All Whites, Ferns, and other international teams

New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

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

Wibblebutt wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

Just on the Daniel thing, did he have to wait 5 years from getting citizenship or 5 years on arriving here.

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.

That's not true. You have to have lived continuously in the country for 5 years but you don't have to be a citizen for that whole 5 years. You just have to have a passport at the time of application. For example, Durante wasn't a NZ citizen for 5 years but he lived in NZ for 5 years, at which time he became eligible for a NZ passport and also became eligible for the All Whites.

Err, sorry, yeah I didn't explain that well. In NZ to get citizenship you have to have 5 years of permanent residence before becoming a citizen, so it takes at least 5 years to get the passport, so in that situation the FIFA statute and NZ law align well.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Ryan wrote:

Why would the OFC be that vindictive?

We are their largest member.

We are their only member with a semblance of credibility (only a semblance mind).

They are based within our country.

Seems to me their should be a supportive relationship, kind of actually reminds me of the relationship between NZ Football and the Phoenix. The reasonable person would say that NZF needs the Phoenix, the Phoenix are only viable if they have pathways to develop and sell talent and are also succesfull,  therefore NZF should be supportive of them rather than going to war against them with academies, etc.

It's a case of certain people putting their own self interests in front of the good of the organisation and the game in our part of the world.

My take on this is as follows:

1. We are the big fish in the pond and that can lend itself to being singled out in this way.

2. NZF probably doesn't help itself by displaying a degree of arrogance in its dealings with the Island Nations. We turn up to these tournaments with all of the staff, flash boots, stay in the resort and not the games village etc.

3. By and large the Island Nation's football administration is closely linked to the government and/or the ruling classes and they are used to getting their own way without being questioned. NZF would not be looked upon well if they questioned some of the activities carried out by OFC leadership, especially if that leadership had this 'born to rule' attitude.

4. If you think our own representatives are hell bent on protecting their own turf, the Islands are 1 million times worse.

5. No doubt the anti-Sepp vote was frowned upon as it would of been seen as NZ trying to get rid of the cash cow that Sepp had become to the likes of Chung et al.

Dealing with people in the islands is a minefield. Some little thing might cause the whole thing to crash or cause offense and that is hard to atone for. It is a cultural clash that is not restricted to just working in the Pacific as it equally applies in working in other parts of the world. We British, tend to get this wrong - often.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Dealing with people in the islands is a minefield. Some little thing might cause the whole thing to crash or cause offense and that is hard to atone for. It is a cultural clash that is not restricted to just working in the Pacific as it equally applies in working in other parts of the world. We British, tend to get this wrong - often.

We aren't British.

Yellow Fever - Misery loves company

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

patrick478 wrote:

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Dealing with people in the islands is a minefield. Some little thing might cause the whole thing to crash or cause offense and that is hard to atone for. It is a cultural clash that is not restricted to just working in the Pacific as it equally applies in working in other parts of the world. We British, tend to get this wrong - often.

We aren't British.

Speak for yourself Patrick. I go to bed to Rule Britannia every night.

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

patrick478 wrote:

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Dealing with people in the islands is a minefield. Some little thing might cause the whole thing to crash or cause offense and that is hard to atone for. It is a cultural clash that is not restricted to just working in the Pacific as it equally applies in working in other parts of the world. We British, tend to get this wrong - often.

We aren't British.

You're probably a bit too young... it was a comedic reference to a recurring line in the TV show 'It aint half hot Mum'. The Indian head cha wallah used to always refer to himself as 'we British' when he was obviously Indian. Colonial reference.....

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

el grapadura wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Someone said about nine pages ago something about "FIFA should have done a better job of drafting these rules, and defined the terms."

I'd just like to point out that while that may be true lots of terms in lots of legislation/regulation/rules are not defined. That's what Courts are for: to bring Parliament's intent to real life situations. 

Similarly, FIFA release periodical regulation updates (circulars) and decisions of various judicial bodies to clarify the rules. 

