QuoteThey might as well do. It's not as if they're doing anything more productive with their time...
I wasn't aware the FAI was talking to players in the full NI squad.
They might as well do. It's not as if they're doing anything more productive with their time...
You must think this is limited to Brady lurched lecherously out the FAI van window waving a bag of sweets in hand for the kids? These hawks (and those no longer even under their official employment) will stop at nothing. Not even already-tied players are off-bounds.Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
Ho hum. In seriousness, I can only assume that's a misguided reference to James McClean who pulled out of their senior squad around the time he signed for Sunderland whilst expressing an intent to challenge for a place in our squad as his reasoning. To who else could it be a reference?
Thing is, Niall Quinn confirmed during a 'Late Late Show' appearance in March that it was McClean and family who subsequently asked those at Sunderland to act as medium in conveying the player's interest to the FAI. As if it should make a difference anyway so long as a player makes a free and voluntary decision...
Indeed, it does.
This one's a real Christmas cracker:
As if a complete failure to grasp the role/jurisdiction of the CAS - hello, it's FIFA who legislate for world football - and a total fabrication of some alleged prior issue of the court's with the FAI is not enough to amuse, the glaring and exceptional irony that the UK, one country, has four teams - the team he supports, of course, being one of those teams - somehow inexplicably appears to escape him. The FAI operate identically to every other association - who are similarly entitled to select eligible nationals from outside of their jurisdiction - and do not represent "two nations or straddle an international border". He should probably do his homework on the state's official title too if he's gonna try and get pernickity about it... As for the infantile threat; priceless. Santa's impending visit must have gone to the youngfella's head!I have been curious about something for a while.
Firstly does the Court of Arbitration for Sport cover all sports and is its decision final?
Secondly - and if the former is the case: do they not rule on what constitutes an international country in sport. I think I have read somewhere where they took ROI to task many years ago for referring to their team as Ireland (and of course rightly so because it is not Ireland).
Would they allow Spain and Portugal to form one international team? Would they allow Kosovo to become part of the Albanian team? Would they allow Basque to form its own team? I would have thought the answer to all those questions would be NO, and that the basis for that answer would be that they can only recognise international borders and that it would be chaos if there were grey areas on this.
I can find no other international team in the world that represents two nations or straddles an international border - bar of course, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Could some bright spark, with a little bit of money or the necessary legal letters after their name, not take a case to CAS on say the hockey or rugby teams which represent the two countries, arguing that they have no right to do so.
When you Google to try and get an explanation as to why the Ireland rugby team represents two countries, the explanations are farcical and comical - I think just waiting to be tested.
This of course has nothing to do with who represents any particular country, and of course given the current situation, if ROI had its own hockey team then clearly players from OWC could still represent it.
I do though think that since they are working by the letter of the law then that should be extended to what they call their teams and what their jurisdiction is. (Of course I would also love to see Northern Ireland represented in all sports). I would also just like to scare the crap out of them that they may have opened a can of worms by poaching our footballers
I'm sure someone will be able to tell me that there is some obvious reason I am missing why ROI can do this and e.g. Albania cannot (Surely the likes of Albania absorbing Kosovo would have an even stronger case than ROI absorbing NI as 90+% plus of the Kosovo population would support it, presumably along with 100% of the Albanian population, not to mention that they are ethnically/religiously/etc brothers)
Some more turkey and whine?...
CAS said nothing of the sort, of course; a rather severe, misinformed and now-timeworn instance of cherrypicking, that. And still blathering about loopholes? Where has this guy been? A Jihadist parapet?! Irish-American media hype?! It'd knock the stuffing out of you, but this sense of fantasy is not just limited to Christmas time... Bless.If I recall correctly, Albania can and does. At some stage recently, I was reading an article saying 7 out of the 11 starting line-up of the Albanian side were Kosovan. They don't really qualify under any FIFA rule but Serbia, one presumes, doesn't want the hassle and FIFA certainly doesn't want to stick its head above a Jihadist parapet by getting involved if it doesn't have to.
It's exactly the same with our situation. The CAS has said it's unfair, but FIFA knows that it will bring down a sh*tstorm of FAI, Irish nationalist and ill-informed Irish-American media hype if it closes the loophole. Whereas Boycie will keep advising the IFA to bend over, to protect Boycie's cushy FIFA number, so nothing will ever get done to help us.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 19/12/2012 at 8:37 AM.
Good god, not the rugby and hockey teams are safe anymore.
Priceless.
Loving the seasonal twist!'turkey and whine'
Some of those people are seriously deluded...
The strangest analogies ever.
Apparently, playing in the Beach Soccer World Cup can cap-tie a player to an association: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20782436
Fifa has awarded Niger a 3-0 win in a 2014 World Cup qualifier because Gabon fielded an ineligible player.
Football's world governing body ruled Charly Moussono was ineligible because he represented Cameroon at the 2006 Beach Soccer World Cup.
As a consequence Fifa overturned the original 0-0 result from the match, which was played in Niamey in June.
And Fifa confirmed on Wednesday its decision would stand after Gabon failed to file a proper appeal.
FIFA only recognised the Beach championships since 2005. Tough break.
Reminds me of the case of Paul Warwick who's tied to Australia despite only playing for the Australia Sevens side.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Here's the response to that of someone we all know well from the earlier days of this thread before he scarpered mid-debate:Priceless.
Loving the seasonal twist!
Some of those people are seriously deluded...
The strangest analogies ever.
Still distorting the facts and as disingenuous as ever...Don't wish to drag this thread off-topic from "What constitutes a Country?" to the separate, if related, issue of Eligibility, but that is not how I think it works.
In very simplified terms, most National Associations correspond exactly with a sovereign country (exceptions are eg UK, Faroes, Hong Kong etc)
Therefore traditionally FIFA said that if you possess the Passport/Nationality of a given country, you may represent the football team of that country.
There were various anomalies concerning this, but these could happily be ignored, until Qatar and Cape Verde started giving out Passports/Nationality to Brazilians who were good enough to play professional football, but not good enough to represent the country of their birth. They then qualified to represent Qatar & Cape Verde.
Suddenly all the other African countries complained to FIFA, since they felt this put them at a serious disadvantage vis-a-vis Qatar/C.V. when it came to qualifying for the World Cup etc.
So FIFA rushed through an Amendment to their Rules to prevent this, basically stating that mere possession of a Passport/Nationality was insufficient, it had to be an automatic entitlement from birth. As it happens, they chose a strange construction to express this - "... a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country" - but Sepp Blatter confirmed the meaning at a meeting of the IFAB, when he referred to "birthright" etc.
Which, as far as FIFA was concerned, solved the problem, since far from giving out Passports willy-nilly to people from outwith their jurisdiction, countries are invariably very restrictive about just whom they grant Nationality to.
However.
There is one glaring exception to this general principle, namely the ROI who, solely for political reasons, are quite happy to give out PP's to their "diaspora" overseas, or those unfortunate enough to live under the yoke of British imperialist occupation in the unliberated 6 counties etc.
Now in principle, this anomaly runs contrary to the spirit of FIFA's eligibility provisions, as well as impinging on the IFA's sovereignty etc, a point noted by the CAS when adjudicating on the Gibson affair.
But the problem is not that the Irish lobby is influential, or capable of stirring up a sh1tstorm etc, it is quite the opposite. Namely, FIFA simply cannot be arsed dismantling and then re-writing their whole Rulebook for the sake of settling a dispute between two unimportant Members out of 207, when it works tolerably well for all their other Members and they can simply carry on regardless.
Therefore the only way we are likely to see FIFA moved to re-visit this topic is if a major Member Assocation (better still, a bloc of MA's) finds itself losing out in a similar way to the IFA, and kicks up a fuss. I don't see any signs of this happening, but I'd guess our best hope might rest with Japan and the 2 Koreas; maybe Russia and the former USSR countries; or possibly Kosovo/Serbia/former Yugoslavia? Israel/Palestine could conceivably cause problems, too.
