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

[Enugu II]

You know he was banned for match-fixing, right?

I think his ban ends in July (I believe it was reduced). The main question is why do we think these coaches like working together or it would work? Both men are HC caliber. This is not the NFL where 2 or 3 former head coaches can work together. One can be hired to coach the offense and the other defense or special teams.

Sure. I'm just wondering why he'd want to hire someone whose been banned for match-fixing? Why example does it set?

Yeyeman

You keep mentioning that Siasia was banned for match-fixing:
As far as I can recall, that claim is not accurate.

What is accurate is that Siasia was banned for failing to respond, in a timely manner, to allegations of match fixing. There is a difference.

If you state otherwise, can you please let us know which match Siasia was found guilty of fixing and the details of that finding. It will better inform me as I want to be sure that I am fully informed.

initially sanctioned in 2019 by Fifa for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

Txj,

That is what he was charged with. However, he never defended the case and there was no proof that he in fact received the bribe nor acted to impact a game. In reality, there was never a proof that he received bribe nor was there proof that he fixed a single match. In reality, Siasia acted naively and demonstrated extreme poor judgment by not reporting the matter. When he received the charge document, he further messed up. For some reason (possibly money issues) he ignored the charge, thinking that it will not be acted on. BIG MISTAKE. The reality, however, is that there was never a proof nor did he defend the charges. You may want to read this:

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.


https://saharareporters.com/2021/08/03/ ... a-us-court

OK, but if he didn't defend the case or if the case wasn't heard then how can you say there was no proof (or evidence)?

But fair enough we can say he showed extremely poor judgement on two occasions. This affair is still enough to rule him out of managing the SE, IMO.

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

[txj]

I think his ban ends in July (I believe it was reduced). The main question is why do we think these coaches like working together or it would work? Both men are HC caliber. This is not the NFL where 2 or 3 former head coaches can work together. One can be hired to coach the offense and the other defense or special teams.

Sure. I'm just wondering why he'd want to hire someone whose been banned for match-fixing? Why example does it set?

Yeyeman

You keep mentioning that Siasia was banned for match-fixing:
As far as I can recall, that claim is not accurate.

What is accurate is that Siasia was banned for failing to respond, in a timely manner, to allegations of match fixing. There is a difference.

If you state otherwise, can you please let us know which match Siasia was found guilty of fixing and the details of that finding. It will better inform me as I want to be sure that I am fully informed.

initially sanctioned in 2019 by Fifa for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

Txj,

That is what he was charged with. However, he never defended the case and there was no proof that he in fact received the bribe nor acted to impact a game. In reality, there was never a proof that he received bribe nor was there proof that he fixed a single match. In reality, Siasia acted naively and demonstrated extreme poor judgment by not reporting the matter. When he received the charge document, he further messed up. For some reason (possibly money issues) he ignored the charge, thinking that it will not be acted on. BIG MISTAKE. The reality, however, is that there was never a proof nor did he defend the charges. You may want to read this:

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.


https://saharareporters.com/2021/08/03/ ... a-us-court

OK, but if he didn't defend the case or if the case wasn't heard then how can you say there was no proof (or evidence)?

But fair enough we can say he showed extremely poor judgement on two occasions. This affair is still enough to rule him out of managing the SE, IMO.

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

That was never the charge and was not what he was convicted for.

He was convicted for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

The rest of it frankly is irrelevant...

[deanotito]

It’s time for NFF to announce a coach. We need a permanent coach that can fully commit to the job, given the proximity of the qualifiers. Fiddling around is putting the whole operation at risk

[Dammy]

I just got the information that the Benin v Nigeria WCQ in June will be played on neutral ground in Abidjan, the stadium where the SE won 3 matches during AFCON.
Everything in this group seems to be working in our favour as 2 of our opponents, Zimbabwe and Benin don’t have home advantage. It will be a shame if we don’t get our act together and qualify from this favourable group

[TonyTheTigerKiller]

Sure. I'm just wondering why he'd want to hire someone whose been banned for match-fixing? Why example does it set?

Yeyeman

You keep mentioning that Siasia was banned for match-fixing:
As far as I can recall, that claim is not accurate.

What is accurate is that Siasia was banned for failing to respond, in a timely manner, to allegations of match fixing. There is a difference.

