I've already quoted my most recent post (31/10) where I openly acknowledged the possibility that FIFA might decide in favour of the FAI. Find me one post where I ever claimed that the IFA had this "in the bag".
As for "political interference", there has been no such interference that I'm aware of, or have alleged, in the FAI's presentation of their case (nor of the internal running of the FAI, for that matter).
I have consistently argued that should FIFA make a determination - and they haven't yet, btw - any attempt by politicians to subvert, thwart or otherwise interfere with it would not be tolerated by FIFA.
Nothing which has occurred in the last 48 hours has changed that.
As for my "got at" reference, maybe I should have used the less perjorative term "lobbied". Whichever, even John Delaney gave no indication that he knew or guessed FIFA might suggest the latest compromise, when he spoke to RTE on his return from Zurich on Monday 29/10. Since he was rushing back to sack poor Stan the following day, he was in sore need of some good news to announce, yet the best he could come up with was that at least FIFA weren't going to make their determination retrospective i.e. Gibson was OK.
Therefore, someone or something in the intervening week presumably persuaded/caused/lobbied etc someone in FIFA to suggest this third way (compromise), as a means of allowing FIFA to avoid having to come off the fence.
Bookmarks