P.S. As for Boyce, I have no confidence that he understands the issues at stake here, but even if he did, I'm sure it would make no difference, since he is clearly utterly unimportant to people like Blatter and Platini.
I know he still skims this thread, so I'd invite him to have a think about the following points/questions:
i) The conferral of citizenship by any state is an inherently political act.
ii) The extra-territorial conferral of citizenship by states is a fairly common principle in nationality law. Many confer it on a jus sanguinis basis; Ireland happens to confer it on a combined jus soli basis, as is perfectly legal and valid, especially considering its application has the explicit approval of the UK government (and NI electorate), over whose territory it applies. Turkey is another state that confers citizenship extra-territorially on a jus soli basis with the application of its nationality law over what it alone recognises as Northern Cyprus. Nevertheless, Muzzy Izzet and Colin Kazim-Richards were entitled to represent the Turkish national team as they possessed Turkish citizenship by virtue of their Northern Cypriot roots. Both examples - the FAI selecting northerners and Turkey selecting Northern Cypriots - fall under FIFA's general eligibility principle; that being the principle clearly outlined in regulation 5. They do not amount to exceptions or anomalies, as is claimed.
iii) Quite the contrary from "rushing" through statutory changes or certain realities running contrary to the imagined "spirit" of the statutes, FIFA consider and re-consider their statutes on a regular basis; there was no change in the actual text of regulation 5 (formerly regulation 15) between the 2012 and 2011 versions of FIFA's statutes. This, along with the fact they've consistently supported the FAI on the Irish eligibility question, would indicate that FIFA are of the opinion that the current criteria are functioning as intended, including with regard to the Irish situation. If FIFA genuinely sought to change the regulation concerned, there would be no need for them to feel hampered as suggested; far from it requiring a "dismantling" and "re-writing" of the "whole" statute book, an amendment would merely entail engaging in a fairly simple process that their legal department contently undertake on a regular basis, because that is their raison d'être, after all.
iv) How do FIFA's eligibility criteria impinge upon the sovereignty of the IFA, and where did CAS note that this was the case?
v) When did CAS adjudicate upon "the Gibson affair"?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 21/12/2012 at 6:08 AM.
Is that our friend from Ealing?
A quick search for the 'Fly educates Da North' thread will provide OWC members with ample explanation for questions raised in the "What constitutes a Country?" thread.
Are you encouraging him to reply here? are you off your rocker? Judging by that post you quoted, his dementia has taken root and spread.
He appears to revisit his 'reinvention of the premise of eligibility' that he once tried to spout here over a multitude of posts, only now he has become more rusty on facts, lost the thread of the eligibility timeline and rambles like a stoned monkey.
A stoned monkey with a knife...
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Was it that obvious?...
F*** no! I was merely inviting him to consider his position; I swear!
It's a pretty bizarre post. It's like he's fabricated this weathered narrative and stuck with it pigheadedly without regard for the conflicting evidence. At least he has imagination, I guess...
Ealing is still digesting Sullvinho's brilliant post of two years ago on the Paul George thread. TBH, I don't think we ever heard from him after that. Still have no idea what Sullivnho was on about, but loved it!
The thing is DI, unless you're a registered and 'vetted' member you can't get on the Big-guts Board...
So we're relying on you and The Fly with regards to your incognito presence!
My rotund spy tells me even our friend NB has left there, but would have no way of knowing...
And bizarrely find myself agreeing with the last 3 paragraphs of EG's post.
Though probably not for the same reasons!
I'm no longer a member. I received a suspension, for spurious reasons, which became an outright ban, for unknown reasons. Although, it's not hard to come up with an explanation for the latter.
If you look again at this paragraph you might find nothing to agree with, even FIFA has 209 members not 207And bizarrely find myself agreeing with the last 3 paragraphs of EG's post.
