All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams
From an article on the main page:
Martin said he could not name other players potentially affected or the number now under the spotlight. Decisions about eligibility for New Zealand were made by a "technical committee" who would check a player's passport and terms against criteria, he said.
I sure would like to know who is part of this technical committee...
Who is Rob Pickstock then? What's his background?
Regarding this 'we thought there was an issue with Wynne but decided 'fudge it' theme that's coming through, I thought that what Martin said was 'early advise from the lawyers was that if we applied and it was not given, we are stuffed'
That's not them saying 'we knew this'. That's the initial feedback from the lawyers that NZF have asked to look over their position around this.
Do I have that right?
Yeah, pretty much. But guess the point here is - there was clearly awareness that there may be an issue around Wynn's eligibility at NZF (i.e. it's not an oversight, or them simply being unaware of this being an issue at all). The legal advice (wrongly, I think) said FIFA may not make him eligible and that could be it - and in light of that advice, they proceeded to play him anyway, without clarification from FIFA. And furthermore, they've now publically admitted to that situation.
You'd have thought in light of that legal advice, you'd want FIFA to clarify the situation, and you wouldn't play Wynn in the meantime and endanger your whole campaign.
So now them saying - 'oh, yes, he's clearly eligible' sounds hollow, and their decision to play him in spite of uncertainty around eligibility, and without contacting FIFA in relation to it, is pretty unlikely to endear NZF and their position to FIFA if the latter end up having to make a definitive ruling on this.
From Sunday/Monday/whatever day they got the lawyers involved, the initial feedback they received from the lawyers on their 1st look over the eligibility criteria. That's what I took from what Martin meant. Not 'the lawyers looked at it and we played him'. More towards 'since we have engaged our lawyers in the last 24 hours, the initial view from lawyers is.......'
Grumpy old bastard alert
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Regarding this 'we thought there was an issue with Wynne but decided 'fudge it' theme that's coming through, I thought that what Martin said was 'early advise from the lawyers was that if we applied and it was not given, we are stuffed'
That's not them saying 'we knew this'. That's the initial feedback from the lawyers that NZF have asked to look over their position around this.
Do I have that right?
Yeah, pretty much. But guess the point here is - there was clearly awareness that there may be an issue around Wynn's eligibility at NZF (i.e. it's not an oversight, or them simply being unaware of this being an issue at all). The legal advice (wrongly, I think) said FIFA may not make him eligible and that could be it - and in light of that advice, they proceeded to play him anyway, without clarification from FIFA. And furthermore, they've now publically admitted to that situation.
You'd have thought in light of that legal advice, you'd want FIFA to clarify the situation, and you wouldn't play Wynn in the meantime and endanger your whole campaign.
So now them saying - 'oh, yes, he's clearly eligible' sounds hollow, and their decision to play him in spite of uncertainty around eligibility, and without contacting FIFA in relation to it, is pretty unlikely to endear NZF and their position to FIFA if the latter end up having to make a definitive ruling on this.
From Sunday/Monday/whatever day they got the lawyers involved, the initial feedback they received from the lawyers on their 1st look over the eligibility criteria. That's what I took from what Martin meant. Not 'the lawyers looked at it and we played him'. More towards 'since we have engaged our lawyers in the last 24 hours, the initial view from lawyers is.......'
Hmm, that's not what I took from it, since Martin said that the legal advice was that FIFA may not approve Wynn if approached about his eligibility, which to me implies this happened before the Vanuatu protest.
It's possible I misunderstood though, I've only heard what he said once.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
Grumpy old bastard alert
Where do you get this from? As far as I can see the term "nationality" isn't defined in the statute (I may have missed this though), so his nationality could be considered to be NZ since he is a citizen here and has a passport
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
I agree that's what they intended but it is very surprising that there's no definition for 'permanent nationality' in the Definitions of the Statutes. 'Permanent Nationality' has the potential to be interpreted as any nationality you have, as once you have the nationality it is often permanent from that time.
'Primary' or 'First' nationality would be much clearer IMO.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
So what happens if you revoke your permanant nationality?
Sterling is an exception under the Home Nations agreement which FIFA has approved.
Despite having lived in England since the age of five, Sterling was initially only eligible to represent Jamaica at international level. It was not until September 2009 that FIFA agreed to the proposals by the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh Football Associations to update the "home nations agreement", allowing players who were educated in their nation for five years or more to become eligible for their national team.[52] Sterling first represented England at under-16 level in November 2009 in a match against Northern Ireland.[53] When speaking of the possibility of playing for Jamaica, Sterling said: "When it comes to that decision, that is when I will decide, but if Jamaica calls for me, why not?"[54]
So same situation he is eligible in the UK but not anywhere else in the world without seeking an exemption? Doesn't that seem odd?
