Who is telling the truth: PUMA/FECAFOOT or FIFA? Read on

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:31 pm

TD, the only reason why FIFA allowed Cameroon use the jersies in the group stages was to allow them time to get suitable replacements. This was approximately a 2 week window.

Mankinka · Post by **Mankinka** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:36 pm

Rogermilla please just accept that FECAFOOT did wrong and lets move on.

How can anyone believe that a verbal go ahead is worth anything in this day age.

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:48 pm

MI5 wrote:Rogermilla,

Stop all this pitiful excuses and admit FECAFOOT goofed here big time. Trying to justify this and that doesn't deal with the whole issue at hand. Why didn't FECAFOOT officials and PUMA heed FIFA's warning when the were told not to wear those jerseys? If FIFA hadn't put their foot down the last time they were going to wear those jerseys to world cup.

Evereyone keeps saying CAF approved or Hayatou approved it because it was his fellow country men. It's time for everyone to follow the rule or get punished no exceptions...

You see thats why one cannot ever have a decent argument with some of you guys. So what Hayatou is Cameroonian. Is he the only one at CAF? If CAF approved thye kits, why did Blatter not hold them responsible also for allowing Cameroon to play in the kits.

I have said I am not here to make any excuses, but some of you are merely looki at it on the basis that FECAFOOT and Cameroon disobeyed FIFA.
Good did I refuse that? Did I say we don't deserved to be punnished for supposedly going against the rules?. If the kits were against the law, why bring it up only when the tournament had statred? Why not ban it from the time samples were sent to them for approval? All these are questions we also need to ask FIFA.

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:55 pm

Rogermilla, again, FIFA claims they didn't approve them - that means either the samples weren't sent by PUMA or they were sent and were NOT approved. You are already assuming it is true that PUMA sent FIFA the samples without seeing proof of this...it is you that cannot seem to see the bigger picture as you are reasoning with your heart and not your head.

Molue Conductor · Post by **Molue Conductor** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:01 pm

TD wrote:
Rogermilla,
I don't know which part of the FIFA regulations which states that a team must take to the field with a kit comprising of seperate jerseys and shorts Puma or Cameroon did not understand. They introduced the kit to court publicity as they did at the last ANC. They gambled that FIFA at worst would sanction them financially and any financial sanction was worth the free publicity
toyin 133

The laws of the game,section 4, makes NO mention of SEPARATION, if you want to be entirely technical. It simply lists jersey and shorts as part of the outfit. There is no dispute that PUMA was pushing the envelope in designing this outfit, but to say that they wilfully disobeyed the rules in order to gain publicity may not be factually accurate.

Here are my final thoughts on this

At the outset, FIFA erred in making it seem as if there was a middle ground to this. The decision was so obviously ad-hoc, they had to make it appear as if there was an element of fairness to it. But, like I noted earlier, it made no sense to say - Use it for the group stages and not for the finals. FIFA should have insisted Cameroon come up with an alternate strip or else not play.

Why should it be possible for Cameroon to produce this strip from the final stages and not from the first round, if they could? I mean if PUMA had a stock of Cameroonian jerseys, or else Cameroon had loads of their own jerseys back in Yaounde, why would it have needed over two weeks to make them available?

Cameroon is not totally blameless in this, but if they couldn't get alternate kits, in a situation where the "rules" appear subject to negotiation, what else could they have done?

The presumption on the other side is that Cameroon could have obtained an alternate kit, but instead chose to conspire with PUMA, to ignore the FIFA ruling. Now if this can be proved, then again, I say they don't have a leg to stand on, but was this what really happened?

If this can not be proved, then why punish a country for what is, at best, a minor infraction of the rules by de-facto expulsion from the WC?

TD, is overall the same thing as singlet and trousser?

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:01 pm

theYemster wrote:Rogermilla, again, FIFA claims they didn't approve them - that means either the samples weren't sent by PUMA or they were sent and were NOT approved. You are already assuming it is true that PUMA sent FIFA the samples without seeing proof of this...it is you that cannot seem to see the bigger picture as you are reasoning with your heart and not your head.

Well PUMA has taken the case to court. Lets see what is gonna be the outcome? Some people are confusing me here thinking I am trying to make an excuse for FECAFOOT. I am trying to bring other points lets analyse them. Again some say because Hayatou is Cameroonian therefore CAF is bound to approve the kits. How weak. Are all the members in CAF's executive from Cameroon?

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:12 pm

But PUMA's court case seems to be hinged on challenging the suitability of the jersies viz-a-viz FIFA laws - not about them initially receiving an apporval like you so claim and which IMO would make a much stronger case (if true).

