Mohamed Bin Hammam and Jack Warner charged by FIFA over alleged bribes

[Socapro]

This is some real under hand movements by Blazer. If there is a another vote, I would like to see Netherlands-Belgium or Australia get the nod and salt everybody else (US and Hengland).

There is not going to be another vote on the 2022 World Cup, Blatter said this before and right after he got re-elected!

Is Warner & Bin Hammam going to retain their positions after the inquiry? That's the real question!
We'll have to wait and see but I suspect Blatter needs a fall guy or two to show the world that he is cleaning-up FIFA in his last term!

[Flex]

Bermuda isolated in FIFA bribe inquiry
By Stephen Wright (Gazette).

The Bermuda Football Association are among only a few Caribbean Football Union members agreeing to be interviewed by FIFA's bribery investigators about the cash for votes scandal.

In stark contrast the majority of the 25 members of the CFU have refused to attend planned questioning at a special hearing in Miami.

FIFA's investigating team, which includes ex-FBI head Louis Freeh's company, arrived in Miami yesterday to conduct interviews with the Caribbean nations who had been urged to attend.

Three CFU officials, president Jack Warner and staff members Debbie Minguell and Jason Sylvester, have been provisionally suspended by FIFA's ethics committee pending a full inquiry into bribery allegations surrounding a meeting in the Caribbean with Asian soccer chief Mohamed Bin Hammam.

It's understood, however, that close to 20 of the 25 CFU countries have opted not to show up for the interviews, also scheduled today, clearly indicating a growing divide at the heart of the confederation.

In an email to The Royal Gazette yesterday the BFA confirmed that they would be meeting with investigators, but didn't say whether they are attending the Miami meeting.

“The FIFA ethics committee has invited BFA officials Larry Mussenden, Gregory Grimes and David Sabir to meet with the investigation team. BFA Officials have agreed to meet with the investigative team,” it read.

The CFU nations had been summoned to appear by FIFA who said that, although they were under no obligation to attend, any failure to do so may draw a ‘negative inference'.

In a letter sent to CFU governing bodies, FIFA wrote: “Although you are under no obligation to attend such a meeting, please be advised that the FIFA Ethics Committee may draw negative inference in the event that you (i) do not make the arrangements sought herein, or (ii) do not attend the meeting requested.

“Furthermore, in this respect, we kindly remind you that as an official you have a duty if disclosure and reporting, including providing any evidence requested for inspection.”

The letter also says that any association unable to attend the meeting has a ten-day window to arrange an alternative arrangement to be interviewed.

While refusing to attend, the CFU nations have said they will hold ‘a meeting of their own soon to discuss the situation'.

One unnamed member of the CFU has branded FIFA's inquiry as “tainted and biased and clearly having a US driven agenda.”

Yesterday Chuck Blazer, general secretary of Concacaf, rejected those accusations. “It is nonsense. For 21 years their confederation has been administered from America without any claims of bias,” he said. “I find it uniquely peculiar for that charge to be made now other than as a tactic to interfere with the ethics investigation which is being managed solely by the members of the FIFA Ethics Committee.”

Bermuda were one of seven whistle-blowers who refused cash bribes from top FIFA executives Bin Hammam and Concacaf president Warner for their votes in last week's presidential election.

Those claims have since been rebuffed by 13 Caribbean countries who are supporting Warner's denial any such offer was made.

The alleged cash bribes, $40,000 offered to each nation, were made at last month's CFU special summit in Trinidad, attended by BFA second vice-president Grimes and general secretary Sabir.

Warner and Asian football chief Bin Hammam, who was running against Sepp Blatter for FIFA president at the time of the meeting, have been provisionally suspended by FIFA's ethics committee pending a full inquiry into bribery allegations.

Both men insist they did nothing wrong.FIFA letter to CFU membersDear Sir,

On 29 May 2011, the FIFA Ethics Committee in connection with certain pending ethics proceedings, decide inter alia that further investigation, including the interview of any persons with potential knowledge of pertinent facts, should be conducted under the supervision and direction of a member of the Ethics Commitee, namely Mr. Robert Torres, with the assistant of the Secretariat to the Ethics Committee. Mr. Torres is authorized by the Ethics Committee to mandate auxiliary and external persons or entities of his choice including the interview of any possible persons (e.g. parties, witnesses).
In conjunction, and in line with the above, on behalf of Mr. Robert Torres, you are kindly requested to attend a meeting in Miami, Florida, during the period of 7 to 9 June 2011. Please contact me at your earliest convenience, in order to confirm your presence at such meeting and to arrange the travel logistics to Miami.
Please note that FIFA will reimburse your travel expenses to attend this meeting.
The purpose of this meeting will be to allow you to be interviewed by investigators working on behalf of the FIFA Ethics Committee in regard to the ethics proceedings initiated against Mr Mohamed Bin Hammam, Mr Jack Warner, Ms Debbie Minguell and Mr Jason Sylvester related to the Caribbean Football Union (CFU) special meeting that was held on 10 and 11 May 2011 in Trinidad and Tobago.
If you cannot attend a meeting on the aforementioned dates, we ask that you propose an alternative arrangement for your interview to occur within the next ten (10) calendar days.
Although you are under no obligation to attend such a meeting, please be advised that the FIFA Ethics Committee may draw negative inference in the event that you (i) do not make the arrangements sought herein, or (ii) do not attend the meeting requested.
Furthermore, in this respect, we kindly remind you that as an offcial you have a duty if disclosure and reporting, including providing any evidence requested for inspection.
Should you have any further questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact us.
We thank you in advance for your valuable cooperation in this matter.

Yours sincerely,
FIFA
Marc Cavaliero
Secretary to the Ethics Committee.

