Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i agree with baron for once.

what case do they have to sue exactly? they lost badly. there's no indication that if their timeframe had been in october instead of june that their 25 million would have been better spent.

and then to see faster saying they don't even want it anymore? definitely petty and vindictive.

And even if the timing has now changed -- it also applies to the winner! All nations, winner or loser, went in there knowing that ONLY one would win. And what FIFA is trying to correct is for an altruistic situation -- not to penalize any one or any nation. So if FIFA were to stay in the June-July period in Qatar becuz the losers like Oz are threatening suit -- and indeed there are heat-stroke casualties, so that would make Australia feel good that FIFA rigidly stood by its original parameters?? :blink: I should hope not becuz it is even sicker and more twisted than just being a sore loser.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We've also made it out of the knock-out round more recently.

Tony if I see you say England should be given the hosting rights one more time I will throw my computer. This is really getting old pal. There's nothing wrong with Russia hosting in 2018 and 2022 shou

Someone needs to sue FIFA over this mess. Rivals bidders, European leagues and clubs, TV networks, sponsors, players...all are being mucked about because of FIFA's inability to think properly. The bi

i agree with baron for once.

what case do they have to sue exactly? they lost badly. there's no indication that if their timeframe had been in october instead of june that their 25 million would have been better spent.

and then to see faster saying they don't even want it anymore? definitely petty and vindictive.

The point they are making is that the specifications for the tender were not honoured. Not only are those specifications (which are legally binding) not not being honoured, but the winning tender is/was incapable of honouring the legally binding terms of tender. Therefore legally the process can be ruled to have been run in bad faith, resulting in FIFA being liable for the costs incurred to those that bid in good faith, namely Korea, Japan, Australia and the United States of America.

And the only reason the USSF is not raising a bigger stink about this is that they already have a 630 million pound piece of leverage over FIFA in the form of a television contract (again which has legally binding language that says the World Cups would be held in the traditional June/July timeframe) and the United States, despite their public statements against sloppy seconds, are probably the most likely backup host.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point they are making is that the specifications for the tender were not honoured. Not only are those specifications (which are legally binding) not not being honoured, but the winning tender is/was incapable of honouring the legally binding terms of tender. Therefore legally the process can be ruled to have been run in bad faith, resulting in FIFA being liable for the costs incurred to those that bid in good faith, namely Korea, Japan, Australia and the United States of America.

Not really. It is in the wording there of the Award that FIFA has the right to change it. When the countries bid, I imagine there is something in those conditions that you will abide by the rules of the organizing entity (FIFA), and they may change the rules of the game anytime they can do so. And certainly the welfare of the fans and players -- despite the promises of the chosen country -- remains foremost in FIFA's radar. The 'good faith' thing has very little to do with it. FIFA isn't acting in bad faith. It is making changes in the light of possible worse repercussions (i.e., death, damage to health of players and visitors alike)...for which it could then BE liable for negligence if it allowed the tournament to proceed in such extreme circumstances.

There are escape clauses in those award/contest contracts such as 'force majeure' and 'act of God' (or Allah in this case), etc., etc....which FIFA can invoke. (And, since I have a legal background), that and 'extenuating circumstances' are entirely valid.

And even if FIFA were to reimburse the costs of the losing countries; they can afford it; FIFA could probably offer a settlement to the parties who feel cheated ...but it will be less than what they ask for...and it's a take it or leave it...becuz Oz could lose entirely at the CAS if it were to take it that far. I don't really see Australia as having a very strong leg to stand on...nor should FIFA let it dictate how it will proceed if it has the far larger considerations of the welfare and well-being of people at its tournaments as its primary concern and motivation for the change of scheduling.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

The point they are making is that the specifications for the tender were not honoured. Not only are those specifications (which are legally binding) not not being honoured, but the winning tender is/was incapable of honouring the legally binding terms of tender. Therefore legally the process can be ruled to have been run in bad faith, resulting in FIFA being liable for the costs incurred to those that bid in good faith, namely Korea, Japan, Australia and the United States of America.

And the only reason the USSF is not raising a bigger stink about this is that they already have a 630 million pound piece of leverage over FIFA in the form of a television contract (again which has legally binding language that says the World Cups would be held in the traditional June/July timeframe) and the United States, despite their public statements against sloppy seconds, are probably the most likely backup host.

This. And thank you for explaining the legal aspect of it better than I could. In truth, all of the other bidders do have a case to be made FIFA did not honor the specifications of the bid process in that it allowed a country to win that can't fulfill their obligations as the winning bidder. And especially Australia who now gets to watch Qatar be allowed to do what they weren't given an option to do (meaning have non-traditional timeframes for the World Cup).

1 note on US television rights though.. Fox is only paying $425 million for their portion of World Cup rights, and that includes both 2018 and 2022, not to mention other FIFA tournaments as part of the package. Comcast is paying $600 million for the Spanish language rights for Telemundo and probably wouldn't be as greatly affected by the move as Fox would be because of NFL and college football. So the impact of Qatar 2022 specific to Fox is a fraction of the 630 million pound price that's been reported.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. It is in the wording there of the Award that FIFA has the right to change it. When the countries bid, I imagine there is something in those conditions that you will abide by the rules of the organizing entity (FIFA), and they may change the rules of the game anytime they can do so. And certainly the welfare of the fans and players -- despite the promises of the chosen country -- remains foremost in FIFA's radar. The 'good faith' thing has very little to do with it. FIFA isn't acting in bad faith. It is making changes in the light of possible worse repercussions (i.e., death, damage to health of players and visitors alike)...for which it could then BE liable for negligence if it allowed the tournament to proceed in such extreme circumstances.

There are escape clauses in those award/contest contracts such as 'force majeure' and 'act of God' (or Allah in this case), etc., etc....which FIFA can invoke. (And, since I have a legal background), that and 'extenuating circumstances' are entirely valid.

And even if FIFA were to reimburse the costs of the losing countries; they can afford it; FIFA could probably offer a settlement to the parties who feel cheated ...but it will be less than what they ask for...and it's a take it or leave it...becuz Oz could lose entirely at the CAS if it were to take it that far. I don't really see Australia as having a very strong leg to stand on...nor should FIFA let it dictate how it will proceed if it has the far larger considerations of the welfare and well-being of people at its tournaments as its primary concern and motivation for the change of scheduling.

As has already been reported, the terms of the tender were clearly specific, in legal language, with very little wiggle room. It has been reported that it would go against the legally binding terms of tender and the hosting contract for the tournament to be moved.

Quaker, Hispanics watch football too. Telemundo would still be affected and Comcast/Fox would be unified in their stance for the benefit of both partners.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quaker, Hispanics watch football too. Telemundo would still be affected and Comcast/Fox would be unified in their stance for the benefit of both partners.

Telemundo doesn't spend a billion dollars a years on NFL television rights (yes I know Comcast does for NBC, but those games are in primetime and wouldn't directly conflict with World Cup games like Fox would be saddled with). So the effect on Fox is much greater than it is on Telemundo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As has already been reported, the terms of the tender were clearly specific, in legal language, with very little wiggle room. It has been reported that it would go against the legally binding terms of tender and the hosting contract for the tournament to be moved.

Yeah, but FIFA is motivated by far larger reasons than just to break a contract. Is a human life worth $300 million?? That's what it comes down to. FIFA would be far more negligent if it did NOT fix a situation that it foresaw as having dire consequences rather than just stand there like a "deer caught in the headlights" because of "hurt feelings" and lost costs of the losing cities. Well, who told Australia, South Korea, etc., to spend X amount of dollars. They could very well have spent $5,000 as much as $50 million. That the bidding cities of either FIFA, the IOC choose to spend $30 - 40 - 50 - 60 million dollars on their bids is their own doing -- not the organizing entity. That's what I would argue if I were FIFA's counsel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving the World Cup to October-December would make a real mess and disrupt the international calendar for a couple of years. It would be when the qualifying rounds for Euro 2024 would have started and delay the ending of the season well into June or even July next year 2023, that's also when Copa América and the Asian Cup should be played. If it's moved to winter, then the competition should be held in January 2022 so it won't clash with WOG which would begin in mid-February. Even that leaves the problem of short time of preparation for qualified teams and their fans but the WC qualifying rounds should end earlier than normal to leave some breathing space between them and the competition proper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but FIFA is motivated by far larger reasons than just to break a contract. Is a human life worth $300 million?? That's what it comes down to. FIFA would be far more negligent if it did NOT fix a situation that it foresaw as having dire consequences rather than just stand there like a "deer caught in the headlights" because of "hurt feelings" and lost costs of the losing cities. Well, who told Australia, South Korea, etc., to spend X amount of dollars. They could very well have spent $5,000 as much as $50 million. That the bidding cities of either FIFA, the IOC choose to spend $30 - 40 - 50 - 60 million dollars on their bids is their own doing -- not the organizing entity. That's what I would argue if I were FIFA's counsel.

