QuoteSadlier made good, consistent and strictly-principled points, but, notwithstanding the contradictions in the official story and with regard to purported transparency whilst entering into confidential arrangements, would it be morally wrong and lacking in integrity to accept what is more-or-less an unconditional gift (the only effective condition being silence)? (Of course, whether this was actually the case or not, I don't think we can be sure just yet.) You can ask serious questions of FIFA for offering it, but is it crooked to take it? Perhaps you could look at it in another way and remove ourselves from the equation; if FIFA were handing out millions to other associations willy-nilly just to pacify them and keep them in line, I wouldn't think much of it. The honourable thing would probably be to refuse to accept such dubious payments with no grounding in rules or law. Obviously, we should hold ourselves to the same standards.
That's not to say the FAI didn't have strong legal cases that, combined, could have cost FIFA somewhere in the region of €5 million, so as to justify a settlement before further action was taken. A detailed outline of the nature of the legal cases would be very welcome to clarify matters on that front.
Emmet Malone reckons that leaking it on the day of the World Cup final might actually have been part of the plan of whoever leaked it last year. I thought it a remarkable "coincidence" myself; surely it couldn't just have been by complete chance, could it? Why release it then though? If they wanted it to be overshadowed, why leak at all? What would the point in voluntarily leaking be if it'll have no effect because everyone is looking elsewhere? On the other hand, maybe whoever leaked it thought that, by having it reported on that day, the story could piggyback off the World Cup final coverage and the public, in the mood for football news, might have been more receptive to it?
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Bookmarks