The mancityfans.net football forum

Im_Spartacus wrote:Just as an aside to the report, the Qataris are obviously following this news avidly through their media outlets (which stick to reporting facts not opinions), yet in their zeal to be persecuted muslims (of course it's all a conspiracy by the west) keep commenting that they are vindicated by these reports. Now their innocence about FIFA's workings clearly knows no bounds, but aside from that, it seems that the locals along with much of the rest of the world are completely missing the point that the world's criticism should be about FIFA facilitating bribery, rather than them paying the asking price.

So a couple of questions for you all:
Does anyone on here actually blame Qatar and Russia for paying the price asked?
Does anyone genuinely think Qatar and Russia are the villains in all this, any more than England, Australia or US?

Im_Spartacus wrote:Just as an aside to the report, the Qataris are obviously following this news avidly through their media outlets (which stick to reporting facts not opinions), yet in their zeal to be persecuted muslims (of course it's all a conspiracy by the west) keep commenting that they are vindicated by these reports. Now their innocence about FIFA's workings clearly knows no bounds, but aside from that, it seems that the locals along with much of the rest of the world are completely missing the point that the world's criticism should be about FIFA facilitating bribery, rather than them paying the asking price.

So a couple of questions for you all:
Does anyone on here actually blame Qatar and Russia for paying the price asked?
Does anyone genuinely think Qatar and Russia are the villains in all this, any more than England, Australia or US?

Wonderwall wrote:

Sideshow Bob wrote:shocking developments. no one could have seen this coming!

Fifa ethics investigator Michael Garcia loses appeal against ethics summary

The Fifa ethics investigator, Michael Garcia, has lost his appeal against the findings that cleared Qatar and Russia to host the 2022 and 2018 World Cups.

Garcia last month claimed a statement by the Fifa ethics judge, Hans-Joachim Eckert, on his report into bidding for the World Cups had contained “numerous materially incomplete and erroneous representations of the facts and conclusions” and announced he would appeal.

That appeal has now been declared inadmissible by Fifa’s appeals committee, which said Eckert’s statement was not a legally binding decision and therefore could not be appealed against.

Eckert’s statement said any rule breaches by the bidding countries were “of very limited scope”, adding: “In particular, the effects of these occurrences on the bidding process as a whole were far from reaching any threshold that would require returning to the bidding process, let alone reopening it.”

A Fifa statement said: “The Fifa appeal committee, chaired by Larry Mussenden, has concluded that the appeal lodged by the chairman of the investigatory chamber, Michael J Garcia, against the statement of the chairman of the adjudicatory chamber of the independent ethics committee, Hans-Joachim Eckert, is not admissible.

“The said statement about the report on the inquiry into the 2018-2022 Fifa World Cup bidding process does not constitute a decision and as such is neither legally binding nor appealable.”

Meanwhile, complaints by two World Cup bid whistleblowers that their cover had been blown by Eckert’s findings have also been rejected.

Phaedra Almajid, who worked for the Qatar 2022 bid team before losing her job in 2010, and Bonita Mersiades, who worked for Australia’s 2022 bid, complained that promises of confidentiality had been breached because his findings contained more than enough information to make them easily identifiable.

So in short, an independent party is employed to write a report about the corruptors.
The report is given to a Fifa ethics judge, selected by the corruptors
the report is quite damning... so the Fifa ethics judge pretends it didn't say what the independent party wrote and release a statement saying something different
The independent party speaks out and exposes the Fifa ethics judge for covering up of the facts
The independent party then appeals to a committee, selected by the corruptors to look into the inaccuracies of the statement
The committee (appointed by the corruptors) find the Fifa ethics judge (appointed by the corruptors) has done no wrong in releasing the statement clearing the corruptors

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:Just as an aside to the report, the Qataris are obviously following this news avidly through their media outlets (which stick to reporting facts not opinions), yet in their zeal to be persecuted muslims (of course it's all a conspiracy by the west) keep commenting that they are vindicated by these reports. Now their innocence about FIFA's workings clearly knows no bounds, but aside from that, it seems that the locals along with much of the rest of the world are completely missing the point that the world's criticism should be about FIFA facilitating bribery, rather than them paying the asking price.

So a couple of questions for you all:
Does anyone on here actually blame Qatar and Russia for paying the price asked?
Does anyone genuinely think Qatar and Russia are the villains in all this, any more than England, Australia or US?

Yes, I blame the Qataris for paying the asking price, as I do the Russians. They help, along with other nations, to keep this corrupt administration going. The real villains are, of course, FIFA, an organisation seemingly beyond the law.

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:Just as an aside to the report, the Qataris are obviously following this news avidly through their media outlets (which stick to reporting facts not opinions), yet in their zeal to be persecuted muslims (of course it's all a conspiracy by the west) keep commenting that they are vindicated by these reports. Now their innocence about FIFA's workings clearly knows no bounds, but aside from that, it seems that the locals along with much of the rest of the world are completely missing the point that the world's criticism should be about FIFA facilitating bribery, rather than them paying the asking price.

So a couple of questions for you all:
Does anyone on here actually blame Qatar and Russia for paying the price asked?
Does anyone genuinely think Qatar and Russia are the villains in all this, any more than England, Australia or US?

