The Darron Gibson Saga

darkman2

PHB wrote: »

What else is it about?

Politics. The IFA is, of course, run by Unionists and you know how fickle they can be. If the NI soccer team was not so blatantly sectarian id have more sympathy but no way do I have any sympathy with the IFA over this. It contradicts completely an agreement decided by referendum on this Island and they know that. You only have to read the GFA to know the rights Irish citizens have in NI. Its unique in Europe. I dont know on what basis this man you say is helping them is going to argue its irrelevant. The last thing we need is to allow more sh*t stirring in the north tbh over something this petty. Nationalists up there are fickle too - its not just DG this would effect. What would nationalists in general think? - The vast majority of them will never play for NI.

Erin Go Brath

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

SO WHAT? What makes you think FIFA are bound by Irish domestic law? They are based in Switzerland so as to not be in the EU/UN etc and bound by their laws. People have got to get a grip and realise that FIFA call the shots. Basic employment law doesnt apply to players for a reason.

The rules of eligibilty, right or wrong are clear. So to say legally they dont have a leg to stand on is profound ignorance of the sport. Morally, I agree, but its a farcical thing to say.

I hate to trivialise the GFA, but if Quatar decided to change their law to allow all Brazilian men aged 18 - 35 who move there citizens, would FIFA be obliged to allow it? Wait a minuite, they did, and FIFA hit them for 6.

As has been said before (numerous times) the 6 County statlet is unique, and the GFA which are you are trivialising btw is the Rule of Law.

The rules of eligibility which apply to different jurisidictions, don't apply here because of the complex political situation. I'm not going to second guess what way the FIFA ruling is going to go, (although i find it hard to believe they'd rule in favour of the IFA) but if it does go against him, and proceeds to the ECHR, DG's eligibility for Ireland will be reinstated and set in stone!

soccerc

eirebhoy wrote: »

Of course by FIFA law he isn't eligible but this is a flaw in that law.

A little birdie tells me we are in the doo doo and it's deep :eek:

kida

The crux of the matter is that without the GFA Gibson would not qualify for the republic. I'm afraid that this may not be enough as why should the GFA have any more clout in FIFAs eyes than Russia deciding that all Brazilians can become Russian. It would open a can of worms if FIFA ruled that they recognised the GFA.

What I can see happening is a fine for FAI but Gibson being allowed play but no future player being allowed to use the GFA in this way.

OhNoYouDidn't

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The rules of eligibility which apply to different jurisidictions, don't apply here because of the complex political situation. I'm not going to second guess what way the FIFA ruling is going to go, (although i find it hard to believe they'd rule in favour of the IFA) but if it does go against him, and proceeds to the ECHR, DG's eligibility for Ireland will be reinstated and set in stone!

There really is no point in continuing the debate with you, if after all the rules and precendents pointed out to you are just going to be totally ignored and you are going to keep going with what is in bold above.

You are deliberatly choosing to ignore the rules of association football to fit your political argument. ECHR? Get a grip. He may be ably to bring an appeal personally to the Sports Arbitration Committee, the ECHR do not deal with sport, never have, never will. DG doenst have a 'human right' to play for Ireland. He is a member of a club (FIFA) and that club has rules. An unjust one in this case, but a rule nonetheless.

as thimblefull says, we are in trouble here. and if you think the FAI are going to try appeal this and get the national and club sides expelled from international competetion, you inhabit a different planet to the rest of us.

leninbenjamin

any word yet on what went down yesterday?

Killme00

FIFA are not expected to rule on the Darron Gibson dispute until next week.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/article3065055.ece

Gibson played for Northern Ireland U16s but then opted for the Republic.

Since then, the Derryman has earned U17, U19, U21 and his two full caps for the Republic.

Why is this an issue now if he has played U17, U19 and U21 for Ireland for the past few years.

PDN

Killme00 wrote: »

FIFA are not expected to rule on the Darron Gibson dispute until next week.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/article3065055.ece

Gibson played for Northern Ireland U16s but then opted for the Republic.

Since then, the Derryman has earned U17, U19, U21 and his two full caps for the Republic.

Why is this an issue now if he has played U17, U19 and U21 for Ireland for the past few years.

So if he was so patriotic that he only wanted to play for Ireland, then how come he chose to play for the 6 county statelet?

Let him stick with his original choice. If our decline under Staunton continues then he'll be wanting to play for scotland next.

PHB

Maybe, just maybe, he was 16 and just happy to get into the Northern Ireland squad? Maybe.

_blank_

Like yer man Ryan something, who played for the England underage teams, but then went on to appear for Wales.

leninbenjamin

Killme00 wrote: »

Why is this an issue now if he has played U17, U19 and U21 for Ireland for the past few years.

on top of this... FIFA presided over the transfer between the two associations. even if FIFA do rule against us, i can't see why they should punish us for it, afaik we did everything by the book in this case and they (FIFA) knew what was involved would they not? if it was a breach it should have been up to them to flag it surely.

OhNoYouDidn't

leninbenjamin wrote: »

on top of this... FIFA presided over the transfer between the two associations. even if FIFA do rule against us, i can't see why they should punish us for it, afaik we did everything by the book in this case and they (FIFA) knew what was involved would they not? if it was a breach it should have been up to them to flag it surely.

I dont think its that simple. a 'transfer' implies agreement between two parties and the player. clearly this is not the case.

the FAI claim they have a letter from the FIFA lawyers. the crux is whether the content of this letter is changed by an IFA objection.

Bounty Hunter

all sounds very Heinze like "we have a letter that says we can have him"

PHB

Well Giggs is an odd case, because he went to School in England, and therefore was required to play for the English schoolboy team, but in reality, could never actually play for England as he wasn't eligable.

_blank_

PHB wrote: »

Well Giggs is an odd case, because he went to School in England, and therefore was required to play for the English schoolboy team, but in reality, could never actually play for England as he wasn't eligable.

Yeah, Ryan Giggs, that's who I was on about.

eirebhoy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Erin Go Brath wrote: »

The rules of eligibility which apply to different jurisidictions, don't apply here because of the complex political situation. I'm not going to second guess what way the FIFA ruling is going to go, (although i find it hard to believe they'd rule in favour of the IFA) but if it does go against him, and proceeds to the ECHR, DG's eligibility for Ireland will be reinstated and set in stone!

There really is no point in continuing the debate with you, if after all the rules and precendents pointed out to you are just going to be totally ignored and you are going to keep going with what is in bold above.

You are deliberatly choosing to ignore the rules of association football to fit your political argument. ECHR? Get a grip.

I don't get it. There's 2 sides to this. 1 side think the FIFA rules should stay in place for Ireland (meaning Gibson can't play for us), the other side think they shouldn't. Erin Go Brath thinks they shouldn't. You think they should. Can I ask you what there would be left to debate if Erin Go Brath agreed with you?

Maybe I've picked you up wrong.

OhNoYouDidn't

eirebhoy wrote: »

I don't get it. There's 2 sides to this. 1 side think the FIFA rules should stay in place for Ireland (meaning Gibson can't play for us), the other side think they shouldn't. Erin Go Brath thinks they shouldn't. You think they should. Can I ask you what there would be left to debate if Erin Go Brath agreed with you?

Maybe I've picked you up wrong.

In my defence I think he should be allowed play as he is an Irish citizen born in a unique situation, much like EGB.

I am saying however, that the rules are clear. And we appear to eb breaking them here. Its a kneejerk, 'big hammer, small nut' rule, but a rule nonetheless. There is some over simplification of the case by posters, talking about the European Court of Human rights is preposterous, and I suppose I'm just preparing people for the worst.

eirebhoy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am saying however, that the rules are clear.

Well maybe Erin Go Brath should have said "The rules of eligibility shoudn't apply here" but that's being pedantic.

darkman2

According to the Irish Times the FAI have succeeded in keeping Gibson eligible for the Republic. With that sorted FIFA will make a decision too on how to interperate the Good Friday agreement in these cases in future but the Gibson thing is over. He will play for the ROI. The FAI described the talks as 'constructive'.

Interestingly not a peep out of the IFA yet.

PHB

Yeh, wouldn't be at all surprised to see now FIFA ruling if you are born in the North you have to play there.

OhNoYouDidn't

darkman2 wrote: »

According to the Irish Times the FAI have succeeded in keeping Gibson eligible for the Republic. With that sorted FIFA will make a decision too on how to interperate the Good Friday agreement in these cases in future but the Gibson thing is over. He will play for the ROI. The FAI described the talks as 'constructive'.