For all we know, there could be greater clarity about these terms than it would seem from a basic reading of the rules.

That's exactly right Smithy. Which is why I've been trying to explain that context, intent in creating the statute, the statute's application and publically available precedents all form an important part of the picture, but that's obviously too wordy for some to understand.

To go back to 5.1 - the question is whether, in FIFA's eyes, Deklan Wynn's has permanent nationality that entitles to play for NZ on the basis of that section alone. The answer is he doesn't, because of the mere existence of Article 7 which clarifies section 5.1 for people in Deklan's situation. This is how FIFA has interpreted and applied the statute since it's been passed, and NZF has abided by it before (for example, in Daniel's and Durante's cases).

Keep trying to be clear! Try less, better put together words. You keep crying like a baby 'why don't they understand me?' You just get more and more confused as you go on. And why can you not for once just focus on the question "Is Deklan a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country?" in itself. It's a clause that is asking a question. Of course we know that there are other clauses and they all go together blah blah blah. Doesn't preclude us from examining 5.1 and getting a yes or no on that.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Disregard and remove please

Does this not sum up the majority of this thread?



Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bestie. You've been warned before, so this is your final warning under Rule 5. Continue posting the way you are and you'll get a visit from the banstick. 


Yellow Fever - Misery loves company

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Someone said about nine pages ago something about "FIFA should have done a better job of drafting these rules, and defined the terms."

I'd just like to point out that while that may be true lots of terms in lots of legislation/regulation/rules are not defined. That's what Courts are for: to bring Parliament's intent to real life situations. 

Similarly, FIFA release periodical regulation updates (circulars) and decisions of various judicial bodies to clarify the rules. 

For all we know, there could be greater clarity about these terms than it would seem from a basic reading of the rules.

And with due respect to EG, this will only become absolutely clear if/when this goes to arbitration. I know what he is trying to do in citing examples of [in the absence of a better word] case law but without actual transcripts we are relying on someone else's interpretation of what they have read or heard somewhere else. As can be seen, different interpretations abound. One thing I've learned [as you will have Smithy] don't take anything as gospel until you have proof, it has a tendency to bite you on the ass. something NZF should of taken more heed of probably.

 

That's true. And I think EG would agree.

All any of us can do is take our best stab at interpreting the rules based on the information we have.

Some of the interpretations on here are not in the least bit based on available information.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

OFC/Fiji -

versus NZF

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bestie wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Someone said about nine pages ago something about "FIFA should have done a better job of drafting these rules, and defined the terms."

I'd just like to point out that while that may be true lots of terms in lots of legislation/regulation/rules are not defined. That's what Courts are for: to bring Parliament's intent to real life situations. 

Similarly, FIFA release periodical regulation updates (circulars) and decisions of various judicial bodies to clarify the rules. 

For all we know, there could be greater clarity about these terms than it would seem from a basic reading of the rules.

That's exactly right Smithy. Which is why I've been trying to explain that context, intent in creating the statute, the statute's application and publically available precedents all form an important part of the picture, but that's obviously too wordy for some to understand.

To go back to 5.1 - the question is whether, in FIFA's eyes, Deklan Wynn's has permanent nationality that entitles to play for NZ on the basis of that section alone. The answer is he doesn't, because of the mere existence of Article 7 which clarifies section 5.1 for people in Deklan's situation. This is how FIFA has interpreted and applied the statute since it's been passed, and NZF has abided by it before (for example, in Daniel's and Durante's cases).

Keep trying to be clear! Try less, better put together words. You keep crying like a baby 'why don't they understand me?' You just get more and more confused as you go on. And why can you not for once just focus on the question "Is Deklan a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country?" in itself. It's a clause that is asking a question. Of course we know that there are other clauses and they all go together blah blah blah. Doesn't preclude us from examining 5.1 and getting a yes or no on that.

 

That's a yes. Deklan Wynne has permanent New Zealand nationality not dependent on residence.