Normo's coming home
From an article on the main page:
Martin said he could not name other players potentially affected or the number now under the spotlight. Decisions about eligibility for New Zealand were made by a "technical committee" who would check a player's passport and terms against criteria, he said.
I sure would like to know who is part of this technical committee...
http://www.3news.co.nz/sport/new-zealand-football-...
In this video, the camera focuses on men at the back of the room while mentioning the technical committee.
de Jong and another.
Anyone who knows FDJ will know the look on his face is the one when he is totally pissed off.
That's just his normal look
Sterling is an exception under the Home Nations agreement which FIFA has approved.
Despite having lived in England since the age of five, Sterling was initially only eligible to represent Jamaica at international level. It was not until September 2009 that FIFA agreed to the proposals by the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh Football Associations to update the "home nations agreement", allowing players who were educated in their nation for five years or more to become eligible for their national team.[52] Sterling first represented England at under-16 level in November 2009 in a match against Northern Ireland.[53] When speaking of the possibility of playing for Jamaica, Sterling said: "When it comes to that decision, that is when I will decide, but if Jamaica calls for me, why not?"[54]
So same situation he is eligible in the UK but not anywhere else in the world without seeking an exemption? Doesn't that seem odd?
Not really - it's effectively a blanket FIFA exemption for players in that situation in the Home Countries.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
So what happens if you revoke your permanant nationality?
Your passport gets revoked, you can't present the passport to the FIFA match commissioner, and there you go - you become ineligible to play for that country.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
Where do you get this from? As far as I can see the term "nationality" isn't defined in the statute (I may have missed this though), so his nationality could be considered to be NZ since he is a citizen here and has a passport
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
I agree that's what they intended but it is very surprising that there's no definition for 'permanent nationality' in the Definitions of the Statutes. 'Permanent Nationality' has the potential to be interpreted as any nationality you have, as once you have the nationality it is often permanent from that time.
'Primary' or 'First' nationality would be much clearer IMO.
Yeah, though I guess they needed to find a term that's not overly restrictive - for example, some people may, for FIFA purposes, have multiple nationalities at birth.
[quote=BBL]
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
But wouldn't the four points under articles 6 and 7 be redundant if nationality refers to birth country? I assume they're there for eligiblity for the other country for article 6 but they do specifically mention birth in those articles but not in article 5.
It also says "in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions". So birth seems to be separate to this as that is 6a
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
Because the situation as you've described it is exactly the situation that FIFA wants to prevent by these statutes. I posted the links to a few articles reflecting FIFA's position on this a few pages back, will help you for some context.
[quote=BBL]
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
But wouldn't the four points under articles 6 and 7 be redundant if nationality refers to birth country? I assume they're there for eligiblity for the other country for article 6 but they do specifically mention birth in those articles but not in article 5.
It also says "in addition to having the relevant nationality, he fulfils at least one of the following conditions". So birth seems to be separate to this as that is 6a
They are - which is why Section 5 is the governing principle, modified by Sections 6, 7, and 8 where the 'permanent nationality' issue is not straightforward.
So basically, players are eligible or ineligible under section 5, unless they're in situations as described in modifying sections 6, 7, and 8.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
Martin said he could not name other players potentially affected or the number now under the spotlight. Decisions about eligibility for New Zealand were made by a "technical committee" who would check a player's passport and terms against criteria, he said.
I sure would like to know who is part of this technical committee...
The NZF info on Rob suggests he's primarily the logistics guy, but his Linkedin bio includes:
.
Managing director
Ora Limited
August 2001 – October 2005 (4 years 3 months)Auckland
Immigration Settlement
.
He's also a past or present shareholder or director of:
The Emigration Group Australasia Limited
Settle NZ Limited
.
This suggests he has experience in assessing nationality, residence, immigration criteria, and would be a handy guy for NZF to have on-staff. I wonder if Fred asked for his input or just told him to book the hotels and carry the bags.
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
Firstly, you can't be a permanent resident and have a NZ passport, you have to be a citizen. Secondly, the point is over intent and application of FIFA's statutes, not over how the issue in question is defined under any given's country law.
And the way FIFA interpret and apply the statute in question is what I've been trying to explain.