Interestingly not a peep out of the IFA yet.

That was never in dispute. This is like a 'tapping up' case. The 'transfer' was never going to be reversed, but there was a possibility of a fine and future 'transfers' being embargoed

Mr.Nice Guy

The FAI won the battle but the IFA won the war.

Fifa has told the the Republic of Ireland they can keep the services of Northern Ireland-born Darron Gibson.

However, the Republic have lost the battle with Northern Ireland over the eligibility of players in the future.

Fifa has ruled that the FAI may no longer quote the Good Friday Agreement as a reason for drafting up players born on the island of Ireland.

The FAI can now only use players born in the Republic, or whose parents or grandparents are born in the Republic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/7058633.stm

I think this is a disgrace. The GFA entitles anyone on the island of Ireland to Irish citizenship yet in the future players in the North who hold Irish citizenship won't be allowed to represent the State that gave them their very citizenship!

I suppose the FAI clowns will bend over and accept this like the good little bitches that they are. We should appeal.

KdjaCL

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I suppose the FAI clowns will bend over and accept this like the good little bitches that they are. We should appeal.

Should the players not appeal on a case by case basis, would have more of a chance of winning.


kdjac

OhNoYouDidn't

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I think this is a disgrace. The GFA entitles anyone on the island of Ireland to Irish citizenship yet in the future players in the North who hold Irish citizenship won't be allowed to represent the State that gave them their very citizenship!.

Another poster who doesnt know the rules of football. Citizenship alone is not enough to allow you to play for a country. Why people think the GFA will trump FIFA rules is a mystery to me.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I suppose the FAI clowns will bend over and accept this like the good little bitches that they are. We should appeal.

Yeah, have all the international sides and LoI clubs banned from international competition to appeal a non-penalty for a being in breach of the rules to get our hands on unspecified players at an unknown time in the future? . :rolleyes: Great idea.

Its up to the next Darren Gibson, whoever he is, to take a case and argue excepmption.

We got away with our lives today (well, competitive points and bank balance intact, but you know what I mean).

Mr.Nice Guy

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Another poster who doesnt know the rules of football. Citizenship alone is not enough to allow you to play for a country. Why people think the GFA will trump FIFA rules is a mystery to me.

First off, get down off your high horse. You're coming across as patronising which surely can't be the case.

Secondly the fact that Gibson is being allowed to play for the ROI shows that the GFA IS trumping FIFA rules and so it should.

You think international law should play second fiddle to the whims of a sporting organisation?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote:

Yeah, have all the international sides and LoI clubs banned from international competition to appeal a non-penalty for a being in breach of the rules to get our hands on unspecified players at an unknown time in the future? . :rolleyes: Great idea.

No idea what you're talking about. Let's instead allow citizens of a country to play for said country. You got a problem with that?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote:

Its up to the next Darren Gibson, whoever he is, to take a case and argue excepmption.

A shame that every Irish passport-holding player in the North will have to endure such nonsense.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote:

We got away with our lives today (well, competitive points and bank balance intact, but you know what I mean).

We got humbled today.

Mitch Connor

DesF wrote: »

Like yer man Ryan something, who played for the England underage teams, but then went on to appear for Wales.

i know this is a late reply, but only just saw this.

If you are talking about Ryan Giggs, the situation is completely different.

Giggs played for the england school boy team, not an england national team. This was correct because he was attending school in england at the time.

Giggs was never in a position to declare for england professionally.

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

First off, get down off your high horse. You're coming across as patronising which surely can't be the case.

Secondly the fact that Gibson is being allowed to play for the ROI shows that the GFA IS trumping FIFA rules and so it should..

Its hard for people not to get annoyed when others cant get their head around simple written rules.

Gibson being allowed play is a common sense decision that followed a **** up by FIFA. He shouldnt have been allowed play for us in the first place, but FIFA are willing to let this one slide because 1) they ****ed up and 2) he's a young guy who would be left with no international football ever if the went against him.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You think international law should play second fiddle to the whims of a sporting organisation?..

How is it? FIFA isnt denying him an Irish passport/citizenship. It mearly says that such a player cant play for Ireland in a FIFA sanctioned match. Nothing to do with the political ruling on citizenship.