Letter courtesy of sky.com/news

[Football supporter]

Its obvious to me that Blazer and the USA are hatching a plot to subvert the CFU. I fully expect that should the CFU's top football administrators attend Miami, you will see the CIA & FBI systematically remove each member. There will be the obvious poison in an umbrella routine, several accidents involving vehicle brake lines being cut and the classic poison roti plot. Its clear now that the US President is involved and wishes to remove the power from "all these darkies" in the Caribbean. I already hear that Chris Birchall is earmarked for president of TTFF.   

But seriously, I find this paranoia absoloutely pathetic. Their complaint is about a senior investigative expert who is former FBI. Do they think they would get a better investigation from the Katanga Bureau of Investigation (if there is one)? And if this investigation takes place in Jamaica instead of Miami what would be the difference in the outcome?

This smacks of Jack and sounds similar to all the lame excuses TTFF threw up in their court case. FIFA should order their attendance and threaten sanctions if they don't attend. CFU are making a mockery of FIFA's already tarnished profile.

What makes Louis Freeh a "senior investigative expert"... because he held a bureaucratic post as FBI Director?  By that logic we should all be watching our women and wine glasses around outgoing CIA Chief, Panetta... Leon Panetta.  Freeh was a professor when I was in law school and frankly, he really didn't distinguish himself to me.  That being said I have no idea whether he'd be biased or not.  What I can say is that people are letting their antipathy towards Jack Warner cloud their objectivity.  

Although you said it in jest, it is unmistakeable to me the hand that's moving the strings behind the scenes here is Chuck Blazer, and the CFU officials are right to protest the heavy American involvement in the proceedings.  You think is coincidence that the FIFA Ethics Committee rep at the inquiry is from Guam... a US territory?  Guam of all places!  Unless we are to buy into the notion that only an American can properly conduct the investigations then I see no reason to want an objective third party nation conducting the inquiry.  Feel free to diminish it as paranoia, but as they say, the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled...

Bakes, you clearly have more knowledge of Louis Freeh, than I, however he is quoted as being an ex FBI head, so therefore I assumed he must be both senior and an expert in investigative matters. As CONCACAF HQ is in USA, it makes sense to me to appoint a former FBI person. I see no bias there at all. However, what are the alternatives? It certainly can't be someone from the Caribbean. Maybe a South American? A Canadian? Or do they go outside CONCACAF and Latin America and opt for a European?

[Cocorite]

Any Tsunami Jack wanted to unleashis probably will implicate himself so he ain't too quick to drop squeal

[Bakes]

Bakes, you clearly have more knowledge of Louis Freeh, than I, however he is quoted as being an ex FBI head, so therefore I assumed he must be both senior and an expert in investigative matters. As CONCACAF HQ is in USA, it makes sense to me to appoint a former FBI person. I see no bias there at all. However, what are the alternatives? It certainly can't be someone from the Caribbean. Maybe a South American? A Canadian? Or do they go outside CONCACAF and Latin America and opt for a European?

I addressed your statement rubbishing concerns about Freeh, to say that we can draw no inferences about his impartiality (or even competency in conducting investigations) based on the simple fact that he headed the FBI.  Such a position is a bureaucratic appointment and not one necessarily indicative of merit in the field/industry.  Freeh was an FBI agent for only 4 yrs before leaving to join the US Attorney's office in NY.  He then went into private practice before being appointed a federal judge, and from there Clinton put him in charge of the FBI.  It's not as though he was a career FBI agent who rose thru the ranks.  I mentioned Panetta for reference... it would be erroneous to draw any inferences about his expertise in espionage based simply on the fact that he is Obama's CIA Chief.  If you look at Panetta's past you would see that he is a career politician/bureacrat. I could even mention Janet Napolitano (head of Homeland Security, and former NM Governor) as well.   One can conclude nothing from the simple fact that someone heads an Agency.

At any rate my issue is less about Louis Freeh than it is about this inquiry itself and how it's being conducted.  Don't you think it a little bit... I dunno, coincidental, suspicious... unsettling even... that the meeting will be held in Miami (subjecting participants to American jurisdiction should that later become an issue), conducted by an American investigator (Freeh), under the watch of an Ethics Committee representative (Robert Torres) who himself is from an American territory (Guam), when the basis for the charges were already investigated by an American (Collins), at the behest of another American (Blazer)?

Even if you say Miami was chosen as a venue out of convenience (why Miami and not another Caribbean nation, this being a CFU issue after all?) Has an American EVER before lead ANY FIFA investigation? And reflecting some of the criticism lodged at the Caribbean nations by some of your countrymen... do they even play football in Guam??  All of this just seem too convenient to Blazer's cause for my liking, and as I've said before I don't trust Blazer as far as I can throw him.  Blazer is clearly angling to take over CONCACAF, a situation which would have disastrous results for Caribbean nations.  You may not be aware of the "soccer" culture here, but they see CONCACAF as the US, Mexico and everyone else.  If they are to throw a bone to any other region it would first go to Central American nations like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras b/c the US respects their talent more than they do Caribbean talent.  We might as well be some backward outpost on the footballing map, and that is precisely how they are portraying the CFU right now, a bunch of corrupt, greedy backwards nations, happy to accept whatever handout, legal or otherwise that's thrown their way.  If you can't detect the cultural stereotypes being portrayed here, let me tell you... as a Caribbean national it's very obvious to me, and sadly it's one that many of us are well familiar with.

[Jayerson]

Bakes, you clearly have more knowledge of Louis Freeh, than I, however he is quoted as being an ex FBI head, so therefore I assumed he must be both senior and an expert in investigative matters. As CONCACAF HQ is in USA, it makes sense to me to appoint a former FBI person. I see no bias there at all. However, what are the alternatives? It certainly can't be someone from the Caribbean. Maybe a South American? A Canadian? Or do they go outside CONCACAF and Latin America and opt for a European?

