Jump to content

  

105 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Blatter resign?

    • No
      16
    • Yes
      89
  2. 2. Should the elections for 2018 and 2022 be repeated?

    • No
      22
    • Yes (both)
      39
    • Yes (only 2018)
      0
    • Yes (only 2022)
      41
    • No, but the country, which bidded but lost, should host the next ones
      3
  3. 3. Should the bribery scandal be investigated by public authorities?

    • No - the FIFA ethic council will handle that perfectly
      7
    • Yes - the FIFA isn't able to handle it "in the family"
      98


Recommended Posts

If you're going to be sarcastic at least come across as knowing what you're taking about. America wasn't bidding against England. I assume Tony believed England's bid to be best of the 2018 bidders. I'm not sure I agree in all respects but it's not an unreasonable opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 491
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

so the english press like to speculate a lot but as baron asked, when will we see the "smoking gun" documents? where are all the documents proving their accusations? Do they have it? Come on... This

Or Tony, you could *not* go on. That would be better, wouldn't it?

Shut the hell up. Honestly. Just shut up and leave.

Yeah...keep it in the family. America's bids were not as good as Englands...how on earth could anyone disagree with that. <sarcasm>

America's Bid wasn't as Good as England's. Also, America Hosted in 1994 compared to England in 1966. We have waited longer. Just because You have Big Stadiums everywhere (Without Roofs), doesn't mean Yours was better then ours. We are the Home of Football. We have World Class Facilities and we have proven we can deliver successful Tournaments. We have the infrastructure in place and the support. Fifa is corrupt. England should have had 2018 and Australia should have had 2022. 48 Years (52 Years by 2018) is too long to wait to Host for the Home of Football. England is a far more safer destination then Russia is. At least England's society accepts all types of cultures and orientations. We aren't homophobic like Russia, we aren't a communist society like Russia. We are welcoming, as proved with the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics. I'm telling You, there is nothing else that England want to Host more then a Fifa World Cup. Also, stop with the sarcasm. America might have a bigger population, but in comparison, England will always have a bigger support of Football then America does. England don't have any interest in American Football like America does, like America won't have as much support for Football as England does. Most Parks in our Country, there are people playing Football. Football is the most watched Sport in England. Football is a passion of ours, as it is for Me. Yes, I'm not naive. I know support for Football is growing in America, but England is the Home of Football. England's most watched Sport is Football. We have World Class Facilities and We support a World Cup coming to England.

And like Rob rightfully pointed out, England Bid for 2018 and America Bid for 2022. My issue is with Russia Hosting and not England. It's not Me being a sore loser, it's the fact of WHO we lost against. If Germany, Italy, a Single Spain Bid etc presented a stronger Bid, then well done to them, they Won. But Russia? Come on. England lost the Bidding to Germany for 2006. I have no issue with that. Germany has contributed to Football.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, England did not lose to Russia only.

It came l-a-s-t in the vote:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup

Whatever the reasons behind, four years after the vote you should get over this once and for all. Or will you still moan about this to your grandchildren?

Besides, for 2006 England also got less votes than South Africa. And there are some rumours about how Germany won that bid which doesn't make "us" look much better than Russia.

You can't go on about the evilness of FIFA and Blatter (which I agree with), and then hope that these same people grant England hosting rights.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

America's Bid wasn't as Good as England's. Also, America Hosted in 1994 compared to England in 1966. We have waited longer. Just because You have Big Stadiums everywhere (Without Roofs), doesn't mean Yours was better then ours. We are the Home of Football. We have World Class Facilities and we have proven we can deliver successful Tournaments. We have the infrastructure in place and the support. Fifa is corrupt. England should have had 2018 and Australia should have had 2022. 48 Years (52 Years by 2018) is too long to wait to Host for the Home of Football. England is a far more safer destination then Russia is. At least England's society accepts all types of cultures and orientations. We aren't homophobic like Russia, we aren't a communist society like Russia. We are welcoming, as proved with the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics. I'm telling You, there is nothing else that England want to Host more then a Fifa World Cup. Also, stop with the sarcasm. America might have a bigger population, but in comparison, England will always have a bigger support of Football then America does. England don't have any interest in American Football like America does, like America won't have as much support for Football as England does. Most Parks in our Country, there are people playing Football. Football is the most watched Sport in England. Football is a passion of ours, as it is for Me. Yes, I'm not naive. I know support for Football is growing in America, but England is the Home of Football. England's most watched Sport is Football. We have World Class Facilities and We support a World Cup coming to England.

