Page 2 of 6

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:35 am
by Estenia
Yellow Yellow Red wrote:Some quotes from Garcia from last month:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/us-soccer-fifa-garcia-idUSKCN0I308X20141014 wrote:
"The investigation and adjudication process operates in most parts unseen and unheard," the BBC quoted Garcia as saying in a keynote speech at an event organized by the American Bar Association in London.

"That's a kind of system which might be appropriate for an intelligence agency but not for an ethics compliance process in an international sports institution that serves the public and is the subject of intense public scrutiny."

[...]

"The natural next step of the development of an effective ethics process at FIFA is greater transparency," Garcia said.

"The second element that is vital to fulfilling the promise of this reform process is tone at the top.

"More simply put ... (what) FIFA needs in order to meet the challenge of ethics enforcement is leadership. An ethics committee -- even a serious, independent ethics committee backed by a strong code of ethics -- is not a silver bullet.

"What is required is leadership that sends a message that the rules apply to everyone; leadership that wants to understand and learn from any mistakes or missteps the ethics committee may have identified; leadership that makes it clear to everyone -- this is what we've set up the ethics committee to do, this is why they do it, and this is what they've done.

"It's that kind of leadership that breathes the life into a code of ethics. Because true reform doesn't come from rules or creating new committee structures. It comes from changing the culture of the organization."


When the investigator you appoint to look into potential ethics and corruption allegations attacks the ethical culture of your organization, you've got work to do.

Lots of work I must say.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:36 am
by Dumb Ideologies
FIFA, never change. Since the demise of Berlusconi, the world is almost bereft of amusingly incompetent corruption.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:37 am
by Dumb Ideologies
Estenia wrote:Lots of work I must say.


There's an awfully large amount of mouths out there that need taping up.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:37 am
by Estenia
Dumb Ideologies wrote:
Estenia wrote:Lots of work I must say.


There's an awfully large amount of mouths out there that need taping up.

Not mine.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:37 am
by Yellow Yellow Red
Evidently the English bid committee will be criticized for links to Jack Warner. Does this mean that the UK can legally demand the full document if they believe it may have proof of criminal wrongdoing?

A subpoena on Garcia would be delicious and his testimony under oath could be delicious.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 7:38 am
by The Archregimancy
Ifreann wrote:There is nothing corrupt about FIFA. Pay no attention to the man counting stacks of cash behind the curtain.



Well, they're no longer allowing us to see behind the curtain.

You'll be amazed at the coincidence, but since the Sunday Times' Heidi Blake revealed that someone who (allegedly) took bin Hammam's cash was a member of the Appeals Committee that would hear Garcia's appeal against the official summary of his own report, FIFA have taken down the link showing the membership of the appeals committee:

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federatio ... 82042.html

You couldn't make this up.


Yellow Yellow Red wrote:
"The natural next step of the development of an effective ethics process at FIFA is greater transparency," Garcia said.


Oh, the irony.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:07 am
by Commerce Heights
The Archregimancy wrote:
Ifreann wrote:There is nothing corrupt about FIFA. Pay no attention to the man counting stacks of cash behind the curtain.



Well, they're no longer allowing us to see behind the curtain.

You'll be amazed at the coincidence, but since the Sunday Times' Heidi Blake revealed that someone who (allegedly) took bin Hammam's cash was a member of the Appeals Committee that would hear Garcia's appeal against the official summary of his own report, FIFA have taken down the link showing the membership of the appeals committee:

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federatio ... 82042.html

You couldn't make this up.

I think there’s been a mistake of some sort. The Appeal Committee members are listed here:
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisat ... 82043.html

According to the Internet Archive, the link you gave hasn’t been valid since 2011, and when it was valid, it was for the Disciplinary Committee, not the Appeal Committee.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 8:55 am
by Sdaeriji

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:01 am
by Bandwagon
Qatar is the most secular, football loving, free of corruption, liberal state on Earth.
Isn't that clear?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 9:51 am
by Anglo-California
Give the 2022 World Cup to the United States and be done with it.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:09 am
by The Archregimancy
Commerce Heights wrote:
The Archregimancy wrote:

Well, they're no longer allowing us to see behind the curtain.

You'll be amazed at the coincidence, but since the Sunday Times' Heidi Blake revealed that someone who (allegedly) took bin Hammam's cash was a member of the Appeals Committee that would hear Garcia's appeal against the official summary of his own report, FIFA have taken down the link showing the membership of the appeals committee:

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federatio ... 82042.html

You couldn't make this up.