I addressed your statement rubbishing concerns about Freeh, to say that we can draw no inferences about his impartiality (or even competency in conducting investigations) based on the simple fact that he headed the FBI.  Such a position is a bureaucratic appointment and not one necessarily indicative of merit in the field/industry.  Freeh was an FBI agent for only 4 yrs before leaving to join the US Attorney's office in NY.  He then went into private practice before being appointed a federal judge, and from there Clinton put him in charge of the FBI.  It's not as though he was a career FBI agent who rose thru the ranks.  I mentioned Panetta for reference... it would be erroneous to draw any inferences about his expertise in espionage based simply on the fact that he is Obama's CIA Chief.  If you look at Panetta's past you would see that he is a career politician/bureacrat. I could even mention Janet Napolitano (head of Homeland Security, and former NM Governor) as well.   One can conclude nothing from the simple fact that someone heads an Agency.

At any rate my issue is less about Louis Freeh than it is about this inquiry itself and how it's being conducted.  Don't you think it a little bit... I dunno, coincidental, suspicious... unsettling even... that the meeting will be held in Miami (subjecting participants to American jurisdiction should that later become an issue), conducted by an American investigator (Freeh), under the watch of an Ethics Committee representative (Robert Torres) who himself is from an American territory (Guam), when the basis for the charges were already investigated by an American (Collins), at the behest of another American (Blazer)?

Even if you say Miami was chosen as a venue out of convenience (why Miami and not another Caribbean nation, this being a CFU issue after all?) Has an American EVER before lead ANY FIFA investigation? And reflecting some of the criticism lodged at the Caribbean nations by some of your countrymen... do they even play football in Guam??  All of this just seem too convenient to Blazer's cause for my liking, and as I've said before I don't trust Blazer as far as I can throw him.  Blazer is clearly angling to take over CONCACAF, a situation which would have disastrous results for Caribbean nations.  You may not be aware of the "soccer" culture here, but they see CONCACAF as the US, Mexico and everyone else.  If they are to throw a bone to any other region it would first go to Central American nations like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras b/c the US respects their talent more than they do Caribbean talent.  We might as well be some backward outpost on the footballing map, and that is precisely how they are portraying the CFU right now, a bunch of corrupt, greedy backwards nations, happy to accept whatever handout, legal or otherwise that's thrown their way.  If you can't detect the cultural stereotypes being portrayed here, let me tell you... as a Caribbean national it's very obvious to me, and sadly it's one that many of us are well familiar with.

Well said Bakes!! The more and more I look at this situation, the more this doesn't totally add up. Starting with the nations that said they were bribed. Bermuda, Bahamas, Puerto Rico, Cayman Islands and Turks & Caicos, I won't be surprised if US Virgin Islands in the mix too.

Also, when Chuck Blazer said he's very proud of Sealy (the Bahamian official) for standing up in the face of a whole community where they were taking bribes, that's a clear reference to the rest of the CFU and what he thinks. If one cannot see that Blazer is making a run for the head of Concacaf post or at least putting someone in charge that shares his interest, then you're blind. As with normal american politics, this football politics is about seeking what's best for American interest. Right now, with CFU controlling a lot of what goes on politically in Concacaf, there is a misalignment of American on-field interests and objectives and that from a Concacaf political standpoint.

And all this from a guy who has been in cahoots with Jack for almost two decades when it suited him.

[royal]

Warner won't meet investigators
 
.
Warner: No summons from investigators yet .
 
.Suspended FIFA vice-president Jack Warner says he has no plans to meet investigators probing bribery allegations.

FIFA have agreed to move the venue of the interviews with those Caribbean Football Union (CFU) members who refused to travel to Miami but Warner will not be among those quizzed by investigators.

Warner, alleged along with fellow FIFA member Mohamed Bin Hammam to have paid bribes totalling 1million US dollars to Caribbean associations, told Press Association Sport: "I have not received any summons asking me to speak with them [the investigators] nor do I plan to do so."

Up to 18 of the 25 CFU associations alleged to have been paid or offered bribes of 40,000 US dollars each refused FIFA's call to go to Miami to provide evidence. They also called for FIFA to replace ex-FBI director Louis Freeh as lead investigator.

A CFU source said however that FIFA had agreed to a new venue for the interviews and that they were prepared to co-operate with any "independent and unbiased" investigation.

The CFU suggested Barbados and Trinidad as options for a different venue to Miami but it is believed FIFA will choose an island elsewhere in the Caribbean.

Warner and Bin Hammam have been suspended pending the investigation into allegations they paid bribes at a meeting of CFU officials in Trinidad on May 10 and 11. They deny any wrongdoing.

Meanwhile the president of the Barbados Football Association, Ronald Jones, has insisted he nor his officials were offered any bribes by Bin Hamman or Warner.


teamtalk

.

[Football supporter]

Well, its obviously difficult for me to see things through Trini eyes on this one!

I see a power struggle between the mostly Warner controlled CFU and CONCACAF, which USA, Canada and Mexico think they should control. Democratically, they may be wrong, but I can see why they feel they should have more power, yet I understand that from CFU's point of view, they need equal representation.

But as much as I appreciate the need to consider CFU's views, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Somehow there needs to be a balance where, for instance, Grenedas concerns are considered equal to USA's concerns. However, how can it be fair that each has as much power? Of course its democratically correct, but seriously, not one CFU country will ever host a world cup, so how can each federations concerns be the same? Grenedas vote bears the same weight as USA's, but there's 25 "Grenedas"  

This brings you to the next issue. Once you control 13 votes in CFU, you control CONCACAF. Considering the "us against them" attitude, which is also displayed blatently on this site, obtaining 13 votes by fair means or foul is not difficult.

So, maybe Blazer has learned from the master? Maybe he has "out Jacked" Jack. If Blazer convinced 5 nations to turn on Jack doesn't that remind you of Jacks divide and conquer strategy with the players?

[Socapro]

Well, its obviously difficult for me to see things through Trini eyes on this one!

I see a power struggle between the mostly Warner controlled CFU and CONCACAF, which USA, Canada and Mexico think they should control. Democratically, they may be wrong, but I can see why they feel they should have more power, yet I understand that from CFU's point of view, they need equal representation.

But as much as I appreciate the need to consider CFU's views, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Somehow there needs to be a balance where, for instance, Grenedas concerns are considered equal to USA's concerns. However, how can it be fair that each has as much power? Of course its democratically correct, but seriously, not one CFU country will ever host a world cup, so how can each federations concerns be the same? Grenedas vote bears the same weight as USA's, but there's 25 "Grenedas"  

This brings you to the next issue. Once you control 13 votes in CFU, you control CONCACAF. Considering the "us against them" attitude, which is also displayed blatently on this site, obtaining 13 votes by fair means or foul is not difficult.

So, maybe Blazer has learned from the master? Maybe he has "out Jacked" Jack. If Blazer convinced 5 nations to turn on Jack doesn't that remind you of Jacks divide and conquer strategy with the players?

Good post! Only thing yuh mis-spell Grenada as Greneda!

[soccerman]

Agreed with Bakes points, Blazer is trying to take away Jack's power and eventually try to be the head on CONCACAF. The it will be US, Mexico, Canada (I'll add them) and everyone else....they won't have time for the small islands like us. I mean look at the situation, the charges were pressed by Americans, is supposed to be investigated by Americans and affiliates and meeting to be held in Miami. Don't know but this sounds fishy to me.

[Bakes]

Well, its obviously difficult for me to see things through Trini eyes on this one!

I see a power struggle between the mostly Warner controlled CFU and CONCACAF, which USA, Canada and Mexico think they should control. Democratically, they may be wrong, but I can see why they feel they should have more power, yet I understand that from CFU's point of view, they need equal representation.

But as much as I appreciate the need to consider CFU's views, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Somehow there needs to be a balance where, for instance, Grenedas concerns are considered equal to USA's concerns. However, how can it be fair that each has as much power? Of course its democratically correct, but seriously, not one CFU country will ever host a world cup, so how can each federations concerns be the same? Grenedas vote bears the same weight as USA's, but there's 25 "Grenedas" 

This brings you to the next issue. Once you control 13 votes in CFU, you control CONCACAF. Considering the "us against them" attitude, which is also displayed blatently on this site, obtaining 13 votes by fair means or foul is not difficult.

So, maybe Blazer has learned from the master? Maybe he has "out Jacked" Jack. If Blazer convinced 5 nations to turn on Jack doesn't that remind you of Jacks divide and conquer strategy with the players?

You're my boy so I will be civil in addressing this... but frankly, it's very difficult for me to contain my anger reading this.  Extrapolating your argument... then FIFA should be controlled exclulsively by European nations, with the occasional vote to a Brazil, Argentina, US or Nigeria?  In fact why should any of the smaller countries even bother trying to have a voice when we could just have the colonial masters dictate to us what's best for us?

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the teminology... but to refer to this situation as "the tail wagging the dog" implies that there is something fundamentally wrong, backwards even, about the Caribbean nations having as equal a say as the North American nations.  I'm curious as to why you think that Caribbean leadership of CONCACAF, or Caribbean influence within it... is such an intrinsically flawed proposition. Is leadership capabilities premised on the ability to host a WC, is that really what you're suggesting? Why does each federations concerns have to be the same?  Do you honestly think the CONMEBOL's concerns are the same as UEFA's?  Or that CAF's are the same as the AFC?  Again, your argument proposes that only countries/federations with identical concerns should be given a seat at the table.  You complain about FIFA being run by a tiny cabal, only to argue that it should be replaced by another tiny cabal.

What is unfair about 'one nation, one vote'?  This is very reminiscent of the whole blacks counting as 3/5 of a person thing in the US Constitution.  Voting power was based on population, and the Southern US states had a greater population because of the blacks held in slavery.  As a compromise it was decided blacks would only count as three-fifths of a person.  I hope you see what a dangerous path you're treading.  Finally, if you think the "us against them" attitude (whatever that means) is blatant here... try taking a gander over to bigsoccer.com sometimes and see what the sentiments there are like towards CONCACAF's non- North American members.

[DeSoWa]

Well, its obviously difficult for me to see things through Trini eyes on this one!

I see a power struggle between the mostly Warner controlled CFU and CONCACAF, which USA, Canada and Mexico think they should control. Democratically, they may be wrong, but I can see why they feel they should have more power, yet I understand that from CFU's point of view, they need equal representation.

But as much as I appreciate the need to consider CFU's views, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Somehow there needs to be a balance where, for instance, Grenedas concerns are considered equal to USA's concerns. However, how can it be fair that each has as much power? Of course its democratically correct, but seriously, not one CFU country will ever host a world cup, so how can each federations concerns be the same? Grenedas vote bears the same weight as USA's, but there's 25 "Grenedas" 

This brings you to the next issue. Once you control 13 votes in CFU, you control CONCACAF. Considering the "us against them" attitude, which is also displayed blatently on this site, obtaining 13 votes by fair means or foul is not difficult.

So, maybe Blazer has learned from the master? Maybe he has "out Jacked" Jack. If Blazer convinced 5 nations to turn on Jack doesn't that remind you of Jacks divide and conquer strategy with the players?

You're my boy so I will be civil in addressing this... but frankly, it's very difficult for me to contain my anger reading this.  Extrapolating your argument... then FIFA should be controlled exclulsively by European nations, with the occasional vote to a Brazil, Argentina, US or Nigeria?  In fact why should any of the smaller countries even bother trying to have a voice when we could just have the colonial masters dictate to us what's best for us?

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the teminology... but to refer to this situation as "the tail wagging the dog" implies that there is something fundamentally wrong, backwards even, about the Caribbean nations having as equal a say as the North American nations.  I'm curious as to why you think that Caribbean leadership of CONCACAF, or Caribbean influence within it... is such an intrinsically flawed proposition. Is leadership capabilities premised on the ability to host a WC, is that really what you're suggesting? Why does each federations concerns have to be the same?  Do you honestly think the CONMEBOL's concerns are the same as UEFA's?  Or that CAF's are the same as the AFC?  Again, your argument proposes that only countries/federations with identical concerns should be given a seat at the table.  You complain about FIFA being run by a tiny cabal, only to argue that it should be replaced by another tiny cabal.