If the rule was to let anyone born on the Island play for either and our players started getting offered mad money to defect to the north (uncapped players obviously) there be uproar . People are just complaining because we would have been most likely the better off in the situation.

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

Its hard for people not to get annoyed when others cant get their head around simple written rules.

Gibson being allowed play is a common sense decision that followed a **** up by FIFA. He shouldnt have been allowed play for us in the first place, but FIFA are willing to let this one slide because 1) they ****ed up and 2) he's a young guy who would be left with no international football ever if the went against him.

Common sense my hole. Why shouldn't he be allowed to play for the country where he holds citizenship? Our own foreign minister Dermot Ahern was proclaiming to the world that the GFA entitled players born in the North with Irish citizenship to play for the Irish team and now the rules have been changed to prevent this from happening!

SteKelly wrote:

How is it? FIFA isnt denying him an Irish passport/citizenship. It mearly says that such a player cant play for Ireland in a FIFA sanctioned match. Nothing to do with the political ruling on citizenship.

The essence of citizenship is that all citizens are equals yet from now on citizens born in the south alone will be allowed represent the Irish team whereas citizens in the North will not. Gibson is the sole exception to this. Do you not see how ridiculous and unfair that is?

SteKelly wrote:

If the rule was to let anyone born on the Island play for either and our players started getting offered mad money to defect to the north (uncapped players obviously) there be uproar .

And If the FA did that with regards to Kasper Schmeichel in an attempt to get him to choose England I'm sure there'd be uproar too. That's neither here nor there.

SteKelly wrote:

People are just complaining because we would have been most likely the better off in the situation.

Wrong, people are complaining because it's an injustice. Are you actually of the viewpoint that it is fair to allow citizens greater rights than that of other citizens? Are you of the view that Gibson should be allowed play for the ROI team and that other northern-born players should not?

I reckon those defending FIFA are the typical self-loathing Irish begrudgers in the Kevin Myers mould. "It doesn't affect me so why should I give a damn!"

KdjaCL

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Common sense my hole. Why shouldn't he be allowed to play for the country where he holds citizenship? Our own foreign minister Dermot Ahern was proclaiming to the world that the GFA entitled players born in the North with Irish citizenship to play for the Irish team and now the rules have been changed to prevent this from happening!

ehh simply cos hes not from there? hes from norther ireland which is a different country.

he has has no claim to citizenship in this country and certainly has none according to geographic location, a gesture by some politicians is not a birthright.

The rest of this thread or where its headed doesnt really belong in soccer its a political issue.

kdjac

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The essence of citizenship is that all citizens are equals yet from now on citizens born in the south alone will be allowed represent the Irish team whereas citizens in the North will not. Gibson is the sole exception to this. Do you not see how ridiculous and unfair that is?

!"

If thats the case , should Wayne Rooney decide he'd like an Irish passport and we give him one, should we be allowed to play him?

Would it be ok for the fai to go to brazil and start handing out citizenships with the governments permission to build a team? they'd be as much citizens as someone born in the north that gets a passport.

But either way your still missing the point. Under FIFA rules, to play in their matches that they sanction (they own their tournaments and decide who gets to play, just like any company decides who they want to deal with) , players have to fullfill certain criteria. People that happen to be born in the north cont meet these so dont get to play in a FIFA sanctioned game, simple as.

To again simplify it because its not sinlking into your head: Passport = not enough to play.

If Ireland set up a game played outside of FIFA's control they could play Beckham if they wanted, they just cant play a FIFA sanctioned game without following FIFA's rules.

Mr.Nice Guy

KdjaCL wrote: »

ehh simply cos hes not from there? hes from norther ireland which is a different country.

he has has no claim to citizenship in this country and certainly has none according to geographic location, a gesture by some politicians is not a birthright.

The rest of this thread or where its headed doesnt really belong in soccer its a political issue.

kdjac

I don't wish to get into a political debate but Ireland (as in the island) is a nation and thus can be regarded as a country. That is his birthright.

He has a claim to citizenship just as much as any man, woman or child born on this island. And gestures by politicans are what states are built upon.

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Wrong, people are complaining because it's an injustice. Are you actually of the viewpoint that it is fair to allow citizens greater rights than that of other citizens? Are you of the view that Gibson should be allowed play for the ROI team and that other northern-born players should not?

He should never have been allowed play for us in the first place. There was a few cock ups and he did so I'd take the common sense opinion and allow the guy have an international career as if he wasnt allowed play for us anymore he wouldnt be allowed play for anyone. The decision has now been sorted so this should, rightly, never crop up again.

KdjaCL

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

And gestures by politicans are what states are built upon.

And ours is built on the gestures by some which it not an island but 2 countries, i can live with that.

Desf said i played welll once, can i play for northern ireland?

Edit see Stekellys post

kdjac

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I don't wish to get into a political debate but Ireland (as in the island) is a nation and thus can be regarded as a country. That is his birthright..

No it cant. It's a differeent country. Is Scotland, Wales and England one country? If you go far enough around everything is an island, so should it all be one country?

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

If thats the case , should Wayne Rooney decide he'd like an Irish passport and we give him one, should we be allowed to play him?

If a person qualifies for citizenship then yes they should be entitled to play for our team and if Rooney was made an Irish citizen then he should be entitled to play for the team.

Stekelly wrote:

Would it be ok for the fai to go to brazil and start handing out citizenships with the governments permission to build a team? they'd be as much citizens as someone born in the north that gets a passport.

They wouldn't be as much citizens as someone born in the North because the Good Friday Agreement made special provision for people born in the North. This is what our foreign minister has been claiming.

SteKelly wrote:

But either way your still missing the point. Under FIFA rules, to play in their matches that they sanction (they own their tournaments and decide who gets to play, just like any company decides who they want to deal with) , players have to fullfill certain criteria. People that happen to be born in the north cont meet these so dont get to play in a FIFA sanctioned game, simple as.

It's not "simple as" by virtue of Darren Gibson pulling on a ROI jersey in the future. The rules could have been left as they were and players like Gibson allowed to play for the team where their heart lies.

SteKelly wrote:

To again simplify it because its not sinlking into your head: Passport = not enough to play.

What's not sinking into your head is that I don't think the attitude of a sporting organisation should take precedence over state and international law.

SteKelly wrote:

If Ireland set up a game played outside of FIFA's control they could play Beckham if they wanted, they just cant play a FIFA sanctioned game without following FIFA's rules.

So FIFA override our own laws?

KdjaCL wrote:

And ours is built on the gestures by some which it not an island but 2 countries, i can live with that.

Ours is built on a constitution which long argued that there were not two countries on the island and which according to recent amendments argues for the existence of an all-island "Irish Nation". One country, I can live with that.

KdjaCL wrote:

Desf said i played welll once, can i play for northern ireland?

Well Johnny Carey did in the forties, so who knows?

Stekelly wrote:

No it cant. It's a differeent country.

It's not. The Irish nation has been in existence for centuries. NI is an artificial construct built upon "gestures by politicians". Our very own constitution argues for an Irish Nation.

SteKelly wrote:

Is Scotland, Wales and England one country?

These are all nations just like ours.

SteKelly wrote:

If you go far enough around everything is an island, so should it all be one country?

Not all islands have centuries of common culture, history and nationhood like our island.

Time Magazine

Lads, European Law will always supercede Fifa's regulations.

I'm not saying the ECJ will not say "Fifa's view on the GFA is fine", but I am saying that, if the opposite is said, Fifa can pack up and leave.

KdjaCL

Ibid wrote: »

Lads, European Law will always supercede Fifa's regulations.

I'm not saying the ECJ will not say "Fifa's view on the GFA is fine", but I am saying that, if the opposite is said, Fifa can pack up and leave.

What has European Law got to do with FIFA? there is no recorded case of anyone changing their ability to play for any country by using the ECJ

Stopping a player playing for X country is not a restriction of trade, its abiding by your own rules which any sporting body is entitled to do.

Imo Gibson is a nordie and should never have played for us whether he wanted too or not in my "what makes you eglible" list hes not on it.

And if we went with the ECJ or Mr Nice Guy we would have Messi in no time i mean its just Messer shortened and we all know Messer is an irish slang word.


kdjac

Guy:Incognito

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If a person qualifies for citizenship then yes they should be entitled to play for our team and if Rooney was made an Irish citizen then he should be entitled to play for the team. .

Everyone that the governementdecide to give citizensip to "qualifies". The gfa is just a big blanket grantign of citizenship to people from another country.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

If They wouldn't be as much citizens as someone born in the North because the Good Friday Agreement made special provision for people born in the North. This is what our foreign minister has been claiming..

But Rooney would (from your above quote) ?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

What's not sinking into your head is that I don't think the attitude of a sporting organisation should take precedence over state and international law. .

Its not, FIFA hasnt taken or denyed anyone citizenship.
FIFA are essentially a companywith a produuct, therefore they get to decide who can avail of their product.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

So FIFA override our own laws?.

Again, FIFA havnt overrulled anything, they are simply saying that to take part in THEIR (i they own it) competitions, you have to meet their requirments.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Ours is built on a constitution which long argued that there were not two countries on the island and which according to recent amendments argues for the existence of an all-island "Irish Nation". One country, I can live with that. .

Whether you can live with it or not is irrelevant, its 2 seperate countries
If I decide to write a constution declaring my house a seperate country it doesnt make it so.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Well Johnny Carey did in the forties, so who knows? .

IIRC Puskas played for Hungary and Spain in the 50's. Cant happen now because of the rules, so whats your point.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's not. The Irish nation has been in existence for centuries. NI is an artificial construct built upon "gestures by politicians". Our very own constitution argues for an Irish Nation.

The gfa is an artificial construct built upon "gestures by politicians"

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

These are all nations just like ours..

and NI.

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Not all islands have centuries of common culture, history and nationhood like our island.

We do with the uk, maybe we should join them?

KdjaCL

mulitquote is a load of arse.



kdjac

leninbenjamin

the ruling was inevitable but imo it complete undermines the legality of the GFA which was unanimously voted in by both nations. it's not simply the Govt. randomly assigning citizenship to whoever they damn well like. Parameters for conferring the citizenship of RoI to the entire island was drafted in the agreement and then ratified BY BOTH STATES. It'll be interesting to see what comes of this, but you'd imagine if players were to challenge this they would have a case.

and KdjaCL, EU law always supercedes UEFA and FIFA. that's why they can't push through the limit on "homegrown" players. the football authorities will make life as difficult as possible for the clubs if they try to undermine them, but ultimately if there is enough willpower the clubs will succeed as they largely have the law on their sides. it's just a question of will people be bothered to put in the energy to pursue this? doubtful although you never know.

Stekelly: the GFA agreement is an artificial construct yet ultimately our constitution was changed by it.... doesn't add up in my view. surely all local, national and international laws can be viewed in a similar fashion? nothing but a mutual agreement from start to finish...

Mr.Nice Guy

Stekelly wrote: »

Everyone that the governementdecide to give citizensip to "qualifies". The gfa is just a big blanket grantign of citizenship to people from another country.

There are rules in place for citizenship to be granted. The GFA is an example of this State making special provision for the "children of the nation".

SteKelly wrote:

But Rooney would (from your above quote) ?

If Rooney fulfilled the criteria to qualify as a citizen then he'd be entitled to play as would those born in other countries.

SteKelly wrote:

Its not, FIFA hasnt taken or denyed anyone citizenship.
FIFA are essentially a companywith a produuct, therefore they get to decide who can avail of their product.

FIFA have placed limitations on citizenship and no "company" should have the right to do that.

SteKelly wrote:

Again, FIFA havnt overrulled anything, they are simply saying that to take part in THEIR (i they own it) competitions, you have to meet their requirments.

Unless your name is Darren Gibson?

SteKelly wrote:

Whether you can live with it or not is irrelevant, its 2 seperate countries

It's not 2 separate countries it's one country. A nation is a country. You saying otherwise is irrelevant.

SteKelly wrote:

If I decide to write a constution declaring my house a seperate country it doesnt make it so.

Good thing we're not talking about a house then. A state is governed by its constitution and ours acknowledges the existence of an all-island nation. This is a fact.

SteKelly wrote:

IIRC Puskas played for Hungary and Spain in the 50's. Cant happen now because of the rules, so whats your point.

My point is that the rules obviously bend and that this is the case with the "Gibson saga". You acknowledge yourself that the rules have been bent yet you wish to defend this flawed system? Strange.

