Comical hypocrisy. I thought it was April Fool's Day, but not just yet.
That chap McKinley is quite clearly a buffoon. His past offerings haven't amounted to much either. Cheap journalism with a blatant bias.
The way he articulates that is very deceptive. The FAI aren't the only ones who "claim" that northern-borns are eligible (or "fair game", as he puts it, as if to suggest the FAI are encroaching on forbidden territory to poach animals) to play for Ireland. FIFA have affirmed and reiterated at least once or twice already. Likewise, there has been no "failure to make a satisfactory decision". FIFA's rules are clear, FIFA have emphasised that point and the just because the IFA are taking it thick and throwing their toys out of the pram, doesn't mean there's been no final decision made by FIFA. FIFA are satisfied; that's all that matters really. The CAS will uphold FIFA's rules as FIFA interprets them because there is only one way in which they can be interpreted.The on-going eligibility row with the Football Association of Ireland, who claim that northern-born players are fair game and qualify by birth to represent the Republic of Ireland, is heading for the Court of Arbitration for Sport in the coming months after the IFA’s frustration over FIFA’s failure to make a satisfactory decision over the issue reached breaking point.
Then, there are more unfounded and misleading claims about the FAI "going after them" by Beaglehole, as if it's all pull and grab-what-you-can from the FAI. More nonsense that only masks the uncomfortable truth that these players have come to the decision themselves that they just don't want to play for Northern Ireland.
You really could not make this stuff up.
aka 'We did not poach that player, we helped released him from the difficulties of his circumstance'
Beaglehole “When we found out Norwood was eligible for us we were told that he hadn’t particularly enjoyed his experience with England, so we made our approach."
Last week he announced that the Irish Cup Final was being postponed for two weeks. This appeared in the first edition and online but was quickly withdrawn as it was pointed out that it didn't have any substance. However he is by far not the worst on this topic. That crown goes to Paul Ferguson who writes for the sister paper the Sunday Life. He has been peddling the same nonsense for years now and just doesn't get it, spouting unreseasearch GAWA claptrap usual sorced from OWC.Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Beaglehole said:OK, I can understand that Beaglehole may not appreciate having the wool pulled over his poor wee eyes, but ultimately, it's the player's choice and he can't really be justifiably angry. If Magnay was eligible for another country other than the Republic, would he be 'very angry' if he opted for them? Or is it just because it's the Republic?"Carl told me he didn’t have the passion to play for Northern Ireland that he would if it was England. I asked him if he’d been approached by the Republic, but he denied that and I’ll be very angry if that’s where he ends up."
Beaglehole said:This is an absolutely idiotic comment. In fact, one might go as far as to say that it's a complete lie*. It's just another way of claiming that the FAI are 'poaching', depicting them as a seedy character sneaking around and stealing the best players - which isn't the case at all. The fact is the Republic don't have to 'go for' anyone; the players that have currently declared have done so themselves and almost every one of them has come out and said that it was always a dream to represent the Republic. This outrage captures the refusal to acknowledge the situation for what it is. He claims that it 'makes everyone angry'. Sorry Steve, but that's international football. It's in the rules. I wonder does he consider his recruitment policy for NI as poaching? Following his accusatory language, he must realise he has 'stolen' players from England, like Norwood et al."The Republic don’t go for these lads when they are 16, it’s only when they’ve played for us and they see that they’re good enough they go after them and it makes everyone angry."
*Point of information Beaglehole: Patrick McEleney, among others, declared for Ireland at around 16, when the only NI games he had played were schooboy level.
I suppose I shouldn't be taking the man too seriously, after all, this is the guy who came out in the national press and publicly lambasted his U21s after their defeat to Iceland. He insisted that some of the players would never play again. A terrible thing to say - shifting all blame onto the kids, some of whom were still only 17. Great professionalism there huh?
Last edited by Predator; 01/04/2010 at 1:47 PM.
That's an interesting observation actually. The way Beaglehole phrases that might suggest he'd be angrier for the player to end up playing with us more than anything else. Seemingly it would be more tolerable if he ended up playing for England or no international side at all, as long as he didn't represent us beggars. That would be just the ultimate sin! I'd argue that it's indicative of an unhealthy and paranoid keeping-up-with-the-Joneses-type mindset prevalent within Northern Irish football that is obsessed with what's happening south of the border. He, along with many others, needs to get it into his head that his players are not being stolen.
Indeed. He's either delusional or it's another curtain of deception. The FAI aren't waiting around on the sidelines and then snatching the IFA's crème de la crème, and certainly not for the mere sake of snatching the IFA's crème de la crème. There has been plenty of Northern Irish talent whom the FAI haven't "gone after" because there's been plenty of Northern Irish talent that hasn't expressed any interest in representing Ireland. They're offering an opportunity to play for Ireland to those players who wish to represent Ireland and happen to be good enough to do so. It's not some active effort to **** the IFA over here. The FAI are offering players the very same choice that the IFA are offering. Some happen to prefer the choice offered by the FAI and they're entirely within their rights to do so and act on it.This is an absolutely idiotic comment. In fact, one might go as far as to say that it's a complete lie.
The case with the CAS will go nowhere. The IFA are asking the CAS to ensure that FIFA uphold their own statutes, which, of course, FIFA have been doing and re-affirming for some time now.
I'll explain in more detail below, but the IFA's case, presumably - because I can't see how else they might begin arguing that northern-born Irish nationals aren't eligible to play for Ireland - is that Irish nationality allows players to represent two associations - either the FAI or the IFA - thereby invoking article 16 of the FIFA statutes on eligibility (quoted below). Of course, this isn't the case at all as a Dublin or Cork-born Irish national has no entitlement to represent Northern Ireland, but I imagine that they are basing their belief that they can convince the CAS to over-rule FIFA's interpretation of their own statutes on the fact that they permit northern-born players in possession of Irish passports to represent Northern Ireland. Of course, whilst these players might possess Irish passports and Irish nationality - nationality is not dependent on holding a passport, by the way - they are actually exercising their simultaneously-held British nationality by birth to represent Northern Ireland.
Officially-speaking, you can still hold an Irish passport if born in Northern Ireland despite also being a British national. Northern Ireland fans can talk of this "ironically" being the “intolerant” position and can moan about how it falls foul of the rhetoric and aspirations of the Good Friday Agreement, but these are indisputable facts and you can't have intolerant facts; only intolerant opinions. A passport is just a form of identification, as far as FIFA are concerned. Or a form of proof of nationality, if needs be, although I'd imagine a birth certificate or other relevant documents would similarly satisfy as proof of nationality. Of course, people born in Northern Ireland don't have to identify as British nationals either – despite automatically being so by birth - but in representing Northern Ireland, they would be exercising that nationality. If Irish nationality did indeed entitle players to represent Northern Ireland, that would invoke article 16 from FIFA's statutes relating to player eligibility, which I have already mentioned and quoted below. Irish nationality entitles Irish nationals to do no such thing, obviously, but the IFA appear to think that this is actually the article that ought to apply in these “defection” cases.
These are all the articles relevant to player eligibility for representative teams:
I'll deal with article 15 now for the moment. To put that article in language relevant to the situation here, it would read: “Any person holding permanent Irish nationality that is not dependent on residence in Ireland is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of Ireland; the FAI.”VII. ELIGIBILITY TO PLAY FOR REPRESENTATIVE TEAMS
15 Principle
1. Any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country is eligible to play for the representative teams of the Association of that country.
2. With the exception of the conditions specified in article 18 below, any Player who has already participated in a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition of any category or any type of football for one Association may not play an international match for a representative team of another Association.
16 Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association
1. 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 territory of the relevant Association;
(b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(d) He has lived continuously on the territory of the relevant Association for at least two years.
2. Regardless of par. 1 above, Associations sharing a common nationality may make an agreement under which item (d) of par. 1 of this article is deleted completely or amended to specify a longer time limit. Such agreements shall be lodged with and approved by the Executive Committee.
17 Acquisition of a new nationality
Any Player who refers to art. 15 par. 1 to assume a new nationality and who has not played international football in accordance with art. 15 par. 2 shall be eligible to play for the new representative team only if he fulfils one of the following conditions:
(a) He was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(b) His biological mother or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(c) His grandmother or grandfather was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
(d) He has lived continuously for at least five years after reaching the age of 18 on the territory of the relevant Association.
18 Change of Association
1. If a Player has more than one nationality, or if a Player acquires a new nationality, or if a Player is eligible to play for several representative teams due to nationality, he may, only once, request to change the Association for which he is eligible to play international matches to the Association of another country of which he holds nationality, subject to the following conditions:
(a) He has not played a match (either in full or in part) in an official competition at “A” international level for his current Association, and at the time of his first full or partial appearance in an international match in an official competition for his current Association, he already had the nationality of the representative team for which he wishes to play.
(b) He is not permitted to play for his new Association in any competition in which he has already played for his previous Association.
2. If a Player who has been fielded by his Association in an international match in accordance with art. 15 par. 2 permanently loses the nationality of that country without his consent or against his will due to a decision by a government authority, he may request permission to play for another Association whose nationality he already has or has acquired.