What is unfair about 'one nation, one vote'?  This is very reminiscent of the whole blacks counting as 3/5 of a person thing in the US Constitution.  Voting power was based on population, and the Southern US states had a greater population because of the blacks held in slavery.  As a compromise it was decided blacks would only count as three-fifths of a person.  I hope you see what a dangerous path you're treading.  Finally, if you think the "us against them" attitude (whatever that means) is blatant here... try taking a gander over to bigsoccer.com sometimes and see what the sentiments there are like towards CONCACAF's non- North American members.

I think some people on here are a little clouded by the fact that they want to get rid of Jack by any means necessary and for them the end justifies the means...but they not seeing the bigger picture of what is really happening here. From the start I saw all this as fishy and a big setup from the start.

We all know that Jack is a cancer to our football, and we should be trying to get competent people to replace him, not other crooks who are after their own agendas.

Big Up!

[KND2]

No point investigation everyone know Jack guilty.

But what he did is not illegal in FIFA they just embarassed it is out in the open.

I dont expect he will lose his work for this

[Socapro]

No point investigation everyone know Jack guilty.

But what he did is not illegal in FIFA they just embarassed it is out in the open.

I dont expect he will lose his work for this

Have you been following what's going on KND?

Blatter needs a fall guy to give the world the appearance that he is determined to clean up FIFA in his last term and Jack has unwittingly selected himself as the scapegoat especially since Blatter does not need Jack's support anymore to remain in power if this is going to be his last term!

Jack will only keep his job if he has seriously damaging files on Blatter to reveal and is prepared to reveal them!!
Problem Jack has is that most of the seriously damaging files that he may have on Blatter is probably also damaging to himself hence the advice from his lawyers to stay quiet!

[Socafan]

Well, its obviously difficult for me to see things through Trini eyes on this one!

I see a power struggle between the mostly Warner controlled CFU and CONCACAF, which USA, Canada and Mexico think they should control. Democratically, they may be wrong, but I can see why they feel they should have more power, yet I understand that from CFU's point of view, they need equal representation.

But as much as I appreciate the need to consider CFU's views, it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Somehow there needs to be a balance where, for instance, Grenedas concerns are considered equal to USA's concerns. However, how can it be fair that each has as much power? Of course its democratically correct, but seriously, not one CFU country will ever host a world cup, so how can each federations concerns be the same? Grenedas vote bears the same weight as USA's, but there's 25 "Grenedas"  

This brings you to the next issue. Once you control 13 votes in CFU, you control CONCACAF. Considering the "us against them" attitude, which is also displayed blatently on this site, obtaining 13 votes by fair means or foul is not difficult.

So, maybe Blazer has learned from the master? Maybe he has "out Jacked" Jack. If Blazer convinced 5 nations to turn on Jack doesn't that remind you of Jacks divide and conquer strategy with the players?

Football Supporter....always assumed you were "one of us". (Don't worry a divergent perspective is always important so don't make that semi-slight put yuh off.)

I'm sure the North Americans arrogantly feel they should run Concacaf, but by what metric? You say you can see why but you need to explain that. WHY?? You say that it is a case of the tail wagging the dog but that itself is a very arrogant and condescending position for you to have. By what metric are the North Americans the head? and the whole of the rest of Concacaf the tail? In fact, shouldn't it reasonably be the other way around? It is precisely because of the CFU that Concacaf has so much power within FIFA.
There is a mentality in your thinking that smacks of "I'm superior because I'm......." inject any one of a number of familiar offensives here.
Its 1 nation 1 vote...Don't insult the people of the CFU. They we are not stupid robots. Its football we talking 'bout, OF COURSE THERE IS AN US AGAINST THEM ATTITUDE on this site. Just like on any other site the world over. Doh geh tieup.

Blazer's problem is when the complaint was made to him, he had no choice but to cover his ass and to act or be lumped in with the problems about to be heaped on Warner. He take infront before behind ketch him so to speak. PLUS, a perfect opportunity for a power grab presented itself. Or so he thinks. When all is said and done, no matter what happens to Warner, within Concacaf, I believe Blazer will have a warm time of it because, yes he pissed off the CFU. His dogs dead too. 

[soccerrama]

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/927080/jack-warner-won't-meet-fifa-investigators?cc=3888


June 9, 2011
Warner won't meet investigators

Suspended FIFA vice-president Jack Warner says he has no plans to meet investigators probing corruption allegations, as the president of the Barbados Football Association revealed none of his delegates were offered bribes.

FIFA have agreed to move the venue of the interviews with those Caribbean Football Union (CFU) members who refused to travel to Miami but Warner will not be among those quizzed by investigators.

Warner is alleged, along with fellow FIFA member Mohamed Bin Hammam, to have paid bribes totalling US$1million to Caribbean associations, but said: ''I have not received any summons asking me to speak with them [the investigators] nor do I plan to do so.''

Warner and Bin Hammam have been suspended pending the investigation into allegations they paid bribes at a meeting of CFU officials in Trinidad on May 10 and 11. They deny any wrongdoing.

Indeed, the president of the Barbados Football Association, Ronald Jones, has insisted he nor his officials were offered any bribes by Bin Hamman or Warner.

Jones said in a statement: ''None of our delegates were offered any inducements or gifts to support any of the candidates during the meeting on May 10.

''Our delegates listened to the speeches by Mohamed Bin Hamman, who was there to make a case as to why he would need the support of FIFA members of the CFU.

''The Barbados Football Association was made aware that the trip and accommodation were sponsored by Mohamed Bin Hamman under the auspices of the CFU. The BFA did not and does not see this as akin to bribery or any inducements as in the past trips by Caribbean delegates to meetings have been sponsored by the organisation and agency that wanted to put on the programme.''

Meanwhile, fresh evidence that Caribbean football officials were given brown envelopes containing "gifts" of 40,000 US dollars in cash has been revealed.
A number of associations of the Caribbean Football Union (CFU) have denied receiving any cash, while four have said they were offered and refused the money.

The president of the Surinam FA confirmed to the Press Association that he was handed 40,000 dollars, in 100 dollar bills, at a special meeting of the CFU in Trinidad on May 10.

Louis Giskus insists however that he was told it was a gift from the CFU to spend on development projects. He said he returned to Surinam that day - missing a meeting the following day when, according to an affidavit submitted to FIFA, association officials were told by CFU president Jack Warner that the cash was a gift from fellow FIFA member Mohamed Bin Hammam.

[davyjenny1]

Better to stroke the dog that has never bitten you than feed the one that has.
 
  taking a permanent borrow
 

What if its a child and the child is yours?

[Mad Scorpion a/k/a Big Bo$$]

Man cah see de forrest fuh de trees oui!  Blazer is ah stinkin rat dat dying to take over CONCACAF an if da happen truss me we go rell ketch we ass wey football is concerned.

[Bourbon]

Man cah see de forrest fuh de trees oui!  Blazer is ah stinkin rat dat dying to take over CONCACAF an if da happen truss me we go rell ketch we ass wey football is concerned.

Yep. I suspect so.


Ting is....how much could we really say that Jack being in control of CONCACAF has done for us?

[Trinimassive]

Man cah see de forrest fuh de trees oui!  Blazer is ah stinkin rat dat dying to take over CONCACAF an if da happen truss me we go rell ketch we ass wey football is concerned.

Yep. I suspect so.


Ting is....how much could we really say that Jack being in control of CONCACAF has done for us?

Jack run T&T football in an unprofessional way to say the least, but we've had numerous CONCACAF and CFU qualifying games played  in T&T particularly youth football (most times we didn't make use of)
I'm sure he had something to do with that.

He probably had something to do with T&T hosting 2 youth World Cups. (that prob won't happen again)

I would expect many changes, the Caribbean will more than likely get salt.

 I wouldn't be surprised to see the single island single vote become all islands together (CFU) equal one vote.

He on the ropes right now and FIFA prob just trying to figure out what to do with him. My guess is that he prob won't get ban because it better for FIFA to keep an eye on him as opposed to him being on the loose lol.

[Deeks]

He probably had something to do with T&T hosting 2 youth World Cups. (that prob won't happen again)

Probably??


I wouldn't be surprised to see the single island single vote become all islands together (CFU) equal one vote.


Unlikely.  They could try to make only one caribbean team qualify for the Hex.


we've had numerous CONCACAF and CFU qualifying games played  in T&T particularly youth football (most times we didn't make use of)
I'm sure he had something to do with that.


True. But the attendances were abysmall.

[Bakes]

Jack run T&T football in an unprofessional way to say the least, but we've had numerous CONCACAF and CFU qualifying games played  in T&T particularly youth football (most times we didn't make use of)
I'm sure he had something to do with that.

He probably had something to do with T&T hosting 2 youth World Cups. (that prob won't happen again)
I would expect many changes, the Caribbean will more than likely get salt.

 I wouldn't be surprised to see the single island single vote become all islands together (CFU) equal one vote.

He on the ropes right now and FIFA prob just trying to figure out what to do with him. My guess is that he prob won't get ban because it better for FIFA to keep an eye on him as opposed to him being on the loose lol.

I now coming to say this... and not just TnT, the whole region on the whole benefitted.  Let's not even talk about the extra CONCACAF spot that allowed us to go Germany.  You really think the US was going to stick they neck out to get that knowing that they assured of their top 2 finish every 4 yrs?  I am all for getting rid of Jack, but that cannot be done without an eye to the future.  We run a very strong risk of throwing out the baby with the proverbial bath water.

As for the "one nation, one vote" system currently in place, I really don't see it changing anytime soon.  After all... do we every hear complaints about facking Macedonia or Monaco having the same voting power as England?  That will have to change too.  Shit how the hell is Qatar going to keep it's World Cup when it not even big enough to vote?

[Bourbon]

The half spot yes....no doubt there.

The world cups...well who benefit do you think was on Jack's mind most when angling for those?

The thing is....did we or did our federation seek to maximise potential benefits to us to advance us in any way?

What benefit did Trinidad and Tobago football obtain from Jack's position? The half spot is the easiest thing that comes to mind. I wondering about anything else.

[Brownsugar]

What benefit did Trinidad and Tobago football obtain from Jack's position? The half spot is the easiest thing that comes to mind. I wondering about anything else.

Me too....anyone??  Outside of the half spot, some stadia (or stadiums??   ), what else did we gain??  Ah curious eh cuz ah feel mih obvious bias towards Jack/TTFF might be clouding mih objectivity here....so take it away  forumites.....

[Bakes]

So wait... allyuh really gainsaying all these international tournaments Jack bring to the region?  Allyuh have any idea how much people mouth them thing put food in?  Look, Jack looked out fuh Jack first... no denying that.  But even if the benefits were tangential I go take that.  If in stuffing his pockets with seed some corn fall and plant along the way that is still more than we would have received without his influence.

Under a facking Blazer we getting nutten but salt as somebody post above.  All them World Cup and thing was going to the US and Mexico.  Having successfully passed test after test that helped to show TnT as being a viable host to international events such as the Summits after that. That positive exposure should not be discounted.  And yes... I'll add the "couple stadia" to the list too.  I'm not here to sing Jack's praises, but let's not all of a sudden start acting like we didn't see any benefit under his reign.

[maxg]

if yuh want to Hang-Jack play fair, a lil thiefing in count, low, even mis-deal could be automatic forfeit...Bakes like yuh have yuh 1st major case guy...ah know yuh doh like the defendant, buh as the ppl's lawyer, yuh must represent...and yuh doing ah fine job...Keep it up, he deserve it..he did a lot for this region (all of it),  and those Important leaders in this region who say different, is real dog.....nah, my issues is not with Jack Business dealings and stunts, business is business (or yesterday was yesterday), and he does handle his... my issue is with the ppl responsible for handling TT football business, part of dealing with Jack.....is with those who acting like they doing business, and NEVER do shite, for years...all the time depending on Jack to tell them what to do, who to hire, whey to get money, who to give money, where to play games....dem mannequins ...and Jack being Jack moving he lips not caring who in the audience see...and dem just sitting on he lap and blinking dey eyes, acting all normal, ah would call them invalids, but ah doh wha come across as being uncaring to does ppl who are really afflicted and in need...

[Bourbon]

I acknowledge I could be seen as biased....hence i asking.
It might just be cynical me seeing Jack getting the majority of the benefits from international tournaments....and while other people benefitted in some way...they could be considered as scraps.


There is no doubt that if Blazer etc was in control.....we had absolutely no chance whatsoever of having a snif at the so called benefits. I not disputing that. Which is why I not sure what or how to feel about this whole affair....I wondering what the end of this would mean for us as a nation in everything...especially football.

But in the back of my I still have to think.....what most at risk if the worst for Jack happens? What changes could I expect? Which is why asking what could we say we got as a result of Jack's position?

It had NO WAY we were getting that extra half spot. NONE. In fact the actions that were taken after we qualified in the play off against an Asian team immediately made that half spot more or less not a spot at all because of the change for the playoff to be against CONEMBOL. I wouldnt doubt Jack probably lobbied but the logistical reasons were there for it to happen..and it happened. I cant even blame him for it being done like that because to get it in the first place was an epic undertaking. But what else?


International tournaments. Ok. Good. It had no way we would have gotten that. What benefit did that do for us? Did we build successfully on any platform it could and should have provided? And I speaking football-wise. In what way could we say we were better off as a result of the tournaments? Stadia that poorly maintained?
What?


Outside of football....lets say revenue.
Even for provision of revenue...jobs....opportunity etc.....is it so much in comparison to the whole? So much so to be considered as out of some concern for those who received?

If a man eat a banana...and throw de skin on the ground....he set out to feed the ants? Its a rough analogy but try to understand my thinking. Could we say that aye....we have a man up in FIFA...for better or for worse....he does still check for we.


People does cuss residents from Beetham because of how protective they are of drug lords etc. Many times you hear them say..." He does put food on de table...he always helping somebody...he do so so so for we."
Not that they disputing maybe he wrong ways...but he does check for dem so dey grateful for that.


You think those same residents would be so protective of those elements if they didnt give back to the community in any way at all? Hardly likely. Which is my biggest grouse with Jack. Tiefing notwithstanding.....I wondering if it is indeed fair of me even think of rejoicing or anything of the sort with this kinda saga playing off. I just asking. And I willing to be shown it differently.


And i expecting men like diamondtrim and frico and others to educate me.

[Football supporter]

Socafan & Bakes...to reply to your posts jointly.

Maybe being English, I too have bias that I'm not aware of. But my point about the tail wagging the dog was not meant to be disrespectful, but more , descriptive. However we all feel about representation in CONCACAF, you cannot dismiss the fact that USA & Mexico are the regions footballing powers on the field. Therefore, the arrogance of these countries, while not acceptable, can be understood. Now if there truly was a one nation, one vote system in operation, these countries would find it hard to complain. BUT THERES NOT. CFU consistently vote as a block. Their 25 votes out of 40 control CONCACAF. Now, of course, many countries in FIFA horse trade and lobby for votes, but aside from United Kingdom & Northern Ireland, there is no discernable "official" grouping other than CFU. I guess we assume that Jack pulls the CFU strings, and its no coincidence that bin Hammam met CFU outside of CONCACAF. So, like em or hate em, USA & Mexico must be pretty miffed because even if their proposals are good, they have to be accepted by CFU (read Jack) and I'm guessing thats why T&T gets so many advantages. I'm also guessing that other CFU nations put up with this because, as Bakes would put it, they get a little corn from the pockets.

Now you all can talk about slavery and disrespect etc all you want, but if you can't see how my analogy of a tail wagging a dog and my reference to the manipulation of one nation one vote was meant, then I feel I may have unwittingly missed something and I apologise if I've disrespected anyone on this site.

In my view the whole balance in world football is misaligned. Football is a sport where performance equals rewards. This is not so in FIFA administration. I would have EXCO members drawn from the top 20 nations in the FIFA lists averaged over 2 years. You would then have a "promotion & relegation" system. Of course, being a top 20 nation doesn't mean you can provide a top 20 administrator, but logic says that they must be pretty experienced. As a balance, the other 4 places could be selected by an "independent" panel.

Currently, these are the top 20:
1  Spain 
2  Netherlands 
3  Brazil
4  Germany
5  Argentina
6  England
7  Uruguay 
8  Portugal 
9  Italy 
10  Croatia 
11  Norway
12  Greece 
13  Chile
14  Japan
15  Ghana
16  Serbia 
17  Slovenia
18  Russia 
19  France
20  Australia

But, no CONCACAF, only one African and one Asian, so thats where the 4 others should come from.

Now check the current EXCO:

Argentina
Cameroon
Trinidad & Tobago
Spain
France
Papua New Guinea
Jordan
Northern Ireland (I believe this represents the guaranteed UK spot)
Belgium
Brazil
Qatar
Turkey
USA
Thailand
Paraguay
Cyprus
Ivory Coast
Guatemala
Egypt
Russia
Algeria
Sri Lanka
Germany

Only 7 of the "top 20" nations represented. Why shouldn't Netherlands be represented when Papua New Guinea is?

