Remove this ad
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,442 Site Admin

#121 [url]

Feb 1 17 11:26 AM

Wouldn't it be the case that all regional FAs that are already affiliated to a FIFA-affiliated FA would have to "do an Ellan Vannin"? A FIFA member (or any affiliated part thereof) would not be allowed to join another organisation.

So, your Karakalpak and Nakhichevan people would also have to not be affiliated with the Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan FAs.


I guess when you say "backing", you are looking for a "non-objection" (from the FIFA-affiliated FIFA) to the participation of another FA representing that territory in the "non-FIFA world".

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#122 [url]

Feb 1 17 5:24 PM

DJLiesel wrote:
Of course I proposed them to "do the Ellan Vannin".
Oh, is that a new fan chant? Not sure if it can become more popular than the original but hopefully it's a more efficient way of watching the match:


Quote    Reply   

#124 [url]

Feb 2 17 9:11 AM

TheRoonBa wrote:
Wouldn't it be the case that all regional FAs that are already affiliated to a FIFA-affiliated FA would have to "do an Ellan Vannin"? A FIFA member (or any affiliated part thereof) would not be allowed to join another organisation.

So, your Karakalpak and Nakhichevan people would also have to not be affiliated with the Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan FAs.

I guess when you say "backing", you are looking for a "non-objection" (from the FIFA-affiliated FIFA) to the participation of another FA representing that territory in the "non-FIFA world".
No, not all FIFA-affiliated FA would have to do an Ellan Vannin. Just look at the GBU from Greenland, who are a CONIFA member and affiliated to the DBU from Denmark, which is a FIFA member. Kurdistan, Ryukyu or Zanzibar would be more examples.
Even the Isle of Man itself was never hold back to join CONIFA by anyone of The FA/UEFA/FIFA. They just didn't "dare to try".

Karakalpakstan came to our attention as they had a friendly match of a Karakalpak national team. That was organised fully by the Uzbek FA.
In Nakhichevan we do not have any signs of an own "Nakhichevan national team" but just gave it a try by writing several parties involved in sports over there.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#126 [url]

Feb 3 17 9:25 AM

TheRoonBa wrote:
Interesting.

I couldn't find any news for a Karakalpak national team apart from regional qualifying matches for the Universiade in April:

http://www.narodnoeslovo.uz/index.php/homepage/sport/item/6660-putevka-v-final

Karakalpakstan played against Xorazm and Bukhara regions - I guess these were student teams.
You are completely right! This is the day, the Stans even confused me. Sorry for that!
The team that played it's first matches was Gorno-Badakshan (not even a proper Stan) from Tajikistan!
http://fc-istiklol.tj/index.php?view=1&news=1662
They are very strange as hundreds of Tajik and Russian homepages quote their FA president and their wish to join CONIFA soon. However, they did not react to our Russian letters or Russian phone calls at all. Surely, it would be a very interesting new member and it has all the support from the Tajik FA.

Quote    Reply   

#127 [url]

Feb 3 17 5:32 PM

DJLiesel wrote:
Even the Isle of Man itself was never hold back to join CONIFA by anyone of The FA/UEFA/FIFA. They just didn't "dare to try".

I thought it was more a case of the IoMFA did not want to join, but elements within it did, so they formed MIFA.   But anyway it's something which may apply in other cases - essentially a splinter group within the established association.   Again, this is common in football history anyway, for different reasons - for example dissident associations in the early days of professionalism etc.

Quote    Reply   

#128 [url]

Feb 3 17 6:07 PM

nfm24 wrote:
DJLiesel wrote:
Even the Isle of Man itself was never hold back to join CONIFA by anyone of The FA/UEFA/FIFA. They just didn't "dare to try".

I thought it was more a case of the IoMFA did not want to join, but elements within it did, so they formed MIFA.   But anyway it's something which may apply in other cases - essentially a splinter group within the established association.   Again, this is common in football history anyway, for different reasons - for example dissident associations in the early days of professionalism etc.

It depends on who you call "the FA". The IOMFA leadership did not want to join CONIFA. The official reason was that they are unsure of the reactions this might cause from FIFA/UEFA/The FA. The players, coaches and referees, however, were extremely keen to take the opportunity. A club owner (who was not part of the IOMFA executive and thus might not be called "splinter group") then founded MIFA anticipating that a) This will avoid any sanctions against the IOMFA as they are not officially involved and b) Players, Coaches and referees can take their chances.
However, the IOMFA never said "we will not join CONIFA", but basically asked for more time to properly investigate. And MIFA never wanted to "replace" them, but was more looking to ease the situation for everyone.
Finally, as said before, the "higher levels" (The FA/UEFA/FIFA) never took a stand on that case and never forbid the IOMFA to join CONIFA.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help