3. Any Player who has the right to change Associations in accordance with par. 1 and 2 above shall submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat. The Players’ Status Committee shall decide on the request. The procedure will be in accordance with the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber. Once the Player has filed his request, he is not eligible to play for any representative team until his request has been processed.
That's pretty clearcut. There is no way in which Irish nationality might permit someone to represent Northern Ireland as the IFA is not the association of Ireland. The CAS will interpret FIFA's rules in the same way FIFA do. I simply cannot see how they might be interpreted in any other way. Article 15.1 above there is what enables northern-borns to represent Ireland as they are persons "holding a permanent [Irish] nationality that is not dependent on residence in [Ireland]". Their Irish nationality is a birthright, so it's all pretty clear and obvious. Nothing ambiguous about that.
Meanwhile, article 15.2 there doesn't apply to players like Gibson and Duffy who've already represented Northern Ireland at under-age level internationally as article 18 permits players to change association once if they have yet to play in official competition at “A” level, just so long as they held the nationality of the country to which they seek to change before representing, say, Northern Ireland. Of course, Irish nationality is a birthright of all those born in Northern Ireland, so Gibson and Duffy are deemed Irish from birth (Duffy's father is also an Irish national born in the territory of the FAI anyway). So, that satisfies the rules applying to a change of association and the likes of Gibson or Duffy fall foul of nothing in the statute there as it doesn't apply to them by way of the exception in article 18.
(I'll continue this in the following post as there appears to be a character limit.)
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 02/04/2010 at 7:59 AM.
(Continued...)
Article 17 confuses me slightly – I don't understand how a player can refer to another article in the FIFA statutes to assume a new nationality, unless I'm misreading that - but I don't think it can apply here as it relates to those who acquire a new nationality (generally through ancestry, and, presumably, also through residency, although the explicit reference to article 15, which refers to nationality not dependent on residence, convolutes it a bit and perplexes me; maybe someone could help clarify what is meant by the reference to article 15 for me?). Those born in the north are not assuming a new nationality seeing as dual nationality is a birthright. One cannot acquire a certain nationality at any point in their life if it is already assumed that they have possessed that nationality from birth once they have acted or made it known they wish to exercise it. (See section 6 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Acts 1956 to 2004: http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/conso...dationINCA.pdf)
I assume that performing “any act that only an Irish citizen is entitled to do” would be to do something like apply for an Irish passport. Of course, as mentioned, even if a person has not, say, applied for an Irish passport, it will not be consequently assumed that this person isn't Irish, nor will it be assumed that this person somehow wasn't Irish until they might have performed this act.Citizenship by birth in the island of Ireland
6.—(1) Subject to section 6A (inserted by section 4 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004), every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen.
(2) (a) Subject to subsection (5), a person who is entitled under subsection (1) to be an Irish citizen shall be an Irish citizen from the date of his or her birth if—
(i) he or she does any act that only an Irish citizen is entitled to do, or
(ii) in the case of a person who is not of full age or who is suffering from a mental incapacity, any act is done on his or her behalf that only an Irish citizen is entitled to do.
(b) The fact that a person so born has not done, or has not had done on his or her behalf, such an act shall not of itself give rise to a presumption that the person is not an Irish citizen or is a citizen of another country.
That leaves us with article 16. The purpose of article 16 is to distinguish what players can play for what association in jurisdictions such as the UK where there exists a single nationality but more than one “national association”. In the case of the UK, there is an association representing each constituent country. There are no English, Northern Irish, Scottish or Welsh nationalities; just a single, all-encompassing British nationality. If there was a British team, both David Healy and David Beckham, for example, would be entitled to represent it. Seeing as there is more than one association within the UK, however, a link to the specific territory of a particular association satisfying one of the four mentioned criteria is required to play for whichever particular association a player wishes to represent.
As for claims that the nationality of northern-borns permits them to play for more than one association, they demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the concept of nationality. There is no single nationality “Irish-British” or "British-Irish" that would enable such. If a northern-born does indeed hold Irish nationality along with British nationality, both are treated as two distinct nationalities. He holds “dual nationality” - two separate nationalities concomitantly - or “multiple citizenship” (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_nationality); not some single combined amalgamation that creates some new morphed nationality with cross-over rights and whatnot. By exercising his British nationality, he can represent Northern Ireland, and by exercising his birthright to Irish nationality, he can represent Ireland. A player cannot represent more than one association on account of his Irish nationality.
And so, I think that covers every possible angle, ha. Obviously, that's my reading of it all and, by this point, I'm just seeing blocks of words on a page that give me a headache I've re-read this so many times to ensure I'm making consistent sense, but if anyone can see any discrepancies, thinks I've got something wrong or could clarify or articulate something better, I'd be grateful if they'd point it out or do so. I think I've probably repeated myself quite a bit as well; apologies. It's just difficult to get your head around the way some things are worded.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 02/04/2010 at 7:56 AM.
It is not that the player refers to article 15, it is article 17 applies to players who already qualify under article 15 to play for an association and are now acquiring a second/new nationality to qualify to play for the association of their acquired/new nationality.
Ah, I see. Cheers. I assumed that is what it meant but ended up over-complicating matters and getting bogged down in how it was expressed.
This is getting hilarious. They're lashing out at England for trying to get English-born players to switch allegiances back from NI.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14748583.html
Glad it amuses you, but this is a non-story. Norwood can't play for England at any level unless and until the rules are changed again (as he's already moved once); England aren't bothered about the rules as they stand; Hodson isn't going to get in the England U-21 set up from a struggling Watford side.
Er, we know. It's their Hypocrisy.....
I'm just wondering, under what specific types of circumstance might or might not article 17 come into play? Presumably assuming a new nationality refers to acquiring a nationality that takes effect from the moment of acquisition at any point in a player's life, whether he's aged, say, 10, or in the middle of his career at 25? Is this correct? If an entitled northern-born player is deemed an Irish national from birth upon the performance of an act only an Irish person can do, he can't be deemed to be acquiring a new nationality if the retroactive assumption of the legislation is that he was always Irish in the first place. However, if the nature of conferring Irish nationality to northern-born persons was different, might article 17 come into play? Would it come into play, for example, if Irish nationality was only assumed from the date of acquisition (can this be considered a permanent nationality?) rather than from the date of birth?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 03/04/2010 at 3:01 PM.
It doesn't matter when the player acquires the new nationality. What matter re his eligibilty to play for his new association is that he further satisfies the criteria outlined in the rest of article 17.
The criteria was set out like that to prevent say Brazilians being eligible to play for a new association after receiving a gift of a (fast tracked) passport in the post.
Article 17 is the main article under which our diaspora qualify.
,If an entitled northern-born player is deemed an Irish national from birth upon the performance of an act only an Irish person can do
what act only an irish person can do? give birth?
As you have stated, he is a dual national at birth, his eligibility dates to the time he pops out at birth and lands safely.he can't be deemed to be acquiring a new nationality if the retroactive assumption of the legislation is that he was always Irish in the first place
He is a dual national from birth which means he is an Irish national from birth.
However, if the nature of conferring Irish nationality to northern-born persons was different, might article 17 come into play? Would it come into play, for example, if Irish nationality was only assumed from the date of acquisition (can this be considered a permanent nationality?) rather than from the date of birth?
His choice to be recognised as an irish Irish national, say acquiring an irish passport, is not under any circumstances to be regarded as acquiring a new nationality.
The legislation specifies that a person born on the island of Ireland will be deemed an Irish citizen from birth if they perform an act that only an Irish person may carry out at any point during their life. I imagine this amounts to doing something like applying for an Irish passport. This does not presume, however, that anyone who doesn't carry out such an act isn't Irish by birth.what act only an irish person can do? give birth?
No worries then.As you have stated, he is a dual national at birth, his eligibility dates to the time he pops out at birth and lands safely.
His choice to be recognised as an irish Irish national, say acquiring an irish passport, is not under any circumstances to be regarded as acquiring a new nationality.
Surely you can see the deep irony.
I hope he can but is just too embarrassed to admit it.
I'm thinking of Elmer Fudd shooting himself in the foot with this latest story. Cue a retraction of sorts and everything with the mother association is tutti bene. As for EG and the rest of the Areweacountry? babies seeing the irony, forget it! They're far too thick to figure that out.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
I don't do irony (nor does the BellyLaugh, it's just predictably stirring). But you're right, it is embarrassing as I said early on in the thread.
Surely not: merely being born in Ireland, then applying for an Irish passport doesn't guarantee that you'll ever get one, let alone have its status backdated to birth. Remember, you (plural) voted by an overwhelming majority in 2004 not to give automatic citizenship to everyone born in Ireland. Effectively all your (personal) statement quoted above is saying is 'if you prove you're an Irish citizen by being one then you can er, be one'. It's a bit vague, not to mention restrictive.
Last edited by Gather round; 03/04/2010 at 9:33 PM.
Surely you mean you mean you don't do ironing.....
Yeah right, like the Brits give passports to everyone who wants them.....They've kicked out a more than a few born there.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks