New Zealand U-23s - Quali Whites

Wibblebutt,

Seen as you are in correspondence with Yann Hafner, could you get him to clarify two things I am unsure about.

1) Does Article 8 mean that when a player acquires a new nationality, he/she has to "submit a written substantiated request to the FIFA general secretariat" i.e irrespective of wether using Article 6 or 7, that change has to be approved by FIFA, or is it only required in certain conditions i.e. they have played for age group teams

2) In his chart here http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/blurred-na... is the data i.e the list of players who have changed "association", freely available?

I can't figure out where he'd get the data for that chart unless it was expected that every time someone used Article 6 or Article 7, they submitted the written request.  

1) Firstly, if a player has acquired a new nationality (ie not a nationality from birth) then he needs to meet the criteria in Article 7. If he has also played a match in an official competition for another association, then he must also meet the criteria in Article 8. Art 8 is specifically for players who have already played a competitive match for one association and want to change to another association and this is when they need to submit the request to FIFA. So it is only when a player needs to change association through Article 8 that he needs to submit a request. 

Interestingly, Tommy Smith doesn't meet the requirements in Article 7, but either FIFA didn't realise this or gave him a dispensation when they approved his eligiblity for NZ (he played for England at youth level so had to submit a request for change under Article 8).

2) Yann was able to get those statistcs directly from FIFA. They are not publicly available, but they do hold those records, as players that have changed association (ie met Article 8 criteria) would have all had to have submitted requests directly to FIFA. I doubt there is any records on how many players have acquired a new nationality (Article 7) as there would be many, and there is no need for them to communicate this to FIFA. It is up to the respective associations to prove eligibility through Article 7 (& 6 if applicable) if challenged.

That chart is only for players who have changed associations. ie played a match in an official competition for one association, then changed to another association through Article 8.

Touché

Play nice etc etc etc (obliged to say this even though I am enjoying watching this tussle play out)

Going to be decided in a closed hearing

So noone will really know what did/didnt happen

Well if we are legit  I hope we tear them a new arsehole.

Just let him know that when you are losing an argument and you throw in a c word it really makes you look dumb and a cod 

This was totally my favourite new flag design too

Internal review "next few weeks"; oblique reference to exemptions being applied for; nothing about U17 OFC protest.

Hoping the fact the submission gets to be made in person helps us. A written submission etc or simply only a legal team submission would be a harder sell.

Andy the banker to sweet talk us out of this hole we think?

Again, I don't know why people get after Martin when this is not of his making and 100% likely by his operational staff. He has been there 18 months yet this is somehow his fault...

Well as CEO its got to be partly his fault if his team stuffed up.

I totally get that he is A party to this but not THE sole person. He is the man responsible for ensuring this shark does not happen again but why would he be all over operational issues? He has department heads for that.

They're not scared enough of the boss.

And there in lies the problem. Someone needs to be hung out to dry so that they fear the boss.

what would be the legal grounds for dismissal?

Would warrant at least the first formal warning.

Incompetence.

Yeah its close to impossible to fire someone. A guy I worked with once was frequently drunk on the job and often didn't turn up for work (at one point for a couple of weeks) he also destroyed company property with a drunken late night binge with non company mates. He got fired but took them to court, he won and was given a payout for unjust dismissal.

Jesus wept. Hope Fred won't read that!

It is but this is a massive failure of one of the most basic tenets of international football - is a player eligible?

Considering its in black and white from FIFA and that cannot be followed, I'd say thats grounds for dismissal especially when the repercussions have cost us an international tournament and potentially another. Thats not including we have fielded ineligible players at another tournament and also in internationals, in 1 case where the player did not even have the passport!!!!!

If thats not grounds for dismissal, then where can I sign an NZF contract that will allow me to sit around drinking coffee all day and take up playing FIFA '15 as a full time gig under the guise of 'development officer'

I think anyone looking at that example would not view it as being unjustifiably dismissed....

FFS!  Just realised I've been doing unpaid work for NZF for the last 7 or 8 years

Yeah I don't know the particulars of it, no one was supposed to really talk about it. It was probably the fact that procedure wasn't followed. In that they didn't give him the correct amount of warnings or alowed warnings to expire.

In this case they would give him a warning and it would be expected that De Jong wouldn't make that mistake again.

The thing about the guy above is that part of the settlement was that the work had to give him a good refference, he actually whent to another company and got quite a big promotion and pay rise which he wouldn't have gotten had he stayed.

what did he win on? 

From a layman perspective it would seem there were plenty of grounds for dismissal there, as long as a proper process was followed and no one punched the guy or nothing.

If not, that is BS- I mean that he got to behave that way...

I've also witnessed a lot of stories the other way, with people who work hard on insecure contracts getting flicked and just accepting it because they didn't know their rights.

Ah- you just wrote it above.

Yeh, and in a small organisation like NZF they might not have an HR department so...

I can assure you its not a bullshark story, I am not privy to what happened, I know they guy won because I kept in touch afterwards for a little while and he spent a few months pissing away whatever the settlement was before getting another job (as said in a more senior position). But he wasn't allowed to talk about it and neither was work. I know that the managers all looked really pissed off about the whole thing.

I also know of a painter who drew a swastika on a house he was doing up and was fired, took the employer to court and won.
In this (and likely Ryan's case), it comes down to the right process not being followed. There are laws in place to protect both employer and employee, but often people can't be asked following the proper procedure...sounds like NZF a bit, doesn't it?

I think its a cowardly sharkty thing to do to be calling for people to be sacked. Especially when so little is actually known about exactly what happened.  

So as I see it

De Jong will get sacked,  then receive a $100,000 payment for unfair dismissal

FIFY

Come on, we are not operating in a highly unionised workplace under Don Key

He's spent most of the last 9 years trying to fudge up employees rights in the work place with great success apart from the teachers (who have the intelligence and gumption to fight back) Nevertheless he and his "I closed my school minister" will probably win.

We get rid of people on a regular basis. It's bloody easy. Simple, Restructuring, reapply for the new position. Job done/gone.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is dillusional

Andy used to be a banker, I'm sure he is very well versed in such things.

He probably was in the midst of being fired which made him apply for his current job.

OK, I see the problem here. Everyone is hoping for some accountability after NZF’s internal review. But the CEO is an ex-banker, so the more likely outcome will be a promotion for the person in charge of checking eligibility, and a round of bonuses for the management.