And like Rob rightfully pointed out, England Bid for 2018 and America Bid for 2022. My issue is with Russia Hosting and not England. It's not Me being a sore loser, it's the fact of WHO we lost against. If Germany, Italy, a Single Spain Bid etc presented a stronger Bid, then well done to them, they Won. But Russia? Come on. England lost the Bidding to Germany for 2006. I have no issue with that. Germany has contributed to Football.

5f5ca46b8e1aee5b2dd32124629a2106.jpg

Not to speak for berhnam here, but we're stop with the sarcasm when you stop being a sore loser. Because you are definitely being a sore loser. You're right that FIFA is corrupt. You may be right that England was the best of the 2018 bids. But the best bid doesn't always win. The voting doesn't always favor the 'best' bid. England lost. Not only lost, but got the fewest votes of any of the 4 bids (much as Australia got the fewest votes of the 2022 bids). Does it really serve any purpose to moan and gripe about that decision as if that's going to change the original decision? Say what you want about Russia and you're right about a lot of it. Perhaps they don't deserve to host another major world sporting event. At the time though, before Russia' socio-economic issues became obvious to so many people, I thought it was a sensible choice. It was a new market for FIFA and one they thought they could tap into.

We get that you want to see a World Cup in England. I'm sure there are plenty of people that feel the same way. You all can be upset about it, but going off on rant after rant (particularly those where you suggest FIFA re-awarded 2018 to England) most definitely makes you a sore loser. Accept the reality that the 2018 World Cup is going to be held in Russia and not in England and that all the support in the world for the sport of football from you and your countrymen isn't going to change that fact.

You can't go on about the evilness of FIFA and Blatter (which I agree with), and then hope that these same people grant England hosting rights.

Bingo, spot on once again. It's just like how people can't grip about how the IOC is such a terrible organization and then expect the same countries to work with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony, England did not lose to Russia only.

It came l-a-s-t in the vote:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup

Whatever the reasons behind, four years after the vote you should get over this once and for all. Or will you still moan about this to your grandchildren?

Besides, for 2006 England also got less votes than South Africa. And there are some rumours about how Germany won that bid which doesn't make "us" look much better than Russia.

You can't go on about the evilness of FIFA and Blatter (which I agree with), and then hope that these same people grant England hosting rights.

Well the reports of what happened and the rumors do not directly (or very much indirectly) suggest the German officials did anything below-board. England was tarred and feathered because UEFA wanted one European bid and had agreements between the major members to have one bid and than England want back on it and bid anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to speak for berhnam here, but we're stop with the sarcasm when you stop being a sore loser. Because you are definitely being a sore loser. You're right that FIFA is corrupt. You may be right that England was the best of the 2018 bids. But the best bid doesn't always win. The voting doesn't always favor the 'best' bid. England lost. Not only lost, but got the fewest votes of any of the 4 bids (much as Australia got the fewest votes of the 2022 bids). Does it really serve any purpose to moan and gripe about that decision as if that's going to change the original decision? Say what you want about Russia and you're right about a lot of it. Perhaps they don't deserve to host another major world sporting event. At the time though, before Russia' socio-economic issues became obvious to so many people, I thought it was a sensible choice. It was a new market for FIFA and one they thought they could tap into.

We get that you want to see a World Cup in England. I'm sure there are plenty of people that feel the same way. You all can be upset about it, but going off on rant after rant (particularly those where you suggest FIFA re-awarded 2018 to England) most definitely makes you a sore loser. Accept the reality that the 2018 World Cup is going to be held in Russia and not in England and that all the support in the world for the sport of football from you and your countrymen isn't going to change that fact.

Bingo, spot on once again. It's just like how people can't grip about how the IOC is such a terrible organization and then expect the same countries to work with them.

There is something you said that bears repeating: the best bid does not always win. Atlanta wasn't the best bid. You can make a good argument for Salzburg being the best bid in 2010 and 2014, for Munich being the best bid in 2018, for Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo being better bids than Rio, for Toronto, Paris or even Osaka being better bids than Beijing, for Salt Lake being a better bid than Nagano (well, that one and 2002 are a bit smelly). And dear god was Albertville not the best bid.