Incredible stamina. No shame. Yellow Fever.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

martinb wrote:

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Disregard and remove please

Does this not sum up the majority of this thread?

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha yes it does

my comment was gonna be 'most lucid post by anyone so far'

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bestie wrote:

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha....

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

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

patrick478 wrote:

Bestie. You've been warned before, so this is your final warning under Rule 5. Continue posting the way you are and you'll get a visit from the banstick. 

Ban ElGrap. He keeps on posting sermons, poorly constructed, and then comes back with 'sorry if I wasn't clear' or 'sorry i might not have explained that well' duh

p.s. presume you mean 5.1? But, dude, I was born here.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Would you give it a rest. We've had some twunts on this forum over the years and in your 40-odd posts you've managed to out do a good number of those.

You've had you say, we all know what you think - now give it a rest.

BTW, you are foul of Term 3.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bestie wrote:

patrick478 wrote:

Bestie. You've been warned before, so this is your final warning under Rule 5. Continue posting the way you are and you'll get a visit from the banstick. 

Ban ElGrap. He keeps on posting sermons, poorly constructed, and then comes back with 'sorry if I wasn't clear' or 'sorry i might not have explained that well' duh

p.s. presume you mean 5.1? But, dude, I was born here.

You have to be a complete retard. Look under El Grapaduras name.....

I hate school holidays.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

liberty_nz wrote:

Would you give it a rest. We've had some twunts on this forum over the years and in your 40-odd posts you've managed to out do a good number of those.

You've had you say, we all know what you think - now give it a rest.

BTW, you are foul of Term 3.

Give me another 30-odd I'll be in the lead.

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

Bestie wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Someone said about nine pages ago something about "FIFA should have done a better job of drafting these rules, and defined the terms."

I'd just like to point out that while that may be true lots of terms in lots of legislation/regulation/rules are not defined. That's what Courts are for: to bring Parliament's intent to real life situations. 

Similarly, FIFA release periodical regulation updates (circulars) and decisions of various judicial bodies to clarify the rules. 

For all we know, there could be greater clarity about these terms than it would seem from a basic reading of the rules.

That's exactly right Smithy. Which is why I've been trying to explain that context, intent in creating the statute, the statute's application and publically available precedents all form an important part of the picture, but that's obviously too wordy for some to understand.

To go back to 5.1 - the question is whether, in FIFA's eyes, Deklan Wynn's has permanent nationality that entitles to play for NZ on the basis of that section alone. The answer is he doesn't, because of the mere existence of Article 7 which clarifies section 5.1 for people in Deklan's situation. This is how FIFA has interpreted and applied the statute since it's been passed, and NZF has abided by it before (for example, in Daniel's and Durante's cases).

Keep trying to be clear! Try less, better put together words. You keep crying like a baby 'why don't they understand me?' You just get more and more confused as you go on. And why can you not for once just focus on the question "Is Deklan a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country?" in itself. It's a clause that is asking a question. Of course we know that there are other clauses and they all go together blah blah blah. Doesn't preclude us from examining 5.1 and getting a yes or no on that.

Why are you so obsessed with getting people to comment specifically on 5.1? It seems pretty clear to me what El Grap thinks of Wynne under 5.1. It is in this sentence:

"The answer is he doesn't, because of the mere existence of Article 7 which clarifies section 5.1 for people in Wynne's situation."

El Grap appears to not care whether he meets 5.1 by itself because his reading sees 5.1 alone as irrelevant in this situation. I would hazard a guess though that since El Grap is focusing on 7, which relates to taking up a new nationality, he believes the Wynne's NZ citizenship is valid for playing for NZ. If he thought his citizenship wasn't valid, why would he bother with 7 at all?

Edit: Clarification

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

Critical_Lemon wrote:

Why are you so obsessed with getting people to comment specifically on 5.1?

Interested in 5.1 'because it is there'. Because Article 5 is 'Principles', and i think principles in legislation are probably important. You don't?

.

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

Jerzy Merino wrote:

Luke Adams, born in Oz 08/05/94 to English parents.

James Musa, born Devon UK 01/04/92 to Zimbabwean father Memo and English mother Mandy. Represented NZ London Olympics 2012.

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Jerzy Merino wrote:

Bestie wrote:

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha....



Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

I'm banhammering myself from this thread.

E + R + O

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bestie wrote:

Critical_Lemon wrote:

Why are you so obsessed with getting people to comment specifically on 5.1?

Interested in 5.1 'because it is there'. Because Article 5 is 'Principles', and i think principles in legislation are probably important. You don't?

.


If you could be bothered thinking about it, most people's opinions of 5.1 are at the very least implied, if not explicit in their answers. Stop being lazy and read critically.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bestie wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

Smithy wrote:

Someone said about nine pages ago something about "FIFA should have done a better job of drafting these rules, and defined the terms."

I'd just like to point out that while that may be true lots of terms in lots of legislation/regulation/rules are not defined. That's what Courts are for: to bring Parliament's intent to real life situations.

Similarly, FIFA release periodical regulation updates (circulars) and decisions of various judicial bodies to clarify the rules.

For all we know, there could be greater clarity about these terms than it would seem from a basic reading of the rules.

That's exactly right Smithy. Which is why I've been trying to explain that context, intent in creating the statute, the statute's application and publically available precedents all form an important part of the picture, but that's obviously too wordy for some to understand.

To go back to 5.1 - the question is whether, in FIFA's eyes, Deklan Wynn's has permanent nationality that entitles to play for NZ on the basis of that section alone. The answer is he doesn't, because of the mere existence of Article 7 which clarifies section 5.1 for people in Deklan's situation. This is how FIFA has interpreted and applied the statute since it's been passed, and NZF has abided by it before (for example, in Daniel's and Durante's cases).

Keep trying to be clear! Try less, better put together words. You keep crying like a baby 'why don't they understand me?' You just get more and more confused as you go on. And why can you not for once just focus on the question "Is Deklan a person holding a permanent nationality that is not dependent on residence in a certain country?" in itself. It's a clause that is asking a question. Of course we know that there are other clauses and they all go together blah blah blah. Doesn't preclude us from examining 5.1 and getting a yes or no on that.

ok, I'll play...

A. Yes

Next Question please....

.

or contact me in confidence:

Justin Casey Moans

c/o "Bodge it, Fake it & Wynne - the No Wynne, No Fee Specialists"

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

It just occurred to me, is Bestie actually one of the lawyers NZF hired, on here trying to get advice? Seems like the calibre of person they'd engage.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Critical_Lemon wrote:

It just occurred to me, is Bestie actually one of the lawyers NZF hired, on here trying to get advice? Seems like the calibre of person they'd engage.

Keep working on it.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

I'm officially turning into a nihilist on this one; I firmly believe that  the lawyers will come back with positive information but we will get rooted by OFC and FIFA won't bat an eyelid.

a.haak

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

This already.

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Napier Phoenix wrote:

patrick478 wrote:

Napier Phoenix wrote:

Dealing with people in the islands is a minefield. Some little thing might cause the whole thing to crash or cause offense and that is hard to atone for. It is a cultural clash that is not restricted to just working in the Pacific as it equally applies in working in other parts of the world. We British, tend to get this wrong - often.

We aren't British.

You're probably a bit too young... it was a comedic reference to a recurring line in the TV show 'It aint half hot Mum'. The Indian head cha wallah used to always refer to himself as 'we British' when he was obviously Indian. Colonial reference.....

Actually, I am.

(surprised?)

"Phoenix till they lose"

Posting 97% bollox, 8% lies and 3.658% genuine opinion. 

Genuine opinion: FTFFA

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

As was linked many times at the start of this thread Abini arrived in Australia when he was 1.

Received his citizenship when he was 10. His family lived and worked in Australia and since they had arrived in Australia they had never left Australian shores. He went to school, pre school as well in Australia.

