Remove this ad

#41 [url]

Oct 21 10 6:13 PM

pieter wrote:
In the voting for UEFA membership for Gibraltar, all British FA's voted in favour , I remember, but they did nothing to convince other FA's, as Spain did in the other direction....
In fact, only 3 members in total voted in favor of Gibraltar: England, Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland voted against, as did all other UEFA members.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#42 [url]

Oct 22 10 7:44 AM

Kivo wrote:



Gibraltar is a British (UK) Overseas Territory, not English.

UK doesn't = England.



Believe me, I am Scottish and know this fact VERY well.

But the Gibraltar FA was formerly affiliated to the ENGLISH FA, as there is no British FA. If the UK was to break up, England would probably take control of all the UK dependencies. In football terms, the parent FA of Gibraltar would be England.

Quote    Reply   

#43 [url]

Oct 23 10 7:07 AM

mcruic wrote:
But the Gibraltar FA was formerly affiliated to the ENGLISH FA, as there is no British FA. If the UK was to break up, England would probably take control of all the UK dependencies. In football terms, the parent FA of Gibraltar would be England.

OK, but Gibraltar as an entity is not part of England, they are a (non independent) country with politically the same status as Faroe Islands or Curaçao. So Gibraltar should be FIFA member like Faroe Islands and Curaçao (aka Netherlands Antilles) if they want. The same counts for i.e. Jersey, Isle of Man or Guernsey which also are (non independent) countries which do not belong to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. But not for Isle of Wight which is part of England or Orkney Islands which is part of Scotland.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#44 [url]

Oct 23 10 12:31 PM

As footballing entities, Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man are considered to be part of England because they are affiliated to the FA of England, and receive money from the FA of England for their development. Until they break away from the FA, they do not have much chancee of being treated as independent football entities.

As political entities, what you say is true. But in terms of football, one FIFA member cannot be in control of another, they need to be independent.

Technically, Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man DO indeed belong to England - both in terms of football structure and politically. You could say they belong to the UK, but I don't think anybody in Scotland thinks Guernsey is a Scottish dependency. It is ultimately ruled from London, which is in England.

Quote    Reply   

#45 [url]

Oct 23 10 1:01 PM

mcruic wrote:
As footballing entities, Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man are considered to be part of England because they are affiliated to the FA of England, and receive money from the FA of England for their development. Until they break away from the FA, they do not have much chancee of being treated as independent football entities.

But in terms of football, one FIFA member cannot be in control of another, they need to be independent.

Suriname, Curaçao (aka Netherlands Antilles) and Dutch East Indies FA used to be affiliated with KNVB. Suriname and Dutch East Indies until they became independent. Yet they were being treated as independent football entities as they even had their own FIFA membership. At 1938 Worldchampionships KNVB was even represented with two separate teams: Netherlands and Dutch East Indies.

So following to KNVB affiliated members were FIFA member:
-> 1904-1929 Netherlands
-> 1929-1930 Netherlands, Suriname
-> 1930-1932 Netherlands, Suriname, Dutch East Indies
-> 1932-1945 Netherlands, Suriname, Dutch East Indies, Curaçao
-> 1945-1975 Netherlands, Suriname, Curaçao (from 1948 as Netherlands Antilles)
-> 1975-1986 Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles
-> 1986- Netherlands, Netherlands Antilles (from 2010 Curaçao), Aruba.

Please take notice the dependencies had (Dutch East Indies until 1945, Suriname until 1975) and have (Curaçao and Aruba) the same status as i.e. Jersey or Gibraltar.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#48 [url]

Oct 24 10 5:12 PM

Fast Midfielder wrote:
No, Aruba has the same political status as i.e. the Faeroe Islands or Gibraltar. It is a non independent country. On following site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries you can find a list of all independent and non independent countries.


The confusing thing is that Aruba is called a 'country' in the Dutch constitution (as are now Curaçao and Sint Maarten).

Aruba is a "constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" along with the Netherlands, Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

Gibraltar is a "British overseas territory"

Faroe Islands is an "autonomous region within the Kingdom of Denmark" (as is Greenland).

In reality, they are all dependencies.

Quote    Reply   

#49 [url]

Oct 24 10 6:28 PM

mcruic wrote:
The confusing thing is that Aruba is called a 'country' in the Dutch constitution (as are now Curaçao and Sint Maarten).

Aruba is a "constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" along with the Netherlands, Curaçao and Sint Maarten.

It is not necessary a country is independent. Aruba, Curaçao and Sint-Maarten are non independent countries.

mcruic wrote:

Gibraltar is a "British overseas territory"

Aruba, Curaçao and Sint-Maarten are also overseas territories.

mcruic wrote:
Faroe Islands is an "autonomous region within the Kingdom of Denmark" (as is Greenland).

Aruba, Curaçao and Sint-Maarten are also autonomous regions, but within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

mcruic wrote:
In reality, they are all dependencies.

I totally agree. The difference with i.e. Netherlands, Belgium or Sweden is these countries are independent countries and the dependencies are non independent countries.

How do you want to call Scotland? In Netherlands most people regard Scotland as a country with the same status as England, Wales and Northern Ireland have within the United Kingdom. Of course these people know these countries are not independent (yet), but a least they are called countries.

In Germany the 16 republics that form Germany are called Länder, which means country. München i.e. is called the Ländeshauptstadt of Bavaria which means capital of the country of Bavaria. However it might be possible Land has more meanings than just country in German language.

Quote    Reply   

#50 [url]

Oct 24 10 8:07 PM

we just cannot translate "Land" to "country"....
and there are several degrees of "independence"; everyone agrees that the UN-members are independent, but there are others...

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#51 [url]

Oct 24 10 8:16 PM

Nevertheless, some FIFA members as i.e. Faroe Islands, Curaçao (aka Netherlands Antilles) and Aruba are not independent. So, if we are consistent other countries with the same status like Gibraltar, Jersey or Sint-Maarten should have the same rights.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#53 [url]

Oct 25 10 10:21 PM

As well as the traditional European-ruled dependencies, we also have dependencies of other countries that are not usually considered.

Carriacou & Petite Martinique - dependency of Grenada
Rotuma - dependency of Fiji
Barbuda - dependency of Antigua & Barbuda
Agalega Islands - dependency of Mauritius
Cargados Carajos Shoals - dependency of Mauritius
Rodrigues - dependency of Mauritius
Los Roques - dependency of Venezuela

And also we have 2nd order dependencies (dependencies of dependencies)
Loyalty Islands - dependency of New Caledonia
Bélep Islands - dependency of New Caledonia
Isle of Pines - dependency of New Caledonia
Les Saintes - dependency of Guadeloupe
Désirade - dependency of Guadeloupe
Marie-Galante - dependency of Guadeloupe
Ascension - dependency of Saint Helena
Tristan da Cunha - dependency of Saint Helena
Alderney - dependency of Guernsey
Sark - dependency of Guernsey
Herm - dependency of Guernsey

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#54 [url]

Mar 11 11 1:51 AM

http://news.laprensacur.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21070:ffk-a-duna-informashon-di-prome-buelta-di-su-kampionato-jean-francisca-i-udemar-isidora-a-postula-pa-presidente-pa-elekshon-nobo-di-ffk-12-di-mart&catid=33:deporte&Itemid=54

Article is in Papiamento, but if you understand some Spanish or Portuguese, you should understand some.

Basically, it says FIFA asked the Curaçao Football Federation to change the constitution of the Netherlands Antilles Football Union on 23rd December 2010 to incorporate the recent political changes. The reason for this was to allow Curaçao to become a FIFA member in place of Netherlands Antilles.

NAVU held a meeting to change the name to the Curaçao Football Federation on 6th February.

It seems Curaçao has already been recognised by the Caribbean Football Union, and it has sent the new statues to FIFA for approval. I think the election for the transformation of the constitution takes place on 12th March (Saturday).

So, it looks like we will not see Netherlands Antilles' name again in international football.

FIFA has already added a Curaçao page on their site (though they still have the Netherlands Antilles page as well)

http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=cuw/index.html
http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=ant/index.html

However, in the drop down list of associations, Netherlands Antilles no longer appears. Curaçao appears instead.

The map in the detail section still shows Bonaire as part of the federation. So, I'm just wondering if Bonaire players will be allowed to play for Curaçao.

Quote    Reply   

#55 [url]

Mar 11 11 7:57 PM

mcruic wrote:
FIFA has already added a Curaçao page on their site (though they still have the Netherlands Antilles page as well)

http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=cuw/index.html
http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=ant/index.html

However, in the drop down list of associations, Netherlands Antilles no longer appears. Curaçao appears instead.

Curaçao is ranked 146th on FIFA list, Netherlands Antilles 150th.

On following site you can see all results of Curaçao. Matches played by Netherlands Antilles are included, but I noticed something weird. Curaçao aka as Netherlands Antilles made a European tour in 1958. On 23-04-1958 they played as Curaçao against Netherlands, on 15-05-1958 as Netherlands Antilles against Denmark.
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/results/index.html#

Quote    Reply   

#56 [url]

Mar 11 11 9:22 PM

No sign of NA in FIFA ranking, only Curaçao.
The match vs Netherlands could be a recent addition. The question is, should the old Curaçao-only matches be classified as "A" matches?

Quote    Reply   

#57 [url]

Sep 30 11 9:40 PM

trekky76 wrote:The question is, should the old Curaçao-only matches be classified as "A" matches?

If you mean the island of Curaçao with old Curaçao-only matches I would say no, but it is not that easy.

Until 1948 former Netherlands Antilles was named Gebiedsdeel Curaçao. We have to find out which matches were played by the Gebiedsdeel and which matches by the island of Curaçao. Please take notice (pre 1948 ) Gebiedsdeel Curaçao was the same as 1948-1986 Netherlands Antilles. In 1986 Aruba got status aparte and was no longer part of Netherlands Antilles.

In the 1948-2010 era (the island of) Curaçao was part of Netherlands Antilles. Also in football. As since 1986 Aruba was no part of Netherlands Antilles anymore from that moment on Netherlands Antilles national team usually consisted of Curaçao based players only. However also in the 1948-1986 era there have been periods Netherlands Antilles national team fielded Curaçao based players only, i.e. when they were on European tour in 1958. The reason was Aruban confederation of NAVU (Netherlands Antilles FA) had a dispute with NAVU so the Aruban did not play for Netherlands Antilles at the time. In such cases Curaçao-only matches can be regarded A-matches as only Curaçaoan players were available to represent Netherlands Antilles NT.

From 2010 onwards Curaçao succeeded Netherlands Antilles, so from then on we can say Curaçao-only matches can be classified as A-matches.

Summary:
-> until 1948: no;
-> 1948-1986: only if Aruban players were not available for some reasons;
-> 1986-onwards: yes.

Last Edited By: Fast Midfielder Dec 23 13 8:50 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

TheRoonBa

Posts: 5,414 Site Admin

#58 [url]

Sep 30 11 10:58 PM

Fast Midfielder wrote:
trekky76 wrote:
The question is, should the old Curaçao-only matches be classified as "A" matches?

If you mean the island of Curaçao with old Curaçao-only matches I would say no, but it is not that easy.

Until 1948 former Netherlands Antilles was named Gebiedsdeel Curaçao. We have to find out which matches were played by the Gebiedsdeel and which matches by the island of Curaçao. Please take notice (pre 194 Gebiedsdeel Curaçao was the same as 1948-1986 Netherlands Antilles. In 1986 Aruba got status aparte and was no longer part of Netherlands Antilles.

In the 1948-2010 era (the island of) Curaçao was part of Netherlands Antilles. Also in football. As since 1986 Aruba was no part of Netherlands Antilles anymore from that moment on Netherlands Antilles national team usually consisted of Curaçao based players only. However also in the 1948-1986 era there have been periods Netherlands Antilles national team fielded Curaçao based players only, i.e. when they were on European tour in 1958. The reason was Aruban confederation of NAVU (Netherlands Antilles FA) had a dispute with NAVU so the Aruban did not play for Netherlands Antilles at the time. In such cases Curaçao-only matches can be regarded A-matches as only Curaçaoan players were available to represent Netherlands Antilles NT.

From 2010 onwards Curaçao succeeded Netherlands Antilles, so from then on we can say Curaçao-only matches can be classified as A-matches.

Summary:
-> until 1948: no;
-> 1948-1986: only if Aruban players were not available for some reasons;
-> 1986-onwards: yes.


And of course, we have Bonaire - this complicates the situation. Sometimes Bonaire players played for Netherlands Antilles (and I think also for Curaçao). Certainly, 4 Bonaire players recently played for Curaçao in the women's U-17 CFU Championship, even though Bonaire is no longer associated with Curaçao

Quote    Reply   

#60 [url]

Oct 1 11 8:06 AM

mcruic wrote:
And of course, we have Bonaire - this complicates the situation. Sometimes Bonaire players played for Netherlands Antilles (and I think also for Curaçao). Certainly, 4 Bonaire players recently played for Curaçao in the women's U-17 CFU Championship, even though Bonaire is no longer associated with Curaçao

The Bonaire players might be associated with Curaçao. Born Curaçaoan? Curaçaon parenthood? Such kind of situations we have seen before. Ukrainian players that played for Russia after the dissolution og USSR/CIS NT in 1992.

nfm24 wrote:
Bonaire represented Netherlands Antilles in the 1986 Central American and Caribbean Games.

This complicates the situation even more. Or not? Was there prior to the 1986 Central American and Caribbean Games a kind of competition between the five islands of Netherlands Antilles and the winner would represent Netherlands Antilles? Anyhow not the best way to form a strongest possible team for such a small country.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help