Yes, I blame the Qataris for paying the asking price, as I do the Russians. They help, along with other nations, to keep this corrupt administration going. The real villains are, of course, FIFA, an organisation seemingly beyond the law.

I sympathise with that view, but when you look at all this in the cold light of day, the reality is that in an ideal world, nobody would have to bribe anybody.

In the real world though, every bid seems to have pushed the boundaries to buy favour with the voters, just that Qatar and Russia pushed those boundaries further to get what they wanted.

If those are the rules of the game that FIFA set, then all they are guilty of, is having deeper pockets or a greater desire to host the World Cup than the other bidding nations.

It's simply a sign of FIFA's confidence in their ability to deflect the blame (or stick their head in the sand amidst criticism) that they felt bold enough to give the events to a racist country and one that is climatically incapable of holding a summer tournament, and think nobody would question why they made those decisions.

The very idea of awarding two bids at the same time is in itself simply a mechanism for the old tossers on the exco to get two shots at the cash, probably because they suspect they will either be dead or retired by the time the next bids were awarded. With any luck, the whole fucking lot of them will be locked up and stripped of their assets under some kind of proceeds of crime legislation.

This kind of shit has been going on, as someone else pointed out, since Havelange in the 70's, with the IOC similarly implicated.

Blaming the hosts would, in reality implicate every single one of the host nations in the last 40 or so years, and deflect the flak away from the very organization that facilitates the scandal every 4 years.

Beefymcfc wrote:As FIFA say, nothing to see here, move along please.

And Garcia did, with a parting shot that leaves Blatter and his ExCo members with a lot to think about.

FBI time, me thinks.

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:As FIFA say, nothing to see here, move along please.

And Garcia did, with a parting shot that leaves Blatter and his ExCo members with a lot to think about.

FBI time, me thinks.

I see this is the latest gem ahead of tomorrow's vote:

The vote will be held at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, but it is unclear how many members will be allowed to take part.

The Fifa committee consisted of 22 members in December 2010 and president Sepp Blatter has previously said only those people should be able to vote on whether to issue a more comprehensive corruption report.

However, of those original 22, only 13 are still on the committee. It means that 12 members of Fifa's committee (which now consists of 25 people), as well as a further two co-opted members, would not be eligible to vote.

So in effect, only the people who stand to lose from the findings of the report are allowed to vote on it. And the new members of the committee, who would probably stand to gain politically from the truth coming out, aren't allowed to vote.

Incredible, just when you think you can't hear anything more dodgy than the last stunt.

Beefymcfc wrote:

Im_Spartacus wrote:

Beefymcfc wrote:As FIFA say, nothing to see here, move along please.

And Garcia did, with a parting shot that leaves Blatter and his ExCo members with a lot to think about.

FBI time, me thinks.

I see this is the latest gem ahead of tomorrow's vote:

The vote will be held at a meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco, but it is unclear how many members will be allowed to take part.

The Fifa committee consisted of 22 members in December 2010 and president Sepp Blatter has previously said only those people should be able to vote on whether to issue a more comprehensive corruption report.

However, of those original 22, only 13 are still on the committee. It means that 12 members of Fifa's committee (which now consists of 25 people), as well as a further two co-opted members, would not be eligible to vote.

So in effect, only the people who stand to lose from the findings of the report are allowed to vote on it. And the new members of the committee, who would probably stand to gain politically from the truth coming out, aren't allowed to vote.

Incredible, just when you think you can't hear anything more dodgy than the last stunt.

It's draw-dropping isn't it mate. I've changed my view on how these people work as I always thought that they work within certain legal parameters but the reality is that FIFA are actually run as an old boys club where the laws are only to themselves, not deciding to sort out the wrongs but to decide whether to tell others why they think they got it wrong when in reality, the members see it as normal practice.

In their eyes there's no corruption, it's just normal jogging for these fuckers.

john68 wrote:Before we start to fall over in shock at their honesty or jump for joy at their caving in, please take notethat there is a little caviat phrase in that bulletin

"LEGALLY APPROPRIATE VERSION"

If they published the whole truthful transcript, as it was the findings concludied from evidence, would it not all be legally appropriate?

Or do they really mean; legally appropriate so their arses don't fry?

They would have no problem unanimously agreeing a version that kept them safe.

Wonderwall wrote:

john68 wrote:Before we start to fall over in shock at their honesty or jump for joy at their caving in, please take notethat there is a little caviat phrase in that bulletin

"LEGALLY APPROPRIATE VERSION"

If they published the whole truthful transcript, as it was the findings concludied from evidence, would it not all be legally appropriate?

Or do they really mean; legally appropriate so their arses don't fry?

They would have no problem unanimously agreeing a version that kept them safe.

Does that mean that hearsay testimony or eye witness testimony from the whistle blowers might be taken out?

john68 wrote:Before we start to fall over in shock at their honesty or jump for joy at their caving in, please take notethat there is a little caviat phrase in that bulletin

"LEGALLY APPROPRIATE VERSION"

If they published the whole truthful transcript, as it was the findings concludied from evidence, would it not all be legally appropriate?

Or do they really mean; legally appropriate so their arses don't fry?

They would have no problem unanimously agreeing a version that kept them safe.