Eligibility Rules, Okay

[Drumcondra 69er]

Cheers for that earlier Danny, all sorted. Your PM folder is full btw.

[DannyInvincible]

Were FIFA going to open up a potentially much bigger headache for themselves, just to deal with Irish Nationality, and angry Irish Nationalists?

A: I doubt it very much - I suspect they'd have expected their "global" eligibility rules to apply, when the dust settled.

Were FIFA talking out of their hoop when making their ill thought out nonsensical suggestion of a solution?

A: Yes. I suspect they wanted to be seen to be "helpful".

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?

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.

[Not Brazil]

At the time of the compromise in 2007, the eligibility rules were scattered around various pages and maybe it was possible to make a separate agreement and have it annexed to the statutes.
In 2008 came a shift in FIFA's approach and every eligibility rule was incorporated into the statutes.
Maybe what was possible to do in 2007 is not possible since then.

There is not a snowball in hells chance of an agreement being imposed on an association without their volition and the FAI are not going to settle for less than basic article 5 eligibility for all players born on the island and all first generation born anywhere.

Which eligibility rules, salient to the Irish dispute, were "scattered around various pages" in November 2007?

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"

That wasn't going to happen, mo chara.

[geysir]

Which eligibility rules, salient to the Irish dispute, were "scattered around various pages" in November 2007?

May 2008 was proposed the following alterations which were passed in June 2008

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.

Fact is, the relevant eligibility rules were contained on ONE page - page 60.

Not so, fact!

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"

That wasn't going to happen, mo chara.

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.
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.

[Not Brazil]

It would indeed have defied logic and equality, but the 2007 proposal clearly wasn't rooted in such notions

Hence the can of worms, much bigger than an "Irish dispute", being opened.

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.

[Not Brazil]

May 2008 was proposed the following alterations which were passed in June 2008

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.

No need for your veneer of irrelevancy.

[geysir]

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.

I would have considered article 16 was salient, certainly the IFA thought so.

No need for your veneer of irrelevancy

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.

[CraftyToePoke]

No need for your veneer of irrelevancy.

Every now and again the mask slips.

[Not Brazil]

I would have considered article 16 was salient, certainly the IFA thought so.

Don't think so, mo chara.

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.

[Not Brazil]

Every now and again the mask slips.

What "mask" is that crafty?

Have you anything sensible, or relevant, to add to the discussion?

[CraftyToePoke]

What "mask" is that crafty?

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.

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.

[Not Brazil]

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.

What did you think I meant ?

I didn't know what you meant Crafty, that's why I asked you what you meant.

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.

[geysir]

Don't think so, mo chara.

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.

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.

[geysir]

I didn't know what you meant Crafty, that's why I asked you what you meant.

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. .

Please find one example of a personal insults I have made in this thread, a thread of 195 pages where we have been active enough
(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.

[Not Brazil]

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.

You're all confused again.

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.

[Not Brazil]

(Ealing Green excepted, he´s fair game).

You answered your own question, before I could be arsed looking further.

You're the gift that just keeps giving.

[geysir]

You're all confused again.

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 can't spot the difference?


FIFA Statutes 2007

1. 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:
   
   
   1. (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.
      
   2. (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:

1. (a) he was born on the territoryof the relevant Association;
   
2. (b) his biological mother
   or biological father was born on the territory of the relevant Association;
   
3. (c) his grandmother orgrandfather was bornon the territory of the relevant Association;
   
4. (d) he has lived on the territory of the relevantAssociation for at least two years without interruption.
   

[Not Brazil]

[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?

[Closed Account]

You can't spot the difference?

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?

[Not Brazil]

No difference?

Big difference, as it transpires.