CAUTION: SE May Not Qualify for WC IF.....

[metalalloy]

What has been posted thus far indicates that Siasia was in contract talks with the club, was on the verge of signing on but that talks broke down after the club failed to agree to pay a sign--on fee to Siasia. Is that a wrong interpretation? Did that show that he (1) signed a contract? (2) agreed to receive inducement to throw games? (3) in fact, threw games? The answer for me is that NONE OF THOSE THINGS EVER HAPPENED> I stand corrected if you can provide information that shows otherwise.

The point you are missing is that in contract talks for a coaching job, Siasia compromised his integrity by agreeing to allow a third party to control 6 of his players in order to manipulate and influence games, in exchange of a promise to receive money. That was enough to violate his FIFA ethics and that is all there is to it. Questions 1 and 3 are irrelevant to the charge at hand. Question 2 is yes to manipulate games. (there was no discussion/accusation about throwing games).

Ps. You do not need to sign a contract for it to be considered legally binding.

Metalalloy

What I think is that none of these matter at all.

He did not sign a contract nor had he received inducement to sign one. This is what I have gathered so far.

What, however, happened is that he was in a contract talk which supposedly broke off because of his demand that was not met. Did he realize that there was a violation if he signed this contract. I believe he did. Why did he not immediately report all of this during or after the contract broke off is a mystery to me. Worse still, why he did not answer the invitation by investigators was critical as well. It may have been due to issues that I stated earlier.

Would he have been able to do what Perumal and his aids wanted, if he had no contract with the club? I do not believe so. To me, that aspect is critical.

Except that it does. His lack of signing or lack of receipt of an inducement is irrelevant. Siasia was a Fifa Official subject to the FIFA Code of Ethics (the "FCE"). That is what he violated when he accepted the offer of a "Bribe" as defined by the FCE. That is what he was convicted of and banned for by FIFA.

Look at the definition of Bribery (page 10) that was in effect at the time in the link below to see that receipt was not required.

https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports ... ethics.pdf

IIRC it's quite similar to what Amos Adamu got banned for as well.

[Enugu II]

What has been posted thus far indicates that Siasia was in contract talks with the club, was on the verge of signing on but that talks broke down after the club failed to agree to pay a sign--on fee to Siasia. Is that a wrong interpretation? Did that show that he (1) signed a contract? (2) agreed to receive inducement to throw games? (3) in fact, threw games? The answer for me is that NONE OF THOSE THINGS EVER HAPPENED> I stand corrected if you can provide information that shows otherwise.

The point you are missing is that in contract talks for a coaching job, Siasia compromised his integrity by agreeing to allow a third party to control 6 of his players in order to manipulate and influence games, in exchange of a promise to receive money. That was enough to violate his FIFA ethics and that is all there is to it. Questions 1 and 3 are irrelevant to the charge at hand. Question 2 is yes to manipulate games. (there was no discussion/accusation about throwing games).

Ps. You do not need to sign a contract for it to be considered legally binding.

Metalalloy

What I think is that none of these matter at all.

He did not sign a contract nor had he received inducement to sign one. This is what I have gathered so far.

What, however, happened is that he was in a contract talk which supposedly broke off because of his demand that was not met. Did he realize that there was a violation if he signed this contract. I believe he did. Why did he not immediately report all of this during or after the contract broke off is a mystery to me. Worse still, why he did not answer the invitation by investigators was critical as well. It may have been due to issues that I stated earlier.

Would he have been able to do what Perumal and his aids wanted, if he had no contract with the club? I do not believe so. To me, that aspect is critical.

Except that it does. His lack of signing or lack of receipt of an inducement is irrelevant. Siasia was a Fifa Official subject to the FIFA Code of Ethics (the "FCE"). That is what he violated when he accepted the offer of a "Bribe" as defined by the FCE. That is what he was convicted of and banned for by FIFA.

Look at the definition of Bribery (page 10) that was in effect at the time in the link below to see that receipt was not required.

https://law.marquette.edu/assets/sports ... ethics.pdf

IIRC it's quite similar to what Amos Adamu got banned for as well.

Metalalloy,

I have looked at the Code of Ethics that you cited. You noted passage 11.1 on Bribery but I do not think that was the key passage in CAS findings. Take a look at the statement from CAS on this issue. The more relevant passage in the Code of conduct that you posted is not 11.1 but 14.1 & 14.2. Again, let me post what CAS ruled that Siasia was guilty of off and let mer know if it dovetails with 11.1 or 14.1 & 2:

While the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS) ruled that Siasia did not receive any bribe and did not fix any match, the court said he erred by not reporting the matter when he was asked to fix matches by a club official at a club he sought to coach.