Point being, going into a bidding process for the Olympics or the World Cup thinking that it's your God given right to hold the event is a recipe to crash and burn. Nobody outside of Great Britain cares where the "home of Football" is. Shed the arrogance and maybe the English will have a chance. Athens made the mistake of assuming they had a right to 1996 and we all know how that turned out for them. Give an England bid to a team that is as competent as the team that lead the London 2012 bid and the result will be much improved.

Edited by Fox334
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the reports of what happened and the rumors do not directly (or very much indirectly) suggest the German officials did anything below-board. England was tarred and feathered because UEFA wanted one European bid and had agreements between the major members to have one bid and than England want back on it and bid anyways.

If I remember correctly Germany standing aside for England's Euro 96 bid was meant to be reciprocated by England for Germany's 2006 bid. It's not entirely surprising England didn't fare well in that one! That, combined with the whole "home of football" thing which was a bit of a turn off meant that bid was doomed to fail.

There is something you said that bears repeating: the best bid does not always win. Atlanta wasn't the best bid. You can make a good argument for Salzburg being the best bid in 2010 and 2014, for Munich being the best bid in 2018, for Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo being better bids than Rio, for Toronto, Paris or even Osaka being better bids than Beijing, for Salt Lake being a better bid than Nagano (well, that one and 2002 are a bit smelly). And dear god was Albertville not the best bid.

Point being, going into a bidding process for the Olympics or the World Cup thinking that it's your God given right to hold the event is a recipe to crash and burn. Nobody outside of Great Britain cares where the "home of Football" is. Shed the arrogance and maybe the English will have a chance. Athens made the mistake of assuming they had a right to 1996 and we all know how that turned out for them. Give an England bid to a team that is as competent as the team that lead the London 2012 bid and the result will be much improved.

First paragraph is spot on. Russia was the best bid for FIFA at the time in exactly the same way Rio was the best bid for the IOC at the time. Both will open up new markets, giving huge nations a chance to host for the first time. Politics aside (in Russia's case), it's hard to begrudge them their first World Cup. The best bid in any given cycle isn't always technically the best bid. London 2012 wasn't the best bid in technical terms but the reward made the risk worth it. This is something we both understand and which Tony needs to learn I think.

The second paragrph I'm afraid ignores a lot of realities. The first is that England's 2018 bid didn't mention the "home of football" thing at all. The 2006 bid was arrogant and played that card a lot, the 2018 bid certainly wasn't - it had weaknesses (notably the smaller stadiums like Plymouth (!)), but arrogance wasn't one. And whilst having a better team in place might've prevented England finishing last, there's no way FIFA woud've awarded the World Cup to us even with the best bid team under the sun. You had Sepp Blatter "reminding" his ExCo what the British press had done to FIFA just before they voted on the hosts like some mafia don. Nah....until the old fogey is long gone we've got no chance. We're much better off staying out for now.

It's easy to see why Russia was the best bid for FIFA (something I wish I could say about the 2022 hosts), but a corrupt FIFA will not award England a World Cup as long as our media is on their backs (as they should be).

Edited by Rob.
Link to post
Share on other sites

The writing was on the wall for England well before the press attacks. England just never seemed to have it together and Russia was the most likely winner for a good chunk of the campaign. In honesty it wasn't

Link to post
Share on other sites

The writing was on the wall for England well before the press attacks. England just never seemed to have it together and Russia was the most likely winner for a good chunk of the campaign. In honesty it wasn't

There is something you said that bears repeating: the best bid does not always win. Atlanta wasn't the best bid. You can make a good argument for Salzburg being the best bid in 2010 and 2014, for Munich being the best bid in 2018, for Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo being better bids than Rio, for Toronto, Paris or even Osaka being better bids than Beijing, for Salt Lake being a better bid than Nagano (well, that one and 2002 are a bit smelly). And dear god was Albertville not the best bid.

Point being, going into a bidding process for the Olympics or the World Cup thinking that it's your God given right to hold the event is a recipe to crash and burn. Nobody outside of Great Britain cares where the "home of Football" is. Shed the arrogance and maybe the English will have a chance. Athens made the mistake of assuming they had a right to 1996 and we all know how that turned out for them. Give an England bid to a team that is as competent as the team that lead the London 2012 bid and the result will be much improved.

