Hail EG. BTW can u tell me the meaning of life while you're at it? Please be sure to include
facts, context, understanding of how [stuff] actually works (so I can be sure it's indisputable). Cheers.
All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams
New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites
5835 replies
·
1,102,368 views
Bestie please stop. If you can't understand El Grap's interpretation of the statutes I'm afraid you're wasting your time trying to get your head around it. To this point his version makes a lot more sense than anyone else's.
Fuck this stupid game
Permalink
Permalink
Can anyone put the eligibility statutes into a few bullet points so Bestie can pipe down?
Fuck this stupid game
Permalink
Permalink
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.
Sorry yes, that's an incorrect reference as reading and typing at the same time.
But if there is no process specified and no criteria for the exemption aren't you back to the NZF view which is you have to be careful because if you apply and get rejected then that's a bad outcome?
Sure there may be an informal process of exemption from the regs but that process only exists because the rules don't actually work. This is the argument I would be running in front of the CAS
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
Not sure if this link outlines where we are at or if it is a true reflection on what the actual situation is, but it does put a set of circumstances up in an easy to follow format: Holloway article in NZ Herald.
Just to clarify my position; I've been playing a bit of a devil's advocate position here and do agree that there are serious questions that need to be asked of NZF of how they got to this position. I agree that their comments lately do smack of a cavalier attitude towards what was something that was really important to get right. If they had doubts, they should have sought official clarification from FIFA. I suspect that they think they had but they should of taken some pretty insurance to make sure they can prove their case if things turned to custard. We will see if they have or not. I know we all have an opinion on this situation but something we should all be able to agree upon is that the situation is not a clear one when it comes to what the FIFA statutes state, what they mean, what the intention of FIFA was/is and the like. There is no doubt why these regulations were put in place [to stop the likes of Qatar and others to bring in wholesale Brazilian footballers, give them a passport and have them play for their national team] and they probably weren't designed for the Wynne situation. The fact that FIFA hands out dispensations indicates to me that they see that process as a way of getting around what was poorly worded legislation when they should of spent more time on making the statutes reflect what they were really trying to achieve and/or clearly stipulating what the process was should a country wish to gain dispensation.
The moral rights and the wrongs are unlikely to debated in Switzerland, it is more likely to be the interpretation, the intention etc of the statutes. NZF may very well decide it is essential we get to Rio, and if so they will take this as far as they can take it. They might just bite the bullet and seek dispensation for Wynne and any others that are in a similar position.
As an aside, I recall a comment at the time we were waiting for FIFA to rule on the Durante position, FIFA take a hell of a time to make decisions of this sort and I can understand NZF's frustration a little and understand why they decided to take this risk. If they learn nothing else out of this, it should be take no chances with FIFA.
Permalink
Permalink
<snip>
But if there is no process specified and no criteria for the exemption aren't you back to the NZF view which is you have to be careful because if you apply and get rejected then that's a bad outcome?
Well I'm not so sure because if Wynnes exemption is not granted, come 23, he is eligible to play for the AWs so not sure how/why lawyers advised NZF of this. If he does not satisfy exemption to the criteria of the rules, then he has to play by the rules which means come 23, he is available to be picked (like Ryan de Vries someone else pointed out)
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
Not sure if this link outlines where we are at or if it is a true reflection on what the actual situation is, but it does put a set of circumstances up in an easy to follow format: Holloway article in NZ Herald.
Just to clarify my position; I've been playing a bit of a devil's advocate position here and do agree that there are serious questions that need to be asked of NZF of how they got to this position. I agree that their comments lately do smack of a cavalier attitude towards what was something that was really important to get right. If they had doubts, they should have sought official clarification from FIFA. I suspect that they think they had but they should of taken some pretty insurance to make sure they can prove their case if things turned to custard. We will see if they have or not. I know we all have an opinion on this situation but something we should all be able to agree upon is that the situation is not a clear one when it comes to what the FIFA statutes state, what they mean, what the intention of FIFA was/is and the like. There is no doubt why these regulations were put in place [to stop the likes of Qatar and others to bring in wholesale Brazilian footballers, give them a passport and have them play for their national team] and they probably weren't designed for the Wynne situation. The fact that FIFA hands out dispensations indicates to me that they see that process as a way of getting around what was poorly worded legislation when they should of spent more time on making the statutes reflect what they were really trying to achieve and/or clearly stipulating what the process was should a country wish to gain dispensation.
The moral rights and the wrongs are unlikely to debated in Switzerland, it is more likely to be the interpretation, the intention etc of the statutes. NZF may very well decide it is essential we get to Rio, and if so they will take this as far as they can take it. They might just bite the bullet and seek dispensation for Wynne and any others that are in a similar position.
As an aside, I recall a comment at the time we were waiting for FIFA to rule on the Durante position, FIFA take a hell of a time to make decisions of this sort and I can understand NZF's frustration a little and understand why they decided to take this risk. If they learn nothing else out of this, it should be take no chances with FIFA.
To me, looking at the way FIFA do things, that's a really mickey mouse way of going about it "We wont make a decision until we absolutely have to"
They need to form a department specifically to deal with eligibility issues like this. Almost like a council department. Fill in this form and present this info but the onus is on the country to present all the information supporting it. If anything is missing, you have to start again filling it all out and include the requested info. You should then be able to get a ruling in 15 working days.
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
If you do that you need to balance the risk vs the reward and from what has been proven there are no rewards and all risk.
- We have a hefty lawyers bill to fight what on the surface looks an unwinnable battle
why why WHY didn't you take the opportunity for that pun???
Permalink
Permalink
<snip>
But if there is no process specified and no criteria for the exemption aren't you back to the NZF view which is you have to be careful because if you apply and get rejected then that's a bad outcome?
Well I'm not so sure because if Wynnes exemption is not granted, come 23, he is eligible to play for the AWs so not sure how/why lawyers advised NZF of this. If he does not satisfy exemption to the criteria of the rules, then he has to play by the rules which means come 23, he is available to be picked (like Ryan de Vries someone else pointed out)
Yes but only if he lives in NZ until then meaning he can't pursue a career in football outside NZ.
Normo's coming home
Permalink
Permalink
Just checking I'm not yet ba**ed lol
Napier Nix's last post makes sense, he writes clearly. But El Grap's gonna say 'but I have the facts. now Listen To Me'. :)
Permalink
Permalink
<snip>
But if there is no process specified and no criteria for the exemption aren't you back to the NZF view which is you have to be careful because if you apply and get rejected then that's a bad outcome?
Well I'm not so sure because if Wynnes exemption is not granted, come 23, he is eligible to play for the AWs so not sure how/why lawyers advised NZF of this. If he does not satisfy exemption to the criteria of the rules, then he has to play by the rules which means come 23, he is available to be picked (like Ryan de Vries someone else pointed out)
Yes but only if he lives in NZ until then meaning he can't pursue a career in football outside NZ.
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
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.
Sorry yes, that's an incorrect reference as reading and typing at the same time.
But if there is no process specified and no criteria for the exemption aren't you back to the NZF view which is you have to be careful because if you apply and get rejected then that's a bad outcome?
Sure there may be an informal process of exemption from the regs but that process only exists because the rules don't actually work. This is the argument I would be running in front of the CAS
Yeah, probably worth a go. I guess the counter-argument is - the rules work for the specific situation that FIFA wants to address. FIFA has set precedent through which players who don't qualify through the age requirement can gain eligibility if their situation is not contrary to the spirit of the regulations (be it the Zelalem or Ibini situation, or FIFA's approval of the Home Nations agreement). NZF did not explore any of this - they did not seek clarification, did not seek out precedent (which anyone with Google can easily find), and the worst outcome that NZF could have faced if they had followed through along these lines would have been not getting the exemption - and that would only be a temporary bad outcome for one individual (who'd still be eligible in three years' time), rather than this situation.
The other problem is also that NZF has understood and abided by this situation before - Daniel, when granted citizenship, had to stand down for 5 years before being eligible, which effectively precluded him from ever playing for NZ. If NZF abided by the rule in that case, then really it's pretty hard to argue that it's not applicable to Wynne (the age situation notwithstanding).
I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't appeal, but we're on a really, really flimsy ground when it comes to the eligibility issue. I'd mainly focus on the shambolic-ness of the process, and whether OFC followed the correct procedures (and hoping that two wrongs cancel each other out somehow, but that's being really hopeful).
Permalink
Permalink
why why WHY didn't you take the opportunity for that pun???
For the same reason you blanked me at Wakey on Sunday.
Permalink
Permalink
Bestie. The only reason you are not banned is because I'm busy at work and can't be arsed with the whining about being oppressed and how you were banned because you didn't follow the party line.
You have breached a number of the rules so consider yourself on a warning.
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah, probably worth a go. I guess the counter-argument is - the rules work for the specific situation that FIFA wants to address. FIFA has set precedent through which players who don't qualify through the age requirement can gain eligibility if their situation is not contrary to the spirit of the regulations (be it the Zelalem or Ibini situation, or FIFA's approval of the Home Nations agreement). NZF did not explore any of this - they did not seek clarification, did not seek out precedent (which anyone with Google can easily find), and the worst outcome that NZF could have faced if they had followed through along these lines would have been not getting the exemption - and that would only be a temporary bad outcome for one individual (who'd still be eligible in three years' time), rather than this situation.
The other problem is also that NZF has understood and abided by this situation before - Daniel, when granted citizenship, had to stand down for 5 years before being eligible, which effectively precluded him from ever playing for NZ. If NZF abided by the rule in that case, then really it's pretty hard to argue that it's not applicable to Wynne (the age situation notwithstanding).
I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't appeal, but we're on a really, really flimsy ground when it comes to the eligibility issue. I'd mainly focus on the shambolic-ness of the process, and whether OFC followed the correct procedures (and hoping that two wrongs cancel each other out somehow, but that's being really hopeful).
I think the reason why I don't put him and Wynne in the same category is because youth players can pretty much change nationality all the time until 21 (?) providing they tick the boxes. As you get older, there are less criteria available to a player to be able to change nationality. Well that's my simplistic unscientific unfounded-in-fact take on it.
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
Bestie. The only reason you are not banned is because I'm busy at work and can't be arsed with the whining about being oppressed and how you were banned because you didn't follow the party line.
You have breached a number of the rules so consider yourself on a warning.
provide specific clauses please
Permalink
Permalink
About 5 out of every 6 posts are good and informed on both sides of the debate but there is a speed hump every once in a while that makes it shark.
Bestie.
5, 7 and 9 but it's not a democracy it's a dictatorship and just annoying me is enough.
Permalink
Permalink
<snip>
But if there is no process specified and no criteria for the exemption aren't you back to the NZF view which is you have to be careful because if you apply and get rejected then that's a bad outcome?
Well I'm not so sure because if Wynnes exemption is not granted, come 23, he is eligible to play for the AWs so not sure how/why lawyers advised NZF of this. If he does not satisfy exemption to the criteria of the rules, then he has to play by the rules which means come 23, he is available to be picked (like Ryan de Vries someone else pointed out)
Permalink
Permalink
About 5 out of every 6 posts are good and informed on both sides of the debate but there is a speed hump every once in a while that makes it shark.
Bestie.
5, 7 and 9 but it's not a democracy it's a dictatorship and just annoying me is enough.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
Permalink
Permalink
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
What's your viewpoint Bestie?
Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.
Permalink
Permalink
Yeah, probably worth a go. I guess the counter-argument is - the rules work for the specific situation that FIFA wants to address. FIFA has set precedent through which players who don't qualify through the age requirement can gain eligibility if their situation is not contrary to the spirit of the regulations (be it the Zelalem or Ibini situation, or FIFA's approval of the Home Nations agreement). NZF did not explore any of this - they did not seek clarification, did not seek out precedent (which anyone with Google can easily find), and the worst outcome that NZF could have faced if they had followed through along these lines would have been not getting the exemption - and that would only be a temporary bad outcome for one individual (who'd still be eligible in three years' time), rather than this situation.
The other problem is also that NZF has understood and abided by this situation before - Daniel, when granted citizenship, had to stand down for 5 years before being eligible, which effectively precluded him from ever playing for NZ. If NZF abided by the rule in that case, then really it's pretty hard to argue that it's not applicable to Wynne (the age situation notwithstanding).
I mean, I'm not saying we shouldn't appeal, but we're on a really, really flimsy ground when it comes to the eligibility issue. I'd mainly focus on the shambolic-ness of the process, and whether OFC followed the correct procedures (and hoping that two wrongs cancel each other out somehow, but that's being really hopeful).
I think the reason why I don't put him and Wynne in the same category is because youth players can pretty much change nationality all the time until 21 (?) providing they tick the boxes. As you get older, there are less criteria available to a player to be able to change nationality. Well that's my simplistic unscientific unfounded-in-fact take on it.
5 years from getting citizenship (you can't have a passport without citizenship, and you need one for official international matches).
Also, you can only change nationality once, at any age (provided you meet the relevant Section 6/7/8 criteria) - I'm not sure that the U21 thing applies anymore.
Permalink
Permalink
Running a sweepsake. Will Bestie still be here tomorrow? Odds will be posted shortly. Betting opens 4pm (if I'm still here).
Permalink
Permalink
Running a sweepsake. Will Bestie still be here tomorrow? Odds will be posted shortly. Betting opens 4pm (if I'm still here).
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
Surely it's more of an oligarchy -you're not the only moderator, right?
Yes, but Dale is on sabbatical, Patrick is desperately trying to get enough people together for the SKY thing and the others all seem to be MIA.
Permalink
Permalink
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
What's your viewpoint Bestie?
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
Running a sweepsake. Will Bestie still be here tomorrow? Odds will be posted shortly. Betting opens 4pm (if I'm still here).
Permalink
Permalink
why why WHY didn't you take the opportunity for that pun???
For the same reason you blanked me at Wakey on Sunday.
I don't blank! Who's pretending to be me.
And am scared of Wakefield Park. Bad memories. Bad, cold memories.
No seriously - I was in Maketu, then Gisborne on Sunday.
Isn't it great to see the forums fizzing.
Permalink
Permalink
Surely it's more of an oligarchy -you're not the only moderator, right?
Yes, but Dale is on sabbatical, Patrick is desperately trying to get enough people together for the SKY thing and the others all seem to be MIA.
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
Permalink
Permalink
I've had an afternoon of no clients so I've had time at the keyboard. Plus I have to admit nufc has considerably upped his game so it would seem only natural to rise up.
(I wont lie in that I did have to google how to save the gifs)
Grumpy old bastard alert
Permalink
Permalink
This beats the Carlsberg sponsorship saga last off-season hands down
People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis. You can't trust people.
Permalink
Permalink
No. Feverish is still King. God save the King.
JV now master of dank memes.
Permalink
Permalink
This beats the Carlsberg sponsorship saga last off-season hands down
You can always count on NZF to deliver a good lol.
Permalink
Permalink