Except NP your take on it conflicts with most who have read and understood it on here, OFCs committees, FIFAs Committees most national associations and even NZ Footballs own take on it.
At that point do you think you may be fighting from a losing position?
I think I've realised why NZF are looking at Article 6.
It's because the Cook Islands are a member of FIFA
This comment seems to have been overlooked from a few pages back.
Assuming you read article 5 as Wynne's permanent nationality (NZ) is not reliant on residence (living continuously in NZ), article 6 would be the applicable article based on the above, right?
Wynne's permanent nationality for FIFA purposes is SA, not NZ.
If that was the case, sections 6 and 7 would be redundant. Permanent nationality is the one acquired at birth.
Because the situation as you've described it is exactly the situation that FIFA wants to prevent by these statutes. I posted the links to a few articles reflecting FIFA's position on this a few pages back, will help you for some context.
http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805274&viewfull=1#post1805274
rticle 5 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Principle)
Notion of permanent nationality
Yann first clarified that "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish from temporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else.
To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)
Founder
Except NP your take on it conflicts with most who have read and understood it on here, OFCs committees, FIFAs Committees most national associations and even NZ Footballs own take on it.
At that point do you think you may be fighting from a losing position?
Except NP your take on it conflicts with most who have read and understood it on here, OFCs committees, FIFAs Committees most national associations and even NZ Footballs own take on it.
At that point do you think you may be fighting from a losing position?
Except NP your take on it conflicts with most who have read and understood it on here, OFCs committees, FIFAs Committees most national associations and even NZ Footballs own take on it.
At that point do you think you may be fighting from a losing position?
I don't think the jury position in this forum is backing you NP.
Grumpy old bastard alert
I don't think the jury position in this forum is backing you NP.
Grumpy old bastard alert
It's easier to follow most other viewpoints here then ElGraps. He loves to rave and goes for wordcount over value. Don't dare question him on definition of permanent nationality, or this or that clause applying or not. He just knows and had 'actual understanding' OK. And a truckload of links (yawn).
Anyway WTF ... some have mentioned 'win' on here from time to time. lol. Funny, thought it was a discussion, not a comp. Haven't heard what the prize is. El Grap ... heard of chill pills? Just calm it man. You're smothering the forum. Many here want to hear other viewpoints
http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805274&viewfull=1#post1805274
rticle 5 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Principle)
Notion of permanent nationality
Yann first clarified that "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish from temporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else.
To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)
Need to read the whole thing greenie. If you read through that thread this guy (apparently an expert) says that the interpretation of the statute is as El Grap has said - but that there is not actually any formal process anywhere in the FIFA regs that permit an application for a change for someone who doesn't qualify under 5.1 (as Wynne doesn't) and can't use Art 7 process.
Art 7 ONLY relates to where you have played previously for another country and wish to request a change nationality. Informally, players have asked for an exemption and been granted it but that's not something set ot in the statute.
So maybe the best argument is that the regs state that if you move you are limited from playing for your new country until 23 - no exceptions available under the rules - and that's unfair restraint of trade?
Normo's coming home
As I see it, the principle section is more of a blanket statement for eligibility in general - it covers how you are eligible to play international football in the vast majority of cases. However, in ones where it's more complex - acquired nationalities, multiple nationalities, several member associations sharing a single citizenship, etc, then the subsequent articles are applicable. The principle doesn't supersede articles 6, 7, and 8, those articles supersede the principle. They are there to clarify cases where the situation isn't as simple as a player having one and only one FIFA association they can play for.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
It's easier to follow most other viewpoints here then ElGraps. He loves to rave and goes for wordcount over value. Don't dare question him on definition of permanent nationality, or this or that clause applying or not. He just knows and had 'actual understanding' OK. And a truckload of links (yawn).
Anyway WTF ... some have mentioned 'win' on here from time to time. lol. Funny, thought it was a discussion, not a comp. Haven't heard what the prize is. El Grap ... heard of chill pills? Just calm it man. You're smothering the forum. Many here want to hear other viewpoints
Is this post meant to be satire?
It's easier to follow most other viewpoints here then ElGraps. He loves to rave and goes for wordcount over value. Don't dare question him on definition of permanent nationality, or this or that clause applying or not. He just knows and had 'actual understanding' OK. And a truckload of links (yawn).
Anyway WTF ... some have mentioned 'win' on here from time to time. lol. Funny, thought it was a discussion, not a comp. Haven't heard what the prize is. El Grap ... heard of chill pills? Just calm it man. You're smothering the forum. Many here want to hear other viewpoints
Yes. Who needs facts, context, understanding of how applications of statutes and regulations actually work. It's just the vibe of the things anyway.
By the way, Greenie posted the article clarifying 'permanent nationality' as intended under Section 5, but it may be too wordy for you. Sure someone here will be happy to summarise it for you.
I agree that's what they intended but it is very surprising that there's no definition for 'permanent nationality' in the Definitions of the Statutes. 'Permanent Nationality' has the potential to be interpreted as any nationality you have, as once you have the nationality it is often permanent from that time.
'Primary' or 'First' nationality would be much clearer IMO.
Yeah, though I guess they needed to find a term that's not overly restrictive - for example, some people may, for FIFA purposes, have multiple nationalities at birth.
That's true - that's why it amazes me there's no definiton of 'permanent nationality' in the statutes.
http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805274&viewfull=1#post1805274
rticle 5 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Principle)
Notion of permanent nationality
Yann first clarified that "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish from temporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else.
To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)
Thanks - much more inspiring and useful post than more EG preaching.
http://foot.ie/threads/147164-Eligibility-Rules-Okay?p=1805274&viewfull=1#post1805274
rticle 5 of the FIFA Regulations Governing the Application of the Statutes (Principle)
Notion of permanent nationality
Yann first clarified that "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" can refer to both nationality from birth (automatic) and nationality acquired via familial inheritance or a naturalisation mechanism. Article 5.1 is specifically worded the way it is to distinguish from temporary nationality dependent on residence and to preclude the latter form of nationality from rendering players eligible to play for international teams. He said that the mention of "residence" in this article has nothing to do with the fact that most states require an applicant to reside on their soil before naturalisation, nor does it mean that naturalisations cannot be considered permanent and not dependent on residence; it's referring to something else.
To provide an example of a temporary nationality (dependent on residence), he mentioned the Vatican Swiss Guards who receive the Vatican nationality during their stay in Rome but lose it when they leave. So, as I was saying, naturalisations can and do fall under the "permanent nationality not dependent on residence" umbrella too (unless they're temporary and/or dependent on residence for a temporary duration whilst the holder resides in the relevant state), but obviously further invoke article 7 as they will, by their nature, amount to the acquisition of a new nationality not automatic from birth. (Article 7 is invoked when a permanent nationality not dependent on residence is newly acquired at any age post-birth and secondary to an already-held birth nationality or birth nationalities.)
Need to read the whole thing greenie. If you read through that thread this guy (apparently an expert) says that the interpretation of the statute is as El Grap has said - but that there is not actually any formal process anywhere in the FIFA regs that permit an application for a change for someone who doesn't qualify under 5.1 (as Wynne doesn't) and can't use Art 7 process.
Art 7 ONLY relates to where you have played previously for another country and wish to request a change nationality. Informally, players have asked for an exemption and been granted it but that's not something set ot in the statute.
So maybe the best argument is that the regs state that if you move you are limited from playing for your new country until 23 - no exceptions available under the rules - and that's unfair restraint of trade?
No, wrong Normo. Article 7 applies for those who acquire new nationality, and had not played for the original country. It's Article 8 that covers the players who have played for the original country.
Exemptions aren't covered in the Statute, but can be granted outside of the Statute, on a case by case basis. You can't argue unfair restraint of trade if there is a (admittedly ad hoc) process which enables players in Wynne's situation to become eligible.
It's easier to follow most other viewpoints here then ElGraps. He loves to rave and goes for wordcount over value. Don't dare question him on definition of permanent nationality, or this or that clause applying or not. He just knows and had 'actual understanding' OK. And a truckload of links (yawn).
Anyway WTF ... some have mentioned 'win' on here from time to time. lol. Funny, thought it was a discussion, not a comp. Haven't heard what the prize is. El Grap ... heard of chill pills? Just calm it man. You're smothering the forum. Many here want to hear other viewpoints
Is this post meant to be satire?
You have been here 5 mins and started throwing stones. Any idiot can do that. Why don't you read the volume of posts that refute the position you are taking and read the counter points to what you believe in your own mind to be factual. Personally, I don't care if someone has a wordy post (Big Pete is great for that) on the premise that it can back up what they are saying. You however, don't seem to be able to and when someone points out you are wrong, you seem to stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la la' rather show cause to support what you are saying. In fact, are you Paul Henry?
Seriously dude, change the record.
Grumpy old bastard alert
