He now denies responsibility for all of this just like a group of individuals at the end of WW2. You couldn't make it up if you tried. I fear that many of the numerous cronies who have experienced his generosity over the years will vote to keep him in place.
Fifa officials including vice president Jeffrey Webb arrested, Blatter getting it at last.
- Thread starter jonneymendoza
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
If Blatter is the boss and he didn't realise all these people were corrupt or making terrible decisions then how is he fit to do the job?
Accountability stops at the top. That's why you get paid big bucks Because you have big responsibilities.
Accountability stops at the top. That's why you get paid big bucks Because you have big responsibilities.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,870
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
does he think we are idiots? The head of the organisation doesn't know what they are doing for 20years?
If he is that blind then he needs to go too because he has failed to prevent it for so long.
If he is that blind then he needs to go too because he has failed to prevent it for so long.
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 25,056
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
So people here saying this forum could be corrupt as well as anything in life?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Depends what you define as corrupt.
If brand A offers OCUK £10,000 'marketing funds' to stock and promote their product and brand B does not, is that a bribe or just business?
What if partner A also takes ocuk staff to the races or funds an an incentive where the OCUK staff get a palmer audi race day for top sales and every time you call ocuk to buy brand B but the sales person tells you A is better because he can get an incentive bonus on it.
That's how this industry works. Is it corrupt?
If brand A offers OCUK £10,000 'marketing funds' to stock and promote their product and brand B does not, is that a bribe or just business?
What if partner A also takes ocuk staff to the races or funds an an incentive where the OCUK staff get a palmer audi race day for top sales and every time you call ocuk to buy brand B but the sales person tells you A is better because he can get an incentive bonus on it.
That's how this industry works. Is it corrupt?
I don't know about retail, but in the industry that I work, the personal incentive thing would be illegal and would be classed as a bribe (e.g. contract negotiations).
Your first example is just about ocuk trying to make as much money as possible.
FIFA of course tries to get the highest paying sponsors. But a personal bribe for such an organisation is illegal in the US and I imagine is in the UK.
edit:
UK Bribery Act 2010
https://www.gov.uk/anti-bribery-policy
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
I work in b2b and b2c and retail IT and have done for 10 years. I worked in marketing, commercial roles.
This is and was typucal. In fact i personally arranged such incentives amd went on a palmer audi race day sponsored by a vendor. I also booked MDF (marketing development funds) as part of my role. In such an industry there is no such regulation. Although when i was working for blue chip company 'gifts' freely sent to individuals had to go into the gift book and were raffledat xmas.
we also did anti bribery training so if supplier x offers you a watch to buy some stock dont do it. Say they offer you MDF and you get a bonus for bringing in MDF that's cool though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
In fifa terms is it corrupt if you buy shares in certain companies and then award them contracts and profit on your investments? There's a myriad of ways it can be done with or without cash in brown envelopes skid across the desk.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There are without question shills on this forum who pretend to be forum members but basically just troll one brand or another.
Everything is corrupt, humans like power and money and given the chance to get either the majority would be willing to screw other people over to get them.
Yes, pretty much everything is corrupt, that is life, it sucks but that is life.
AMD would have made hundreds of millions, potentially billions more if Intel wasn't paying OEM's to not sell AMD products. As a result years later AMD is in debt rather than in profit, if they had made billions extra in the first 2-3 years of Ath 64 chips they could have potentially expanded or at least gotten out of all debt and been a lot healthier as a result.
Likewise AMD 'only' got 1.25billion when the court case against Intel finally got settled, why, because AMD were in debt Intel could simply outspend, out manoeuvre AMD in court, file for appeal after a appeal and AMD wouldn't have gotten any more money. Both because judges can be corrupt but because they would end up spending hundreds more millions on court fees over 5+ years. It was cheaper for Intel to pay AMD off and AMD were somewhat forced to take what money was on offer because they didn't have the money to keep fighting.
VIcious circle, Intel pay companies not to use AMD which puts AMD in debt, because AMD aren't in debt despite what Intel having done being proven and being clearly illegal Intel's financial position vs AMD's means AMD can't actually take advantage and take the court case forward recouping costs and getting a bigger payout.
I forget the Creative situation, along the lines of using using Aureal's patents for their products, Creative knowing they would lose a court case sued first and even though eventually courts ruled in favour of Aureal, they were bankrupt at this point. Creative had the cash to fight Aureal into bankruptcy and after being bankrupt Creative simply bought the patents for a fraction of their value and became a bigger player in the industry. This is the kind of case which shows why AMD couldn't afford to fight Intel for years in the court system even though their case was completely solid.