Now I know you're all going to shoot me down and talk about equity and democracy and fair representation. But before you do, remember that WE don't get a choice. You can't earn a place on EXCO.

In the old days in England, the football association was similar to FIFA. Every chairman had an equal vote. Problem was, the 70 clubs below Division 1 outweighed the big boys. So the chairman of Doncaster Rovers carried the same weight as the Chairman of Man Utd, Liverpool, Arsenal etc. Traditionally, the boys from the North East (Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield etc) voted as a block. If you check how stagnated English football was up until the 90's you will understand my point. Clubs that never had the desire to reach Division One and play in Europe didn't give a s**t about making stadia safe and media friendly. They weren't interested in merchandising and executive boxes. They were old school mill owners smoking big cigars, driving jaguars and enjoying being king of their little hills.

The English Premier League is successful because the most successful clubs make the decisions. Of course, they make most of them to suit themselves, but every league club has benefitted. My club, Gillingham, will probably never play in the Premiership. But we have a completely refurbished stadium, and financially we can just about survive. (I remember we literally had a whip round amongst supporters to save the club back in the 80's. We once sold a player for a set of tracksuits!)

As much as I despise Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal etc for their money and bought success, I understand that they have saved English football and allowed my club to survive. After all, who would subscribe to Fox to watch Gillingham vs Sc**thorpe? Or Papua New Guinea vs Sri Lanka?

And by the way, I don't think UK should have an automatic spot on EXCO. It should be earned. But given the current administration, I'm glad its there!   

Sorry, it always makes me laugh when the site automatically inserts *** into Sc**thorpe  Scunny is so bad you can't even write their name 

[Bakes]

Bourbon, in the 6 yrs I've been on this site we've had this debate about "Jack Warner: Good or Bad?" several times.  At this point people are entrenched in their beliefs and I see no need to rehash it.  In your mind the stadia don't mean anything because they're not properly maintained... I suppose in sourcing funds to build them, Jack was supposed to properly maintain them too.  In creating jobs, it's a drop in the overall bucket, so negligible as to not count for anything.  How am I supposed to argue against that?  You can't create jobs for everyone, you can only do what you can to help those you can reach.  In the end you're setting up a strawman argument, even if you don't mean to do so.  Your entire post culminates in the unasked question "Was Jack Warner a bigger benefit or detriment to TnT football?"... which of course isn't what this discussion is about.  It's about identifying benefits we currently have that we definitely would not have had in his absence.

----------------------------------------------

Football Supporter...

Now if there truly was a one nation, one vote system in operation, these countries would find it hard to complain. BUT THERES NOT. CFU consistently vote as a block

And so what?? strength in numbers... the US and Mexico flex their muscles in other ways, largely economic (and I'm talking within the realm of football here, not even politics) so what's the big deal if the small CFU officials decide to band together and seek their common interests??  That is of course that they all march lockstep in line with each other as you argue.

I guess we assume that Jack pulls the CFU strings, and its no coincidence that bin Hammam met CFU outside of CONCACAF.

You DO realize that CFU is an entity unto itself that is both separate from and older than CONCACAF, right??  You're trying to make this out to be some big conspiracy that Bin Hammam met CFU officials "outside" of CONCACAF... he would have met them in Miami a month ago if the US didn't screw up his visa situation... or was that part of the master plan to bribe folks too?

Now you all can talk about slavery and disrespect etc all you want, but if you can't see how my analogy of a tail wagging a dog and my reference to the manipulation of one nation one vote was meant, then I feel I may have unwittingly missed something and I apologise if I've disrespected anyone on this site.

You've been disrespectful and dismissive of the CFU from the beginning... and let's not keep referring to them in the abstract, let's call them what they are, Caribbean nations.  You asked the question earlier "However, what are the alternatives? It certainly can't be someone from the Caribbean. Maybe a South American? A Canadian? Or do they go outside CONCACAF and Latin America and opt for a European? "

I let it go then, but I'll address it now... why NOT "someone from the Caribbean" to head up the investigation?  Is that not your position because in your heart you see all Caribbean options as corruptible?  Aren't you asking that question because you don't trust anyone else from ANYWHERE in the Caribbean to conduct the investigation?  Aren't you innately more comfortable with an American inquiry (the fact that they've stacked the decks in their favor notwithstanding) than a Caribbean one?  Why??  And let me both anticipate and answer your next argument... because this is what I do for a living:  "The Caribbean nations are compromised and to clearly to have anyone from one of the islands conducting the inquiry would represent a conflict of interest.".  Yet the American interests are aligned diammetrically opposite those of the CFU, but you're comfortable with them leading the inquiry... aren't they conflicted out as well?  Or is it that you trust their impartiality but not the Caribbean nations'?

In my view the whole balance in world football is misaligned. Football is a sport where performance equals rewards. This is not so in FIFA administration. I would have EXCO members drawn from the top 20 nations in the FIFA lists averaged over 2 years.

So in other words, only the footballing giants should have a say in running FIFA, right?  Competency be damned... if your national team is any good then you and only you get to have a say in how the game is run.  Currently each Confederation nominates their representatives for the ExCo position.  You would take that  away and essentially just have the European countries running world football... because that's who dominate the standings year in year out.  It is near impossible for small countries to crack the Top 20 for a number of reasons, most having to do with population and economics, and little to do with talent or ability.  But by your thinking, it is a far more desirable situation to disenfranchise these nations because they're not winning enough, right?  This is your brilliant alternative to the current situation?  Do you not see the arrogance in that argument?  Or is it that you see it but couldn't be bothered?

[fitzinho]

Maybe Im missing someting but as I reading it Football Supporter's arguments seem to make more sense if u look at it thru unbiased eyes. Yes we have "benefitted" from some of Jack's dealings but to say the we (T&T) or CFU have really taken advantage of any such benefits would be a lie. The theory is that if the Americans take over then the rest of us will suffer, but we suffering right now!! Do we really deserve our fortunes then if we cant find ways to make it translate onto the field??