There is no argument on whether Siasia was in violation. What the debate is, concerns whether or not he received a bribe. I feel that his failure in not reporting the matter was his downfall. When he did not agree with the contract, he should have promptly reported the matter. I assume here that he was aware of the rule but even if he was not, by not reporting, he was clearly in violation. But what should not be in dispute is that Siasia never received any bribe nor did agree to receive one. That much is clearly specified in CAS' ruling which I have reposted here. It is not based on my own conjecture but based on the transcript cited by reports on CAS ruling.

Now, FIFA ruling which preceded CAS ruling is what you are evidently relying on. Now, recall that CAS ruling would have taken into consideration the earlier FIFA ruling. That ruling by FIFA clearly is based on the evidence which they had before them that Siasia agreed to receive an inducement to field players. However, note that Siasia never answered FIFA's request to appear before them during investigation. Thus, he never defended himself and FIFA had to rule based on the evidence that it had before it. We have already mused on several reasons why Siasia may not have appeared and that decision ended up to be at his own detriment.

Subsequently, however, when FIFA's hammer came down it appeared that Siasia realized how serious this was and appealed to CAS and only then did he have representation. It clearly mattered but a tad too late. Why did it matter? evidently, he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling. However, it also does not absolve him from reporting the matter to FIFA at the time of its occurrence. I believe, CAS took those into consideration in the reduction of the sentence.

It will be helpful if you can rely on CAS' ruling to indicate that the passage that I have cited above is in fact incorrect. Why have I stated this? You rely on FIFA's ruling. However, note that FIFA's ruling was actually reviewed by CAS. CAShad opportunity (unlike FIFA) to hear Siasia' side of the matter, and CAS has far more information than you and I in making their final ruling on this matter. Not so?

[txj]

EII,

You are splitting hairs here and I'm not sure why you continue to misstate the specifics.

Siasia never received any bribe nor did agree to receive one.

First he was never charged for receiving bribes.

2nd he was successfully prosecuted for accepting to receive bribes.

3rd CAS never relitigated the charge, but rather "confirmed the challenged decision".

The CAS ruling was mostly about the sanctions, and this is wrt the financial sanctions IN ADDITION to the 5yr ban....
The ruling does not exculpate SS in any way:

he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling.

The Panel simply recognized that the 5yr ban already included a financial punishment.

[metalalloy]

It will be helpful if you can rely on CAS' ruling to indicate that the passage that I have cited above is in fact incorrect. Why have I stated this? You rely on FIFA's ruling. However, note that FIFA's ruling was actually reviewed by CAS. CAShad opportunity (unlike FIFA) to hear Siasia' side of the matter, and CAS has far more information than you and I in making their final ruling on this matter. Not so?

And CAS and FIFA laid everything out in their respective reports. That is what i'm basing my information on.

Subsequently, however, when FIFA's hammer came down it appeared that Siasia realized how serious this was and appealed to CAS and only then did he have representation. It clearly mattered but a tad too late. Why did it matter? evidently, he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling. However, it also does not absolve him from reporting the matter to FIFA at the time of its occurrence. I believe, CAS took those into consideration in the reduction of the sentence.

Again this is incorrect. Siasia was never accused of receiving a bribe. CAS was not asked to rule on whether Siasia received a bribe or not. That is a red herring that you keep repeating. Please see section 246 in the screenshot below.



As you can see above, CAS never "ruled that Siasia did not receive any bribe and did not fix any match." In fact, CAS explicitly said that it was not necessary for them to make a finding on whether or not Siasia actually received any money for agreeing to manipulate matches. You are relying on incorrect summaries of what happened in this case, and making inaccurate statements.

Read the reports yourself.

CAS Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/5a5c06d97 ... dacted.pdf
FIFA Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/655ee14fa ... bs-pdf.pdf

I have looked at the Code of Ethics that you cited. You noted passage 11.1 on Bribery but I do not think that was the key passage in CAS findings. Take a look at the statement from CAS on this issue. The more relevant passage in the Code of conduct that you posted is not 11.1 but 14.1 & 14.2. Again, let me post what CAS ruled that Siasia was guilty of off and let mer know if it dovetails with 11.1 or 14.1 & 2:

Look at Section 247 in the screenshot above.

[Enugu II]

It will be helpful if you can rely on CAS' ruling to indicate that the passage that I have cited above is in fact incorrect. Why have I stated this? You rely on FIFA's ruling. However, note that FIFA's ruling was actually reviewed by CAS. CAShad opportunity (unlike FIFA) to hear Siasia' side of the matter, and CAS has far more information than you and I in making their final ruling on this matter. Not so?

And CAS and FIFA laid everything out in their respective reports. That is what i'm basing my information on.

Subsequently, however, when FIFA's hammer came down it appeared that Siasia realized how serious this was and appealed to CAS and only then did he have representation. It clearly mattered but a tad too late. Why did it matter? evidently, he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling. However, it also does not absolve him from reporting the matter to FIFA at the time of its occurrence. I believe, CAS took those into consideration in the reduction of the sentence.

Again this is incorrect. Siasia was never accused of receiving a bribe. CAS was not asked to rule on whether Siasia received a bribe or not. That is a red herring that you keep repeating. Please see section 246 in the screenshot below.



As you can see above, CAS never "ruled that Siasia did not receive any bribe and did not fix any match." In fact, CAS explicitly said that it was not necessary for them to make a finding on whether or not Siasia actually received any money for agreeing to manipulate matches. You are relying on incorrect summaries of what happened in this case, and making inaccurate statements.

Read the reports yourself.

CAS Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/5a5c06d97 ... dacted.pdf
FIFA Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/655ee14fa ... bs-pdf.pdf

I have looked at the Code of Ethics that you cited. You noted passage 11.1 on Bribery but I do not think that was the key passage in CAS findings. Take a look at the statement from CAS on this issue. The more relevant passage in the Code of conduct that you posted is not 11.1 but 14.1 & 14.2. Again, let me post what CAS ruled that Siasia was guilty of off and let mer know if it dovetails with 11.1 or 14.1 & 2:

Look at Section 247 in the screenshot above.

Metalloy,

I repeatedly bring it up because it matters. It is done deliberately to clearly INDICATE that he did not receive a bribe nor did he participate in compromising match results or any violation of that like. That is an important part of the discourse on this site. If you disagree on the bolded part, then let me know why. Otherwise, I feel that we are going round in circles.

Now on what FIFA charged him with and what CAS ruled on are pretty much clear on the reports, the documents, etc. They are based on an ethical breach. That I have not disagreed with and I do not believe that anyone on this site has indicated any disagreement with that, as far as I am aware. On that, I have repeatedly noted that he could have helped himself by reporting the contact early enough. Unless you claim that even such reporting would not have assisted him as a defense. Here, I assume that he was aware that such reporting is indeed required and expected. The reality of that knowledge is not something that I can vouch for.

[Dammy]

It will be helpful if you can rely on CAS' ruling to indicate that the passage that I have cited above is in fact incorrect. Why have I stated this? You rely on FIFA's ruling. However, note that FIFA's ruling was actually reviewed by CAS. CAShad opportunity (unlike FIFA) to hear Siasia' side of the matter, and CAS has far more information than you and I in making their final ruling on this matter. Not so?

And CAS and FIFA laid everything out in their respective reports. That is what i'm basing my information on.

Subsequently, however, when FIFA's hammer came down it appeared that Siasia realized how serious this was and appealed to CAS and only then did he have representation. It clearly mattered but a tad too late. Why did it matter? evidently, he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling. However, it also does not absolve him from reporting the matter to FIFA at the time of its occurrence. I believe, CAS took those into consideration in the reduction of the sentence.

Again this is incorrect. Siasia was never accused of receiving a bribe. CAS was not asked to rule on whether Siasia received a bribe or not. That is a red herring that you keep repeating. Please see section 246 in the screenshot below.



As you can see above, CAS never "ruled that Siasia did not receive any bribe and did not fix any match." In fact, CAS explicitly said that it was not necessary for them to make a finding on whether or not Siasia actually received any money for agreeing to manipulate matches. You are relying on incorrect summaries of what happened in this case, and making inaccurate statements.

Read the reports yourself.

CAS Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/5a5c06d97 ... dacted.pdf
FIFA Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/655ee14fa ... bs-pdf.pdf

I have looked at the Code of Ethics that you cited. You noted passage 11.1 on Bribery but I do not think that was the key passage in CAS findings. Take a look at the statement from CAS on this issue. The more relevant passage in the Code of conduct that you posted is not 11.1 but 14.1 & 14.2. Again, let me post what CAS ruled that Siasia was guilty of off and let mer know if it dovetails with 11.1 or 14.1 & 2:

Look at Section 247 in the screenshot above.

Metalloy,

I repeatedly bring it up because it matters. It is done deliberately to clearly INDICATE that he did not receive a bribe nor did he participate in compromising match results or any violation of that like. That is an important part of the discourse on this site. If you disagree on the bolded part, then let me know why. Otherwise, I feel that we are going round in circles.

Now on what FIFA charged him with and what CAS ruled on are pretty much clear on the reports, the documents, etc. They are based on an ethical breach. That I have not disagreed with and I do not believe that anyone on this site has indicated any disagreement with that, as far as I am aware. On that, I have repeatedly noted that he could have helped himself by reporting the contact early enough. Unless you claim that even such reporting would not have assisted him as a defense. Here, I assume that he was aware that such reporting is indeed required and expected. The reality of that knowledge is not something that I can vouch for.

Why are you so fond of defending the indefensible!
The intention was there but the opportunity didn’t arise. Conspiracy is as serious a crime as actually committing the crime!
Na real wah for you o!

[Enugu II]

It will be helpful if you can rely on CAS' ruling to indicate that the passage that I have cited above is in fact incorrect. Why have I stated this? You rely on FIFA's ruling. However, note that FIFA's ruling was actually reviewed by CAS. CAShad opportunity (unlike FIFA) to hear Siasia' side of the matter, and CAS has far more information than you and I in making their final ruling on this matter. Not so?

And CAS and FIFA laid everything out in their respective reports. That is what i'm basing my information on.

Subsequently, however, when FIFA's hammer came down it appeared that Siasia realized how serious this was and appealed to CAS and only then did he have representation. It clearly mattered but a tad too late. Why did it matter? evidently, he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling. However, it also does not absolve him from reporting the matter to FIFA at the time of its occurrence. I believe, CAS took those into consideration in the reduction of the sentence.

Again this is incorrect. Siasia was never accused of receiving a bribe. CAS was not asked to rule on whether Siasia received a bribe or not. That is a red herring that you keep repeating. Please see section 246 in the screenshot below.



As you can see above, CAS never "ruled that Siasia did not receive any bribe and did not fix any match." In fact, CAS explicitly said that it was not necessary for them to make a finding on whether or not Siasia actually received any money for agreeing to manipulate matches. You are relying on incorrect summaries of what happened in this case, and making inaccurate statements.

Read the reports yourself.

CAS Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/5a5c06d97 ... dacted.pdf
FIFA Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/655ee14fa ... bs-pdf.pdf

I have looked at the Code of Ethics that you cited. You noted passage 11.1 on Bribery but I do not think that was the key passage in CAS findings. Take a look at the statement from CAS on this issue. The more relevant passage in the Code of conduct that you posted is not 11.1 but 14.1 & 14.2. Again, let me post what CAS ruled that Siasia was guilty of off and let mer know if it dovetails with 11.1 or 14.1 & 2:

Look at Section 247 in the screenshot above.

Metalloy,

I repeatedly bring it up because it matters. It is done deliberately to clearly INDICATE that he did not receive a bribe nor did he participate in compromising match results or any violation of that like. That is an important part of the discourse on this site. If you disagree on the bolded part, then let me know why. Otherwise, I feel that we are going round in circles.

Now on what FIFA charged him with and what CAS ruled on are pretty much clear on the reports, the documents, etc. They are based on an ethical breach. That I have not disagreed with and I do not believe that anyone on this site has indicated any disagreement with that, as far as I am aware. On that, I have repeatedly noted that he could have helped himself by reporting the contact early enough. Unless you claim that even such reporting would not have assisted him as a defense. Here, I assume that he was aware that such reporting is indeed required and expected. The reality of that knowledge is not something that I can vouch for.

Why are you so fond of defending the indefensible!
The intention was there but the opportunity didn’t arise. Conspiracy is as serious a crime as actually committing the crime!
Na real wah for you o!

Dammy,

You sometimes you misread my position. My views are often meant to clarify and to note differences that some may lump together. It is decidedly an academic exercise for me. How I would personally address these transgressions may be very different than you actually think.

[metalalloy]

Metalloy,

I repeatedly bring it up because it matters. It is done deliberately to clearly INDICATE that he did not receive a bribe nor did he participate in compromising match results or any violation of that like. That is an important part of the discourse on this site. If you disagree on the bolded part, then let me know why. Otherwise, I feel that we are going round in circles.