The Best Bid should always Win. England had the Best Bid. Russia and Fifa were involved in bribery's, so was Qatar for 2022. It's not about being a sore loser, it's about reality of how long England has had to wait to Host and England had the strongest Bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Best Bid should always Win.

"Best" has an element of subjectivity to it. And these organisations are well within their rights to choose a riskier or "worse" technical bid if they think the rewards will be worth it in the end. That's how London got 2012 over the more technically watertight Paris and Madrid bids. Whilst the FIFA ExCo that voted on the 2018 and 2022 bids have been proved to be corrupt, even if this weren't the case they'd still be well within their rights to choose Russia for 2018 because of the potential their bid had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as an Englishman who would like to see a World Cup in this country, I take Greg Dyke's view. If we have to choose between a World Cup & a free press, I'll take the latter thank you very much. Maybe one day FIFA will become a respectable, accountable body. Until then, stuff'em :P

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something you said that bears repeating: the best bid does not always win. Atlanta wasn't the best bid.

WRONG. At the 1990 IOC meeting in Tokyo, Atlanta was the best, most viable bid at the time. It was NOT the sentimental favorite if that's what you mean, but the majority of the IOC felt that Atlanta could stage it better than Athens was at the time. How it played out afterwards is another matter. And again, you are letting sentiment cloud your words here. Atlanta, for a relatively young city of the 'new' American South, did the best it could. Athens, 8 years later, had a 2,000-year mystical history cloaking it, thus made it seem like its Games were on another plane. That's the difference.

What you were trying to say is that 'what is perceived BY SOME as the best bid at one particular time doesn't always win,' but IT WINS because a majority of over 100 different minds from the 6 continents of the planet think that at the time they press the button, that city will deliver the best Games 7 years hence.

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

There is something you said that bears repeating: the best bid does not always win. Atlanta wasn't the best bid. You can make a good argument for Salzburg being the best bid in 2010 and 2014, for Munich being the best bid in 2018, for Chicago, Madrid and Tokyo being better bids than Rio, for Toronto, Paris or even Osaka being better bids than Beijing, for Salt Lake being a better bid than Nagano (well, that one and 2002 are a bit smelly). And dear god was Albertville not the best bid.

Point being, going into a bidding process for the Olympics or the World Cup thinking that it's your God given right to hold the event is a recipe to crash and burn. Nobody outside of Great Britain cares where the "home of Football" is. Shed the arrogance and maybe the English will have a chance. Athens made the mistake of assuming they had a right to 1996 and we all know how that turned out for them. Give an England bid to a team that is as competent as the team that lead the London 2012 bid and the result will be much improved.

WRONG. At the IOC meeting, Atlanta was the best, most viable bid at the time. It was NOT the sentimental one, but the majority of the IOC felt that Atlanta could stage it better than Athens was at the time. How it played out afterwards is another matter. And again, you are letting sentiment cloud your decision here. Atlanta for a relatively young city of the 'new' American South, did the best it could. Athens, 4 years later, had a 2,000-year mystical history cloaking it. That's the difference. What you were trying to say is that 'what is perceived BY SOME as the best bid at one particular time doesn't always win, but IT WINS because a majority of over 100 different minds from the 6 continents of the planet think that at the time they press the button, that city will deliver the best Games 7 years hence.

Fox, baron is absolutely correct on this one. Put that Atlanta 1996 bid into almost any other race and they would not be the best bid. But given the options in the bid for the `96 Olympics, they were the best bid. Certainly wasn't Athens. All the others had flaws, geo-political or otherwise. That's why Atlanta won.

The idea of 'best' is subject to interpretation most of the time. Look at the 2020 race.. Tokyo didn't offer some sort of stunning bid. They were the safe choice though in a bid that needed a safe choice. Rio probably wasn't the best of the 2016 lot, but they had the South America card to play, so that did it for them. As baron said, the things are won by a majority vote of 100 or so IOC members. There's always going to be a reason behind why a bid wins. Sometimes it's sentimental. Sometimes it's politics (case in point summer 1992). Sometimes it does come down to who has the best technical bid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Atlanta for a relatively young city of the 'new' American South, did the best it could. Athens, 4 years later, had a 2,000-year mystical history cloaking it. That's the difference.

That is not the only difference. Atlanta was tacky, hyper-commercialized and badly organized. Athens was elegant, focused on sport and the operations ran beautifully. The cultural trappings had nothing to do with it.

Personally, I think the history of the American South has quite a lot to recommend it anyway. Atlanta could've been much better than it was.

I do agree that given the options, Atlanta was the best choice for 1996. It's just a shame that they under-delivered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Fox is confusing best bid with the best technical bid. The best bid does always win. That's why it wins. Because it's the best. Plenty of winners were weaker than other candidates technically but won anyways (Beijing, Rio) because they were the best available option for the IOC in a whole variety of ways that extend beyond technicality.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Platini rules out running for FIFA presidency

(Reuters) - UEFA president Michel Platini ruled himself out of the running for the most powerful job in football on Thursday, saying he "could not convince himself" that opposing incumbent Sepp Blatter for the FIFA presidency was the right thing to do.

Instead, the former France international told a packed news conference in Monte Carlo that he would offer himself instead for re-election as UEFA president, a role he has held since 2007.

Platini, 59, had already told the chairman and general secretaries of UEFA's 54 member nations that he would not be standing against the 78-year-old Swiss, who is expected to seek a fifth term at the helm of the world governing body when the election is held next June.

The Frenchman said he had deliberated for months before deciding against standing, but still believed change was needed at FIFA and it was time Blatter went.

The Swiss has held the FIFA presidency since 1998 and has indicated he will stand again, despite criticism that the game and FIFA have been tarnished by allegations of corruption during his reign.

"I have thought long and hard about this over many months but I have never managed to convince myself that I had to go to FIFA. It's really that simple," said Platini of his decision. "My will is to run for a new term of office for the presidency of UEFA.

"I told the chairmen this morning this a choice from my heart, based on football and based on my passion," added Platini.

"We have big projects ahead at UEFA and I have the motivation to carry them out before one day moving on to something else, but now is not the time, or my time for FIFA, not yet."

Platini, who is a vice-president of FIFA and sits on the FIFA executive committee, said he had made his decision "without the slightest shadow of regret".

FRESH AIR

Just before the World Cup started last June, Platini called for a "breath of fresh air" at FIFA and said he no longer supported Blatter's position as president.

He returned to that theme on Thursday saying: "Some of you expected me to attack FIFA today, but that is not my goal here.

"But we do want a FIFA that works better, with more transparency and solidarity and is more respected by those that love football.

"I have looked Sepp Blatter in the eye. I have told him I no longer support him and there should be change," he added.

Asked if he decided not to run against Blatter because he knew he could not beat him in an election race, Platini disagreed.

"I don't think you can say that. When I ran for the UEFA presidency in 2007 Lennart Johansson was the president and that was no mean feat to beat him, so I can't be accused of being afraid," he said.

"I think Blatter will run again, but although I helped him in 1998, 2002, 2007 and 2011, he no longer has my support and I hope there will be a challenger, but I don't know.

"While respecting the work of the president, we need a strong FIFA executive committee to work as a counter-balance. The president should not be omnipotent."

The only person so far to declare his intention to run is former FIFA deputy secretary general Jerome Champagne, 56, who announced his candidature in January and has recognised he is the underdog.

Asked what he thought of Champagne's chances, Platini replied: "I don't think there is much interest there."

In response, Champagne told Reuters by telephone: "If elected I very much look forward to working with Michel Platini to stop 25 years of tension between the world governing body and UEFA."

Blatter was first elected president in 1998 and possible candidates have until January to declare their intentions.

The Swiss has been a controversial figure, and has had to face allegations focused in particular on the awarding of the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, soccer's showpiece events, to Russia and Qatar.

David Triesman, former head of English soccer's governing body, told the upper house of Britain's parliament in June that FIFA behaved "like a mafia family" and had "a decades-long tradition of bribes, bungs and corruption."

Blatter has acknowledged he did not vote for Qatar, while Platini has said he did.

Reuters

Link to post
Share on other sites
Statement from the investigatory chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee
(FIFA.com) Friday 5 September 2014

On Friday, 5 September, 2014, Chairman Michael J. Garcia and Deputy Chairman Cornel Borbély of the Investigatory Chamber of the FIFA Ethics Committee transmitted a 350-page “Report on the Inquiry into the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cup Bidding Process” (the “Report”) to the Adjudicatory Chamber.

