Siaisia ban reduced to 5years as against Life ban

[Dammy]

There is a crime in most statutes called conspiracy.

[1naija]

Guys, unfortunately I cant vouch for big belle pokey as he claims.

Thanks for your understanding...

E say BMI, you really do not want us to go there oooo I can beat my chest and state as far as fitness levels , many on these forums no pass me. This is a FACT.. you can ask 1naija , forget that fake name the likes of damunk rants here about bigportkey or whatever.. none of you , can match me,,, this no be rant.,, come run 5k with me or even bench press , I repeat none of una fit .. this is the truth

Now learn to protect your own, regardless of the situation you protect yours and discipline them in private..nor be everything oyinbo man talk you go believe , that is why our continent is the way it is today... You go and travel with your naija passport and see how you are treated ( i have never experienced such) however you would state you are innocent, but our people are always singled out. Now back to a Nigerian legend , who gave us AFCON as well as Silver and gold in the Olympics

Once again are there any records or videos of Siasia taking bribes?

[Damunk]

There is a crime in most statutes called conspiracy.

You’d think our ‘critically thinking’ brothers would have at some point heard of this.

[Orion]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

[Bigpokey24]

There is a crime in most statutes called conspiracy.

Is there a crime if the gloves don't fit?

[Bigpokey24]

Siasia Speaks Out On FIFA Troubles, Blames FG

[TonyTheTigerKiller]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

[gochino]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

[Damunk]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

Siasia will tell you that he didn’t agree to the deal, but just didn’t say ‘No’ to it.
This, he says, is his only crime and hence the punishment by FIFA which wanted him to use the word ‘No’.
Our patriotic brothers on this board believe that this amounts to racism and that he didn’t have to say ‘No’ to a fraudulent offer.

I suspect the emails and any other evidence used suggest it was more than a simple refusal to use the word ‘No’.
One day we’ll know whether his failure to say ‘No’ turned out to be a big no-no on his part.

[Enugu II]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

[Bigpokey24]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

Siasia will tell you that he didn’t agree to the deal, but just didn’t say ‘No’ to it.
This, he says, is his only crime and hence the punishment by FIFA which wanted him to use the word ‘No’.
Our patriotic brothers on this board believe that this amounts to racism and that he didn’t have to say ‘No’ to a fraudulent offer.

I suspect the emails and any other evidence used suggest it was more than a simple refusal to use the word ‘No’.
One day we’ll know whether his failure to say ‘No’ turned out to be a big no-no on his part.

you constantly expose your limitations to understanding simple questions, what the heck has all that got to do with the law part? . All you keep adding to this topic nah if to say , this and this. adding and projecting what never happened.
Did Siasia collect bribe or did he fix a football match? that is the question. the answer will/ would convict anyone in a serious court of law. Be it criminal or civil, You are very limited when it comes to basic law interpretations . focus on something else and leave those with vast knowledge and experience when it come s to this particular subject/profession. No caps, but this is way above your pay grade

[TonyTheTigerKiller]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

1. Did Siasia ever admit to the allegations that he accepted a bribe?
NO

2. Were all the people who made the allegations present in a room with Siasia when he accepted the bribe?
NO

It boils down to hearsay and “he said, she said”…. Would not have stood up in a proper court of law


Cheers.

[wanaj0]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

Siasia will tell you that he didn’t agree to the deal, but just didn’t say ‘No’ to it.
This, he says, is his only crime and hence the punishment by FIFA which wanted him to use the word ‘No’.
Our patriotic brothers on this board believe that this amounts to racism and that he didn’t have to say ‘No’ to a fraudulent offer.

I suspect the emails and any other evidence used suggest it was more than a simple refusal to use the word ‘No’.
One day we’ll know whether his failure to say ‘No’ turned out to be a big no-no on his part.

I will not claim to have the full details BUT what punishment was given to Big Sam.

Having listened to Siasia he got 'punished' because

1) He did not respond to FIFA's allegation on time (He did not check his email)
2) He was not able to put together a strong legal representation (it costs money).

E-mail exchanges are subject to many interpretation. Big Sam was caught on tape

Lessons for us all to learn. Just like in a coup operation, once you hear you must report or else you are assumed to be part of the planners. Siasia did not report so he was considered guilty. Though he claimed he never agreed to the deal. According to him, he does not care what they do but he will just do his job.

