My mistake: I had thought the letter was sent to the FAI, with a copy to the IFA, not the other way round. Nonetheless, my point stands, which is that on receipt of the letter, the IFA considered that FIFA was misapplying its Regs in the case of NI-born individuals opting to represent the ROI and so took it up with them.Originally Posted by co. down green
At the very least, they must have raised some doubt in the minds of FIFA, otherwise FIFA would not require several months (and counting) to tell the IFA that they (the IFA) were wrong and that the letter stood. And why would they contact both Associations to require further information from them if they (FIFA) were still so sure of their ground, as outlined in the October 06 letter?
My whole point is that the IFA have taken it up with FIFA and FIFA have yet to reply definitively - even after several months.
As for Howard Wells, there are many terms I could use to describe him, but "unintelligent" is not one. He's actually rather a shrewd operator, who is not usually prone to making public statements which could rebound and bite him on the arse. Besides, he will doubtless have taken legal advice on the matter.
I agree that life is not simple and believe it or not, I have a degree of sympathy with someone in Gibson's position. However, if he's not eligible to represent the FAI under FIFA's Rules, then he's not eligible. And whatever Geysir and Co.Down Green etc think, I really don't think Gibson's case is clear cut.
As for FIFA's declining to get involved, this is not like, say, the Tevez case, where they refused to get involved in what was merely a commercial dispute between Joorabchian and WHU; on the contrary, they guard very jealously their jurisdiction over international football - in this case, over player eligibility.
As such, the individual players are positively the last people they will leave such decisions to, since every player from a crap country who was good enough would find a means of playing for a good country! (Or could be seduced by financial considerations)
Besides, with 208 Members (more than the UN, for example), Ireland is by no means the most intractible or sensitive situation they have to deal with, never mind the only one! (Korea? Iraq? Iran? India/Pakistan? The Balkans?)
As for those individuals on OWC who have abused Gibson with unpleasant epithets, I can assure you that they are actually a minority, even if they stand out. Following the news over the weekend that Worthington was trying to persuade Gibson back to NI, the majority of posters either expressed no opposition or welcomed the prospect.
As for FIFA's final determination being appealed in the Courts, any challenger is going to need deep pockets and be prepared to lose, since FIFA hardly ever lose such cases, particularly if it involves political interference. (Their stock tactic is just to say to the aggrieved Association: "Tough. If you don't like it, you don't have to be a Member, you may go elsewhere and form your own governing body." - Works every time!)
My, my, FIFA should be employing some of you guys, if you can make things simple that they're taking months over!Agree 100%. Its as simple as that.
Ealing Green is talking pure nonsense. As for Howard Wells, I think we've established that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
As for me, I have freely acknowledged that the FAI's case has a certain logic to it. However, that is not the same as saying it will prevail. I can also see the IFA's case.
As for Wells, you've not "established" anything.
P.S. Pls stop slagging off Wells on this issue, since I feel obliged to defend him and that's not something I'm otherwise comfortable with!
You've "heard"? What, can you not use a computer to see for yourself?Never been on it but I've heard that "ourweeminds" would be a more appropriate title for that particular website
Go on, try it! You may not like it, but what the hell, there's antibiotics will clear up anything you catch from it
I don't know how this has any application to Gibson's case (as you appear to indicate yourself in your later post, #81).
There was no doubt about Samuels as to the player's eligibility for both T&T, where he was born, and for England, where he was brought up. However, having represented England up to U-21 level, he was not eligible to switch to represent T&T in the 2006 World Cup, since he didn't apply to switch until too late (i.e, after his 21st birthday).
None of this applies to Gibson, since he is still under 21, so if eligible to represent the FAI, then there can be no bar to his switching.
The real question is whether he is actually eligible for the ROI (in addition to NI), by virtue of his Irish citizenship, or whether he is not eligible, by virtue of his not fulfilling any of the four additional requirements (born in the FAI's jurisdiction, having a parent born w.i. the jurisdiction, or a grandparent, or having resided for two years continuously w.i. the jurisdiction).
Really?(I know you're all secretly missing me, so here goes!I'd prefer it if you f*cked off back to ourweeminds.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
Not necessarily. For this to be tested, an interested party (either the IFA, or the ROI's opponents?) would have needed to query the player's participation with FIFA. My guess is that the ROI's opponents will have been unaware and (afaik) the IFA attempted to resolve this with the FAI (Remember this was still a relatively new development, involving "minor" players).
However, it was when their "overtures" to the FAI were unsuccessful, and the number and stature of the players concerned looked like increasing, the IFA became sufficiently concerned to take it up with FIFA.
And you've also got to remember that FIFA will have had no experience of the situation, either, since it was really only in Kerr's time that the FAI discontinued the (1950 FIFA-negotiated) Gentlemans Agreement that neither Irish Association would select the "other's" players.