If you state otherwise, can you please let us know which match Siasia was found guilty of fixing and the details of that finding. It will better inform me as I want to be sure that I am fully informed.

initially sanctioned in 2019 by Fifa for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

Txj,

That is what he was charged with. However, he never defended the case and there was no proof that he in fact received the bribe nor acted to impact a game. In reality, there was never a proof that he received bribe nor was there proof that he fixed a single match. In reality, Siasia acted naively and demonstrated extreme poor judgment by not reporting the matter. When he received the charge document, he further messed up. For some reason (possibly money issues) he ignored the charge, thinking that it will not be acted on. BIG MISTAKE. The reality, however, is that there was never a proof nor did he defend the charges. You may want to read this:

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.


https://saharareporters.com/2021/08/03/ ... a-us-court

OK, but if he didn't defend the case or if the case wasn't heard then how can you say there was no proof (or evidence)?

But fair enough we can say he showed extremely poor judgement on two occasions. This affair is still enough to rule him out of managing the SE, IMO.

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

That was never the charge and was not what he was convicted for.

He was convicted for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

The rest of it frankly is irrelevant...

Mr. “Spinner”, you know the highlighted is patently untrue. Where was it ever established or reported that Siasia “agreed” to receive bribes? This is just your own self-serving interpretation


Cheers.

[txj]

Yeyeman

You keep mentioning that Siasia was banned for match-fixing:
As far as I can recall, that claim is not accurate.

What is accurate is that Siasia was banned for failing to respond, in a timely manner, to allegations of match fixing. There is a difference.

If you state otherwise, can you please let us know which match Siasia was found guilty of fixing and the details of that finding. It will better inform me as I want to be sure that I am fully informed.

initially sanctioned in 2019 by Fifa for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

Txj,

That is what he was charged with. However, he never defended the case and there was no proof that he in fact received the bribe nor acted to impact a game. In reality, there was never a proof that he received bribe nor was there proof that he fixed a single match. In reality, Siasia acted naively and demonstrated extreme poor judgment by not reporting the matter. When he received the charge document, he further messed up. For some reason (possibly money issues) he ignored the charge, thinking that it will not be acted on. BIG MISTAKE. The reality, however, is that there was never a proof nor did he defend the charges. You may want to read this:

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.


https://saharareporters.com/2021/08/03/ ... a-us-court

OK, but if he didn't defend the case or if the case wasn't heard then how can you say there was no proof (or evidence)?

But fair enough we can say he showed extremely poor judgement on two occasions. This affair is still enough to rule him out of managing the SE, IMO.

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

That was never the charge and was not what he was convicted for.

He was convicted for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

The rest of it frankly is irrelevant...

Mr. “Spinner”, you know the highlighted is patently untrue. Where was it ever established or reported that Siasia “agreed” to receive bribes? This is just your own self-serving interpretation


Cheers.

Former Nigeria coach Samson Siasia has been banned for life by Fifa for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

Siasia was coach of Nigeria between 2010-2011 and for a spell in 2016 but the time period when Fifa believes he committed his infractions is unclear.

He has also served as coach of the country's Under-20 and Under-23 sides.

"The Ethics Committee has found Mr Siasia, a former official of the Nigeria Football Federation, guilty of having accepted that he would receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches in violation of the Fifa Code of Ethics," said a Fifa statement.

Siasia, who has yet to comment, was banned "for life from all football-related activities (administrative, sports or any other) at both national and international level. In addition, a fine in the amount of CHF 50,000 (US$50,000) has been imposed on Mr Siasia."

The sanction stems from an ongoing 'large-scale investigation' Fifa is conducting into the behaviour of Wilson Raj Perumal, a convicted match-fixer from Singapore.

He is the third African to be banned by Fifa for his links to Perumal after former Sierra Leone FA official Abu Bakarr Kabba and former Botswana FA official Mooketsi Kgotlele were suspended in July for five years and for life respectively.

A former international, Siasia won the 1994 Africa Cup of Nations with Nigeria, for whom he played over 50 times while scoring 16 goals.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/49375036

[metalalloy]

...we persist with this uncertainty....