I think there’s been a mistake of some sort. The Appeal Committee members are listed here:
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisat ... 82043.html

According to the Internet Archive, the link you gave hasn’t been valid since 2011, and when it was valid, it was for the Disciplinary Committee, not the Appeal Committee.



I took my information from the Guardian's liveblog of the story.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/liv ... e-reaction

However, it does seem to have managed to get this wrong, giving me a convenient scapegoat.

See posts at 14:34 and 12:30.

The broken link at 14:34 is not the same as the working link at 12:30 - so this is clearly the Guardian's fault. ;)

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:12 am
by Lordieth
So basically, FIFA's corrupted the report on the allegation of corruption?

Clear sign that there's no saving FIFA. Take its football away.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:44 am
by Ethel mermania
Lordieth wrote:So basically, FIFA's corrupted the report on the allegation of corruption?

Clear sign that there's no saving FIFA. Take its football away.

How? They own the world whateveritis

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:44 am
by Paid To Troll
Ethel mermania wrote:
Lordieth wrote:So basically, FIFA's corrupted the report on the allegation of corruption?

Clear sign that there's no saving FIFA. Take its football away.

How? They own the world whateveritis

Bowl.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:46 am
by Estenia
Anglo-California wrote:Give the 2022 World Cup to the United States and be done with it.

You don't want fun aren't ya? Give that honour to England, who created football.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:28 pm
by Bandwagon
Estenia wrote:
Anglo-California wrote:Give the 2022 World Cup to the United States and be done with it.

You don't want fun aren't ya? Give that honour to England, who created football.

2018- England
2022- Australia
Sorted.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:30 pm
by Estenia
Bandwagon wrote:
Estenia wrote:You don't want fun aren't ya? Give that honour to England, who created football.

2018- England
2022- Australia
Sorted.

2022 to Eire.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:32 pm
by Bandwagon
Estenia wrote:
Bandwagon wrote:2018- England
2022- Australia
Sorted.

2022 to Eire.

That would actually be pretty beast but we are favourites to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup, so I doubt we could afford both. It would be great though, as all our stadiums are Gaelic Football ones with lots of standing terraces with fans who could be compared to ultras.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:34 pm
by Ifreann
Estenia wrote:
Bandwagon wrote:2018- England
2022- Australia
Sorted.

2022 to Eire.

Make it 2122 to give us time to prepare.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:40 pm
by Napkiraly
Estenia wrote:
Bandwagon wrote:2018- England
2022- Australia
Sorted.

2022 to Eire.

What about Canada? D:

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:42 pm
by Paid To Troll
Napkiraly wrote:
Estenia wrote:2022 to Eire.

What about Canada? D:

Nice people, interesting cuisine. Good hockey.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:51 pm
by Napkiraly
Paid To Troll wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:What about Canada? D:

Nice people, interesting cuisine. Good hockey.

We shall host the FIFA World Cup some day. We have just yet to perfect the physics of playing soccer in 20+ metres of snow.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 12:51 pm
by Paid To Troll
Napkiraly wrote:
Paid To Troll wrote:Nice people, interesting cuisine. Good hockey.

We shall host the FIFA World Cup some day. We have just yet to perfect the physics of playing soccer in 20+ metres of snow.

Adidas has to have some work around, snow cleats or something.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 3:22 pm
by Ethel mermania
Napkiraly wrote:
Paid To Troll wrote:Nice people, interesting cuisine. Good hockey.

We shall host the FIFA World Cup some day. We have just yet to perfect the physics of playing soccer in 20+ metres of snow.

Just give good ol sepp a few million dollars and the 2026 games can be yours

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2014 6:31 pm
by Yellow Yellow Red
Ethel mermania wrote:
Napkiraly wrote:We shall host the FIFA World Cup some day. We have just yet to perfect the physics of playing soccer in 20+ metres of snow.

Just give good ol sepp a few million dollars and the 2026 games can be yours


In Blatter's defense (I'll take Things I Never Thought I'd Say for 2,000, Alex) he wasn't the driving force behind Qatar. He originally seemed supportive of England in 2018, but that evaporated. And for 2022 he is said to have supported the USA, and was earlier (mid-late 2000s) somewhat supportive of Australia, urging them not to bid not for 2018 but 2022.