Now on what FIFA charged him with and what CAS ruled on are pretty much clear on the reports, the documents, etc. They are based on an ethical breach. That I have not disagreed with and I do not believe that anyone on this site has indicated any disagreement with that, as far as I am aware. On that, I have repeatedly noted that he could have helped himself by reporting the contact early enough. Unless you claim that even such reporting would not have assisted him as a defense. Here, I assume that he was aware that such reporting is indeed required and expected. The reality of that knowledge is not something that I can vouch for.

Yes we are going around in circles, but I now think I understand your stance. You have no problem with a coach that agreed to work with match fixers to manipulate games, simply because the deal fell through on account of his greed. The key matter to you is that no money changed hands.

I am guessing you had no issue with Amos Adamu when he also fell for the WC BBC bribery sting as well since no money was exchanged?

[Schillachi]

It will be helpful if you can rely on CAS' ruling to indicate that the passage that I have cited above is in fact incorrect. Why have I stated this? You rely on FIFA's ruling. However, note that FIFA's ruling was actually reviewed by CAS. CAShad opportunity (unlike FIFA) to hear Siasia' side of the matter, and CAS has far more information than you and I in making their final ruling on this matter. Not so?

And CAS and FIFA laid everything out in their respective reports. That is what i'm basing my information on.

Subsequently, however, when FIFA's hammer came down it appeared that Siasia realized how serious this was and appealed to CAS and only then did he have representation. It clearly mattered but a tad too late. Why did it matter? evidently, he clearly convinced CAS that he never accepted any bribe and that is clearly demonstrated in CAS' ruling. However, it also does not absolve him from reporting the matter to FIFA at the time of its occurrence. I believe, CAS took those into consideration in the reduction of the sentence.

Again this is incorrect. Siasia was never accused of receiving a bribe. CAS was not asked to rule on whether Siasia received a bribe or not. That is a red herring that you keep repeating. Please see section 246 in the screenshot below.



As you can see above, CAS never "ruled that Siasia did not receive any bribe and did not fix any match." In fact, CAS explicitly said that it was not necessary for them to make a finding on whether or not Siasia actually received any money for agreeing to manipulate matches. You are relying on incorrect summaries of what happened in this case, and making inaccurate statements.

Read the reports yourself.

CAS Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/5a5c06d97 ... dacted.pdf
FIFA Report: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/655ee14fa ... bs-pdf.pdf

I have looked at the Code of Ethics that you cited. You noted passage 11.1 on Bribery but I do not think that was the key passage in CAS findings. Take a look at the statement from CAS on this issue. The more relevant passage in the Code of conduct that you posted is not 11.1 but 14.1 & 14.2. Again, let me post what CAS ruled that Siasia was guilty of off and let mer know if it dovetails with 11.1 or 14.1 & 2:

Look at Section 247 in the screenshot above.

Metalloy,

I repeatedly bring it up because it matters. It is done deliberately to clearly INDICATE that he did not receive a bribe nor did he participate in compromising match results or any violation of that like. That is an important part of the discourse on this site. If you disagree on the bolded part, then let me know why. Otherwise, I feel that we are going round in circles.

Now on what FIFA charged him with and what CAS ruled on are pretty much clear on the reports, the documents, etc. They are based on an ethical breach. That I have not disagreed with and I do not believe that anyone on this site has indicated any disagreement with that, as far as I am aware. On that, I have repeatedly noted that he could have helped himself by reporting the contact early enough. Unless you claim that even such reporting would not have assisted him as a defense. Here, I assume that he was aware that such reporting is indeed required and expected. The reality of that knowledge is not something that I can vouch for.

Why are you so fond of defending the indefensible!
The intention was there but the opportunity didn’t arise. Conspiracy is as serious a crime as actually committing the crime!
Na real wah for you o!

Dammy,

You sometimes you misread my position. My views are often meant to clarify and to note differences that some may lump together. It is decidedly an academic exercise for me. How I would personally address these transgressions may be very different than you actually think.

The part you're skipping over is that he agreed to receive bribes in exchange for match manipulation. You haven't said a word about that, why?

[Sir V]

Make he deh dia till July when Sia sia will be cleared to Coach . I think both Combos will win us the World Cup. If we qualify.

I deh dream... allow me please to.......

You no try at all. You want NFF to bring back Siasia?