1. The NFF needs to confirm Finidi as substantive manager and remove the interim tag, or hire a new manager, based hopefully on a criteria that they may have determined.

WHY?

Because Finidi, both figuratively and substantively looked like an interim manager, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, his team looked like an "interim team", both in tactics, personnel and mentality. In the two games....

I'm not concerned about the result or the performance, although I would strongly disagree with his assessment of the 2nd game.

I'm concerned about the mentality. You expect a "new manager bounce" with a new appointment. There was nothing visible here...

2. However, from the two friendlies, its very hard to make any conclusions about Finidi, one way or the other.

Its very hard to make conclusions about any manager on the basis of non-competitive games, but you do get one or two clues.

3. What are these clues and are they of any concern or encouraging, looking ahead?

(a) He wants to play two strikers to improve ball possession/retention up top, as well as the pressing system.

vs Ghana he was willing to sacrifice the wide MFs and use the wingbacks for width. A very poor Ghana offered little in response to challenge this concept of the game.

But it did improve MF play with Ndidi back alongside Onyeka and Iwobi allowed to find the game.

However the movement up top and the relationships among attacking players was surprisingly lacking for long periods, except notably on the 2nd goal, during which a wide MF, Lookman had come on...

This weakness was especially glaring in the 2nd game, and the Malian press in central MF rendered this concept completely ineffective.

Without quality wingbacks, and lacking wide MFs, Nigeria never controlled the game, and he was not able to or willing to pivot...For all the criticisms of Peseiro, re substitutes, its easy to see why he lacked confidence in his bench.

I was especially disappointed not to see Tella come in to test this concept of the game, either as a wingback as he plays in Leverkusen, or a wide midfielder.

Furthermore, without Onyeka the integrity of the press was badly exposed by the Malian triangles in possession, which leads me to the defensive side of the game.

(b) While there were some positive signs on offense, the defensive block that we came out of AFCON with seemed not to exist anymore. That is a MAJOR concern.

4. There's a need to keep developing this team in terms of looking for new options in MF and defence. That process needs to continue, but not with players like Tanimu, who will need a longer time...

We need to focus on players who are performing at a higher level. We need to qualify for the WC not win an affirmative action contest...

5. Finally, Finidi is a reflection of where we are wrt Nigerian managers. He has the advantage of being already part of the setup. IMO the NFF needs to confirm him and let him build his staff and get down to work.

Alternatively, hire a new manager ASAP.

If we persist with this uncertainty, I fear SA will beat us to a spot in the WCQs.

And we need to accept the fact that this is a young manager who will learn, and HOPEFULLY, grow on the job.

Good write up. Couldnt agree more with the highlighted.

[metalalloy]

Yeyeman

You keep mentioning that Siasia was banned for match-fixing:
As far as I can recall, that claim is not accurate.

What is accurate is that Siasia was banned for failing to respond, in a timely manner, to allegations of match fixing. There is a difference.

If you state otherwise, can you please let us know which match Siasia was found guilty of fixing and the details of that finding. It will better inform me as I want to be sure that I am fully informed.

initially sanctioned in 2019 by Fifa for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

Txj,

That is what he was charged with. However, he never defended the case and there was no proof that he in fact received the bribe nor acted to impact a game. In reality, there was never a proof that he received bribe nor was there proof that he fixed a single match. In reality, Siasia acted naively and demonstrated extreme poor judgment by not reporting the matter. When he received the charge document, he further messed up. For some reason (possibly money issues) he ignored the charge, thinking that it will not be acted on. BIG MISTAKE. The reality, however, is that there was never a proof nor did he defend the charges. You may want to read this:

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.


https://saharareporters.com/2021/08/03/ ... a-us-court

OK, but if he didn't defend the case or if the case wasn't heard then how can you say there was no proof (or evidence)?

But fair enough we can say he showed extremely poor judgement on two occasions. This affair is still enough to rule him out of managing the SE, IMO.

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

That was never the charge and was not what he was convicted for.

He was convicted for agreeing to "receive bribes in relation to the manipulation of matches."

The rest of it frankly is irrelevant...

Mr. “Spinner”, you know the highlighted is patently untrue. Where was it ever established or reported that Siasia “agreed” to receive bribes? This is just your own self-serving interpretation


Cheers.

