eh eh....

[Gamma]

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...fa-row?cc=3888

[Karl]

The English will hate being put on the back foot as they clearly now find themselves...but they are also pragmatists. Crisis management over the next several years will be the name of the game.

Even if the allegations end up being proven and FIFA has to get rid of some members the FA is going to suffer as within FIFA it (the FA) is going to be seen in some regard as "the enemy".

[Paul Marin]

The English will hate being put on the back foot as they clearly now find themselves...but they are also pragmatists. Crisis management over the next several years will be the name of the game.

Even if the allegations end up being proven and FIFA has to get rid of some members the FA is going to suffer as within FIFA it (the FA) is going to be seen in some regard as "the enemy".

This is like the rape victim being ostracised from a community for filing a complaint against a rapist. It makes no sense. But when it comes to FIFA administration, what does?

What is laughable is the following statement from the article:

"As we stand we are faced with allegations, although we are not denying they might well be true. We can make it clear that it is extremely unlikely that we shall be pushing for a recount of the 2018 bid votes. After the decision we wished Russia the best of luck, and we shall leave it at that."

Okay - it may be true, but no recount? Only in the world of FIFA. I guess trying to sell the new house (funded by Russian payoffs) in a down market would be terribly inconvenient wouldn't it? Un-effing-believable.

[Sir X]

Hollering in the wind has now become faint....poor england.

[Gamma]

was it ever anything more than that? sour grapes and hollering in the wind? unnuh gwa'an tink seh england is the hapless victime who has been wronged and blindsided by corruption .....

england knows the rules of the game they played it and it not corruption did them in, it was their own arrogance!!!

[Paul Marin]

Hollering in the wind has now become faint....poor england.

X, give me some answers to these questions:

1. What do you think should be done IF FIFA officials are ever to be found to have been selling votes for future World Cups?
   
2. What do you think of Jack Warner refusing to pay the TNT players their WC bonuses?
   
3. What do you think of FIFA's ethics panel washing its hands of the TNT player bonus affair, claiming it cannot deal with retrospective matters? EFME...are they only going to deal with prospective matters? Sign me up for one of those crystal balls.

Anyway, I won't even get into the WC ticket scandal or any other FIFA transgression, just help me out with these three. And don' badda bring England into this, I am asking general questions independently of Treisman's allegations.

PM

[Paul Marin]

was it ever anything more than that? sour grapes and hollering in the wind? unnuh gwa'an tink seh england is the hapless victime who has been wronged and blindsided by corruption .....

england knows the rules of the game they played it and it not corruption did them in, it was their own arrogance!!!

So Gamma, tell me something. One day a young lady walks into your office and says she was raped and wants you to take the case. Everyone - including you - knows she is the town prostitute. Her account of the incident is that she was approached by a John but said she wasn't interested, but he took what he came for anyway. Her story is yet to be corroborated, but there is ample evidence that the John is an aggressive person with past allegations from others that he has committed alleged crimes against women, yet he has never been prosecuted.

What is your position relative to the John in this case? Do you laugh at the prostitute and tell her she "knows the rules of the game and it is not the John that she should blame, but her own decision to be a prostitute"? Or do you see it as an opportunity to bring the John to justice?

Help me out.

[Gamma]

compare that to the same prostitute who walks into a jewelry strore and asks for an appraisal of a stone...she is told it is worthes and then she exclaims: OH MY GOD!! I'VE BEEN RAPED!!!!!!

the england scenario is more akin to my example.

where the prostitute is concerned...if it is illegal she can also be charged with solicitation .... that is the first and most OBVIOUS charge. if her story is corroborated then john has at least 2 charges coming to him.

[Paul Marin]

compare that to the same prostitute who walks into a jewelry strore and asks for an appraisal of a stone...she is told it is worthes and then she exclaims: OH MY GOD!! I'VE BEEN RAPED!!!!!!

the england scenario is more akin to my example.

where the prostitute is concerned...if it is illegal she can also be charged with solicitation .... that is the first and most OBVIOUS charge. if her story is corroborated then john has at least 2 charges coming to him.

Okay - thanks for the answers. You agree that the John is culpable.

Your example however is completely off the mark as you assume the jewelery store is free of any illegal activity. Her reaction whether over the top or not is not the issue, it is whether the stone is truly of value or not. What if they gave a false or misleading appraisal?

Come again.

[Gamma]

please ... it means that the activity was consensual and in her mind rape is determined by whether she percieves the stone to be valuable or not! and her reaction has EVERYTHING to do with it, if the stone was valuable it would not be rape! england played the game and lost!

there is a saying in law, that when one approaches the court in equity (i.e. where there is no remedy at law) one must come to the table with clean hands. there is no remedy at law in this instance because FIFA is the law....

i suggest YOU rewind and come again....

john is NOT culpable without corroborating evidence.

[Paul Marin]

please ... it means that the activity was consensual and in her mind rape is determined by whether she percieves the stone to be valuable or not! and her reaction has EVERYTHING to do with it, if the stone was valuable it would not be rape! england played the game and lost!

there is a saying in law, that when one approaches the court in equity (i.e. where there is no remedy at law) one must come to the table with clean hands. there is no remedy at law in this instance because FIFA is the law....

i suggest YOU rewind and come again....

john is NOT culpable without corroborating evidence.

Gamma, you cannot be serious. You are here now telling me that if the jewelery store lied about the value of the stone, the issue is her reaction!?

"Please ... it means that the activity was consensual" - it would only be consensual if she actually sold the store the stone for nothing. She didn't.

"and in her mind rape is determined by whether she percieves the stone to be valuable or not!" - no, she may claim rape, but no rape is committed unless the store is lying about the value of the stone and she then sells it to them. Whether she thinks differently or not, is irrelevant. And that's the point. You keep pointing at the prostitute when you should be asking yourself - IS THE JEWELER A TIEF!??

"and her reaction has EVERYTHING to do with it, if the stone was valuable it would not be rape!" - her reaction is irrelevant to whether the jeweler is guilty or misleading her or not.

The problem here is that you are taking a position that ignores totally any possibility of illegal activity by FIFA as if it is not relevant. That's craziness. Your fixation on "shooting the messenger" makes no sense. As a fan of football, you should be more worried about FIFA's corruption than England being whiners.

Personally, I could give a **** about England in all of this, what I want to see is FIFA get exposed for the criminal and racketeering actions that everyone knows they're guilty of.

And lastly: "[The] john is NOT culpable without corroborating evidence." - Agreed, so in the mean time, berate the prostitute? Don't you investigate him? You continue to fixate on berating the prostitute. Why? Madness.

[Gamma]

of course it would be irrelevant!!! the issue is whether she was raped and this has NOTHING to do with the value of the stone!!! if the stone was valuable she would not bawl rape!!! FOCUS!!!!!

and lastly having re-read your scenario, yes john should be investigated, i missed the point where she turned him down. my bad. the england thing though is more akin to my anecdote .... i am only answering yuh question out of respect.

[Paul Marin]

of course it would be irrelevant!!! the issue is whether she was raped and this has NOTHING to do with the value of the stone!!! if the stone was valuable she would not bawl rape!!! FOCUS!!!!!

and lastly having re-read your scenario, yes john should be investigated, i missed the point where she turned him down. my bad. the england thing though is more akin to my anecdote .... i am only answering yuh question out of respect.

Gamma, you twisting yourself up in your own web. Okay, I am glad you said "FOCUS". So here is what you need to ZERO IN ON:

"her reaction is irrelevant to whether the jeweler is guilty of misleading her or not." In other words, find out if the jeweler is guilty first of misleading her. Whether she bawled "rape" or said a polite "pardon me" is not relevant!!! It is HIS action, that lead to her reaction (accusation) and so that is where you have to start, i.e. see if her complaint has merit.

But yet you keep FOCUSSING on HER!!! First investigate the jeweler, (as youwould with the John) and then come back and call her crazy if need be. However, no investigation is completed, but yet you say she's crying rape (presumably without merit). What is that about?? Come on man. You can't be for real.

The fact of the matter is that you are using England's past as a reason to "shoot the messenger" and "sour grapes" and all of that. I could care less if the allegations were brought by Charles Manson or the Shower Posse, what is relevant to me is whether FIFA is guilty or not. They are the custodians of the game and they have shown over and over again that they are borderline (if not downright) guilty of racketeering and fraud. How they are not held accountable is mind-blowing.

Anyway, I am glad that you agree with me. Well done.

[Gamma]

the bait and switch thing is not working...was she raped or not? does that depend on the value of the stone? yuh mad!!!!!!

the point is england payed the game and lost and now cussing about how the game was played!

england had sex with fifa, fifa promised one thing and did not deliver and now england bawling rape!!

yes john should be investigated BUT that is not the scenario we face .... so i agree with you on that but i don't agree with you on the england thing which is somethng else altogether.

[Paul Marin]

the bait and switch thing is not working...was she raped or not? does that depend on the value of the stone? yuh mad!!!!!!

the point is england payed the game and lost and now cussing about how the game was played!

england had sex with fifa, fifa promised one thing and did not deliver and now england bawling rape!!

yes john should be investigated BUT that is not the scenario we face .... so i agree with you on that but i don't agree with you on the england thing which is somethng else altogether.

Okay Gamma, so "England had sex with fifa, fifa promised one thing and did not deliver and now england bawling rape!!" So isn't that a breach of contract on FIFA's part if they promised something in return for sex and didn't deliver? That is my point. I don't know if England's accusation is true, but you're willing to let FIFA off scott-free just because you have an issue with England. That isn't right.

Lastly, you said "yes john should be investigated BUT that is not the scenario we face". I say it is exactly the scenario we face. The fact that the John and the prostitute had been frolicking all along does not absolve the John of guilt in any one specific incident. Remember, I am not defending the prostitute's actions or culpability.

Anyway, and not that it has anything to do with my argument, but if England had sex wid FIFA, Russia and Qatar mussi did give dem a six day orgy.