I believe that the reason FIFA consider Barton to be eligible to play for (the RO) Ireland is that he has been entitled to Irish citizenship from birth- and didn't have to earn it through say, residency. I don't think he should be eligible either, because he's played for another association's senior side but FIFA make the rules and the FAI and Barton are fully within their rights.
I think most NI fans will agree he never seemed keen to represent NI anyway, openly stalling to get a chance with another association, so you're well rid of him imo.
Worthington should have accepted that the player wasn't fully committed and let him get on with his career, instead of offering him a 'carrot cap'. He did the exact same with Duffy when Duffy first showed a desire to represent the FAI, by catapulting him through the ranks.
Then again, you might argue that it has paid off in Shane Ferguson and Liam Boyce.
Really?Originally Posted by liamoo11
As I understand it, he left MU because he obtained a place, possibly on a scholarship, at Repton - one of the most prestigious Public Schools in England: http://www.repton.org.uk/ Repton is in the Midlands.
Moreover, since both his parents are Lecturers, I suspect that they are both keen to see that he maintain his education at least until he is 18 etc. And the lad himself has been quoted as pointing out that only 20% of 16 year olds who get offered their first contract at a club ever go on to establish a career in the game, so I'd say his head is pretty screwed on.
Which possibly explains to me why NW picks him so frequently i.e. he feels that if Gorman weren't trying to juggle his studies and his football, he's already be much further on with the latter.
Either that or he fancies his (NI-born) mother...
Slovenia (the team that we beat away), was ranked above ROI, too. Still is, in fact (17th). They had also qualified for the World Cup Finals a few months earlier.
But hey, you've still got until September before the 10th Anniversary of the last time you beat a decent ranked opponent in a competitive international...
I think you've stumbled upon the one argument more boring than the eligibility one.
Congratulations to young John for going to a nice Private fee paying school. I imagine if both his parents are lecturers they could afford his fees or as you say maybe he got a scholarship or maybe he worked out a payment plan for ten pounds a week for the next 30 years who knows? It is somewhat strange that he spent a year at Manchester city after he "decided" to leave Utd. Persumably Man citys academy is closer to Repton in the midlands than Utds academy. I do hope though that young John does not fancy his NI born mother! Looks a good player though in fairness
Last edited by liamoo11; 16/03/2011 at 7:01 PM.
When did FIFA confirm that Barton is eligible to represent the FAI?
I have nowhere said that Barton is not eligible to represent the FAI. Rather I have queried how he might be. I do so because I cannot see how he is eligible under Article 15 (Irish National from birth) and I can't see how he is eligible under Article 17 (Acquiring a new nationality).
It may be that he qualifies in some way which I am missing (eg another grandparent, born in the ROI). But if not, then the only other way I could see him qualifying would be if NI were to be considered the "territory" of the FAI. And such an interpretation is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
You have not "explained" anything. Rather you have made a case* of sorts, which I do not accept.
* - Speaking of which, any chance of your providing a link to those comments by Wells which you claim support your case?
Really? You have made that claim quite a few times, even though I have pulled you up on it several times.
For the record, right back to the start of the Gibson dispute, I made it crystal clear, both on this forum and elsewhere, that I considered that the case could go either way.
And right up to the last minute, even the FAI was admitting that it could go against them (cf. John Delaney's comment to RTE on his return from Switzerland at Dublin Airport about "winning the battle, but losing the war", October 2007).
Meanwhile, you were one of those posters who was claiming certainty over this issue, when not in any position to do so, an unattractive trait which fits in with your total lack of integrity in consistently misrepresenting me over this, and other issues.
Any "open minded" person in your position would be ashamed of himself.
Save this **** for the eligibility thread please.
Except that unless he has another ROI-born grandparent somewhere, he is NOT an Irish National from birth. Ther official Irish Government guidelines on Nationality have already been quoted elsewhere on this site.
They make it clear that anyone born anywhere in the world to an Irish-born parent (either part) is automatically an Irish national from birth.
However, if the connection is a generation further back (i.e. grandparent or beyond), then the person has to apply to be included on the Register of foreign births, as a prelude for applying for Irish nationality.
The fact that such a person will almost invariably be granted nationality (if they can kick a ball, at any rate), is neither here nor there; FIFA have made it quite clear that automatic nationality from birth is the test which must be met in order to qualify under Article 15.