Unless PUMA can show FECAFOOT proof that the samples were indeed approved by FIFA, I would suggest FECAFOOT first appeal and seek leniency...going to court should be a last resort as it might infuriate FIFA further and a loss might scuttle any possible chance of leniency.

FECAFOOT should not let PUMA continue to railroad them.

Ayo Akinfe · Post by **Ayo Akinfe** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:18 pm

Rogermilla, the court case should tell us everything. The way I see it, the onus is on Fifa to prove:

(1) The kits are illegal
(2) It received samples of the kit before the start of Tunisia 2004
(3) It rejected the kit as unacceptable
(4) Cameroon was given ample warning well ahead of the tournament that the kits were unacceptable
(5) This matter was not just brought up during the tournament by which time Puma said it was too late to make replacement kits.
(6) Fecafot was informed that despite the kits being approved by Caf, they could still not be used because Fifa has the final say
(7) It did not just delegate the decision to Caf, which may have misled Fecafot

Fecafot for its part must explain why:

(8) Alternative kits were not made available after the first round
(9) That it indeed did receive approval from Fifa and Caf
(10) It was impossible to get Puma to provide new kits. These companies are good and believe you me, they can churn out material in 24 hours.

MI5 · Post by **MI5** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:19 pm

The thing is you don't want to admit FECAFOOT and PUMA messed here and are trying to put a spin to it. The kits should have never been allowed in the first place and this was a case of PUMA trying to use Cameroun to defy rules and feel they can break it. You are trying to say CAF approved it of course why won't they since they are all clowns in there including Hayatou. It was wrong to for CAF if they gave their approval to it. But why shouldn't i be surprised since can't make any good decisions on futbol related issues in Africa as Hayatou continues to sell Africa out everyday.

You can turn around and try and blame FIFA for all the mess but you guys were warned and didn't listen. Even Roger Milla warned you guys and still didn't listen. Now this. Shame on FECAFOOT for allowing PUMA to try that jersey nonsense on them why don't they try that out on the Italians who they kit and other clubs and countries who are their clients...

If CAF okayed the kits to be used then Hayatou had to be part of it or who calls himself president of CAF? For as long as Hayatou, Fahmy and that useless moron Addo are still in CAF African futbol is in big trouble....

Admit the facts and stop putting a spin to it....

Rogermilla wrote:
MI5 wrote:Rogermilla,

Stop all this pitiful excuses and admit FECAFOOT goofed here big time. Trying to justify this and that doesn't deal with the whole issue at hand. Why didn't FECAFOOT officials and PUMA heed FIFA's warning when the were told not to wear those jerseys? If FIFA hadn't put their foot down the last time they were going to wear those jerseys to world cup.

Evereyone keeps saying CAF approved or Hayatou approved it because it was his fellow country men. It's time for everyone to follow the rule or get punished no exceptions...
You see thats why one cannot ever have a decent argument with some of you guys. So what Hayatou is Cameroonian. Is he the only one at CAF? If CAF approved thye kits, why did Blatter not hold them responsible also for allowing Cameroon to play in the kits.

I have said I am not here to make any excuses, but some of you are merely looki at it on the basis that FECAFOOT and Cameroon disobeyed FIFA.
Good did I refuse that? Did I say we don't deserved to be punnished for supposedly going against the rules?. If the kits were against the law, why bring it up only when the tournament had statred? Why not ban it from the time samples were sent to them for approval? All these are questions we also need to ask FIFA.

Makanaky · Post by **Makanaky** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:43 pm

Rogermilla wrote: Well PUMA has taken the case to court. Lets see what is gonna be the outcome? Some people are confusing me here thinking I am trying to make an excuse for FECAFOOT. I am trying to bring other points lets analyse them. Again some say because Hayatou is Cameroonian therefore CAF is bound to approve the kits. How weak. Are all the members in CAF's executive from Cameroon?

Rogermilla why are you wasting your time? Are you forgetting this is CE the last place you should expect any sort of objectivity when it comes to Camerounian affairs.

theYemster · Post by **theYemster** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:51 pm

Makanaky wrote:Rogermilla why are you wasting your time? Are you forgetting this is CE the last place you should expect any sort of objectivity when it comes to Camerounian affairs.

Actually, based on current goings-on, it seems like FIFA and not CE is now the last place. CE might be next to the last.

1naija · Post by **1naija** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:08 pm

Rogermilla, you seem bent on blaming FIFA for this even when there is sufficient proof that Cameroon knowingly flouted FIFA rules. In fact, I don't think you even believe that Cameroon did anything wrong, which seems to be the same mindset that got us to this point in the first place.

SUYA · Post by **SUYA** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:29 pm

Give us all a break...you were warned and still went ahead wearing your jerseys. Now u must pay the piper. What I am mad about is the penalty..... This is border line felounious and absurd.

quickie · Post by **quickie** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 4:30 pm

I think FIFA are out of order......this is bad news for African football. The best african teams should represent us at the WC, IMO. 6 pt deduction is very very harsh and it won't happen to most big Euro & S.American countries.

Q

Mbape · Post by **Mbape** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:08 pm

SUYA wrote:Give us all a break...you were warned and still went ahead wearing your jerseys. Now u must pay the piper. What I am mad about is the penalty..... This is border line felounious and absurd.

Rogermilla:

I am with most of the CEs on this one. I am sure you've also read the CAMFOOT news section where FECAFOOT number 2 man Atangana Mballa claims that the outfit produced by Puma was different from what he had submitted to CAF for approval. Funny that its now we are hearing all this stuff.

This talk of fighting FIFA is just compounding the problem. Puma is taking FIFA to court on a revenue loss principle which contends that FIFA's arbitrary action has cost it money. No court will overturn FIFA's own determination of what's a legal outfit, niether will a court determine what's the appropriate punishment for flouting the rules. Puma may very well win monetary damages from FIFA but that would not help Cameroon in any way.

If I ran things at home, I'll fire the current Cameroon football authorities, get a new team in place and plead our cause with FIFA (structure an internal appeal that just says: we've punished those responsible, now consider sparing a whole country the agony of not having a fair chance to indulge their national pastime!). Arrogance has brought us to this point. We had better eschew it as soon as possible, going forward.

Having said that, FIFA's already awesome clout threatens to become a leviathan in the hands of "King" Blatter the vengefull. This high-handedness must make everyone nervous. Rub the fellow the wrong way and he may just concoct appropriate punishment for you on the spot.

I think the disciplinary committee stands ready to reduce the punishment probably to -3 points (which is still a killer, given that qualifying group). The six points stuff is rather exposing them as petty and vengefull, which must hurt their PR.

Riche007 · Post by **Riche007** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:22 pm

Mbape, nice write up from u....only if ur Cam brothers like Makanaky & RM can see things the way u see it.

furiously frank · Post by **furiously frank** » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:30 pm

. Puma is taking FIFA to court on a revenue loss principle which contends that FIFA's arbitrary action has cost it money. No court will overturn FIFA's own determination of what's a legal outfit, niether will a court determine what's the appropriate punishment for flouting the rules. Puma may very well win monetary damages from FIFA but that would not help Cameroon in any way.

Wrongful/Malicious Interference with Contractual (business) relations, occurs when one, without privilege to do so, induces or otherwise purposely causes third person not to perform contract with another or to enter into, or continue business relationship with another.

Rogermilla · Post by **Rogermilla** » Tue Apr 20, 2004 1:48 am

Mbape wrote:
SUYA wrote:Give us all a break...you were warned and still went ahead wearing your jerseys. Now u must pay the piper. What I am mad about is the penalty..... This is border line felounious and absurd.
Rogermilla:

I am with most of the CEs on this one. I am sure you've also read the CAMFOOT news section where FECAFOOT number 2 man Atangana Mballa claims that the outfit produced by Puma was different from what he had submitted to CAF for approval. Funny that its now we are hearing all this stuff.

This talk of fighting FIFA is just compounding the problem. Puma is taking FIFA to court on a revenue loss principle which contends that FIFA's arbitrary action has cost it money. No court will overturn FIFA's own determination of what's a legal outfit, niether will a court determine what's the appropriate punishment for flouting the rules. Puma may very well win monetary damages from FIFA but that would not help Cameroon in any way.

If I ran things at home, I'll fire the current Cameroon football authorities, get a new team in place and plead our cause with FIFA (structure an internal appeal that just says: we've punished those responsible, now consider sparing a whole country the agony of not having a fair chance to indulge their national pastime!). Arrogance has brought us to this point. We had better eschew it as soon as possible, going forward.

Having said that, FIFA's already awesome clout threatens to become a leviathan in the hands of "King" Blatter the vengefull. This high-handedness must make everyone nervous. Rub the fellow the wrong way and he may just concoct appropriate punishment for you on the spot.

I think the disciplinary committee stands ready to reduce the punishment probably to -3 points (which is still a killer, given that qualifying group). The six points stuff is rather exposing them as petty and vengefull, which must hurt their PR.

Thanks Mbape for the clerification. I will have to read Rene Mballa's interview then. My initial concern was that PUMA claimed to have sent samples to CAF/FIFA for approval, if the samples are different from the UNIQITs, then I rest my case, and PUMA now has to deal with FIFA. We also have to ask ourselves this question. Why did FECAFOOT accept the kits if they were different from the samples they sent for approval. Iya Muhammed, Bidoung and all their crews ned to answer.