Though probably not for the same reasons!
"Namely, FIFA simply cannot be arsed dismantling and then re-writing their whole Rulebook for the sake of settling a dispute between two unimportant Members out of 207,"
It's not a dispute between "two unimportant Members", the FAI has no dispute with the rules. The IFA is in some dispute with FIFA about the rules. for the most part that dispute has been about the IFA misunderstanding of the rules. If the IFA still have a dispute, it's with FIFA.
Maybe FIFA don't want to change Article 5, because it's perfect, as Danny implied.
It recognises that nationality is what's at the heart of international representative football and ultimately it's the dual national players choice which one he/she identifies with.
The IFA will never, never, never, get FIFA to budge on this rule, The 'wee thought we were a country' brigade are as thick as two short planks and just refuse to comprehend how the dual national statelet is construed.
Furthermore, there is some uninformed guesswork as how the eligibility issue will pan if Kosovo manages to gain full FIFA membership, in regards to Albania and who will play for them and Kosovo.
This also a total crock, because the situation will pan out similar to how it panned out when FIFA accepted Bosnia, Macedonia, etc etc as new full members. The main FIFA rules of eligibility have managed to stay solid, be applicable and be acceptable, because they're perfectly constructed.
Aye, I wasn't being totally serious...
'Burkina Faso punished by FIFA': http://www.aljazeera.com/sport/footb...842149781.html
Burkina Faso have become the third African team to be docked points from their 2014 World Cup qualifying campaign as FIFA begin to get to grips with a spate of nationality cheating.
FIFA have awarded Congo a 3-0 victory after their 0-0 draw in June where Burkina Faso fielded Herve Zengue, a Cameroonian defender who they have controversially continued to use despite repeated questions over his ineligibility.
"The FIFA Disciplinary Committee has decided that the Burkina Faso FA has breached the disciplinary code on ineligibility," read a statement, adding the decision is subject to appeal and is not "final and binding."
"The match Burkina Faso v Congo of 2 June 2012 is declared to be lost by forfeit (0-3) by Burkina Faso, and the Burkina Faso FA have been fined 6,000 Swiss francs ($6,500)."
Namibia protests
Namibia protested late last year that Burkina Faso's use of Zengue in two 2012 African Nations Cup qualifying matches contravened rules on player eligibility.
They were seeking to be awarded the points from the games, which would have qualified them for the finals instead, but they lost their protest and appeal at the Confederation of African Football (CAF) and a subsequent bid for redress to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland.
Zengue did not qualify to play for Burkina Faso because he was not born in the country, had no blood ties with and had never lived in Burkina Faso, the losing protest said.
Burkina Faso said they had given Zengue a passport because he was married to a Burkinabe woman and then invited him to play for their national team.
In semi-related news, it appears Rory McIlroy may just sidestep the Olympics altogether: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013...pic-games-2016
Rory McIlroy has floated the possibility of not playing in the 2016 Olympic Games, so as to avoid conflict over which country he chooses to represent.
The world's No1 golfer, who is from Northern Ireland, faces a high-profile dilemma over whether to represent Great Britain or Ireland when the sport returns to the Olympic scene in three years' time. McIlroy is aware of the potential political repercussions of his decision, one he has admitted he is far from comfortable with making.
In a BBC documentary, to be screened on Thursday night, McIlroy said: "I just think being from where we're from, we're placed in a very difficult position. I feel Northern Irish and obviously being from Northern Ireland you have a connection to Ireland and a connection to the UK. If I could and there was a Northern Irish team, I'd play for Northern Ireland.
"Play for one side or the other – or not play at all because I may upset too many people. Those are my three options I'm considering very carefully."
Last year, McIlroy was involved in controversy when he claimed in one interview that he "felt more British than Irish".
Of those words, the 23-year-old added: "It was a moment, I don't want to say of weakness, but a moment of, I guess, frustration with it all."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks