of one of the eligibility statutes.
CAS just give a binding interpretation of the statutes as they are written.
The CAS have no power to force FIFA to adopt different rules of eligibility.
Perhaps the CAS don't see Paranoia as an 'argument'.....
There was a small piece by Paul Rowan, regarding this ongoing saga, in The Sunday Times.
I can't find a link, so I've just typed it.
IFA court bid to stop exodus to South
Football authorities in Belfast have vowed to continue their legal battle to stop players born in the North playing for the Republic of Ireland, despite receiving a serious setback at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, in Lausanne.
It's emerged that the IFA made legal representations to the court to stop Belfast-born player Daniel Kearns playing for the Republic of Ireland U19 team against Poland on April 8th, though no announcement was made at the time and their bid was rejected. Kearns played in the game and scored the winning goal in a 1-0 victory for the Republic.
"We can confirm that representations were made to the court regarding Daniel Kearns," the IFA said in a statment to The Sunday Times, before confirming that their efforts would continue. "We have submitted our appeal brief to CAS, and we will argue it there."
What is become increasingly clear is how much this case is revolving around Kearns, the 18 year-old West ham reserve team player, rather than more high-profile defectors such as Darron Gibson of Manchester United, Portmouth's Marc Wilson and Shane Duffy of Everton, who are now members of the senior Republic of Ireland squad. However, unlike Duffy for instance, it is belived none of Kearns' immediate relatives were born in the Republic.
FAI chief executive John Delaney has said he has been contacted by players born in the North who "have come to me and said they won't ever play for Northern Ireland. One player was always going to be the test case for going to CAS and Daniel Kearns is that."
IFA chief executive Patrick Nelson refused to comment and while the two associations are keen to stress that relations are good, it is clear that the issue is causing tension behind the scenes. The anxiety is most keenly felt in the North where there is anger that resources are wasted on players who go on to play for the Republic and concern that the situation may worsen if their legal steps fail.
CAS says an announcement of a hearing date will be made "in due course."
I'd love to know the details of their bid to stop Kearns from playing. I wonder why no one knew about it? What's more, can you imagine if they had succeeded? I doubt Kearns would have been too happy. Do you think he'd have represented NI again?
Cheers for that.
Details are still a bit vague though. Are the IFA now at appeal stage then? The article mentions that an announcement of a hearing date will be made in "due course", but was/were the "bid"/"representations" that was/were rejected turned down as part of a first hearing or what? What exactly does a "bid"/"representations" mean?
Also, even if CAS were to decide that Kearns wasn't eligible to represent us, am I correct in thinking that he wouldn't be able to switch back to Northern Ireland, having already made one switch?
On a side-note, I wonder does Shane Duffy even know that he's a senior international squad-member now? :P
Thanks for typing that out Fly.
It does not appear that FIFA have agreed to arbitration, which is their prerogative.
Anyway, CAS can do f all, except look for an uncrossed t in the statutes.
All FIFA would have to do is cross the t.
Wouldn't bother me, it's the principal of it. He could never play another International game again for all I care.
It REALLY gets on my tits when players defect. Kearns has played for us at youth level, if he was never interested in playing for us proper the IFA should have dumped him out on his hole years ago so that he didn't waste our time and effort.
FFS, he lad has played AGAINST the Republic and scored for us AGAINST the republic. What a waste of space, effort and money he was.
I fully support the IFA fighting this. Yes, players have a right to play for the republic, but the republic is ripping the ass out of it, waiting until WE develop players and then sticking their arm in. If you want players, take them before they play for us. I have no problem with players shifting sides if they at least have the decency to do it before playing for NI at youth level.
I think you're overestimating the "space, effort and money." It would have cost the same amount of money whether he was in the squad or not and surely he paid back the time and effort (if not the money too) with goals and performances. I mean, when you break up with your girlfriend (this is not a prediction or a promise), do you demand your money and effort back, or do you dwell on the betrayal and what could have been? I can understand NI fans feeling let down or taken a bit for mugs, but they should just come out and admit it instead of dragging up all this "money invested" hokum.
Have you penned a strongly worded letter to the IFA about their 'acquisition' of England youth internationals Oliver Norwood & Ryan Blake?
I don't support that either. Players should play for the country they are born in. I know we have players playing now who are dodgy, but I'd rather we didn't.
We are being taken for mugs. Guys like Kearns think they can hitch onto our youth system and then sod off elsewhere. People like that need a good boot up the hole and need to waken up. We aren't interested in you if you aren't interested in us, so if you want to play for the ROI they should sod off to play for the ROI and never put on a NI shirt.
I suggest you contact the IFA forthwith and demand the removal of your 80+ capped goalkeeper Maik Taylor!!
The IFA's situation isn't so "special" that it's the only association in the world to suffer from "defections". It happens all over the world. Oh, and just to keep you straight as regards footballing etiquette and nomenclature, what you sulkingly dub a "defection" is generally referred to as a "change of association" by FIFA and the rest of the global footballing community. Just so you don't feel left out of the big party... ;-)
Vague, unquantifiable balderdash, if not just downright suspect anyway.What a waste of space, effort and money he was.
Out of interest, how do you rate the case's chances? I genuinely don't mean to sound sarcastic or overly incredulous, but are Northern Ireland fans actually optimistic?I fully support the IFA fighting this.
It's either a right or it isn't. You either take advantage of that right or you don't. There's no such thing as "ripping the ass out of it".Yes, players have a right to play for the republic, but the republic is ripping the ass out of it, waiting until WE develop players and then sticking their arm in.
Even so, you're still overstating the FAI's use of this right. At what point do you deem a player "developed"? You're basing your argument on more unverifiable and wishy-washy claptrap. Gibson, for example, was playing under the auspices of the FAI from under-17 level. You couldn't claim you developed him into the player he is today by then, surely? As of yet, he's the only "defector" to turn out for our senior team. How many "defectors" have there been in total? Hardly "ripping the ass out" of anything. Even if you could somehow rip the ass out of a perfectly legitimate entitlement!
Once again, the IFA aren't the only association to suffer from "defections". It's all part and parcel of the modern game worldwide as per FIFA's current statutes. Maybe the IFA should look into petitioning FIFA for a rule-change. Your argument suggests that these players will owe something to the IFA if they turn out for them and then happen to switch association elsewhere at a future date. Maybe you should be thankful these players offered their services at all. I'm not so sure what else you can say they owe the IFA beyond that? At what point would you consider the IFA's investment in a player as being "repaid" so as to free him from the shackles of servitude?If you want players, take them before they play for us. I have no problem with players shifting sides if they at least have the decency to do it before playing for NI at youth level.
In fact, don't the IFA actually benefit from "defections" from elsewhere?
Wait... so you want the IFA to fight this, but you also want him to sod off and play for the FAI? Those are quite difficult standards to live up to.
And that's that? Says you and a couple of others who aren't taken at all seriously in world football. That statement is so at odds with FIFA's current statutes, it's difficult to entertain.
I'd assume all these lads want to play for their country, why else would they bother.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks