Jump to content
Melbourne Football

Fold FIFA


Tesla
 Share

Recommended Posts

I must be dumb but I don't quite see why FIFA (and other organizations) are subject to US law in this case.

 

Neither did I in the recent BHP case. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/bhp-billiton-hit-with-fine-over-corruption-allegations/6486036 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be dumb but I don't quite see why FIFA (and other organizations) are subject to US law in this case.

 

Neither did I in the recent BHP case. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/bhp-billiton-hit-with-fine-over-corruption-allegations/6486036 

It's not FIFA, it's individual FIFA committee members.

They are subject to US law as, according to the articles i've read:

1. The alleged corruption occurred in meetings in the US

2. Finances were transferred through the US utilising US banks.

There is also a separate matter from what I understand, with FIFA itself being looked into, but this is being done by the Swiss authorities (where FIFA is based).

As for BHP, it's listed in Australia, London, and NY. Note that the article regarding BHP says the SEC are the ones that prosecuted them, the SEC have jurisdiction because BHP is listed on the NYSE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be dumb but I don't quite see why FIFA (and other organizations) are subject to US law in this case. Neither did I in the recent BHP case. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/bhp-billiton-hit-with-fine-over-corruption-allegations/6486036 It's not FIFA, it's individual FIFA committee members.They are subject to US law as, according to the articles i've read:1. The alleged corruption occurred in meetings in the US2. Finances were transferred through the US utilising US banks.There is also a separate matter from what I understand, with FIFA itself being looked into, but this is being done by the Swiss authorities (where FIFA is based).As for BHP, it's listed in Australia, London, and NY. Note that the article regarding BHP says the SEC are the ones that prosecuted them, the SEC have jurisdiction because BHP is listed on the NYSE.

Correct. It will be about any activity that touches upon US law - so people laundering or corrupting doing business in the US or through US companies. The Swiss are now saying they will conduct their own investigation. So this could lead them to the heart of FIFA HQ. Blatter & Co I presume.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nine-fifa-officials-and-five-corporate-executives-indicted-racketeering-conspiracy-and

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America :clap: :clap: :clap:

Cheers Yanks!

 

Septic Bladder gonna be taken on a special one way tour of Alcatraz and never leave the crappy island  :P

No.... It's time to send the chopper with the crew which found Sadam in the middle of the night then take him over the Atlantic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

America :clap: :clap: :clap:

Cheers Yanks!

 

Septic Bladder gonna be taken on a special one way tour of Alcatraz and never leave the crappy island  :P

No.... It's time to send the chopper with the crew which found Sadam in the middle of the night then take him over the Atlantic

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say this story has taken me by surprise. I'd always thought that FIFA, rather like the IOC, were a law onto themselves and completely untouchable.

Even now I'm wondering that the charged individuals could have a defence along the lines of "you call it a bribe we call it a fee for service".

I hope though it finally leads to FIFA being cleaned up, as the awarding of a World Cup to Qatar should have been the last straw for their den of corruption.

Edited by Shahanga
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Qatar decision "blew their cover", as thinly disguised as it was. Nobody that has the best interests of the game at heart would schedule the World Cup in summer in one of the hottest countries on Earth. And then reschedule to winter, disrupting most of the world's major football seasons. Not unless a lot of money changed hands!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must be dumb but I don't quite see why FIFA (and other organizations) are subject to US law in this case. Neither did I in the recent BHP case. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-21/bhp-billiton-hit-with-fine-over-corruption-allegations/6486036 

It's not FIFA, it's individual FIFA committee members.They are subject to US law as, according to the articles i've read:1. The alleged corruption occurred in meetings in the US2. Finances were transferred through the US utilising US banks.There is also a separate matter from what I understand, with FIFA itself being looked into, but this is being done by the Swiss authorities (where FIFA is based).As for BHP, it's listed in Australia, London, and NY. Note that the article regarding BHP says the SEC are the ones that prosecuted them, the SEC have jurisdiction because BHP is listed on the NYSE.

Correct. It will be about any activity that touches upon US law - so people laundering or corrupting doing business in the US or through US companies. The Swiss are now saying they will conduct their own investigation. So this could lead them to the heart of FIFA HQ. Blatter & Co I presume.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nine-fifa-officials-and-five-corporate-executives-indicted-racketeering-conspiracy-and

An earlier article I read suggested Swiss authorities raided the FIFA HQ already and collected evidence.

Dis gon be good.

Actually it could be shit, as corrupt as FIFA and Blater appear to be, Blater has taken the game to another level while being in charge, and the whole thing could turn to shit if someone like Platini was in charge instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say this story has taken me by surprise. I'd always thought that FIFA, rather like the IOC, were a law onto themselves and completely untouchable.

Even now I'm wondering that the charged individuals could have a defence along the lines of "you call it a bribe we call it a fee for service".

I hope though it finally leads to FIFA being cleaned up, as the awarding of a World Cup to Qatar should have been the last straw for their den of corruption.

Agree. Very hard to draw distinct lines here. Did my stockbroker "bribe" me when he gave me two tickets to a session at the Australian Open Tennis a few years' ago? Did my employer "bribe" me with a company car as part of my salary package (fringe benefit)? When I changed jobs did my new employer "bribe" me by offering me a higher salary than I was getting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

As Jimmy will tell you; I am happy to provide you a tinfoil hat from my collection.  

Yes an opinion against the enlightened like yourself is surely the epitome of stupidy. :up:

Seriously though is there anything wrong with having a different opinion?

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?

To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I must say this story has taken me by surprise. I'd always thought that FIFA, rather like the IOC, were a law onto themselves and completely untouchable.

Even now I'm wondering that the charged individuals could have a defence along the lines of "you call it a bribe we call it a fee for service".

I hope though it finally leads to FIFA being cleaned up, as the awarding of a World Cup to Qatar should have been the last straw for their den of corruption.

Agree. Very hard to draw distinct lines here. Did my stockbroker "bribe" me when he gave me two tickets to a session at the Australian Open Tennis a few years' ago? Did my employer "bribe" me with a company car as part of my salary package (fringe benefit)? When I changed jobs did my new employer "bribe" me by offering me a higher salary than I was getting?

 

If your stockbroker gave you tickets to the Aus Open because he wanted you to vote to install him on the board of the company you were on, then yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

As Jimmy will tell you; I am happy to provide you a tinfoil hat from my collection.

Yes an opinion against the enlightened like yourself is surely the epitome of stupidy. :up:

Seriously though is there anything wrong with having a different opinion?

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished? To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC? Can confirm thisphantomfortress actually believes in tin foil hats.

This is a compliment of the highest order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

As Jimmy will tell you; I am happy to provide you a tinfoil hat from my collection.

Yes an opinion against the enlightened like yourself is surely the epitome of stupidy. :up:

Seriously though is there anything wrong with having a different opinion?

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC?Can confirm thisphantomfortress actually believes in tin foil hats.

This is a compliment of the highest order. Well then that changes everything

Edited by n i k o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I must say this story has taken me by surprise. I'd always thought that FIFA, rather like the IOC, were a law onto themselves and completely untouchable.

Even now I'm wondering that the charged individuals could have a defence along the lines of "you call it a bribe we call it a fee for service".

I hope though it finally leads to FIFA being cleaned up, as the awarding of a World Cup to Qatar should have been the last straw for their den of corruption.

Agree. Very hard to draw distinct lines here. Did my stockbroker "bribe" me when he gave me two tickets to a session at the Australian Open Tennis a few years' ago? Did my employer "bribe" me with a company car as part of my salary package (fringe benefit)? When I changed jobs did my new employer "bribe" me by offering me a higher salary than I was getting?

 

If your stockbroker gave you tickets to the Aus Open because he wanted you to vote to install him on the board of the company you were on, then yeah.

And if it was just to keep doing business with him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I must say this story has taken me by surprise. I'd always thought that FIFA, rather like the IOC, were a law onto themselves and completely untouchable.

Even now I'm wondering that the charged individuals could have a defence along the lines of "you call it a bribe we call it a fee for service".

I hope though it finally leads to FIFA being cleaned up, as the awarding of a World Cup to Qatar should have been the last straw for their den of corruption.

Agree. Very hard to draw distinct lines here. Did my stockbroker "bribe" me when he gave me two tickets to a session at the Australian Open Tennis a few years' ago? Did my employer "bribe" me with a company car as part of my salary package (fringe benefit)? When I changed jobs did my new employer "bribe" me by offering me a higher salary than I was getting?

 

If your stockbroker gave you tickets to the Aus Open because he wanted you to vote to install him on the board of the company you were on, then yeah.

And if it was just to keep doing business with him?

 

Very grey indeed. On a side note, I find the whole gratuity system in the US very close to bribery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?

To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC?

How about I let you choose the reason for the GFC, so you have the best possible opportunity to explain to me what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC?How about I let you choose the reason for the GFC, so you have the best possible opportunity to explain to me what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished? What is considered illegal and what should be illegal are two different things.

It starts back further than this, but the point at which the GFC was set in motion was when the lenders(banks) allowed people with high risk to take out loans. Normally these people would be considered to be too high risk that they wouldn't be allowed to borrow money, but now these people could borrow with no down payment or proof of income. The reason the lenders wanted more mortgages was because the investment bankers were making a great profit from these mortgages. They got to the point where to make more of a profit they needed more mortgages hence the more lax restrictions on those who qualify for these mortgages.

Because of the greed of these bankers what ended up happening was a lot of people couldn't make their repayments and the lenders ended up with the house. This happened so much that it created a greater supply than demand making house prices plummet. When house prices plummeted people already paying their loans didn't want to pay a loan of 400k back when the value of it had dropped down to 100k so they stopped making the payments. The investment bankers then had all these properties but no money coming in, which they tried to offload, but their investors didn't want a part of it. In the end the financial institutions start to go bankrupt and then the shit hits the fan.

Because of greed billions of people's dollars were lost, millions of people around the world lost their jobs. And for this, those at the centre of that greed should have faced legal charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC?How about I let you choose the reason for the GFC, so you have the best possible opportunity to explain to me what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?What is considered illegal and what should be illegal are two different things.

It starts back further than this, but the point at which the GFC was set in motion was when the lenders(banks) allowed people with high risk to take out loans. Normally these people would be considered to be too high risk that they wouldn't be allowed to borrow money, but now these people could borrow with no down payment or proof of income. The reason the lenders wanted more mortgages was because the investment bankers were making a great profit from these mortgages. They got to the point where to make more of a profit they needed more mortgages hence the more lax restrictions on those who qualify for these mortgages.

Because of the greed of these bankers what ended up happening was a lot of people couldn't make their repayments and the lenders ended up with the house. This happened so much that it created a greater supply than demand making house prices plummet. When house prices plummeted people already paying their loans didn't want to pay a loan of 400k back when the value of it had dropped down to 100k so they stopped making the payments. The investment bankers then had all these properties but no money coming in, which they tried to offload, but their investors didn't want a part of it. In the end the financial institutions start to go bankrupt and then the shit hits the fan.

Because of greed billions of people's dollars were lost, millions of people around the world lost their jobs. And for this, those at the centre of that greed should have faced legal charges. Don't disagree with this, but it is also my understanding that there was a lot of political pressure in the U.S. To lend money to people who were less well off to allow them to become home owners.

Just because you mean well doesn't mean it ends well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blatter re-elected. What an absolute fucking joke.

A joke yes, but Sadly I thought this was very likely.

Interesting what happens now, the western sponsors will presumably walk and I can't imagine UEFA clubs agreeing to release players for the corrupt Qatar cup. Worst thing is blatter and his mates will now look to shaft us for backing Prince Ali.

Probably the games best hope is that the yanks catch Blatter too.

Edited by Shahanga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished? To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC? How about I let you choose the reason for the GFC, so you have the best possible opportunity to explain to me what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished? What is considered illegal and what should be illegal are two different things.

It starts back further than this, but the point at which the GFC was set in motion was when the lenders(banks) allowed people with high risk to take out loans. Normally these people would be considered to be too high risk that they wouldn't be allowed to borrow money, but now these people could borrow with no down payment or proof of income. The reason the lenders wanted more mortgages was because the investment bankers were making a great profit from these mortgages. They got to the point where to make more of a profit they needed more mortgages hence the more lax restrictions on those who qualify for these mortgages.

Because of the greed of these bankers what ended up happening was a lot of people couldn't make their repayments and the lenders ended up with the house. This happened so much that it created a greater supply than demand making house prices plummet. When house prices plummeted people already paying their loans didn't want to pay a loan of 400k back when the value of it had dropped down to 100k so they stopped making the payments. The investment bankers then had all these properties but no money coming in, which they tried to offload, but their investors didn't want a part of it. In the end the financial institutions start to go bankrupt and then the shit hits the fan.

Because of greed billions of people's dollars were lost, millions of people around the world lost their jobs. And for this, those at the centre of that greed should have faced legal charges. Don't disagree with this, but it is also my understanding that there was a lot of political pressure in the U.S. To lend money to people who were less well off to allow them to become home owners.

Just because you mean well doesn't mean it ends well.

 

 

Correct.

 

Another big issue/contributing factor in the US is/was that a mortgage is attached solely to the mortgaged property and not the person. Hence if a person owed more on the value of their home than it was worth they would just walk out of the home. This caused everything to snowball once property prices started dropping from the initial defaults from high risk lending. As more people default it leads to property prices to keep dropping and thus more people in turn defaulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lenders were handing out mortgages with high risk and that because they knew well in advance that should they go bust the government/federal reserve would bail them out. If there was no security of bail out or no central bank there is no way these lenders would have taken on these high risk mortgages. The U.S. and Britain combined injected 1.2 trillion dollars into saving these financial institutions which put these governments into more debt.

Personally I'd also love to make ridiculously high risk investments with other people's money knowing that if I lose it I'll be reimbursed. I'd end up quite rich while others have to fork out money to save me.

Edited by n i k o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?
To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC?
How about I let you choose the reason for the GFC, so you have the best possible opportunity to explain to me what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?
What is considered illegal and what should be illegal are two different things.

It starts back further than this, but the point at which the GFC was set in motion was when the lenders(banks) allowed people with high risk to take out loans. Normally these people would be considered to be too high risk that they wouldn't be allowed to borrow money, but now these people could borrow with no down payment or proof of income. The reason the lenders wanted more mortgages was because the investment bankers were making a great profit from these mortgages. They got to the point where to make more of a profit they needed more mortgages hence the more lax restrictions on those who qualify for these mortgages.

Because of the greed of these bankers what ended up happening was a lot of people couldn't make their repayments and the lenders ended up with the house. This happened so much that it created a greater supply than demand making house prices plummet. When house prices plummeted people already paying their loans didn't want to pay a loan of 400k back when the value of it had dropped down to 100k so they stopped making the payments. The investment bankers then had all these properties but no money coming in, which they tried to offload, but their investors didn't want a part of it. In the end the financial institutions start to go bankrupt and then the shit hits the fan.

Because of greed billions of people's dollars were lost, millions of people around the world lost their jobs. And for this, those at the centre of that greed should have faced legal charges.

Don't disagree with this, but it is also my understanding that there was a lot of political pressure in the U.S. To lend money to people who were less well off to allow them to become home owners.

Just because you mean well doesn't mean it ends well.

https://twitter.com/behindthegamepd/status/603720949133742081

One persons opinion. Without doubt right about the wealthy elite and their criminal actions going unpunished.

Sorry but what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?To answer a question with a question, what was the reason for the GFC?How about I let you choose the reason for the GFC, so you have the best possible opportunity to explain to me what illegal actions relating to the GFC have gone unpunished?What is considered illegal and what should be illegal are two different things.

It starts back further than this, but the point at which the GFC was set in motion was when the lenders(banks) allowed people with high risk to take out loans. Normally these people would be considered to be too high risk that they wouldn't be allowed to borrow money, but now these people could borrow with no down payment or proof of income. The reason the lenders wanted more mortgages was because the investment bankers were making a great profit from these mortgages. They got to the point where to make more of a profit they needed more mortgages hence the more lax restrictions on those who qualify for these mortgages.

Because of the greed of these bankers what ended up happening was a lot of people couldn't make their repayments and the lenders ended up with the house. This happened so much that it created a greater supply than demand making house prices plummet. When house prices plummeted people already paying their loans didn't want to pay a loan of 400k back when the value of it had dropped down to 100k so they stopped making the payments. The investment bankers then had all these properties but no money coming in, which they tried to offload, but their investors didn't want a part of it. In the end the financial institutions start to go bankrupt and then the shit hits the fan.

Because of greed billions of people's dollars were lost, millions of people around the world lost their jobs. And for this, those at the centre of that greed should have faced legal charges.

Don't disagree with this, but it is also my understanding that there was a lot of political pressure in the U.S. To lend money to people who were less well off to allow them to become home owners.

Just because you mean well doesn't mean it ends well.

I guess it depends on where you think this political pressure is coming from and if you believe it was done with the best intentions.

Edited by n i k o
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lenders were handing out mortgages with high risk and that because they knew well in advance that should they go bust the government/federal reserve would bail them out. If there was no security of bail out or no central bank there is no way these lenders would have taken on these high risk mortgages. The U.S. and Britain combined injected 1.2 trillion dollars into saving these financial institutions which put these governments into more debt.

Personally I'd also love to make ridiculously high risk investments with other people's money knowing that if I lose it I'll be reimbursed. I'd end up quite rich while others have to fork out money to save me.

 

Technically incorrect. As those who were lending weren't the ones going broke. The people lending didn't care as much as they should have as because they were insured for it (see credit default swap).  The ones who went broke were the insurers.  Other players who were to blame were the likes of Lehmann Brothers et al whose portfolios had too high a risk by investing in sub prime mortgages.  I think it was Lehmann Brothers who instigated the sell off of these investments to de-risk their portfolio, which kicked off a massive downward spiral.

 

A big risk of so much leveraging is that when things go right their are huge gains to be made (further enticing people to take more risk), but when it goes wrong it really goes wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...