At the same time, Deputy Chairman Borbély delivered separate supplemental reports covering his review of activities of the United States and Russia bid teams. Over the course of this year-long investigation, the Investigatory Chamber interviewed more than 75 witnesses and compiled a record that, in addition to audio recordings from interviews, includes more than 200,000

pages of relevant material.

The Report sets forth detailed factual findings; reaches conclusions concerning further action with respect to certain individuals; identifies issues to be referred to other FIFA committees; and makes recommendations for future bidding processes.

Pursuant to the FIFA Code of Ethics, the Adjudicatory Chamber will now make a final decision on the Report and supplemental reports, including publication.

FIFA

Link to post
Share on other sites

but IT WINS because a majority of over 100 different minds from the 6 continents of the planet think that at the time they press the button, that city will deliver the best Games 7 years hence.

A bit naive to think that every IOC member votes for the city they think will deliver the best games, don't you think? Especially from an organization known to accept suitcases full of cash. Not to mention all the Machiavellian motivations (regional voting, etc.) or how even petty insults about Finnish food can influence votes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Russia 2018 & Qatar 2022 Fifa World Cups: No ruling until spring

A decision in the 2018 and 2022 World Cups bidding corruption inquiry is unlikely until next spring, says Fifa's ethics chief Hans-Joachim Eckert.

The 2018 tournament was awarded by Fifa to Russia in 2010, with the 2022 event handed to Qatar at the same time.

American prosecutor Michael Garcia last month filed a report into the legality of the bidding processes.

Eckert told BBC Sport: "We will have some final reports and then there will be decisions, but this takes time."

He said he would finish examining Garcia's report by the "end of October, beginning of November".

Eckert added: "I am now doing a statement on the report and then Mr Garcia will be working further.

"There will be some decisions, maybe in spring, and then we will go on."

German judge Eckert, the chair of the adjudicatory chamber of Fifa's ethics committee, says he will limit his verdicts to individuals, disappointing Fifa critics who want him to order re-votes into Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022 after allegations of corruption.

He added that such a decision would be for Fifa's ruling executive committee or its congress of 209 federations.

"The judgement may be the base for a decision in sports politics, but we will not make any recommendations. That is not our job," he said.

Eckert insisted that no-one at Fifa had read the confidential reports from Garcia, the chair of the investigatory chamber of the ethics committee, and they will "never" be made public.

He said only four people had seen the files — himself, Garcia, and their deputies, Australian judge Alan Sullivan and Swiss prosecutor Cornel Borbely.

"We are not allowed to tell anybody anything. It's our duty not to tell. I know the interests of the public but please, we have to do our work, we are bound by the code of ethics and later the decision will be made public," Eckert said.

"I will not be the guy to be pressed, to feel pressed. It's my job for 40 years doing cases like that. You will have to wait and I will read."

Garcia spent almost a year interviewing officials involved in the bids. The contests were dogged by allegations of bribery and voting collusion.

Speaking at the same conference, Garcia urged "greater transparency" in the implementation of the Fifa code of ethics, and suggested it should be changed.

"The goal has to be instilling confidence in the process beyond any particular result," he said.

"So what do we think is still missing; why do we still have something of a disconnect? What we need at this point is greater transparency into the process while continuing to protect the rights of all parties, transparency into charges, to decisions, and to the basis for those decisions and to the facts.

"Deterrents that are based more on a sentence or a ban, but on reading the facts of the case. That's the type of system that instils confidence in the stakeholders.

"And I hope as this code is studied, applied, and it may even be revised, that it will be possible to have that type of transparency."

BBC

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

WRONG. At the 1990 IOC meeting in Tokyo, Atlanta was the best, most viable bid at the time. It was NOT the sentimental favorite if that's what you mean, but the majority of the IOC felt that Atlanta could stage it better than Athens was at the time. How it played out afterwards is another matter. And again, you are letting sentiment cloud your words here. Atlanta, for a relatively young city of the 'new' American South, did the best it could. Athens, 8 years later, had a 2,000-year mystical history cloaking it, thus made it seem like its Games were on another plane. That's the difference.

What you were trying to say is that 'what is perceived BY SOME as the best bid at one particular time doesn't always win,' but IT WINS because a majority of over 100 different minds from the 6 continents of the planet think that at the time they press the button, that city will deliver the best Games 7 years hence.