And since FIFA does not actually revolve round the affairs of one little island on the westernmost edge of an ocean, it is hardly any wonder it's taking them a little time to get round to this topic...
(Besides, Deeney and McStay never looked like representing NI's senior team, never mind the ROI's, so their case was somewhat moot. The point about Gibson is that he will likely turn out to be good enough to play full international football, and maybe Kane and O'Connor, as well)
Yet another case of the IFA throwing their toys out of the pram when a nationalist player decalarses for the Republic. Oh boo-hoo...
Gibson wants to play for the Republic. As an Irish passport holder, that is his right. End of story.
I can't believe Northern Ireland's fans and management are so desparate that they're expending so much energy on this, and are effectively having to resort to press-ganging unwilling players in the media. Laughable......
So, the IFA decided to raise the legibility issue last year (even though Northern born players have been representing Ireland at competitive u21 level for years prior to their raising of the issue & without any interventions from UEFA or FIFA or protests from the IFA ) and were given their answer by FIFA's most senior legal brain, Heinz Tannler who said " 'the existing situation in Northern Ireland allows players to choose whether they wish to represent Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland'.
The IFA then seem to have claimed that FIFA were wrong in their determination, eventhough 'the existing situation' had been in operation prior to their request - Saul Deeny, Henry McStay, Kevin Deery etc..u21 caps.
I think you will find the previous determination, is still the determination and they posturing of the IFA is simply a way to try and save face. The IFA pronouncements were about a big decision by April, then it was May, then June etc.. it won't happen because the FIFA rule regarding players from the North of Ireland playing in the FAI set-up stands.
Worthington is simply joining the witch hunt of young Gibson and the other lads and that in turn is leading to your supporters over on 'Are We A Country' making dangerous comments like this "In my view the reason many of these defectors go to the South is Political. Basically they are sectarian bigots"
The legibility issue is no more an issue today than it was for James Quigley from Derry who played competitive u21 football for Ireland over 10 years ago or for Eugene Ferry, Mark McKeever, Mark Mukendi or Gerard Crossley.
P.S. Uefa seem happy enough with Darron's international choice
http://www.uefa.com/competitions/eur...714/index.html
As regards your opening point, some posters on OWC are not very welcoming to those of "a different persuasion" (as you term it). Sadly, that's the way of these things in a free world. That said, the active membership includes many more people, from many more persuasions than a casual browser might appreciate.
http://ourweecountry.ipbhost.com/ind...howtopic=19080
For example, Paxter, the guy who opened the above thread asking where he could get an NI flag, is a Catholic who has followed NI for many years. Likewise the first respondent, Belfast Owl, who as well as being a fervent GAA fan, was formerly a ROI fan (I think), now describes himself as NI's "No.1 Convert"
Besides, this Board has its share of charmless oafs, not least Lopez, who stirred himself to make this illuminating one-line contribution to the debate, directed towards me:
"I'd prefer it if you f*cked off back to ourweeminds"
As for the substantive content of your post, your first numbered point is undoubtedly correct and your second numbered point may be so (though it's not strictly relevant to the Gibson case, since McGeady's ancestry undoubtedly makes him eligible for ROI)
However, whilst there is no doubting the validity of Gibson's Irish citizenship, it is as yet unclear (to me at least) whether that alone is sufficient to make him eligible to represent the FAI at football in the absence of his also complying with at least one of FIFA's four "further" tests (i.e. born/parent/grandparent/residence within the Irish Republic)
As for your penultimate point, his selection on Wednesday night will merely confirm that Stan Staunton (and by extension the FAI) considers him eligible for the ROI at senior level. They may be correct, but that is not the same as proving he is eligible. Countries have picked ineligible players before.
P.S. You may well be correct that Gibson may never play a full international for NI. But should that prove to be the case, that will be his choice rather than the IFA's. It will be interesting to see whether he maintains that stance should FIFA eventually determine that he is not actually eligible for the ROI!
And you'll find you'll get the same message from the heartless bigots at FIFA, UEFA, etc.
This is the cooooooooooooolest footy forum I've ever seen!
The IFA has no problem with Nationalists playing for NI; indeed, they successfully lobbied FIFA to allow NI players to travel and compete under an Irish Passport only, should they choose. Similarly, they have no problem with Gibson playing for NI, despite his declared preference, otherwise Worthy would not be trying to persuade him. Indeed, they have no problem whatever with NI-born Nationalists playing for the ROI, provided that they (the IFA) are satisfied that the players are eligible.Yet another case of the IFA throwing their toys out of the pram when a nationalist player decalarses for the Republic. Oh boo-hoo...
Gibson wants to play for the Republic. As an Irish passport holder, that is his right. End of story.
I can't believe Northern Ireland's fans and management are so desparate that they're expending so much energy on this, and are effectively having to resort to press-ganging unwilling players in the media. Laughable......