Probably should have thought of that one before they chose Qatar as the host, especially when FIFA is coming out saying that they made a mistake not knowing how hot it would be in Qatar in the middle of June and July. So if there are reprecussions they have to face as a result of their bad decision, that's on them. And if the folks in Australia feel they have a case that they were wronged (which I'm not convinced they do, but I see where they have grounds for it), that's not their problem that FIFA needs to fix their problem with Qatar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baron you are mixing arguments, Australia is solely making the argument that legally will be based on conducting business in bad faith.

Fifa is in the legal outhouse right now, not any of the failed bidders, and currently not Qatar.

Anyone else losing respect for the Swiss judiciary? There is enough information, that has been leaked/made public about Fifa, for the Swiss courts to order raids and investigations into Fifa's business practices. Yet they do nothing.

Edited by faster
Link to post
Share on other sites

But they got what? 2 votes?? It's not like they lost by one or 2 votes. They were a distant 3rd (can't recall rightly and can't be bothered to look it up right now). My point is it doesn't help FIFA or the whole situation right now. If there's anyone who should be aggrieved and venting right now, it should the USSF which came in with 8 votes. But even then, the US is just keeping quiet and let the whole thing implode and sort itself out. If I were a judge, I think Australia has the weakest case of all.

Doesn't matter if they had 1 vote or 10. If the process called for a World Cup in June or July and Qatar was chosen on the basis that they had an answer for hosting in July, knowing that was one of their biggest problems, and the other bidders relied on whatever the criteria was, then they have every right to grieve.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. It is in the wording there of the Award that FIFA has the right to change it. When the countries bid, I imagine there is something in those conditions that you will abide by the rules of the organizing entity (FIFA), and they may change the rules of the game anytime they can do so. And certainly the welfare of the fans and players -- despite the promises of the chosen country -- remains foremost in FIFA's radar. The 'good faith' thing has very little to do with it. FIFA isn't acting in bad faith. It is making changes in the light of possible worse repercussions (i.e., death, damage to health of players and visitors alike)...for which it could then BE liable for negligence if it allowed the tournament to proceed in such extreme circumstances.

There are escape clauses in those award/contest contracts such as 'force majeure' and 'act of God' (or Allah in this case), etc., etc....which FIFA can invoke. (And, since I have a legal background), that and 'extenuating circumstances' are entirely valid.

And even if FIFA were to reimburse the costs of the losing countries; they can afford it; FIFA could probably offer a settlement to the parties who feel cheated ...but it will be less than what they ask for...and it's a take it or leave it...becuz Oz could lose entirely at the CAS if it were to take it that far. I don't really see Australia as having a very strong leg to stand on...nor should FIFA let it dictate how it will proceed if it has the far larger considerations of the welfare and well-being of people at its tournaments as its primary concern and motivation for the change of scheduling.

Lots is unknown, so assuming we even do give FIFA the benefit of the doubt and say they didn't act in bad faith in choosing Qatar, rules are rules. Everyone knows the rules coming into the game. If both Qatar and FIFA believed Qatar could host in July and fulfill that criteria, then very well. But now, if Qatar can't hold it's end of the bargain, then bad faith or not, the other bidders were duped. Ins not about whether FIFA has the power to change the rules of the game now, it's more about what the rules were for all bidders at the time of bidding, and what the bidders could rely upon as the criteria for hosting the WC before spending $50 million to bid.

I don't even know what the rules said, but if there was explicitly a criteria that the winner host in July, then Qatar should rightfully be fucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as media reports and whispers of what is happening, Fifa is already looking at either a re-vote or completely new bidding process.

Like I said before, it is staggering that police and investigaters in Zurich have not launched criminal probes into Fifa.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see FIFA doing a re-vote unless the investigators find something really juicy on FIFA's part back during the 2010 vote. To willingly cast a re-vote would mean they are admitting to shady wrongdoing, and its doubtful they would do that unless they are forced to. The more invested Qatar becomes in the WC, the harder it will be to take it away. The investigators will have to find something really big in the next year or two, and it appears they're taking their sweet time at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with baron for once.

what case do they have to sue exactly? they lost badly. there's no indication that if their timeframe had been in october instead of june that their 25 million would have been better spent.

and then to see faster saying they don't even want it anymore? definitely petty and vindictive.

