Post history

History for ConanTroutman

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Back to topic

Current version

Posted July 15, 2015 19:04 · last edited July 15, 2015 19:04

Bestie wrote:

Thanks CT. Yes I kinda get that. I KNEW someone couldn't resist bringing in other articles. lol

Just talking about 5.1 i.e. the 'any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependant on residence in a certan country'

>>> Just had to make an edit ... CT - despite some views to the contrary it's Bestie, not Beastie.

Sorry, I think that calling you Beastie was thanks to autocorrect on my phone.

As for bringing in other articles, as I said in my post in my view Article 5 is there as a guiding principle for most cases - players who have only ever had citizenship which allows them to play for one FIFA member only. However, in more complicated cases the other articles supersede 5. Therefore it's impossible to talk about Article 5 without bringing in the other articles in this case, because as I see it the other articles supersede 5 so whether Wynne meets 5.1 is only part of the question.

I've also said all along that I don't think that Wynne's NZ citizenship is dependent on residence in the sense that is intended there. So for me there was never a question of him being ineligible under 5.1 anyway.

Previous versions

1 version
ConanTroutman edited July 15, 2015 19:04
Bestie wrote:

Thanks CT. Yes I kinda get that. I KNEW someone couldn't resist bringing in other articles. lol

Just talking about 5.1 i.e. the 'any person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependant on residence in a certan country'

>>> Just had to make an edit ... CT - despite some views to the contrary it's Bestie, not Beastie.

Sorry, I think that calling you Beastie was thanks to autocorrect on my phone.

As for bringing in other articles, as I said in my post in my view Article 5 is there as a guiding principle for most cases - players who have only ever had citizenship which allows them to play for one FIFA member only. However, in more complicated cases the other articles supersede 5. Therefore it's impossible to talk about Article 5 without bringing in the other articles in this case, because as I see it the other articles supersede 5 so whether Wynne meets 5.1 is a meaningless question.

I've also said all along that I don't think that Wynne's NZ citizenship is dependent on residence in the sense that is intended there. So for me there was never a question of him being ineligible under 5.1 anyway.