However, in the case of Gibson, they are not so satisfied, so they have turned to FIFA for clarification. It may surprise you to know, but such disputes arise all the time amongst FIFA's 208 Member Associations, so the IFA is hardly being uniquely "childish" (to borrow your perjorative imagery).
I have no doubt that if the IFA risked losing players to another Association, including the other British ones, they would take similar action to protect their interests. As, indeed, would the FAI.
And I wouldn't be quite so dogmatic about the outcome of the Gibson case, either; otherwise, the laugh might just be on you!
Notwithstanding that one or two individuals such as Quigley may have slipped through the net initially, it was not so many years as you indicate before the IFA attempted to address their concerns by taking it up with the FAI, in an attempt to resolve the situation amicably, a process which inevitably took time.
Thereafter, for an organisation which normally moves at a glacial pace, they actually moved reasonably quickly by their own standards, to take the matter to FIFA. It is FIFA who have sat on this issue for months since, apparently not least because they are still awaiting information from the FAI.
As for Worthington joining in a witch hunt, that really is a silly point - witchhunters invariably seek to burn their victims when they find them, not invite them to join them at play! Therefore, to try an associate him with one isolated and unrepresentative comment on an entirely unofficial message board is crass and puerile.
Finally, it is not for UEFA to determine Gibson's eligibility. Besides, the information in the link you posted was most likely supplied by the FAI...
I'd like to focus on the substance of the debate rather than silly insults (though I will note that you have behaved like a gentlemen whilst posting). How is McGeady's ancestry any different? The ROI has always held the position that anyone born on the island is an Irish citizen. Both of Gibson's parents were born on the island as was Gibson. Thus, he is entitled to Irish citizenship. He availed himself of said citizenship. This choice is recognized internationally, including the UK.
However, whilst there is no doubting the validity of Gibson's Irish citizenship, it is as yet unclear (to me at least) whether that alone is sufficient to make him eligible to represent the FAI at football in the absence of his also complying with at least one of FIFA's four "further" tests (i.e. born/parent/grandparent/residence within the Irish Republic)
That's a reasonable position.
Well we need to focus on what is an "A" international. I think the McGeady case proves that an A international is any full friendly played by the senior team. Countries that have picked ineligible players before usually don't broadcast the fact the way the ROI has with Gibson. Further, the NI/ROI distinction is different from Quatar basically bribing players. In your heart of hearts you know this.As for your penultimate point, his selection on Wednesday night will merely confirm that Stan Staunton (and by extension the FAI) considers him eligible for the ROI at senior level. They may be correct, but that is not the same as proving he is eligible. Countries have picked ineligible players before.
It's not going to come to that. Gibson will play for the ROI if he is good enough. FIFA will not rule that he is ineligible.P.S. You may well be correct that Gibson may never play a full international for NI. But should that prove to be the case, that will be his choice rather than the IFA's. It will be interesting to see whether he maintains that stance should FIFA eventually determine that he is not actually eligible for the ROI
There is no such thing as a miracle cure, a free lunch or a humble opinion.
The relevance of the Samuel case is that it clearly demonstrates that FIFA use article 15 to decide on cases of dual nationals. Samuels case, a dual national resident in another federation.
There is no real question after that because the 4 so called additional requirements that Howard Wells bleats on about come from another document
http://access.fifa.com/documents/sta...20901%20EN.pdf
That document, only one and a half page long refers to the case of single nationals (Brazilians) wanting to declare for Qatar.
Read the document. This is the crux of the debate.
If Wells is paying good money for legal advice on this matter as you indicate then the lawyers are sucking the IFA out of good money.
Not only that, Wells has failed to do his job properly and continued to misinform the NI fans on this issue, although that does not seem to be too difficult.
I seriously doubt that FIFA will reply any more on this matter.
Their answer on Oct 2006 suffices.
Your little genie bottle has been rubbed too often for that wish to have any effect. There is no need to resort to direct abuse.Really?
There is a thread debate on the eligibility issue. The issue has direct relevance for EG. Surely he can come on this debate without being molested.
The IFA would have been incredibly stupid not to lobby on that issue. Not to lobby would have been the equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.
Your Howard Wells did not exactly give the the appearance of being the brightest button on that issue, probably waiting to hear from his legal departmentwhereas the NI fans unanimously were very fast to make sure the IFA did lobby with haste.
You might consider the possibility that if that ruling was accepted by the IFA it would have benefitted the FAI. To their credit the FAI supported the IFA without regard for personal gain.
nah thats no problem at all , if they are fool enough to want to pay for norn iron , i'd gladly let them off !!Surely the nightmare for you would be if lads from the South were suddenly eligible for NI (or some other country)? We'd take Shay Given, who's a "Northerner" as it is...
Was he crazy!! Yeah , in a very special way , an Irishman.
I slept, and dreamed that life was Beauty;
I woke, and found that life was Duty.
Tell you what lads; I'll ask Deeney if, when he played for Ireland, if it tied him to them forever...then we would have an answer?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks