FiFA bunged the Irish a few Euros to forget about the Henry handball

[drew]

The Irish are right, for their part, in saying it was a legal settlement. How you interpret this rather strange agreement from FIFA's end is another matter.

Just because they claim it is a legal settlement doesn't mean it was. It was a bribe by FIFA to shut them up. Unless the Irish FA had evidence that there was collusion to allow the French ot progress then they have no grounds for taking the matter to court and I suspect they know it. Taking a bribe just because it has been offered doesn't make it right and doesn't make you innocent.

This is entirely above board and is called an out of court settlement, which happens all the time. Think Sheff Utd and West Ham r.e. Tevez

It might show the culture of Fifa but it certainly doesn't show any evidence of corruption or bribes.

I disagree. I would think most people would assume an out of court settlement is made only once proceedings have been issued. That wasn't the case here.

 

[Acker79]

I disagree. I would think most people would assume an out of court settlement is made only once proceedings have been issued. That wasn't the case here.

Gus and the Albion 'reached a settlement' without there being any court proceedings.

 

[drew]

The Irish are right, for their part, in saying it was a legal settlement. How you interpret this rather strange agreement from FIFA's end is another matter.

This is entirely above board and is called an out of court settlement, which happens all the time. Think Sheff Utd and West Ham r.e. Tevez

It might show the culture of Fifa but it certainly doesn't show any evidence of corruption or bribes.

Gus and the Albion 'reached a settlement' without there being any court proceedings.

That was to settle a contractual dispute and I agree, was a settlement. However that would be different to an 'out of court' settlement. For example, you have a dispute when no agreement is reached and then one party issues proceedings and the other party capitulates before the matter is actually heard.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Strange one. Difficult to see how the Irish would have had a case against FIFA for an (albeit shocking) error by the ref. Still, if millions of Euros are going begging, can we have our share for that equaliser just before half time against Germany that may have changed the whole complexion of the game if any of the damn fool officials had bothered to notice it crossed the line?

I personally want compensation for the cheating Maradonna's handball. I was consumed by rage for months after. In fact I'm still seething now come to think of it.

 

[Macca the attacker]

The fact that this payment has come out could result in every association seeking some kind of compo. And it makes you question what other 'settlements' have been made?

 

[Macca the attacker]

Italy v South Korea in 2002 springs to mind!!!!

 

[seagulls4ever]

That was to settle a contractual dispute and I agree, was a settlement. However that would be different to an 'out of court' settlement. For example, you have a dispute when no agreement is reached and then one party issues proceedings and the other party capitulates before the matter is actually heard.

Now you're just being pedantic but your pedanticism doesn't detract from the original point that there was nothing legally wrong with what has occured. But it doesn't matter, an out of court settlement is just any settlement that is reached out of court. There doesn't need to be legal proceedings. I don't know what 'most people assume'. There are different types of out of court settlements, sure, but an out of court settlement is merely what the name suggests it is.

But in any case, whatever you class it as, it was entirely above board. Nothing illegal about it. At all.

 

[GT49er]

I personally want compensation for the cheating Maradonna's handball. I was consumed by rage for months after. In fact I'm still seething now come to think of it.

Plus compensation from the Stains and Spurs for playing almost an entire match in the centre circle in 1978!

 

[Easy 10]

What a grubby little episode – and the fact it was kept COMPLETELY under wraps really tells you all you need to know.

Were any laws broken by FIFA or the FAI ? Seemingly not. But for the FAI to threaten legal action over what boiled down to a costly refereeing error was scandalous and unprecedented (unless they actually had EVIDENCE that the ref was bent, which I very much doubt).

Then for FIFA to just buy them off with a €5m bung on the sly to shut them up and make them go away, equally scandalous, but entirely indicative of the culture within that organisation. The day you start involving lawyers to argue the toss over poor refereeing decisions is the day you destroy the game completely. As someone else mentioned, what kind of case would England have had over that “goal” which was blatantly a mile over the line v Germany, yet was disallowed ? That was for a place in a World Cup QF. Once that genie is let out of the bottle, there’d be no putting it back. And the FAI were apparently quite happy to lead the game down exactly that road until Sepp did what FIFA are known for, and made the problem go away with cash.

Grubby. Grubby. Grubby.

 

[hoveboyslim]

So, imagine that we lose a cup tie because of a blatant penalty not given, or handball not seen. Our opponents get a lucrative next tie against Man U.

Does this mean that we can sue the F.A .?
If that is a precedent, it will happen, sure enough.....and it is all wrong!

No, but the FAI have opened themselves up to it next season. I'd be interested to see how they would deal with a team suing them for a refereeing mistake, as that is exactly what they have done.

 

[drew]

The Irish are right, for their part, in saying it was a legal settlement. How you interpret this rather strange agreement from FIFA's end is another matter.

This is entirely above board and is called an out of court settlement, which happens all the time. Think Sheff Utd and West Ham r.e. Tevez

It might show the culture of Fifa but it certainly doesn't show any evidence of corruption or bribes.

Now you're just being pedantic but your pedanticism doesn't detract from the original point that there was nothing legally wrong with what has occured. But it doesn't matter, an out of court settlement is just any settlement that is reached out of court. There doesn't need to be legal proceedings. I don't know what 'most people assume'. There are different types of out of court settlements, sure, but an out of court settlement is merely what the name suggests it is.

But in any case, whatever you class it as, it was entirely above board. Nothing illegal about it. At all.

If it was entirely above board, why has it only just become known. The other thing would be who actually authorised the payment and how many within the Fifa executive knew about it.

 

[BadFish]

I'm not sure that it does imply that really, I'm more inclined now to think that the FAI are the ones that have more to be ashamed of by even thinking of going through the courts. Take your lumps.

Sure, the payment being made (and so quietly) does make it looks dodgy straight away but if it made a protracted legal dispute (what other kind is there) over a bad decision/mistake that would generate endless bad publicity (despite likely not actually resulting in anything) go away then I find it hard to blame FIFA really (well, that much).

Obviously, ideal world, they should have let the FAI take their whining through the courts regardless.

I agree with your last point and think that secretly paying someone off to avoid a legal dispute should not be the action of such a massive and important organisation. One of FIFA's major problems is a lack of transparency, and it is these sort of shadowy moves that contribute to its shitty reputation. A more of these move come to light i think we will begin to fully understand the basket case that is FIFA.

I can't help but think that actually things aren't going to change much and while many corrupt delegates may get their comeuppance the system will allow a whole lot more to take their place. Especially if we see UEFA and Platini as some kind of knight on a white steed to save the day.

 

[BadFish]

I personally want compensation for the cheating Maradonna's handball. I was consumed by rage for months after. In fact I'm still seething now come to think of it.

Mate, you need to move on

 

[dazzer6666]

What a grubby little episode – and the fact it was kept COMPLETELY under wraps really tells you all you need to know.

Were any laws broken by FIFA or the FAI ? Seemingly not. But for the FAI to threaten legal action over what boiled down to a costly refereeing error was scandalous and unprecedented (unless they actually had EVIDENCE that the ref was bent, which I very much doubt).

Then for FIFA to just buy them off with a €5m bung on the sly to shut them up and make them go away, equally scandalous, but entirely indicative of the culture within that organisation. The day you start involving lawyers to argue the toss over poor refereeing decisions is the day you destroy the game completely. As someone else mentioned, what kind of case would England have had over that “goal” which was blatantly a mile over the line v Germany, yet was disallowed ? That was for a place in a World Cup QF. Once that genie is let out of the bottle, there’d be no putting it back. And the FAI were apparently quite happy to lead the game down exactly that road until Sepp did what FIFA are known for, and made the problem go away with cash.

Grubby. Grubby. Grubby.

Spot on.

 

[BadFish]

What a grubby little episode – and the fact it was kept COMPLETELY under wraps really tells you all you need to know.

Were any laws broken by FIFA or the FAI ? Seemingly not. But for the FAI to threaten legal action over what boiled down to a costly refereeing error was scandalous and unprecedented (unless they actually had EVIDENCE that the ref was bent, which I very much doubt).

Then for FIFA to just buy them off with a €5m bung on the sly to shut them up and make them go away, equally scandalous, but entirely indicative of the culture within that organisation. The day you start involving lawyers to argue the toss over poor refereeing decisions is the day you destroy the game completely. As someone else mentioned, what kind of case would England have had over that “goal” which was blatantly a mile over the line v Germany, yet was disallowed ? That was for a place in a World Cup QF. Once that genie is let out of the bottle, there’d be no putting it back. And the FAI were apparently quite happy to lead the game down exactly that road until Sepp did what FIFA are known for, and made the problem go away with cash.

Grubby. Grubby. Grubby.

I agree but surely it would have been better to let the FAI try their luck in court and then when it is thrown out use this precedent to put the matter to bed once and for all. Now this has come to light we are all thinking of a number of occasions where teams and FA's could legitimately go to FIFA cap in hand to demand their 5 million.The way FIFA have dealt with this under the table has set entirely the wrong precedent.

As someone else said it is grubby.

 

[Vicar!]

I wonder how much they bunged the Italians after the South Korea v Italy game in the Japan/Korea tournement.