At 18 he was selected in an Australian U 20 squad, and he needed a transfer to be able to play.

The rule has been around for a very long time, Sports administrators trying to muddy the waters and make all sorts of excuses annoy me.

Its world wide practise …. There are roughly 210 FIFA nations and roughly 150 have a professional league of some sorts.

NZ is a first world nation and is suppose to have administrators capable of understanding the law…. As for those arguments that no one said anything before … no one normally checks it’s assumed you get it right…. To suggest otherwise is foolish in the extreme… tis only when you are challenged you need to prove it.

Socceroo/ Mariner / Whangarei

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Midfielder wrote:

As was linked many times at the start of this thread Abini arrived in Australia when he was 1.

Received his citizenship when he was 10. His family lived and worked in Australia and since they had arrived in Australia they had never left Australian shores. He went to school, pre school as well in Australia.

At 18 he was selected in an Australian U 20 squad, and he needed a transfer to be able to play.

The rule has been around for a very long time, Sports administrators trying to muddy the waters and make all sorts of excuses annoy me.

Its world wide practise …. There are roughly 210 FIFA nations and roughly 150 have a professional league of some sorts.

NZ is a first world nation and is suppose to have administrators capable of understanding the law…. As for those arguments that no one said anything before … no one normally checks it’s assumed you get it right…. To suggest otherwise is foolish in the extreme… tis only when you are challenged you need to prove it.

I have Abini. Yellow and Black and keeps my bald head warm at the Nix. Look out for me.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago
Ugh its IBINI jesus how hard is it


Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

;) it hadn't escaped my attention, wasn't my spelling

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

Leave thread for two days...

... comes back and Bestie is still fudgeing rabbiting on.

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

Oska wrote:

Jeff Vader wrote:

U037 wrote:

patrick478 wrote:
Junior82 wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
ConanTroutman wrote:
This beats the Carlsberg sponsorship saga last off-season hands down
You can always count on NZF to deliver a good lol.
Can we ask NZF to schedule more games and competitions in the A-League off-season (except for our women's team - they actually deserve better)?
Team of ineligible NZ players vs Micronesia please.
Seriously though, I'd like to see NZF do something to help the Fijian U23s with their prep. They'll be representing our confederation, and I'd love to see them do as well as the Fijian U20s did recently.

Plus, it'll show we're ultimately good sports, and hopefully put back on good terms with the OFC. Or am I being naive?

Extremely.

If OFC want Fiji to play well, Fiji or OFC should fund their lead up. The money from NZ players subs should not go towards helping Fiji save face at a tournament where I actually want them to get thrashed so FIFA look at sorting out this tinpot confederation sooner rather than later (wishful thinking)

Careful what you wish for, that could mean half-spots for age-group tournaments (including the Olympics) as well. Seems to be the easiest way for FIFA to deal with OFC's weakness at senior men's level.

Then why are OFC so quick to give the inferior nations a leg up to these tournaments only to go be thrashed. OFC need a team to go an at least perform. 10/11 OFC members wont do that.

Fiji might though...

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

Fitzy wrote:

Leave thread for two days...

... comes back and Bestie is still fudgeing rabbiting on.

welcome back. missed u

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Bestie wrote:

Fitzy wrote:

Leave thread for two days...

... comes back and Bestie is still fudgeing rabbiting on.

welcome back. missed u

Wooo Hooo - Come back , all is forgiven

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

I'd take 5 pages of nufc over this cat.

Grumpy old bastard alert

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Jeff Vader wrote:

I'd take 5 pages of nufc over this cat.

I'd take 5 pages of nufc over this dork.

Fixed.

"At the end of the drive the lawmen arrive...

I'll take my chance because luck is on my side or something...

Her name is Rio, she don't need to understand...

Oh Rio, Rio, hear them shout across the land..."

Permalink Permalink
over 10 years ago

Stop giving him/her oxygen.

Permalink Permalink