Thank You.
We do not know whether the FAI is correct in considering that Barton complies with FIFA's eligibility rules.
The two test cases to date (Gibson and Kearns) have both involved players who were born in Ireland, so were unquestionably Irish nationals from the point of birth (i.e. Article 15). Other players born outside of Ireland also comply with FIFA's rules either because they are 1st generation eg Chris Hughton (Art.15), or because they are 2nd generation, but have an ROI-born grandparent eg Cian Hughton (Art.17).
Barton appears to be different because he is 2nd Generation but doesn't have an ROI-born grandparent. He has, of course, an NI-born one, but that is insufficient to represent the FAI under Article 17 (imo).
When we were originally told the choice was either England or NI, opinion amongst our fans was divided. I personally took the pragmatic view that it was only natural that he should have a strong hankering to play for the land of his birth, and that we were in no position to shut the door on him for NI merely because of that - especially when every other country is playing the eligibility game for all it's worth, and we are also getting uniquely shafted by FIFA on eligibility "elsewhere".
However, had Barton been straight with us, instead of concealing another card up his sleeve, then I've no doubt the overwhelming reaction of NI fans would have been for him to Eff Off.
And assuming he accepts the FAI's call-up, you're welcome to him!
Ealing Green,
He's gone, face up to it, and others will follow. Your ranting and raving on here are beginning to sound more desperate and are losing objectivity. Insults about our cosmopolitan international team don't help either!
Wow. Whoopie ding. NI gets lucky every now and again. How marvelous. Very happy for you. When was the last time you made a play off?
Good lord. You're like a kindergarten school kid in a playground. Maybe with future intentions of making the cheer-leading team at college. There's absolutely no difference in IFA policy from FAI policy, be that by the means or by the ends; stop kidding yourself that there is.
Why ought his door have been shut if he has, as has now become very apparent, clearly harboured intentions to play for us, as well as England? Why would or should having us as another valid option for him be any different from having merely England as an option?
Try "dick". Beating the censor is next up on Fly's crash-course in how to be 133t, but you can get there before him in three easy steps...
Convoluted constructions? It's pretty standard English.
So you claim, but I'm not aware of FIFA making any distinction. In fact, they expressly connect the two in the articles relating to eligibility when they raise the issue of "territory".International eligibility and territorial jurisdiction are two separate issues.
Now who's resorting to convoluted constructions? You surely see what you're doing there, you disingenuous ol' divil you. Players born "anywhere in the world" don't qualify automatically to play for us by virtue of born "anywhere in the world", as you well know; they qualify because their parents are Ireland-born Irish nationals.Otherwise, since the FAI is entitled to select as-of-right under Article 15 any player born anywhere in the world to an Irish-born parent, your "logic" would mean that anywhere in the world also constitute the "territory" of the FAI...
Because those are administrative issues. Irish nationality extends over the IFA's administrative jurisdiction, so for those purposes solely, FIFA obviously considers it to be the "territory" of the FAI.Or, to put it another way, if NI is FAI "territory" why does a player (professional or amateur) transferring from an ROI club to an NI club (or vv) have to secure international clearance? Why are Derry City required to be Members of the IFA? Why do clubs/players/Leagues etc who are eg aggrieved at a decision by an IFA Disciplinary panel not merely appeal to the FAI etc? Indeed, why does anyone submit to the authority of the IFA in NI, if it does not have full jurisdiction over its own territory?
Although some rules may have been added/abolished or wording amended here and there since the statues were last updated, I'm pretty sure that the same wording which enabled Bruce to line out for us when he first did are those still in place today. He qualifies - or qualified at the time, even - to play for us by virtue of his northern-born grandmother; under what is now article 17.Geysir did NOT "explain it" to me.
Rather, he concocted a flimsy case which depended on two points, Alex Bruce and an alleged Howard Wells statement.
However, he has never specified under what Article etc Bruce was deemed eligible, or even that he was actually even deemed to be so (i.e. an Association may select anyone it likes, without having to justify it, if no-one else formally challenges the selection). Further, the international eligibility criteria, and their operation, have changed several times since Bruce first played for ROI.
As for Wells, Geysir likes to refer to an (alleged) statement by Wells, yet he has not, to my knowledge at least, ever provided a link. And considering he has consistently denigrated the reliability, credibility and veracity of Wells on just about every other issue, it's a bit rich for him to be making him his "Star witness for the prosecution" now.
