Eligibility proposal

[EalingGreen]

Not necessarily what I'm implying. I'm suggesting that the IFA had a belief that the decision forthcoming from FIFA was a foregone conclusion. I not saying that they tried to deflect or scored an own goal. I'm saying that perhaps their belief that the decision was a foregone conclusion led to complacency and that their "performance" in the Zurich was less/ weaker that the FAI's "performance".

What's interesting is that you see the rationale behind both sides of the fence yet FIFA's proposal has led you to guess that something behind the scenes has taken place by the FAI, people supporting the FAI or internally in FIFA. Whilst you list your guesses as to why FIFA has put forward this proposal who don't guess that perhaps IFA's actions/ inactions have influenced the FIFA proposal.

I think you need to factor in the IFA's roll in FIFA's proposal and not ignore it. Perhaps previous comments from IFA employees has influenced FIFA.

It is entirely possible for the IFA to misread the signs, become complacent, and therefore prematurely and incorrectly "leak" the result.

Except that after he had led the FAI delegation to FIFA a week later, Delaney also gave this impression to RTE.

Moreover, we know from sources within the FAI that FIFA instructed them (the FAI) not to pick NI-born players in their forthcoming squads, even causing one of them (Kane) and possibly another (O'Connor) to revert to the IFA.

Why would any of this have happened had FIFA not have been switching from what they wrote in October 2006? Why, at some stage within the intervening 12 months, didn't they just come out and say that the FAI had won their case? Why are they even now suggesting (not directing) a "compromise" which avoids backing up their October 2006 Letter (even if it also avoids backing the IFA)?

I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, so I am reduced to assuming/surmising/guessing/speculating etc, like the rest of us.

[ifk101]

It is entirely possible for the IFA to misread the signs, become complacent, and therefore prematurely and incorrectly "leak" the result.

Except that after he had led the FAI delegation to FIFA a week later, Delaney also gave this impression to RTE.

Moreover, we know from sources within the FAI that FIFA instructed them (the FAI) not to pick NI-born players in their forthcoming squads, even causing one of them (Kane) and possibly another (O'Connor) to revert to the IFA.

Why would any of this have happened had FIFA not have been switching from what they wrote in October 2006? Why, at some stage within the intervening 12 months, didn't they just come out and say that the FAI had won their case? Why are they even now suggesting (not directing) a "compromise" which avoids backing up their October 2006 Letter (even if it also avoids backing the IFA)?

I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, so I am reduced to assuming/surmising/guessing/speculating etc, like the rest of us.

The IFA challenged the eligibility of the above players. Naturally this challenge would need to be reviewed and that review takes time. Accordingly, it's naturally that the FIFA would say to the FAI to not pick these players as their eligibility has been called into question and we need the time to review this challenge. I think it's as simple as that.

[micls]

What username had you been trying to register under Gustavo?

And me please

Fair enough if your getting sick of it Same username as here. Tried a couple of times, the most recent about a week or so ago

[youngirish]

On which point, FIFA's Legal Department sent out a letter in October 2006 which the FAI was using as the basis of its selection of NI-born players. If FIFA weren't at least reconsidering that position, why didn't they merely tell the IFA to sling their hook, rather than inviting them (and the FAI) to submit their case?

I wouldn't dare to suggest that FIFA weren't at least open to the fact of considering their position. I'd imagine FIFA felt that once the issue had been raised by the IFA they would need to hear the arguments of both associations to see if there was a case for them changing the status quo.

Why did they instruct three FAI managers not to pick NI-born players after they had previously done so? And why did those managers comply?

To prevent them being dragged further into the quagmire if a subsequent ruling against NI born players representing the Republic had indeed been granted it makes sense for their part to instruct the FAI not to pick NI born players in the short term until the matter was cleared. This would also have shown to the IFA that they were looking into the situation and taking their objection seriously.

At no time however has it appeared they were willing to rule against the FAI on the matter of NI born players as per the suggestions emanating from the IFA camp a few weeks ago.

[Cowboy]

I genuinely don't know the answers to these questions, so I am reduced to assuming/surmising/guessing/speculating etc, like the rest of us.