Nvidia got WAY more money over a MUCH smaller issue with Intel simply because Intel knew they'd lose, wanted to save on the lawyer fees so settled earlier and knew Nvidia had the cash on hand to take them through a court case to the end.
WHat is and isn't legal in terms of stocking one product over another is... questionable. Intel did something completely illegal but literally saying don't stock their products and we'll charge you less for our cpus. Now they say more along the lines of hey, you want to ship 10million units this year, as a massive coincidence we happen to have an offer on where 9,999,999 cpu's would cost you 2billion, but if you order 10million units we'll charge you 1.5billion. This means it just so happens that it makes sense for Dell for instance to push, advertise and sell as many Intel units as they can and as few AMD units as they can.
When someone decides that is illegal they will change the terms of such discounts and try to blur the reasons for such deals.
It's dodgy behaviour if OCUK took 10k for pushing one product, how legal it is depends. If someone said here is 10k, stop buying MSI gpus... that is afaik completely illegal. If they said here is 10k for advertising space and it isn't dependent on anything to do with anything else they sell, it's fine. If they offer 10k and imply they'll get the 10k if it becomes clear OCUK would push Gigabyte more than MSI, talk MSI down on the forums or anything, that would be dodgy as hell... potentially illegal but incredibly hard to enforce.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yup, there are sooo many ways corruption/bribery occurs through other channels. Many dodgy, many obvious, many very very hard to prove and prosecute. The fact is that again it's a case of having enough laws in place that those in power can screw people they want to, or ignore or let other companies get away with it... usually when they have a vested interest.
That is usually what corruption/bribery charges come down to, political/financial motivation to go after a company or genuine cause as in Aureal/AMD cases. Ultimately the richest player at the table tends to win because of the aforementioned problems with court cases and the legal system.
It isn't commonplace as you make out in a very blase manner "oh look at me I'm a man of the world I know how it works"
Are there corrupt organisations out there? Absolutely, but it is not common place because of the fines jail terms companies/individuals can have brought against them. It certainly exists but not in the scale you suggest and certainly not as blatantly as companies get hammered.
If you work in any large multinational with a shred of reputation you will know what I am talking about as getting contracts in most western countries in a company considered corrupt is horrific. Walk into any multinational and see the scale of their compliance departments.
If you want a real life example look at Siemens for starters.
Just because some people do it does not make it acceptable and nor should we stop caring as DM so blithely suggests.
I work for multinational American company and the former president who has just left i think a couple years ago is being brought up on fraud chargers while in charge of the company. He was the last person you would think would do that. Now this said company i work for has mandatory course on sexual harassment and bribery every six months if you don't complete it you get pulled up. So when you think its not going on the people at the top say one think do another. Do as i say not as i do.
Corruption is a part of our daily lives whether people want to admit it or not..in UK, USA and Europe just because you dont see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That multi-million dollar contract didn't just happen because of good POC and sales pitch.
I find it shocking that FIFA were so obvious about it back in 2010 and yet it's taken all this time for this to happen.
I mean the whole thing about Qatar's fleet of "air conditioned stadia" was the backbone of their bid and yet what happened to all that? It got shelved, never mentioned again, and FIFA instead choose to move the whole competition "and screw the consequences".
I mean come on, really?
I mean the whole thing about Qatar's fleet of "air conditioned stadia" was the backbone of their bid and yet what happened to all that? It got shelved, never mentioned again, and FIFA instead choose to move the whole competition "and screw the consequences".
I mean come on, really?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
What i find most shocking is that sepp blatter has had no competition in the previous couple of elections.
Where's mr Woodward? Surely someone could have stood as opposition?
Where's mr Woodward? Surely someone could have stood as opposition?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 2,028
Sepps my boy he will survive this
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
It looks like everyone is now falling in line behind the FIFA gravy train.
I don't think is sunk in that we now have to go at least the next 11 years before we have any hope of a world cup that isn't tainted by bugs, controversy, and serious corruption.
It's a farce.
It's corrupt if the incentives offered are outside of the established or legal framework.
If FIFA want's to auction the world cup rights, fine, they are perfectly entitled to do so. However, that's not how the bidding process is supposed to work. They should be more transparent, and if they are going to behave like a business, they should set themselves up as a business.
I don't think is sunk in that we now have to go at least the next 11 years before we have any hope of a world cup that isn't tainted by bugs, controversy, and serious corruption.
It's a farce.
It's corrupt if the incentives offered are outside of the established or legal framework.
If FIFA want's to auction the world cup rights, fine, they are perfectly entitled to do so. However, that's not how the bidding process is supposed to work. They should be more transparent, and if they are going to behave like a business, they should set themselves up as a business.
Last edited:
