Triesman accuses FIFA officials of attempted bribery

[facaldaqui]

I see that Lord Triesman has told a Commons Committee that four FIFA representatives asked for bribes to support the England World Cup bid, including financial bribes and a request for a knighthood.

If this leads to investigations by FIFA, all well and good; but why didn't Triesman report these requests at the time? He may have felt unable to prove them, but he could still have reported them privately. In fact he did not tell FIFA, because he didn't want to damage our bid's chances; he also didn't tell the government, presumably because that would have damaged our chances too, if they had kicked off. For me this is unacceptable. It seems that if we had won the bid, Triesman would never have come out with these revelations, and the cycle of corruption would have gone on.

Also, the Sunday Times has accused some FIFA representatives of taking bribes from Qatar. If this proves true, it may explain how the unlikely Qatar bid came from nowhere to win.

[Maguire]

Also, the Sunday Times has accused some FIFA representatives of taking bribes from Qatar. If this proves true, it may explain how the unlikely Qatar bid came from nowhere to win.

Money was the key driver in the Qatar victory? I don't believe it

[Barry the bird boggler]

Also Sepp has apparently said he'll look into the matter....

[PEARCEY]

Lets not forget Triesman was enticed into a honey-trap by that stupid tart of a journalist which wrecked any chance England had of hosting the World Cup. He was in a predicament really. Yes he could have gone public. All parties would have denied his accusations. It would have turned sour and England's bid would have been dead in the water and Triesman would have been the scape-goat.
He wasn't in an envious position all along.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Lets not forget Triesman was enticed into a honey-trap by that stupid tart of a journalist which wrecked any chance England had of hosting the World Cup. He was in a predicament really. Yes he could have gone public. All parties would have denied his accusations. It would have turned sour and England's bid would have been dead in the water and Triesman would have been the scape-goat.
He wasn't in an envious position all along.

But he wasn't. Thre was no enticement. He was talking privately to a female friend (with whom, he may or may not have had a previous relationship) when she went running off and blabbed to the press.

[PEARCEY]

Are you sure Mr Gently? I thought she was a Daily Mail journalist and recorded the meeting.

[ZacNaloen]

I seem to recall that the paper approached her to honey trap him and she accepted

[PEARCEY]

I seem to recall that the paper approached her to honey trap him and she accepted

Yep..so its a bit more than Dirkers was suggesting.

[Svlad Cjelli]

Maybe she was sent in by the Daily Mail - but as far as DT was concerned he was having a private conversaion with an old friend. There's no question of him ever falling for a journalist.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7128203.ece

The facts are simple. Lord Triesman worked with Ms Jacobs, a government aide, when he was a minister, allegedly became intimate with her after he left the Government to head the FA, and was then stung with a concealed tape recorder when they met for one of their regular dinners. Highlights of the transcript were published by The Mail on Sunday yesterday.

But the story here, if there is one, is the innocuousness of Lord Triesman’s remarks. In sixty full minutes of the set-up, the most “explosive” comment — or so we are told — was: “There’s some evidence that the Spanish football authorities are trying to identify the referees [at the upcoming World Cup] . . . and pay them.”

Yep, that’s it. Note that Lord Triesman did not say there was “compelling evidence” or “sufficient evidence to go public”. He merely said that there was “some”. Note, too, that unsubstantiated allegations form a part of many private conversations, including yours and mine. The difference here is that Lord Triesman — who was probably spouting off to impress his young companion — bothered to qualify his assertion.

Of course, had Lord Triesman been talking to other powerbrokers within football, his comments could be considered slanderous. The words, even qualified, could have been construed as an attempt to sully rival organisations. But given that they were spoken in private to a friend with no association with the sport, how can they be considered either malicious or reckless?

On the wider point, we must ask ourselves: have we really arrived in a world where public figures are unable to have private conversations? Do we really believe that individuals in authority should operate on the permanent assumption that their close friends are out to betray them?

[Bandini]

If this leads to investigations by FIFA, all well and good; but why didn't Triesman report these requests at the time?

Perhaps because to do so might have exposed him to a defamation claim, whereas evidence given to a House of Commons Select Committee by a witness is covered by Parliamentary privilege, and so exempt from such claims.

[PEARCEY]

Thing is Dirk she was acting for the Daily Mail and recording the conversation. She was moderately attractive. He's getting on in years. Whether he thought of her as an old friend or not she certainly didn't pereceive him in the same light. Honey-trap as far as I can tell.

[PieEater]

I have to lol at the press thinking these revelations might somehow change FIFA to get their house in order. They answer to nobody and will just ignore it untill it goes away.

I'm sure Blatter is really worried about his re-election, not.

What surprises me is that FIFA's small committee that decides where world cups will go is made up of lesser footballing countries like Trinidad, Ivory Coast, Cameroon, and Thailand, why should they have all this power?

[Royal Rother]

Because they are tinpot footballing nations with inherent corruption within their societies and likely to do as Blatter wants...?