Good points. Melbourne was far and away the best technical bid (confirmed by many sources - even a begrudging Dick Pound despite Toronto also bidding) - however Atlanta came at the whole bidding process with a fresh, open and willing to do anything attitude. While at times they came across a bit unprofessional (I saw this first hand) they were open and friendly whereas the Canadian, Aussie and UK bidding teams kept a real air of solemn purpose about them. The Greek bidding team was aloof and kept cancelling press engagements - assuming they didn't need to talk to the lowly press corp.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Serious Fraud Office should demand to see a secret Fifa report in to alleged corruption around two World Cup bids amid fears the football governing body plans to “bury” it.

The English FA and other footballing countries should also be ready to split from Fifa if it fails to make its findings public, one MP said.

A two-year investigation into the bidding around the 2018 and 2022 World Cups has resulted in a 350-page report and 200,000 pages of evidence.

The £6 million investigation was hoped to provide a definitive answer to allegations of bribery surrounding the decision to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup, including claims in the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Times newspapers.

But Hans Joachim-Eckert, the chairman of Fifa’s ethics committee’s adjudicatory chamber, has said only he and his deputy will ever see report.

The decision sparked outrage and accusations that the Fifa investigation is a “whitewash” and means the truth behind the allegations will never be known.

A senior figure in the England 2018 World Cup bid said no one would trust any conclusions Fifa draws unless the report is published while the shadow sports minister warned people would assume there was “something terrible in it”.

Accusations centre on millions of pounds allegedly paid by a Qatari Mohamed Bin Hammam to football officials around the world in the run up to the decision to award the tiny Gulf nation the tournament.

Tory MP Damian Collins, a former member of the Commons culture media and sport committee which investigated the bidding process, said the serious fraud office should be entitled to see the report to examine whether there is evidence of wrong doing within its jurisdiction.

“I intend to write to the Attorney General to ask whether he could request a copy of the report. The report covers the whole of the World Cup bidding process so we should be able to see it to determine whether it shows any wrongdoing that falls within the jurisdiction of the serious fraud office,” he said.

Mr Collins said burying the report would be a “complete sham” and was “totally unacceptable”.

He added that the FA and other national football associations should consider splitting with Fifa if the report is not made public.

“We should be prepared to do that and other countries should be prepared to do that,” he said.

“At the end of the day, all Fifa cares about is money. If Fifa is prepared to bury this report then it shows they will never be serious about reform and cleaning up the game.”

Simon Johnson, who was England 2018's chief operating officer and gave evidence to the Fifa investigation, said: “I find it astonishing they are not prepared to publish any part of this report or a summary.

“Whatever conclusions are made, the Fifa executive will be forever shrouded in mystery and suspicion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/11112135/Serious-Fraud-Office-should-demand-secret-Fifa-report-in-to-World-Cup-bids-says-MP.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
UAE's Emirates airline to end FIFA sponsorship

Nov 3 (Reuters) - Airline Emirates said on Monday it was ending its sponsorship of FIFA, a blow to soccer's governing body as it investigates whether there was corruption in the bidding process for the next two World Cups.

"Emirates can confirm that a decision has been made not to renew the sponsorship agreement with FIFA past 2014," the Dubai-based airline said in a statement on Monday.

"This decision was made following an evaluation of FIFA's contract proposal which did not meet Emirates' expectations."

FIFA had no immediate comment.

Emirates, which has extensive sponsorship deals in sports, did not say how much the contract was worth or where it would redeploy the spending.

Emirates was one of six main FIFA sponsors who collectively paid around $180 million last year.

Sponsors have put pressure on FIFA to respond robustly to allegations of bribery to secure the 2022 World Cup for Qatar, an issue that overshadowed the buildup to this year's tournament in Brazil.

FIFA is carrying out an investigation into the bidding process, which resulted in the 2018 tournament being awarded to Russia and the 2022 competition to Qatar. Both countries deny wrongdoing.

German news magazine Der Spiegel said on Sunday FIFA's poor image was one of the main reasons behind Emirates' decision to end the partnership.

The magazine reported that Japanese consumer electronics group Sony would also not renew its contract when it expires at the end of the year. It named South Korea's Samsung as a potential successor to the electronics group.

The magazine also said FIFA is in talks with Qatar Airways as a potential successor to Emirates. Qatar Airways was not immediately available for comment.

Emirates sponsored the 2006 World Cup in Germany and broadened the relationship with FIFA the following year when it signed up as one of its main corporate backers.

Reuters

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...