He negotiated with them for 2 months and the deal fell apart because Siasia was asking for too much!!! There is no defense for his actions other than stating that he served his punishment, and perhaps should be given a second chance.

[metalalloy]

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

There was nothing naive about his actions. He knew exactly what he was doing.

[Dammy]

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

There was nothing naive about his actions. He knew exactly what he was doing.

I am a big Siasia fan but he was anything but naive. He knew what he was doing and if FIFA had waited or set him up, he may have been caught red handed

[Enugu II]

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

There was nothing naive about his actions. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Metalloy,

I believe he was naive. Of course, that is my reasoned opinion given the events.

The FACTS of the case are as follows:

1) Siasia communicated with the match fixers.
2) Siasia never received any bribe.
3) Siasia did not "throw" any match.

The above points are not in dispute.

What Siasia was guilty of and why I consider his actions naive are as follows:

1. Siasia failed to report his encounter to the authorities.
2. FIFA got wind of the event and began to investigate, Siasia failed to answer FIFA's request to assist in the investigation. He somewhat wished it would go away. It did not, and FIFA asserted its punishment.
3. Siasia only responded after FIFA asserted a punishment. It was way too late.
4. Ultimately, Siasia did get a reprieve when he went to CAS and the latter reduced FIFA's initial punishment.

[metalalloy]

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

There was nothing naive about his actions. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Metalloy,

I believe he was naive. Of course, that is my reasoned opinion given the events.

The FACTS of the case are as follows:

1) Siasia communicated with the match fixers.
2) Siasia never received any bribe.
3) Siasia did not "throw" any match.

The above points are not in dispute.

What Siasia was guilty of and why I consider his actions naive are as follows:

1. Siasia failed to report his encounter to the authorities.
2. FIFA got wind of the event and began to investigate, Siasia failed to answer FIFA's request to assist in the investigation. He somewhat wished it would go away. It did not, and FIFA asserted its punishment.
3. Siasia only responded after FIFA asserted a punishment. It was way too late.
4. Ultimately, Siasia did get a reprieve when he went to CAS and the latter reduced FIFA's initial punishment.

The FACTS of the case are as follows:

1) Siasia communicated with the match fixers.
2) Siasia never received any bribe.

Prof,

He wasn't charged with the receipt of a bribe. Siasia never received any bribe because the offer was for him to coach a team that Perumal was going to take over in the Australian league. Perumal did not own the team yet, and was looking for a coach, and was looking to hire Siasia. They discussed for two months, and a potential agreement was hammered out. The deal fell apart subsequently because Siasia greedily inquired about a signing bonus. AT that point, Perumal rejected his offer and said that he had hired a coach from Argentina. So that is why he was charged and convicted by FIFA of agreeing to receive bribes (in the future) to manipulate matches. His main defense was that he did not have an opportunity to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses before FIFA took its action. That failure was solely his fault.

2. FIFA got wind of the event and began to investigate, Siasia failed to answer FIFA's request to assist in the investigation. He somewhat wished it would go away. It did not, and FIFA asserted its punishment.

FIFA only found out after Perumal was arrested in Finland, and info was shared with them. The reduction in the punishment by CAS was because a lifetime ban and a financial penalty was seen as too harsh for a first time offender, he hadn't received any money for his conduct, and that a 5 year ban was sufficient deterrent for future conduct. It says nothing about his innocence.

The Panel determined the imposition of a life ban to be disproportionate for a first offence which was
committed passively and which had not had an adverse or immediate effect on football stakeholders,
and that a five-year ban would still achieve the envisaged aim of punishing the infringement committed
by Mr Siasia. The Panel acknowledged the need for sanctions to be sufficiently high enough to
eradicate bribery and especially match-fixing in football. However, the Panel considered in the
particular circumstances of this matter that it would be inappropriate and excessive to impose a
financial sanction in addition to the five-year ban, since the ban sanction already incorporated a
financial punishment in eliminating football as a source of revenue for Mr Siasia, and considering that
Mr Siasia had not obtained any gain or pecuniary benefit from his unethical behavior.

