Out of court agreements are common place.
If Ireland had taken it further not only could it have had financial implications, but it would have probably dragged on so long it would have affected the tournament itself.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It was all about turf wars
Peat told me.
But the OP's point is that FIFA should not have been financially liable for a a referee's mistake. I.e. why was there any need for compensation or an out of court settlement unless FIFA was actually guilty of something?
I think this is a fair question, if the story is true. Since when is any football body held commercially responsible for a refereeing error?
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Out of court agreements are common place.
If Ireland had taken it further not only could it have had financial implications, but it would have probably dragged on so long it would have affected the tournament itself.
----------------------------------------
I get that, I just don't understand how Ireland had a case here. Sure it was a crap decision and they were very unlucky but if they were able to successfully sue Fifa over a bad decision in a game that would set a terrible precident for the future of football and many other sports come to think of it!
If you could sue over poor refereeing decisions most FA's would be bankrupt.
comment by Marcelino- #SilvioForFIFAPresident (U6171)
posted 1 minute ago
If you could sue over poor refereeing decisions most FA's would be bankrupt.
_____________________
Exactly. This suggests that either the story is fabricated or that FIFA were accused of something else. I can't believe that a 5m payment was made solely as a result of a bad decision by the ref.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Why did Ireland accept the bribe?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 34 minutes ago
Why did Ireland accept the bribe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said it was a bribe ?
Would you turn 5 million down?
There hardly gonna win it anyway
Why did Ireland accept the bribe?
______________
From their perspective it was not a bribe (as far as I know). They sued for compensation and effectively "won" with an out of court settlement.
The better question is why did FIFA pay?
"thats what this whole 'bribery' scandal is about
cultural differences"
________________
Yeah, that and...erm...the law.
it's not a bribe it's 'compensation'
let's see where that money ended up. What did the FAI do with the cash?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Do you still pay tax on hush money?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
no tax and no vat on bribery
comment by #4zA (U19575)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by MARK (U1449)
posted 2 minutes ago
Do you still pay tax on hush money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yer
it is classed as a bonus, so u pay a higher rate than normal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yer I can just see it "Ye gittin no feckin tax off me so Ye not, hic"
It has been established this week that FIFA is all about money. No offence to Ireland, but France are a much bigger financial draw at the Finals, so given the revelations this week is it not beyond the realms of possibility that the officials in that game were influenced from above to produce the desired result.
FIFA now saying it was a loan
Ireland were just as bad in not worse than FIFA by accepting it. Its football. Decisions go against you.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Latest fifa scandal...
Page 1 of 2
posted on 4/6/15
Out of court agreements are common place.
If Ireland had taken it further not only could it have had financial implications, but it would have probably dragged on so long it would have affected the tournament itself.
posted on 4/6/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/6/15
It was all about turf wars
Peat told me.
posted on 4/6/15
But the OP's point is that FIFA should not have been financially liable for a a referee's mistake. I.e. why was there any need for compensation or an out of court settlement unless FIFA was actually guilty of something?
I think this is a fair question, if the story is true. Since when is any football body held commercially responsible for a refereeing error?
posted on 4/6/15
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Out of court agreements are common place.
If Ireland had taken it further not only could it have had financial implications, but it would have probably dragged on so long it would have affected the tournament itself.
----------------------------------------
I get that, I just don't understand how Ireland had a case here. Sure it was a crap decision and they were very unlucky but if they were able to successfully sue Fifa over a bad decision in a game that would set a terrible precident for the future of football and many other sports come to think of it!
posted on 4/6/15
precedent*
posted on 4/6/15
If you could sue over poor refereeing decisions most FA's would be bankrupt.
posted on 4/6/15
comment by Marcelino- #SilvioForFIFAPresident (U6171)
posted 1 minute ago
If you could sue over poor refereeing decisions most FA's would be bankrupt.
_____________________
Exactly. This suggests that either the story is fabricated or that FIFA were accused of something else. I can't believe that a 5m payment was made solely as a result of a bad decision by the ref.
posted on 4/6/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/6/15
This stinks.
posted on 4/6/15
Why did Ireland accept the bribe?
posted on 4/6/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/6/15
comment by Mr Chelsea ✪ (U3579)
posted 34 minutes ago
Why did Ireland accept the bribe?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who said it was a bribe ?
posted on 4/6/15
Would you turn 5 million down?
There hardly gonna win it anyway
posted on 4/6/15
Why did Ireland accept the bribe?
______________
From their perspective it was not a bribe (as far as I know). They sued for compensation and effectively "won" with an out of court settlement.
The better question is why did FIFA pay?
"thats what this whole 'bribery' scandal is about
cultural differences"
________________
Yeah, that and...erm...the law.
posted on 4/6/15
it's not a bribe it's 'compensation'
let's see where that money ended up. What did the FAI do with the cash?
posted on 4/6/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/6/15
Do you still pay tax on hush money?
posted on 4/6/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 4/6/15
no tax and no vat on bribery
posted on 4/6/15
comment by #4zA (U19575)
posted 12 seconds ago
comment by MARK (U1449)
posted 2 minutes ago
Do you still pay tax on hush money?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yer
it is classed as a bonus, so u pay a higher rate than normal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yer I can just see it "Ye gittin no feckin tax off me so Ye not, hic"
posted on 4/6/15
It has been established this week that FIFA is all about money. No offence to Ireland, but France are a much bigger financial draw at the Finals, so given the revelations this week is it not beyond the realms of possibility that the officials in that game were influenced from above to produce the desired result.
posted on 4/6/15
FIFA now saying it was a loan
posted on 4/6/15
Ireland were just as bad in not worse than FIFA by accepting it. Its football. Decisions go against you.
posted on 4/6/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 1 of 2