I would speculate that the legal dept of FIFA are of the opinion that to sustain the IFA's position that a change of rule 15 would become necessary. The earlier suggestion that a FIFA official suggested the compromise (not being aware that this would be totally unacceptable) to the IFA seems plausable to me.

[EalingGreen]

And me please

Fair enough if your getting sick of it Same username as here. Tried a couple of times, the most recent about a week or so ago

Tbf, it's entirely possible that the Mods simply haven't the time to deal with new applications. The Board has over 13k members (I think) and has never been busier. My guess is that with this Gibson row, it's as much as they can do to sift out Trolls of the "Dazzler32/Dan Clancy" variety!

[Besides, we've two games coming up which are vital to our hopes of qualifying, so perhaps they might be forgiven if new member applications are not quite at the top of their list of things to worry about! ]

[micls]

Tbf, it's entirely possible that the Mods simply haven't the time to deal with new applications. The Board has over 13k members (I think) and has never been busier. My guess is that with this Gibson row, it's as much as they can do to sift out Trolls of the "Dazzler32/Dan Clancy" variety!

[Besides, we've two games coming up which are vital to our hopes of qualifying, so perhaps they might be forgiven if new member applications are not quite at the top of their list of things to worry about! ]

I understand that but its not the first time Ive tried (a few times over the last few months). Just wondering if its a specific problem

[RogerMilla]

. Neither have I ever alleged a "conspiracy" (your term) by FIFA in this matter.

have to step in here EG , you did say they had been "got at" can i put it down to sour grapes and say that you have revised that position ?

[EalingGreen]

have to step in here EG , you did say they had been "got at" can i put it down to sour grapes and say that you have revised that position ?

I initially used that term ill-advisably and later retracted it by explaining that I should have said FIFA were "persuaded", "influenced", "caused" (or somesuch) instead.

But in my own defence, even though the phrase "got at" has perjorative connotations, it's not as if I accused anyone specifically of having "got at" FIFA.

For the record, my present position is that it looks to me that up until last weekend, FIFA looked as though they were coming down on the side of the IFA, when something or other caused them to row back and instead suggest a "compromise".

P.S. Being "got at" is NOT the same as being party to a "conspiracy". I could approach you and say "Here's €1m, for you to do as I want" and if you accepted, you'd have been "got at". Whereas, for a conspiracy to have taken place, the two of us would have got together and come to an arrangement, whereby I got what I wanted and you got your million yoyos. I don't believe FIFA are party to any conspiracy in this issue. Nor do I believe that anyone in FIFA has been "got at" in the sense that they had cause to change their stance at the last minute for sinister reasons (before anyone jumps on my back over that, either!)

[geysir]

I said all along that the case is yet to be decided by FIFA. You have said all along (on the basis of the October 2006 Letter) that it has been decided.

No My arguement was consistantly based on my interpretation of FIFA statutes, That an Irish citizen born on the Island has automatic right to declare for the Republic, the letter was one part of the basis of my arguement.

FIFA's most recent Letter to both Associations (the suggested "compromise") proves that I am correct on this and that you are wrong.

The right for a citizen of Ireland, born on the Island. to have automatic right to play for the Republic enshrined by FIFA statutes has been my consistant arguement from DAY I
So now I am wrong when FIFA confirm this again and again and again.

Especially in the light of your FIFA "wisdom" from previous posts

The misinformed
20/08 playing in a friendly international, even at senior level, doesn't tie in a player to any one country

We know Gibson is eligible for the Senior IFA team, but we do not know whether he is eligible for the senior FAI team, nor will we until FIFA gives a definitive answer.

Despite FIFA writing directly to the IFA informing them of his eligibility to play for Ireland oct 2006

I really don't think Gibson's case is clear cut.

It was it was it was as the IFA eventually concurred, conceeding 100% on this matter October 2007 without FIFA even looking at the case.

The flight of fancy
Should FIFA decide that Gibson is not eligible for the ROI and the FAI/Irish Government complains, then FIFA may simply suspend or even terminate the FAI's Membership.

not to mention where I had to expain to you in minute detail so you could understand the term of the UK Agreement and the Annex conditions

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809833&postcount=211

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809948&postcount=215
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=810220&postcount=221

[EalingGreen]

No My arguement was consistantly based on my interpretation of FIFA statutes, That an Irish citizen born on the Island has automatic right to declare for the Republic, the letter was one part of the basis of my arguement.



