Well to be fair I think Ireland at least deserved to replay that match from the handball forward. Its not as if it was a judgement call that screwed them, just pure ****uppery.
But the bribe/payoff....the gift that keeps on giving this scandal!
You mean we should replay every game where a non qualified team (because IRELAND WASN'T EVEN THROUGH WHEN THE GOAL HAPPENNED) suffers a missed call?
Good luck with the calendar.
Besides, I wonder if Ireland game compensation to the team they screwed a few weeks before on another ref mistake, which made them be in a playoff position?
Of course Ireland wasnt through. They were robbed of 30 extra minutes and PK to do so.
But I guess France received its comeuppance when they arrived in South Africa anyway.
In the mean time, Ireland STOLE their spot in the playoffs by scoring a penalty in Georgia, which was OBVIOUSLY a bribe seeing how no ref in the world would have given a penalty there (not a foul and offside).
I don't see anything particularly wrong with the Ireland situation, other than the fact the Irish FA are a bunch of pathetic crybabies. As long as that money was used by the FA in appropriate business, and not touching personal bank accounts, then it's understandable that they seen it as an out of court settlement.
Should the France-Ireland game have been replayed? No
Should FIFA have paid the Irish FA to make this go away? Yes, they probably should have.
The situation isn't as black & white as most. Bad decisions happen in qualifying, but good teams should be able to overcome those in the course of 10+ games. A playoff, where the stakes are so high, is a bit different. If the Irish FA pushes the situation, and get a favourable outcome, then that is a disaster for FIFA. Paying them a chunk of the financial loss that the decision potentially cost them is a fair midway in that scenario. Keeping that private is also perfectly understandable too.
Well people are always looking for bribary potential situations, this has got to be one of the most obvious ones.
Home game, home team down, the ref calls a penalty no human being would have called.
Nah I'm just teasing.Sounds like you're thinking with a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset.
Via the Daily Mail said:The German government sent a shipment of rocket-propelled grenades to Saudi Arabia in order to secure support for their bid to host the 2006 World Cup, according to the latest sensational claims in the FIFA scandal.
German newspaper Die Zeit say the country's Football Association arranged for then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroder's administration to supply the arms in order to swing the Saudi vote from Morocco to Germany ahead of the vote in 2000.
It helped tip the knife-edge vote in Germany's favor as they defeated South Africa 12-11 in the final round and duly hosted the World Cup finals six years later.
Not sure I understand your reaction?
Not sure I understand your reaction?
You don't understand shock at the possibility of a country sending weapons to another to secure votes for hosting a sporting event?
I genuinely don't. It's not like Saudi Arabia doesn't purchase massive weapons shipments from most western nations every year. This isn't some sanctioned rogue-state desperate for weapons to continue fighting the west. So I don't see what the difference between sending their bribe in the form of a shipment of RPGs instead of a Picasso is? Both are expensive "gifts" sent blatantly to secure a vote.
Here's the difference: One is artwork, the other is A ****ING ROCKET PROPELLED GRENADE. If FA's have gotten to the point of trading weaponry for votes, that's ****ed up. If these reports are true, that adds a whole other element. Using priceless artwork to buy votes is bad. Using weapons that could be used to kill people, given to a government that has become notorious for under the table arms deals with the US and other western nations, is quite clearly a major problem.
Rocket propelled grenades that they buy from nations like the USA and UK every year. Yes killing is bad, but they are sold tools of death all the damn time. It is just another product that gets imported that western economies rely on continuing to be exported.
The cultural impacts of a priceless work of art are much more significant than sending them something they're already buying in bulk and that they are free to buy anyway.
Hard to think cannons bought by the state of Saudi-Arabia end up in the black market instead of their military.
That's pretty bad, but I still think Jack Warner wins the dumb ass award by a long shot
I genuinely don't. It's not like Saudi Arabia doesn't purchase massive weapons shipments from most western nations every year. This isn't some sanctioned rogue-state desperate for weapons to continue fighting the west. So I don't see what the difference between sending their bribe in the form of a shipment of RPGs instead of a Picasso is? Both are expensive "gifts" sent blatantly to secure a vote.