Maybe. I just can't really see siding with FIFA on much of anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink::blink: Why?? They don't want Doha. The US was the runner-up, so why should it be limited to Asian nations? THink, yoshi; think. :rolleyes:

Because then that affects the 2026/2030 race, because Asia once again has a shot at winning those WC's. By limiting it to Asia FIFA is preventing future WC's from being affected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We know that before the votes there was allegations in British papers that Qatar and Spain agreed to a vote swap that would give each bid a minimum of 7 votes. Spain recieved 7 votes.

2. The Qatari bid leader was sanctioned for bribery in the presidential race

3. Allegations have surfaced against at minimum 2 and at most 6 ExCo members at the time

4. Blatter has already publically admitted that there is the possibility of either a revote or a new bidding process

5. It has already been shown through the language of the criteria for bidding that FIFA is already on legal grounds to move the tournament if the European leagues refuse to alter the calendar

6. All of this information was freely available for you to read in the previous 20 or so pages including links to the information from various news sources throughout the world.

7. Only an idiot would see the mess FIFA is in and not think that they are already planning on a contingency of relocating the tournament. It is only sound business for a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

So instead of jumping on me every focking chance you get, why don't you piss off and do some damn research.

Edited by faster
Link to post
Share on other sites

1. We know that before the votes there was allegations in British papers that Qatar and Spain agreed to a vote swap that would give each bid a minimum of 7 votes. Spain recieved 7 votes.

2. The Qatari bid leader was sanctioned for bribery in the presidential race

3. Allegations have surfaced against at minimum 2 and at most 6 ExCo members at the time

4. Blatter has already publically admitted that there is the possibility of either a revote or a new bidding process

5. It has already been shown through the language of the criteria for bidding that FIFA is already on legal grounds to move the tournament if the European leagues refuse to alter the calendar

6. All of this information was freely available for you to read in the previous 20 or so pages including links to the information from various news sources throughout the world.

7. Only an idiot would see the mess FIFA is in and not think that they are already planning on a contingency of relocating the tournament. It is only sound business for a multi-billion dollar enterprise.

So instead of jumping on me every focking chance you get, why don't you piss off and do some damn research.

well, leaving aside the fact that you undoubtedly could have come up with an equally erroneous 7 point bullet point list for why kathleen sebelius was certainly going to become vice president back in 2008, and leaving aside the fact that i hate to get all athensfan on you, but this all just speculation.

no one is investigating FIFA for bribery atm, and the general consensus from official channels seems to be a desire to move to tournament to the fall/winter. as for point #4, what hasn't blatter said publicly? you could fill books with all the doublespeak.

i'm sure a revote is an option they will consider if/when they exhaust negotiating a seasonal move. no one likes to lose that much pride if it can be avoided. don't get too far ahead.

also, faster, since you seem to be getting testier than usual, lobbing quasi-curse words at me, i feel i should point out that you're wrong as often as you are right on these things. when i called you the living embodiment of wikipedia, it was not just a cheeky quip.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because then that affects the 2026/2030 race, because Asia once again has a shot at winning those WC's. By limiting it to Asia FIFA is preventing future WC's from being affected.

With the U.S. TV rights already allocated for 2022, it would be to FIFA's financial advantage to keep the 2022 event in Asia and go to the U.S. in 2026 or 2030 instead. U.S. networks would probably be willing to pay twice what FOX is paying for 2018/2022 for a World Cup in the U.S.

IMO, if the event has to be moved out of Qatar, the longer FIFA waits to move the event, the more likely it will be moved to the U.S.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is going to be limited to Asian nations because the likes of China or Korea would be the only ones willing to drink from the poisoned chalice.

And how do you know this? Has China even evinced any solid interest at this point? And why would the US just roll over and play dead if 2022 is going to be revoted again? If it was wide open in 2011 (aside from Europe and So. America), why should No.America, Oceania and Africa be excluded from rebidding and Asia minus Qatar and that region? Seems HIGHLY arbirtary and discriminatory. And there are more grounds for a suit there than in Australia's other claim.

I highly doubt they will do a re-vote. That move opens them up to MORE liability causes of action than just taking it away from Qatar.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...