Post history

History for Wibblebutt

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Current version

Posted July 29, 2015 03:54 · last edited July 29, 2015 04:07

james dean wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

james dean wrote:

james dean wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Sunseeker wrote:

I get your point, but if its so cut and dried to assist the genuine, why on earth is not a transparent rule bound process that is open and there for all to see?

That's a fair question. You'd think if there was a proper exemption process it would be documented somewhere.

It's entirely possible that we're all suffering groupthink here, that the rules are not intended to ping lads like Wynne, that FIFA will see common sense and this will all go away.

I think the fact that the UK has a blanket exemption for players who have had 5 years schooling shows that is what FIFA intended (see the Raheem Stirling example). I actually still don't see how he could qualify and a NZ kid doesn't so the exemptions has to be straight forward...

In fact, the UK could easily do exactly what the rules are intended to negate and bring kids over for junior schooling and qualify them which to me makes the rules a nonsense

Actually, reading about that in more detail I think Raheem Stirling is in exactly the same situation as Wynne and he is not eligible for England. I think the home nations agreement only relates to players who are "eligible to represent more than one association on account of their nationality". He isn't eligible to represent England on account of his nationality therefore the 5 year schooling clause isn't relevant.

Yeah, we discussed this a few pages back - if the FA hadn't applied for an exemption, he is ineligible. But without knowing that they hadn't, it's hard to tell.

I'm sure they relied on the Home Nations ruling and he is not eligible

Yeah, nah.

I was sure the home nations agreement was an alteration to Article 6, as the only evidence of it's wording I could find initially was on wiki, and some news articles about it. However this post from the Scottish FA shows it is actually an amendment to Article 5 (it says 15 in the post but has since been renumbered 5).

So basically anyone who has been educated in one of the Home Nations for 5 years or more under the age of 18 is eligible for said nation. However under the agreement, no immigrant player can play for any of the home nations if they're 14 or older no matter how long they live in the country for. Eg if you moved to England aged 20, and had no ancestral link, you would NEVER be allowed to play for England.

Still seems strange to me that they are allowed to amend Article 5 though, when situations like this are specifically covered in Article 6.2.

Previous versions

4 versions

Wibblebutt edited July 29, 2015 04:07

james dean wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

james dean wrote:

james dean wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Sunseeker wrote:

I get your point, but if its so cut and dried to assist the genuine, why on earth is not a transparent rule bound process that is open and there for all to see?

That's a fair question. You'd think if there was a proper exemption process it would be documented somewhere.

It's entirely possible that we're all suffering groupthink here, that the rules are not intended to ping lads like Wynne, that FIFA will see common sense and this will all go away.

I think the fact that the UK has a blanket exemption for players who have had 5 years schooling shows that is what FIFA intended (see the Raheem Stirling example). I actually still don't see how he could qualify and a NZ kid doesn't so the exemptions has to be straight forward...

In fact, the UK could easily do exactly what the rules are intended to negate and bring kids over for junior schooling and qualify them which to me makes the rules a nonsense

Actually, reading about that in more detail I think Raheem Stirling is in exactly the same situation as Wynne and he is not eligible for England. I think the home nations agreement only relates to players who are "eligible to represent more than one association on account of their nationality". He isn't eligible to represent England on account of his nationality therefore the 5 year schooling clause isn't relevant.

Yeah, we discussed this a few pages back - if the FA hadn't applied for an exemption, he is ineligible. But without knowing that they hadn't, it's hard to tell.

I'm sure they relied on the Home Nations ruling and he is not eligible

Yeah, nah.

I was sure the home nations agreement was an alteration to Article 6, as the only evidence of it's wording I could find initially was on wiki, and some news articles about it. However this post from the Scottish FA shows it is actually an amendment to Article 5 (it says 15 in the post but has since been renumbered 5).

So basically anyone who has been educated in the UK for 5 years or more under the age of 18 is eligible for said nation. However under the agreement, no immigrant player can play for any of the home nations if they're 14 or older no matter how long they live in the country for. Eg if you moved to England aged 20, and had no ancestral link, you would NEVER be allowed to play for England.

Still seems strange to me that they are allowed to amend Article 5 though, when situations like this are specifically covered in Article 6.2.

Wibblebutt edited July 29, 2015 04:06

james dean wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

james dean wrote:

james dean wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Sunseeker wrote:

I get your point, but if its so cut and dried to assist the genuine, why on earth is not a transparent rule bound process that is open and there for all to see?

That's a fair question. You'd think if there was a proper exemption process it would be documented somewhere.

It's entirely possible that we're all suffering groupthink here, that the rules are not intended to ping lads like Wynne, that FIFA will see common sense and this will all go away.

I think the fact that the UK has a blanket exemption for players who have had 5 years schooling shows that is what FIFA intended (see the Raheem Stirling example). I actually still don't see how he could qualify and a NZ kid doesn't so the exemptions has to be straight forward...

In fact, the UK could easily do exactly what the rules are intended to negate and bring kids over for junior schooling and qualify them which to me makes the rules a nonsense

Actually, reading about that in more detail I think Raheem Stirling is in exactly the same situation as Wynne and he is not eligible for England. I think the home nations agreement only relates to players who are "eligible to represent more than one association on account of their nationality". He isn't eligible to represent England on account of his nationality therefore the 5 year schooling clause isn't relevant.

Yeah, we discussed this a few pages back - if the FA hadn't applied for an exemption, he is ineligible. But without knowing that they hadn't, it's hard to tell.

I'm sure they relied on the Home Nations ruling and he is not eligible

Yeah, nah.

I was sure the home nations agreement was an alteration to Article 6, as the only evidence of it's wording I could find initially was on wiki, and some news articles about it. However this post from the Scottish FA shows it is actually an amendment to Article 5 (it says 15 in the post but has since been renumbered 5).

Still seems strange to me that they are allowed to amend Article 5 though, when situations like this are specifically covered in Article 6.2.

Wibblebutt edited July 29, 2015 03:59

james dean wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

james dean wrote:

james dean wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Sunseeker wrote:

I get your point, but if its so cut and dried to assist the genuine, why on earth is not a transparent rule bound process that is open and there for all to see?

That's a fair question. You'd think if there was a proper exemption process it would be documented somewhere.

It's entirely possible that we're all suffering groupthink here, that the rules are not intended to ping lads like Wynne, that FIFA will see common sense and this will all go away.

I think the fact that the UK has a blanket exemption for players who have had 5 years schooling shows that is what FIFA intended (see the Raheem Stirling example). I actually still don't see how he could qualify and a NZ kid doesn't so the exemptions has to be straight forward...

In fact, the UK could easily do exactly what the rules are intended to negate and bring kids over for junior schooling and qualify them which to me makes the rules a nonsense

Actually, reading about that in more detail I think Raheem Stirling is in exactly the same situation as Wynne and he is not eligible for England. I think the home nations agreement only relates to players who are "eligible to represent more than one association on account of their nationality". He isn't eligible to represent England on account of his nationality therefore the 5 year schooling clause isn't relevant.

Yeah, we discussed this a few pages back - if the FA hadn't applied for an exemption, he is ineligible. But without knowing that they hadn't, it's hard to tell.

I'm sure they relied on the Home Nations ruling and he is not eligible

Yeah, nah.

I was sure the home nations agreement was an alteration to Article 6, as the only evidence of it's wording I could find initially was on wiki, and some news articles about it. However this post from the Scottish FA shows it is actually an amendment to Article 5 (it says 15 in the post but has since been renumbered 5).

Still seems strange to me that they are allowed to amend Article 5 though.

Wibblebutt edited July 29, 2015 03:58

james dean wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

james dean wrote:

james dean wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Sunseeker wrote:

I get your point, but if its so cut and dried to assist the genuine, why on earth is not a transparent rule bound process that is open and there for all to see?

That's a fair question. You'd think if there was a proper exemption process it would be documented somewhere.

It's entirely possible that we're all suffering groupthink here, that the rules are not intended to ping lads like Wynne, that FIFA will see common sense and this will all go away.

I think the fact that the UK has a blanket exemption for players who have had 5 years schooling shows that is what FIFA intended (see the Raheem Stirling example). I actually still don't see how he could qualify and a NZ kid doesn't so the exemptions has to be straight forward...

In fact, the UK could easily do exactly what the rules are intended to negate and bring kids over for junior schooling and qualify them which to me makes the rules a nonsense

Actually, reading about that in more detail I think Raheem Stirling is in exactly the same situation as Wynne and he is not eligible for England. I think the home nations agreement only relates to players who are "eligible to represent more than one association on account of their nationality". He isn't eligible to represent England on account of his nationality therefore the 5 year schooling clause isn't relevant.

Yeah, we discussed this a few pages back - if the FA hadn't applied for an exemption, he is ineligible. But without knowing that they hadn't, it's hard to tell.

I'm sure they relied on the Home Nations ruling and he is not eligible

Yeah, nah.

I was sure the home nations agreement was an alteration to Article 6, as the only evidence of it's wording I could find initially was on wiki, and some news articles about it. However this post from the Scottish FA shows it is actually an amendment to Article 5 (it says 15 in the post but has since been renumbered 5).