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_ ... e_6439.pdf

[Eaglezbeak]

Well with the qualifiers coming up next the NFF should’ve had their man already even if was watching 1 or both of those games.
The NFF and and thing run by the Nigerian government is unprofessional,unprepared and unlikely to succeed.
Argue or agree it’s a mess out there,good luck to the players (not the ones planted into the team) I know they’ll try.

[Enugu II]

YeyeMan

The fact is that it is pretty much clear that he never threw a match. However, it is also clear that he met the match fixers.

When given opportunity to step up and defend himself, he did not. Nor did he ever report the matter to the authorities.

My view is that Siasia was naive and to his detriment. Do I think the penalty is unfair? Not at all. It is a fair penalty, naivety or not. However, to claim that he INDEED received bribes is an overreach.

There was nothing naive about his actions. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Metalloy,

I believe he was naive. Of course, that is my reasoned opinion given the events.

The FACTS of the case are as follows:

1) Siasia communicated with the match fixers.
2) Siasia never received any bribe.
3) Siasia did not "throw" any match.

The above points are not in dispute.

What Siasia was guilty of and why I consider his actions naive are as follows:

1. Siasia failed to report his encounter to the authorities.
2. FIFA got wind of the event and began to investigate, Siasia failed to answer FIFA's request to assist in the investigation. He somewhat wished it would go away. It did not, and FIFA asserted its punishment.
3. Siasia only responded after FIFA asserted a punishment. It was way too late.
4. Ultimately, Siasia did get a reprieve when he went to CAS and the latter reduced FIFA's initial punishment.

The FACTS of the case are as follows:

1) Siasia communicated with the match fixers.
2) Siasia never received any bribe.

Prof,

He wasn't charged with the receipt of a bribe. Siasia never received any bribe because the offer was for him to coach a team that Perumal was going to take over in the Australian league. Perumal did not own the team yet, and was looking for a coach, and was looking to hire Siasia. They discussed for two months, and a potential agreement was hammered out. The deal fell apart subsequently because Siasia greedily inquired about a signing bonus. AT that point, Perumal rejected his offer and said that he had hired a coach from Argentina. So that is why he was charged and convicted by FIFA of agreeing to receive bribes (in the future) to manipulate matches. His main defense was that he did not have an opportunity to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses before FIFA took its action. That failure was solely his fault.

2. FIFA got wind of the event and began to investigate, Siasia failed to answer FIFA's request to assist in the investigation. He somewhat wished it would go away. It did not, and FIFA asserted its punishment.

FIFA only found out after Perumal was arrested in Finland, and info was shared with them. The reduction in the punishment by CAS was because a lifetime ban and a financial penalty was seen as too harsh for a first time offender, he hadn't received any money for his conduct, and that a 5 year ban was sufficient deterrent for future conduct. It says nothing about his innocence.

The Panel determined the imposition of a life ban to be disproportionate for a first offence which was
committed passively and which had not had an adverse or immediate effect on football stakeholders,
and that a five-year ban would still achieve the envisaged aim of punishing the infringement committed
by Mr Siasia. The Panel acknowledged the need for sanctions to be sufficiently high enough to
eradicate bribery and especially match-fixing in football. However, the Panel considered in the
particular circumstances of this matter that it would be inappropriate and excessive to impose a
financial sanction in addition to the five-year ban, since the ban sanction already incorporated a
financial punishment in eliminating football as a source of revenue for Mr Siasia, and considering that
Mr Siasia had not obtained any gain or pecuniary benefit from his unethical behavior.

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_ ... e_6439.pdf

My bad using the word bribe in the earlier statement. what I was referring to is the plan to have him use certain players which was part of the plot and to throw games. Those were the offers made by the match fixers as part of the terms. Siasia never agreed terms with them.

The key issue is that Siasia ought to have reported these issues with FIFA but he did not. Neither did he address the letter and charges sent to him. He was, thus, punished for those offences i.e. not answering the charges and not reporting the matter. Beyond that, Siasia was not found guilty of any specific violation involving match-fixing or accepting anything of value for such. However, CAS duly reduced FIFA's punishment, as you mention above, finding the punishment excessive.

[metalalloy]

My bad using the word bribe in the earlier statement. what I was referring to is the plan to have him use certain players which was part of the plot and to throw games. Those were the offers made by the match fixers as part of the terms. Siasia never agreed terms with them.

The key issue is that Siasia ought to have reported these issues with FIFA but he did not. Neither did he address the letter and charges sent to him. He was, thus, punished for those offences i.e. not answering the charges and not reporting the matter. Beyond that, Siasia was not found guilty of any specific violation involving match-fixing or accepting anything of value for such. However, CAS duly reduced FIFA's punishment, as you mention above, finding the punishment excessive.

Prof he did oh in the emails that FIFA had. Siasia said "I am fine with your golden rules"...He agreed to not drop Perumal's players.

[Enugu II]

My bad using the word bribe in the earlier statement. what I was referring to is the plan to have him use certain players which was part of the plot and to throw games. Those were the offers made by the match fixers as part of the terms. Siasia never agreed terms with them.

The key issue is that Siasia ought to have reported these issues with FIFA but he did not. Neither did he address the letter and charges sent to him. He was, thus, punished for those offences i.e. not answering the charges and not reporting the matter. Beyond that, Siasia was not found guilty of any specific violation involving match-fixing or accepting anything of value for such. However, CAS duly reduced FIFA's punishment, as you mention above, finding the punishment excessive.

Prof he did oh in the emails that FIFA had. Siasia said "I am fine with your golden rules"...He agreed to not drop Perumal's players.

Metalloy,

You are referring to the things that were going on during negotiation but he never agreed to the terms. Otherwise, what prevented him from signing on? He was involved in an ongoing negotiation where multiple terms were discussed. He ended up not signing on the offer. What is unknown is was it just the contract terms that prevented him from signing or was there other information that he became aware of?

When I consider the issues, it appears to me that where Siasia made major mistakes is (1) not alerting FIFA on this issue, and (2) not addressing FIFA's inquiry when an opportunity was presented to him to do so.

[metalalloy]

My bad using the word bribe in the earlier statement. what I was referring to is the plan to have him use certain players which was part of the plot and to throw games. Those were the offers made by the match fixers as part of the terms. Siasia never agreed terms with them.

The key issue is that Siasia ought to have reported these issues with FIFA but he did not. Neither did he address the letter and charges sent to him. He was, thus, punished for those offences i.e. not answering the charges and not reporting the matter. Beyond that, Siasia was not found guilty of any specific violation involving match-fixing or accepting anything of value for such. However, CAS duly reduced FIFA's punishment, as you mention above, finding the punishment excessive.

Prof he did oh in the emails that FIFA had. Siasia said "I am fine with your golden rules"...He agreed to not drop Perumal's players.

Metalloy,

You are referring to the things that were going on during negotiation but he never agreed to the terms. Otherwise, what prevented him from signing on? He was involved in an ongoing negotiation where multiple terms were discussed. He ended up not signing on the offer. What is unknown is was it just the contract terms that prevented him from signing or was there other information that he became aware of?

When I consider the issues, it appears to me that where Siasia made major mistakes is (1) not alerting FIFA on this issue, and (2) not addressing FIFA's inquiry when an opportunity was presented to him to do so.

What is unknown is was it just the contract terms that prevented him from signing or was there other information that he became aware of?

It is not unknown. In the email, Siasia said, "I am fine with your offer but i need a signing on fee with it" . Perumal/the club withdrew the offer when Siasia asked for a sign on bonus of $200,000. SIASIA in emails agreed to not drop 6 african players under Perumal's control. The emails between the duo were included in the FIFA docs and referenced by CAS.

[Schillachi]

My bad using the word bribe in the earlier statement. what I was referring to is the plan to have him use certain players which was part of the plot and to throw games. Those were the offers made by the match fixers as part of the terms. Siasia never agreed terms with them.

The key issue is that Siasia ought to have reported these issues with FIFA but he did not. Neither did he address the letter and charges sent to him. He was, thus, punished for those offences i.e. not answering the charges and not reporting the matter. Beyond that, Siasia was not found guilty of any specific violation involving match-fixing or accepting anything of value for such. However, CAS duly reduced FIFA's punishment, as you mention above, finding the punishment excessive.

Prof he did oh in the emails that FIFA had. Siasia said "I am fine with your golden rules"...He agreed to not drop Perumal's players.

Metalloy,

You are referring to the things that were going on during negotiation but he never agreed to the terms. Otherwise, what prevented him from signing on? He was involved in an ongoing negotiation where multiple terms were discussed. He ended up not signing on the offer. What is unknown is was it just the contract terms that prevented him from signing or was there other information that he became aware of?

When I consider the issues, it appears to me that where Siasia made major mistakes is (1) not alerting FIFA on this issue, and (2) not addressing FIFA's inquiry when an opportunity was presented to him to do so.

What is unknown is was it just the contract terms that prevented him from signing or was there other information that he became aware of?

It is not unknown. In the email, Siasia said, "I am fine with your offer but i need a signing on fee with it" . Perumal/the club withdrew the offer when Siasia asked for a sign on bonus of $200,000. SIASIA in emails agreed to not drop 6 african players under Perumal's control. The emails between the duo were included in the FIFA docs and referenced by CAS.

Boss Enugu II, why are you not addressing the quotes?

[OJI]

I just got the information that the Benin v Nigeria WCQ in June will be played on neutral ground in Abidjan, the stadium where the SE won 3 matches during AFCON.
Everything in this group seems to be working in our favour as 2 of our opponents, Zimbabwe and Benin don’t have home advantage. It will be a shame if we don’t get our act together and qualify from this favourable group

If true, is the idea for the SuperEagles playes to revisit the trauma of losing in CIV by playing at the The Felix Houphouet Boigny Stadium? Plus 1 to the Béninoise coaching/adminsitrative crew for step 1 in the psychological warfare checklist.

If true, have the Béninoise coaching crew attributed Nigeria's loss to the weather conditions, and hope the broken clock will be right again?

If true, this time the Nigerian CIV-based crowd that couldn't get tickets for the final would probably come out en masse.

[Enugu II]

My bad using the word bribe in the earlier statement. what I was referring to is the plan to have him use certain players which was part of the plot and to throw games. Those were the offers made by the match fixers as part of the terms. Siasia never agreed terms with them.

The key issue is that Siasia ought to have reported these issues with FIFA but he did not. Neither did he address the letter and charges sent to him. He was, thus, punished for those offences i.e. not answering the charges and not reporting the matter. Beyond that, Siasia was not found guilty of any specific violation involving match-fixing or accepting anything of value for such. However, CAS duly reduced FIFA's punishment, as you mention above, finding the punishment excessive.

Prof he did oh in the emails that FIFA had. Siasia said "I am fine with your golden rules"...He agreed to not drop Perumal's players.

Metalloy,

You are referring to the things that were going on during negotiation but he never agreed to the terms. Otherwise, what prevented him from signing on? He was involved in an ongoing negotiation where multiple terms were discussed. He ended up not signing on the offer. What is unknown is was it just the contract terms that prevented him from signing or was there other information that he became aware of?

When I consider the issues, it appears to me that where Siasia made major mistakes is (1) not alerting FIFA on this issue, and (2) not addressing FIFA's inquiry when an opportunity was presented to him to do so.

What is unknown is was it just the contract terms that prevented him from signing or was there other information that he became aware of?

It is not unknown. In the email, Siasia said, "I am fine with your offer but i need a signing on fee with it" . Perumal/the club withdrew the offer when Siasia asked for a sign on bonus of $200,000. SIASIA in emails agreed to not drop 6 african players under Perumal's control. The emails between the duo were included in the FIFA docs and referenced by CAS.

Boss Enugu II, why are you not addressing the quotes?

Schillachi,

I am addressing the notes. Which one have I not addressed? Did Siasia sign a contract with them? That he verbally say yes, based on this story, does not STILL constitute signing a contract, does it? Did he discuss with them? Yes, he did. I do not believe that was ever in dispute. Did he agree with them? Unless you are going with a verbal agreement as indicated here but he never signed on and I do not believe the contract is enforceable based on what this report stated. Did he receive inducement to fix matches? I do not believe that ever happened from stories that I have read? Did he fix matches? I do not believe so, either. All that should be simple enough to understand. Did Siasia make errors on this issue? I do not think that was ever disputable. I just feel that Siasia should have made a better decision after he did not sign on.

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.

Let me know if there is anything that I have missed.

[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.

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

[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.

[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.