The right for a citizen of Ireland, born on the Island. to have automatic right to play for the Republic enshrined by FIFA statutes has been my consistant arguement from DAY I
So now I am wrong when FIFA confirm this again and again and again.

Especially in the light of your FIFA "wisdom" from previous posts

The misinformed
20/08 playing in a friendly international, even at senior level, doesn't tie in a player to any one country

We know Gibson is eligible for the Senior IFA team, but we do not know whether he is eligible for the senior FAI team, nor will we until FIFA gives a definitive answer.

Despite FIFA writing directly to the IFA informing them of his eligibility to play for Ireland oct 2006

I really don't think Gibson's case is clear cut.

It was it was it was as the IFA eventually concurred, conceeding 100% on this matter October 2007 without FIFA even looking at the case.

The flight of fancy
Should FIFA decide that Gibson is not eligible for the ROI and the FAI/Irish Government complains, then FIFA may simply suspend or even terminate the FAI's Membership.

not to mention where I had to expain to you in minute detail so you could understand the term of the UK Agreement and the Annex conditions

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809833&postcount=211

http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=809948&postcount=215
http://foot.ie/showpost.php?p=810220&postcount=221

You have consistently argued that the FAI case is "open and shut". If that is so, then they must be entitled to pick NI-born players without hindrance. Why aren't they currently doing so?

Why did FIFA issue the suggested "compromise" instead of merely telling the FAI to carry on and the IFA to clear off?

Indeed, where does it say in FIFA's current Arts and Regs that ROI-born players, without automatic right to British citizenship or ancestry or residential qualification, are entitled to represent NI (as outlined in FIFA's "compromise")?

Quite simply, you have consistently stated that the FAI have right on their side under the present Arts & Regs and that FIFA would back them up on this. To date, FIFA have patently declined to do so.

Whereas, I considered that FIFA might go either way, albeit that I preferred and increasingly came to believe that they might favour the IFA. Should the "compromise" be rejected by either party, it presumably will fall upon FIFA once more to choose. And such a choice could still go either way.

What I did not foresee was the suggested compromise coming out of "left field", nor did the IFA or the FAI. And neither did you, for that matter, since it does not comply with your interpretation of the Arts and Regs, either.

But, hey, if in order to bolster your sense of self-esteem (self-importance?)you want to go on demonstrating that you can pee higher up the wall than me, then carry on. Just don't expect me to join in.

[geysir]

You have consistently argued that the FAI case is "open and shut". If that is so, then they must be entitled to pick NI-born players without hindrance. Why aren't they currently doing so?

Why did FIFA issue the suggested "compromise" instead of merely telling the FAI to carry on and the IFA to clear off?

Indeed, where does it say in FIFA's current Arts and Regs that ROI-born players, without automatic right to British citizenship or ancestry or residential qualification, are entitled to represent NI (as outlined in FIFA's "compromise")?

Quite simply, you have consistently stated that the FAI have right on their side under the present Arts & Regs and that FIFA would back them up on this. To date, FIFA have patently declined to do so.

You use to say my arguement was based on the letter now you say its open or shut. Make your mind up
The one line I repeated ad nauseam in my posts, is that Island born = automatic right = Article 15, no Annex need apply
FIFA have consistantly backed the FAI in this since they first called up the 6 county born. Every document stamped by FIFA legal dept means approval.
Fifa are not going to alter from their position that Island born Irish citizens qualify automatically for the Republic. That part of their "compromise" is already FIFA practice. That part will remain untouched no matter what the IFA will reject. Smell the Guinness.
The real compromise is to allow any Irish born to play for the North
So FIFA allow for 2 associations to come up with a special agreement. It is there in the FIFA practice to allow associations come together and make a deal but FIFA retain the right to accept or reject it.
That's FIFA´s sense of fair play. They have a heart so I must applaud them.
Should the IFA reject to enter into discussion about this compromise, FIFA will not change from present practice.

Any lingering questions or misunderstandings you need answered about the UK agreement?

[Gather round]

Can anyone clear up a small point re citizenship? Am I correct in thinking that since the amendement to the South's constitution in 2004, not everyone born in RoI (or NI) has an automatic constitutional right to Irish citizenship? I believe this change had the support of about 80% in a referendum.

[geysir]

The change was that at least one of the parents had to be Irish citizens or entitled to Irish citizenship in order for their child to avail of the constitutional right to Irish citizenship.

Before this, you only had to be born on the sacred turf to avail of the constitutional right.

[Gather round]

Thanks Geysir. It does seem strange that almost all young players in NI are potentially eligible for you (subject to confirmation by FIFA), while some three-year-old Nigerian or Lithuanian prodigy in Dublin or Cork may not be, if his parents aren't entitled to citizenship

[paul_oshea]

they would be through residency. This was brought in to stop 7 or 8 month preggars women giving birth,gaining automatic citizenship and then staying in the country. Great idea I believe.

[geysir]

Do Poland have a cricket team?

[lopez]

... (the intellectually or ethically challenged) Lopez...

Intellectually challenged as in suggesting Irish nationalists sing songs about the armed forces that burnt Cork, killed Irish people at whim during the war of independence, and shot 26 people on bloody sunday. It's as 'intellectually challenged' as suggesting you sing 'say hello to the provos' at WP.

Ethically challenged...as in comparing the IFA taking back Kane like the McCanns finding Madeline McCann.

Bullsh*tter...well I don't need to add anything about that.

I haven't gone away, EG. It's just I do have a life outside internet football forums, which confine me to a few minutes a day most times on this site. You should try it too. However it's sad to see you down about FIFA's recent movements on this subject, but you seem more indignant about me stating you thought you had the decision 'in the bag' and yet you confess:

...From my reading between the lines, my guess is that until possibly as recently as last week, FIFA were of the opinion that, following an exhaustive review, the IFA's case was correct...

Bullsh*tter is the right word for you, mate. Also hypocrite as well. As you start bringing in the 'political interference' argument about the Irish government soliciting an appeal, but have changed your tune about the plitically defunct UUP doing likewise. BTW what's the story about the DUP, AP and the other unionist parties, anyone?

Finally, as for pointscoring rather than debating, etc., remember these words.

"Lopez,
Following another thread, I've come to realise that it's futile for me to debate any such topic with you, not just because I risk allowing myself to get drawn into endless controversy, to the nth degree of pettiness, but also because it seems to me that the style and content of your posts inevitably say more about you and your opinions than I ever could.
So by all means, keep posting, indeed keep posting in response to my posts if you like; just don't expect me to reciprocate."

...Probably that is the most imbecilic post you have ever written but I stand open to correction on that observation.

I didn't bother reading too much - it seems that EG is trying to bore us into submission - but I doubt this is the case. He's posted too many caviar nuggets to get a prize for any specific post.

[lopez]

Yet again, you continue to misrepresent my views.

Please put up - by highlighting where I have stated that I don't want those who don't want to play for Northern Ireland playing anywhere else - or, shut up.

Sooooo sorry, NB for hurting your feelings there chum. Tell you what: You don't put up posts that leave you open to contradiction, and I won't allow my mind to go walkies about what you are trying to actually say.

[lopez]

Can anyone clear up a small point re citizenship? Am I correct in thinking that since the amendement to the South's constitution in 2004, not everyone born in RoI (or NI) has an automatic constitutional right to Irish citizenship? I believe this change had the support of about 80% in a referendum.

The law is similar to British citizenship law - which is based less on Ius Soli and more on Ius Sanguinnis (I know you love me bringing up that, but it's been a while since we had a chat, that you'll need to check the spelling) - except that the area of people that are 'of the blood' extends outside the current border of the state. I suspect - but open to correction - that all EU countries have moved to a mix of both with the 'blood' still being more important than 'soil'; after all the Irish referendum was a move to more 'harmonisation'.

Hence those of purely Turkish descent playing for Germany, where in the past they would have found gaining German citizenship virtually impossible. On the other hand, the DFB may be able to play them as they fall into at least two of FIFA's criteria to play for Germany - one. they were born in Germany and two. that they have lived there for more than two years - without actually having German citizenship themselves. Is there any reason why this isn't the case and that this is the reason that FIFA said 'fine by us' when the IFA wanted permission to play 6C footballers with Irish passports?