SteKelly wrote:

The gfa is an artificial construct built upon "gestures by politicians"

Well the DUP have argued that. I would disagree.

SteKelly wrote:

and NI.

Nah. Its "national flag" is a Union Jack and the four main parties class thmselves as either "Irish" or British" rather than "Northern Irish".

SteKelly wrote:

We do with the uk, maybe we should join them?

I would say the fact we sought to separate from them shows we hadn't quite enough.

KdjaCL

leninbenjamin wrote: »

and KdjaCL, EU law always supercedes UEFA and FIFA. that's why they can't push through the limit on "homegrown" players. the football authorities will make life as difficult as possible for the clubs if they try to undermine them, but ultimately if there is enough willpower the clubs will succeed as they largely have the law on their sides. it's just a question of will people be bothered to put in the energy to pursue this? doubtful although you never know.

No it supercedes UEFA in relation to working rights but has yet and will never undermine or over rule FIFA. You seem to forget playing for your country is not a job.

kdjac

Time Magazine

KdjaCL wrote: »

No it supercedes UEFA in relation to working rights but has yet and will never undermine or over rule FIFA. You seem to forget playing for your country is not a job.

kdjac

Law can intervene in organisational rules. And regularly does. Take, for example, Portmarnock Golf Club and restricting rights to women players.

And stranger things have happened than international matches being deemed an economic activity. Not that I know too much in that field, mind.

Time Magazine

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

It's not 2 separate countries it's one country. A nation is a country.

You're wrong here. The terms are somewhat interchangeable, but not the same.

KdjaCL

Ibid wrote: »

Law can intervene in organisational rules. And regularly does. Take, for example, Portmarnock Golf Club and restricting rights to women players.

And stranger things have happened than international matches being deemed an economic activity. Not that I know too much in that field, mind.

Yes but FIFA are not an industry of sorts, tbh to break it down if you dont play by their rules they take the ball and go away.


ECJ has no power over them and never will. There is no recorded case of any like ECJ winning something like this vs FIFA Tim Cahill maybe but it was FIFAs amnesty that allowed him to change.


kdjac

Time Magazine

KdjaCL wrote: »

ECJ has no power over them and never will. There is no recorded case of any like ECJ winning something like this vs FIFA Tim Cahill maybe but it was FIFAs amnesty that allowed him to change.

I'm not familiar with any case being brought in front of the ECJ regarding an organisation patently refusing to accept the constitution (and that's exactly what it is) of two of its members.

eirebhoy

KdjaCL wrote: »

he has has no claim to citizenship in this country and certainly has none according to geographic location

Getting away from the football for a second. This country is thousands of years old, it has 32 counties and it's called Ireland. It always has been and always will be. And back to football... if the IFA and FAI never split we obviously wouldn't be having this debate and we'd be the one country to FIFA. We can't just deny a person his right to be Irish because he was born and bred under British rule.

leninbenjamin

Ibid wrote: »

I'm not familiar with any case being brought in front of the ECJ regarding an organisation patently refusing to accept the constitution (and that's exactly what it is) of two of its members.

a point i was going to make. there's no real precedence to this. if it were to go to court we could well win, but i guess KdjaCL you make a valid point about FIFA taking the ball away. the question would be could the ECJ make life difficult enough for FIFA to operate as usual in the rest of the EU states and perhaps pressure them to concede? it's unexplored territory really... should the ECJ rule in our favour, you cannot say clearly that FIFA political international political clout would be strong enough to overrule the political clout of the ECJ and thus the union as a whole, and that's probably what it'll come down to at the end of the day.

Guy:Incognito

eirebhoy wrote: »

We can't just deny a person his right to be Irish because he was born and bred under British rule.

Who denied him his right to be Irish? Does he not have an Irish passport?

Johnny_the_fox

Not so longer ago (well nearly 10 years) ... if i can recall correctly - that due to the lack of players - northern ireland appoached players which held a uk passport... for example : David Johnson - he was named to play for the northern ireland in a international qualifier - but was injured - ended up playing for Jamaica.

currently - Maik Taylor holds a britsh passport which is the only reason he can play for northern ireland...

point being - whats the difference between Darron Gibson and Maik Taylor?

also : whos to say darron doesnt have a british passport cant play for them anyway due to the "Northern Ireland players must carry a British passports when going abroad" factor.