Thursday, March 17, 2016

FIFA is hilarious.

The gall of FIFA remains strong. They admit more corruption... and then ask for $190 million because their corruption affected something something something. Hell, I didn't do anything wrong, so obviously that means I should be good to receive at least a half-million bucks. Right?

I'm getting seriously tired of these dirty, entitled punks.

- Greg Seltzer


dikranovich said...

"Everybody better clean up their own back yard, before they go knocking on their neighbors door". House of pain aka USDOJ

But you know what, that quote really applies for everyone. kRSone

Lord knows if anyone has the dish on blazer, it's undoubtably trump. Of course now, everyone has it.

DaM said...

This isn't as black and white as it seems. I entirely and utterly hate being on the side of FIFA here, but they have a pretty solid legal argument. I am not saying that it would be "fair" for FIFA to get reimbursed... but FIFA itself is not Blatter or Chuck or any of the people who have been accused of wrong doing. Now I think it is absurd that FIFA operates as a non profit, but even if we consider them a corporation or some other insular entity, the fact of the matter is those corporations have legal existence outside of the people who ostensibly run them. In other words, it wasn't FIFA that embezzled money from itself, it was people who should have been acting as fiduciaries of FIFA who violated their obligations and stole money. Where did that money come from? FIFA, of course. Soooo, looking just at the legality of the whole thing and from someone who has not read any of the pleadings (1) millions of dollars in assets belonging to individuals who were accused of the crimes related to FIFA operations (e.g. Traffic) are being held right now, (2) those assets came from, I believe, funds that were, at some point, paid to or in the possession of FIFA (and presumably should have been earmarked towards FIFA's "non profit" activities ... again, different issue) (3) FIFA is suing to get those assets back which they would then use as dictated by the aforementioned profit/non-profit purposes of FIFA.

TLDR version FIFA is an entity apart from the people who run or are employed by FIFA. Assets currently frozen by the US and Swiss governments presumably were, in some amount, misappropriated from FIFA by the individuals currently accused. FIFA would like the money back, please.


dikranovich said...

DaM little buddy, it is very clear, and very black and white. Possession is 9/10ths of the law. FIFA is not getting that money back.

Actually, they could make it back by hosting a World Cup in the USA, and after Russia and Qatar, FIFA will be itching for the kind of big payday that pretty much only the USA can deliver.

DaM said...

What an absolutely meaningless thing to say. Really, you are citing colonial time law from the old hatfield v mccoy feud as a relevant point in current legal practice?

Sometimes dude, it's just better to shut up and not show how ignorant you are. It's a really complicated question that in no way can be boiled down to traditional archaic anglo saxon legal principles (not even sure which banks have been involved here, but Africa, for instance has an entirely different legal precedent with the onus on the one asserting ownership in court... etc.)

Seriously, give it a rest, you know nothing about the law whatsoever.

dikranovich said...

DaM, maybe you didn't pass that question on the test, but U.S. Law is based on common law, and as you may or may not know, Common law is a colonial time law, like even before the hatfield and McCoy days,

On another note, I don't really appreciate your tone, but I think everyone knows it's just internet bravado.

Zach said...

Well, we found something Dik knows less about than soccer.

DaM said...

Common law is not colonial time law. That is ludicrously misinformed. Our very earliest common law was based on common law brought over from england, but stare decisis never meant that the common law does not evolve. The equivalent of a month of 1L tort class would have taught you that. Or even a cursory google search. You have no clue what you are talking about. None whatsoever. for the record we now have statutes that govern much of what the common law used to cover. including ownership (every state has it's own version of article 9 of the UCC but the general gist of when something is "owned" can be found there if you really feel like educating yourself).

On another note, when you refer to someone as "little buddy" you are being obviously demeaning. I attempted friendliness months ago. That ship has sailed. I can forgive ignorance but clearly you just troll here trying to piss people off. So I don't particularly care how you feel about my tone. It's Greg's site. If he has an issue with my tone I am sure he will say something.

Anyway, I am sure Greg will be along to close this thread as neither of us are talking about soccer here, but man you would be a much better troll if you stuck to things you had at least a modicum of knowledge about..... sooooo baseball maybe?

Tom said...


dikranovich said...

Dam, maybe you confuse civil law and common law, or maybe you prefer civil law, but you probably live in California. I mean common law and civil law came from the same period, which was colonial period, or really probably pre colonial. It really all come from Charlemagne.

Another good one for FIFA to remember. Caveat emptor!!

Dam, please tell me what common sense law is going to say " go ahead, make a bribe, and if it doesn't work out the way you like, go try and collect the money." It ain't happening.

Besides, federal law basically states that if you claim to be a victim, yet you are proven to have known about the nefarious offenses and benefitted, then you ain't getting squat. Case closed!!!

Kirk Diggler said...

Haha. Great stuf

dikranovich said...

The real truth is that the article Greg referenced is not very accurate. FIFA are not looking for $190 million, rather they are hoping they may recoup ten cents on the dollar. In the end, it is a nominal amount, and the case FIFA is pursuing is about positioning to play the role of victim.

DaM said...

There is nothing remotely correct about your statement... again. There is nothing to confuse about common and civil law... you don't make even the slightest bit of sense. our system is what our system is, nobody is going to suddenly confuse it for germany, but we certainly have a robust system of statutes (both state and federal) which supercede case law. not even worth discussing. the cfr exists... are you pretending it doesnt? it almost feels like you are just typing random stuff :)

I explained how FIFA has a legal avenue to recouping money embezzled from them. It's actually a pretty common corporate concept. Not that I would expect you to know that.

Equittable estoppel is not "federal law"... it's just a concept of courts at equity and is applied more in state courts than anywhere... and again is just a random barely related to reality legal fact. Won't come into play in FIFA's case whatsoever.

Caveat emptor... what exactly was fifa a buyer of? Don't use latin. You are bad at latin.

This is actually kind of fun, it's like having a discussion about the law with a creative chimpanzee :)

Zach said...

Or a 1L