That Big Sam was not 'punished' says a lot about power and money!

[Damunk]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

Siasia will tell you that he didn’t agree to the deal, but just didn’t say ‘No’ to it.
This, he says, is his only crime and hence the punishment by FIFA which wanted him to use the word ‘No’.
Our patriotic brothers on this board believe that this amounts to racism and that he didn’t have to say ‘No’ to a fraudulent offer.

I suspect the emails and any other evidence used suggest it was more than a simple refusal to use the word ‘No’.
One day we’ll know whether his failure to say ‘No’ turned out to be a big no-no on his part.

I will not claim to have the full details BUT what punishment was given to Big Sam.

Having listened to Siasia he got 'punished' because

1) He did not respond to FIFA's allegation on time (He did not check his email)
2) He was not able to put together a strong legal representation (it costs money).

E-mail exchanges are subject to many interpretation. Big Sam was caught on tape

Lessons for us all to learn. Just like in a coup operation, once you hear you must report or else you are assumed to be part of the planners. Siasia did not report so he was considered guilty. Though he claimed he never agreed to the deal. According to him, he does not care what they do but he will just do his job.

That Big Sam was not 'punished' says a lot about power and money!

Exactly.
But then, I'm not sure why Big Sam keeps coming up here.
If it is simply to demonstrate 'racism' within FIFA then it is a weak case. I am sure if we check there are many 'white' people that have been punished for football crimes with much greater consequences.
If it is about how the law is unevenly applied, then what's new? We all know that. Money talks in the world we all live in. Is that still news to some?

But if all this is being used to somehow demonstrate that Siasia is completely innocent of the allegations made against him, then Sam Alladyce, or 'racist FIFA' are both completely non sequitur

Like you said, none of us are privy to the crucial details (whether the emails or any other evidence) and so for anyone to insist that Siasia is an innocent man based on their feelings of mistrust of FIFA is absurd.

Siasia said openly that with the help of a few friends and well-wishers, he engaged "a very sound a lawyer" (Siasia's words) in Switzerland called 'Ross Windsor' who he said has "a 95%' success record with CAS and FIFA".
So the argument some are making that Siasia didn't benefit from good legal representation for lack of resources is unfounded. Siasia even stated at least twice that he was "grateful" to CAS for getting the ban reduced and cancelling the $50k fine.

People are just using the facts selectively to fit their sentiments.
Na so we dey do when 'our people' are found guilty.

[wanaj0]

I suspect this might have been a sting operation. 2010 was a period when a lot of accusations were flying around about match-fixing and Nigeria came up a couple of times. Before the 2014 WC, they tried sting operations on some of our players - I think Onazi was tested and he didn't bite.

Siasia shot himself in the foot by not taking this seriously from the onset. He ignored the summons from FIFA and was given the maximum punishment possible. Had he immediately gotten a good lawyer as soon as he was contacted with the allegations, he may have gotten a lighter punishment, considering the negotiations never progressed to actual match-fixing. But being willfully involved in those negotiations is a crime that requires some punishment.

I am guessing you’re not a lawyer or any kind of legal professional so, stop making assertions you’re not competent to make. I am willing to bet that in a normal civil court, that case would have gone nowhere because it was based entirely on hearsay


Cheers.

How was it based on hear say?? Evidence was presented in the court. The notorious match fixer from Singapore was caught and they found out he was entangled in a deal with Siasia, which they can prove via emails, in these emails, Siasia agreed to a fraudulent deal, also there are pictures of Siasia with the match fixer. The deal did not go through at the end but Siasia deserves some sort of punishment, which is why the life ban was reduced to only five years. I really don't know why we are debating this and calling it racism. The question we should be asking ourselves is; Why did Siasia agree to deal?

Siasia will tell you that he didn’t agree to the deal, but just didn’t say ‘No’ to it.
This, he says, is his only crime and hence the punishment by FIFA which wanted him to use the word ‘No’.
Our patriotic brothers on this board believe that this amounts to racism and that he didn’t have to say ‘No’ to a fraudulent offer.

I suspect the emails and any other evidence used suggest it was more than a simple refusal to use the word ‘No’.
One day we’ll know whether his failure to say ‘No’ turned out to be a big no-no on his part.

I will not claim to have the full details BUT what punishment was given to Big Sam.

Having listened to Siasia he got 'punished' because

1) He did not respond to FIFA's allegation on time (He did not check his email)
2) He was not able to put together a strong legal representation (it costs money).

E-mail exchanges are subject to many interpretation. Big Sam was caught on tape

Lessons for us all to learn. Just like in a coup operation, once you hear you must report or else you are assumed to be part of the planners. Siasia did not report so he was considered guilty. Though he claimed he never agreed to the deal. According to him, he does not care what they do but he will just do his job.

That Big Sam was not 'punished' says a lot about power and money!

Exactly.
But then, I'm not sure why Big Sam keeps coming up here.
If it is simply to demonstrate 'racism' within FIFA then it is a weak case. I am sure if we check there are many 'white' people that have been punished for football crimes with much greater consequences.
If it is about how the law is unevenly applied, then what's new? We all know that. Money talks in the world we all live in. Is that still news to some?

But if all this is being used to somehow demonstrate that Siasia is completely innocent of the allegations made against him, then Sam Alladyce, or 'racist FIFA' are both completely non sequitur

Like you said, none of us are privy to the crucial details (whether the emails or any other evidence) and so for anyone to insist that Siasia is an innocent man based on their feelings of mistrust of FIFA is absurd.

Siasia said openly that with the help of a few friends and well-wishers, he engaged "a very sound a lawyer" (Siasia's words) in Switzerland called 'Ross Windsor' who he said has "a 95%' success record with CAS and FIFA".
So the argument some are making that Siasia didn't benefit from good legal representation for lack of resources is unfounded. Siasia even stated at least twice that he was "grateful" to CAS for getting the ban reduced and cancelling the $50k fine.

People are just using the facts selectively to fit their sentiments.
Na so we dey do when 'our people' are found guilty.

Again that Big Sam who was caught on tape was not sanctioned by FIFA says a lot! If you are not surprised by that I am!

Siasia could not get 'good' representation until it got to CAS when Big Sege and co came to assist him. He was not even able to defend' himself before FIFA because he 'ignored' FIFA's mail.

I am not a lawyer BUT my thinking is that you cannot present NEW evidence in an APPEAL. Since Siasia did not 'defend' himself from the onset there is little for him to do before CAS. He was even thinking about appealing CAS decision BUT where is the money to do that?

If he has responded early to FIFA's email and obtained good legal representation from the onset, he would have received similar punishment like Big Sam who was caught on tape!

[Bigpokey24]

wanajo, why are you punishing those who do not apply themselves when it comes to analyzing things. damunk is a very lazy thinker, you can see it all over the forum as well as this thread.( anyone who chooses to turn a blind eye knowing SSS was racially punished is delusional ) .. the sad part here are those other posters who choose not to analyze the situation , but choose to attack the messenger because that said messenger(yours truly bigpokey) don yab dem for previous threads in the past, so they carry that anger from post to post....take cito for example... dude is scorned because of some past yabs i handled him a while back. His post on this topic was so embarrassing

let me post those Sam's video again for them

[Cito]

wanajo, why are you punishing those who do not apply themselves when it comes to analyzing things. damunk is a very lazy thinker, you can see it all over the forum as well as this thread.( anyone who chooses to turn a blind eye knowing SSS was racially punished is delusional ) .. the sad part here are those other posters who choose not to analyze the situation , but choose to attack the messenger because that said messenger(yours truly bigpokey) don yab dem for previous threads in the past, so they carry that anger from post to post....take cito for example... dude is scorned because of some past yabs i handled him a while back. His post on this topic was so embarrassing

let me post those Sam's video again for them

Huh?

[chendosplastic]

The dude has fallen under the hammer twice in his football career.. First as U20 player, age group, now this one..

Was he really sanctioned as an U20 player? I know he was one of the "born again" footballers

[Lolly]

The dude has fallen under the hammer twice in his football career.. First as U20 player, age group, now this one..

Was he really sanctioned as an U20 player? I know he was one of the "born again" footballers

Well, Nigeria was sanctioned (banned for 2 years and lost the rights to host 1991 FIFA Youth tournament) for the alleged falsification of the ages of three players, Andrew Uwe, Samson Siasia and Dahiru Sadi.