All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

5835 replies · 1,102,368 views
over 10 years ago

Has anything happened because of this? Or are we all just held in some sort of purgatory type limbo of not knowing?

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Was there any conclusion as to wether Raheem Sterling was eligible for England and able to bypass Article 7 via the Home Nations Agreement which should be superseding Article 6?  Do we need to notify the San Marino FA, and put a lazy $5 on pick the score 3-0 to San Marino before the upcoming San Marino-England game?

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago · edited over 10 years ago · History

He has to fulfil article 6 and 7. Apparently FIFA don't always make exemptions public, but I would think they must have granted one for him, otherwise another association would have protested his eligibility already.




Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Wibblebutt wrote:

He has to fulfil article 6 and 7. Apparently FIFA don't always make exemptions public, but I would think they must have granted one for him, otherwise another association would have protested his eligibility already.

But would they?  If the exemption's not been made public, how would San Marino, Vanuatu, Scotland etc know ligitimately?

Supporter world's best and worst football teams: Waikato/WaiBop, Kingz, Knights, Phoenix, The Argyle, The Whites & the All Whites

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Marto wrote:

Wibblebutt wrote:

He has to fulfil article 6 and 7. Apparently FIFA don't always make exemptions public, but I would think they must have granted one for him, otherwise another association would have protested his eligibility already.

But would they?  If the exemption's not been made public, how would San Marino, Vanuatu, Scotland etc know ligitimately?

That's true. It's possible that there's been no protest because they all assume he's eligible.




Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Now 2 weeks since NZF no show to the OFC hearing. No announcement since.

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Did the NTC registrations, new questions are

Country of birth, parents country of birth, grandparents country of birth.

E's Flat Ah's Flat Too

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

So still no 5 years since the age of 18 question?


Auckland will rise once more

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Not that I viewed. Maybe if you answer nonNZ it comes up.

E's Flat Ah's Flat Too

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Apparently NZF have got some exemptions already according to the Herald. Imagine this is Roux, Wynne & Musa poss Burfoot. Australia with 20 exemptions since 2008.


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago · edited over 10 years ago · History

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c...

I don't think "exemptions" is the right word to be using. That would imply FIFA allowing players who don't meet the criteria to play in future games.

It sounds like NZF have applied for permission to have players who meet the criteria to play for the national teams.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Except they don't meet the criteria, which is why FIFA need to give permission. Sounds like an exemption to me...

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Do we know who the players are? I bet Wynne is not one of them.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

Do we know who the players are? I bet Wynne is not one of them.

It will be more than just U23 mens olympic squad, with U17 Boys about to be named and U20 Womens OFC qualifying named last week.

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

NZF have received exemptions from Fifa for some players caught up in this saga. The exemptions, which relate to article seven of the Fifa statutes governing player eligibility, were applied for after the Pacific Games.


Thats Wynne. We Wynee OFC.
Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

nomeans wrote:

NZF have received exemptions from Fifa for some players caught up in this saga. The exemptions, which relate to article seven of the Fifa statutes governing player eligibility, were applied for after the Pacific Games.


That could be very clever ... assume all players before the court dates obtain an exemption.... NZF could argue a delay in paper work and admin oversight as the players always met the guidelines ...  

Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Except that they obviously applied well after the tournament. 


Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Tegal wrote:

Except that they obviously applied well after the tournament. 

Exactly right, as they would have produced those applications. Besides, just cause you applied, does not mean you can play in the interim. Otherwise lets got get a bunch of Brazilians for our next game, apply, play them and when its turned down go "Oh well"

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Midfielder wrote:

nomeans wrote:

NZF have received exemptions from Fifa for some players caught up in this saga. The exemptions, which relate to article seven of the Fifa statutes governing player eligibility, were applied for after the Pacific Games.


That could be very clever ... assume all players before the court dates obtain an exemption.... NZF could argue a delay in paper work and admin oversight as the players always met the guidelines ...  

And the players don't meet the guidelines, hence the need to apply for an exemption. 


Allegedly

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Tegal wrote:

Midfielder wrote:

nomeans wrote:

NZF have received exemptions from Fifa for some players caught up in this saga. The exemptions, which relate to article seven of the Fifa statutes governing player eligibility, were applied for after the Pacific Games.


That could be very clever ... assume all players before the court dates obtain an exemption.... NZF could argue a delay in paper work and admin oversight as the players always met the guidelines ...  

And the players don't meet the guidelines, hence the need to apply for an exemption. 



They meet the guidelines for applying for an exemption though. Fifa said there were no ongoing proceedings for potential breaches of player eligibility. We could argue that the issue was caused because OFC moved the qualifying tournament from the 2–12 December to the 3–17 July and we assumed that because it was decided to absorb the qualifying tournament into the Pacific Games that the pacfic games rules applied and since it was our first time playing in the tournament it was made clear to us that the FIFA STATUTES overruled the PACIFIC GAMES CHARTER - (Pages 19-22) and the OLYMPIC CHARTER (Pages 79-81) and it was not in the spirit of the game to play the final before we had the chance to appeal. I think nzf have to take this all the way and we will eventually win unless fifa get involved.
Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

nomeans wrote:

Tegal wrote:

Midfielder wrote:

nomeans wrote:

NZF have received exemptions from Fifa for some players caught up in this saga. The exemptions, which relate to article seven of the Fifa statutes governing player eligibility, were applied for after the Pacific Games.


That could be very clever ... assume all players before the court dates obtain an exemption.... NZF could argue a delay in paper work and admin oversight as the players always met the guidelines ...  

And the players don't meet the guidelines, hence the need to apply for an exemption. 



They meet the guidelines for applying for an exemption though. Fifa said there were no ongoing proceedings for potential breaches of player eligibility. We could argue that the issue was caused because OFC moved the qualifying tournament from the 2–12 December to the 3–17 July and we assumed that because it was decided to absorb the qualifying tournament into the Pacific Games that the pacfic games rules applied and since it was our first time playing in the tournament it was made clear to us that the FIFA STATUTES overruled the PACIFIC GAMES CHARTER - (Pages 19-22) and the OLYMPIC CHARTER (Pages 79-81) and it was not in the spirit of the game to play the final before we had the chance to appeal. I think nzf have to take this all the way and we will eventually win unless fifa get involved.

I hope we win as I want to watch us in Brazil next year but that we really should never have got in this situation in the first place.

Supporter world's best and worst football teams: Waikato/WaiBop, Kingz, Knights, Phoenix, The Argyle, The Whites & the All Whites

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Jesus dude - understatement of the year,but I hear ya

                                                                        COYN    

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

For what its worth the more I think about it, if NZF can get all effected players to have all their exemption status approved ... the argument becomes different to if players still had not received  exemption status...

My reading of the Tea Leafs is the penalty will be reduced a fair bit if all effected players hold exemption status ....  while still a big penalty it will come nowhere near the 2 to 4 year ban it could have been. NZF may have pulled from the jaws of the lion the baby and may only loose a finger .

I still wonder aloud how no one is being put to the sword at NZF the error out of 10 is 25 and the potential for being banned from FIFA for some time was very likely ... Arguably the biggest administration stuff up since Australian Swimming banned Draw Fraser in the 60's ... However that is a bit harsh as the old Soccer Australia and NSL have a track record second to none... but still no one put to the sword seems strange. 

BUT credit where credit due delaying the court case until the approvals are through is very clever... 

Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago · edited over 10 years ago · History

MIdfielder I seem to have been promoted recently by the elite from "Tegal Fan club member 1" to "Lawerish".

I think it is only fitting after that post that you also are promoted and take my former title. That may then mean number 3 (can't remember  who that is, also moves up and someone of integrity and obvious intelligence takes his place)

Patrick are you working today?


Auckland will rise once more

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Midfielder wrote:

For what its worth the more I think about it, if NZF can get all effected players to have all their exemption status approved ... the argument becomes different to if players still had not received  exemption status...

My reading of the Tea Leafs is the penalty will be reduced a fair bit if all effected players hold exemption status ....  while still a big penalty it will come nowhere near the 2 to 4 year ban it could have been. NZF may have pulled from the jaws of the lion the baby and may only loose a finger .

I still wonder aloud how no one is being put to the sword at NZF the error out of 10 is 25 and the potential for being banned from FIFA for some time was very likely ... Arguably the biggest administration stuff up since Australian Swimming banned Draw Fraser in the 60's ... However that is a bit harsh as the old Soccer Australia and NSL have a track record second to none... but still no one put to the sword seems strange. 

BUT credit where credit due delaying the court case until the approvals are through is very clever... 

I'm not convinced that this is true. the 'offence' as alleged is playing inexempt players; the offence occurring when they played. Immaterial whether or not they have since received exemption. If they exemption hadn't been applied for before they played, the fact that they applied for one after being caught won't provide them with a more favourable outcome. If anything, it would tend to point to NZF accepting that they were wrong and these players needed exemptions - by some could essentially be seen as a guilty plea.
Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

NP

You must be about the only person in the Football world who thinks this is not and open and shut case it's just can we get the penalty down.

Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

AP

I doubt I could reach such a lofty status.

Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago · edited over 10 years ago · History

Double post

Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Midfielder wrote:

NP

You must be about the only person in the Football world who thinks this is not and open and shut case it's just can we get the penalty down.

Read what I said again.
Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Rumours in twitterverse that appeal hearing is set for this Monday. Anyone able to confirm?

Kotahitanga. We are one.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Who cares? Not going to be reversed. Get exemptions - move on. Wasting $$$


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Midfielder wrote:

For what its worth the more I think about it, if NZF can get all effected players to have all their exemption status approved ... the argument becomes different to if players still had not received  exemption status...

My reading of the Tea Leafs is the penalty will be reduced a fair bit if all effected players hold exemption status ....  while still a big penalty it will come nowhere near the 2 to 4 year ban it could have been. NZF may have pulled from the jaws of the lion the baby and may only loose a finger .

I still wonder aloud how no one is being put to the sword at NZF the error out of 10 is 25 and the potential for being banned from FIFA for some time was very likely ... Arguably the biggest administration stuff up since Australian Swimming banned Draw Fraser in the 60's ... However that is a bit harsh as the old Soccer Australia and NSL have a track record second to none... but still no one put to the sword seems strange. 

BUT credit where credit due delaying the court case until the approvals are through is very clever... 

I'm not convinced that this is true. the 'offence' as alleged is playing inexempt players; the offence occurring when they played. Immaterial whether or not they have since received exemption. If they exemption hadn't been applied for before they played, the fact that they applied for one after being caught won't provide them with a more favourable outcome. If anything, it would tend to point to NZF accepting that they were wrong and these players needed exemptions - by some could essentially be seen as a guilty plea.

A momentous occasion - the first time we actually agree on this thread!

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

I knew you'd come around lol

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

I'd have thought we'd have heard something by now. It's been a week.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

make that two

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Take it easy guys, do you know how hard it is to get a fax machine repairman these days?

People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Or an answer full stop out of NZF

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

The response will come from OFC though wont it? Not NZF.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Take it easy guys, do you know how hard it is to get a fax machine repairman these days?

and NZF's OHP has a blown bulb.

Permalink Permalink