And you'll find what Wells said here.
Was just a simple matter of googling "howard wells alex bruce" and, hey presto, it's your first hit. I reckon a knowledge-hungry fellow like yourself would be savvy to that already though. Not that you'd ever admit to having been aware, mind...Northern Ireland chief executive, Howard Wells, spoke to The EADT: "This is an issue to do with player eligibility according to FIFA's own rules. It is a principle that needs to be resolved based on player eligibility, so that it is applied consistently.
"Alex Bruce is a player we have asked FIFA and the Republic to clarify but it is not about individuals, it is about the principle."
I'm not surprised considering your rather long-standing and impressively-resolute ineptitude when it comes to trying to comprehend FIFA's eligibility statutes, but let me explain. No-one is objecting to him having represented Northern Ireland. Not sure what got that into your head. If you, however, had cared to read the rule I mentioned (article 18.1 (a)), you might have noted that it contains the following words:Why on earth should the IFA be interested in ascertaining whether Barton held/was entitled to Irish Nationality at the time he played for us against Morocco?
Having been born and bred in England, Barton is automatically a UK national.
And UK Nationality falls under FIFA Article 16 - "Nationality entitling players to represent more than one Association".
In the UK's case, these Associations are the FA, SFA, FAW and IFA and by mutual agreement, these four Associations specifically requested that additional qualifications (birth/ancestral/residential) be required to prevent a "free-for-all".
Barton satisfied these by virtue of his NI-born Grandfather, so neither the FA nor FIFA can have had any objection to his representing us.
I do not understand what point it is you're trying to make here.
Clearer now?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
...
Edit: Actually, I'm just realising that Barton only ever played in one friendly game for Northern Ireland, albeit for the senior team, so this may not apply to him at all. I'd assumed he'd represented you at under-age level in official competition or something, although this isn't the case, is it? Apologies, notwithstanding your past neglect.
Re-edit: Does this even mean that Barton is actually making an official change of association in the eyes of FIFA? Possibly not. Maybe someone could confirm?
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 16/03/2011 at 9:38 PM. Reason: Correction
I don't think that's entirely correct. In order to attain Irish nationality, he would have had to register his birth with the Foreign Births Register and his nationality would only have taken effect from the date of registration rather than applying retroactively from the date of his birth.
yeah but I think the point is the entitlement from birth.
I think geysir might have clarified this in the eligibility thread.
Here?
Last edited by Predator; 16/03/2011 at 9:11 PM.
i think EG's taken his ball and gone home lads...
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
it is 20 past 10 over here Stu. I'm sure he has better things to do, unlike me (just watched Masterchef on SKY+ with Mrs S. - her turn to choose). Newsnight beckons however. Can't wait.
How could he have better things to do, when the eligibility issue remains unsolved?!
Oh, wait.
If it was necessary for him to "submit a written, substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat" for change of association under article 18.3, I imagine it would have been a short time after that.
I meant to ask you about your previous assertion that "an Association may select anyone it likes, without having to justify it, if no-one else formally challenges the selection". Is this actually so? Surely there is some form of registration, checking or review system in place, for competitive games at least...
And, I suppose, if Barton ever happens to line out for us at senior competitive level a few years down the line or something, you will also claim that you'd made it crystal clear, both on this forum and elsewhere, that you were always prepared to admit that he actually always was eligible to represent us by virtue of his northern-born grandparent?For the record, right back to the start of the Gibson dispute, I made it crystal clear, both on this forum and elsewhere, that I considered that the case could go either way.
Last minute? Seriously? That's a comment from three and a half years ago you've just mentioned.And right up to the last minute, even the FAI was admitting that it could go against them (cf. John Delaney's comment to RTE on his return from Switzerland at Dublin Airport about "winning the battle, but losing the war", October 2007).
Considering the CAS ruling was in full agreement with everything geysir had said, maybe he was in a position to do so. It was like re-reading the eligibility thread. Besides, it became obvious how things would go with CAS the more the wording of the various statutes in question were weighed up and discussed in minute detail in that mammoth thread.Meanwhile, you were one of those posters who was claiming certainty over this issue, when not in any position to do so, an unattractive trait which fits in with your total lack of integrity in consistently misrepresenting me over this, and other issues.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks