Chan-rant

[Flynny]

I don't see what's so implausible at all. You say to the players 'lose the game', they could quite easily get petulant and go OTT.

It doesn't seem at all likely, but plausible.

[Babylon]

I don't see what's so implausible at all. You say to the players 'lose the game', they could quite easily get petulant and go OTT.

It doesn't seem at all likely, but plausible.

Because they still have pride at stake. Would you want to humiliate yourself to get back at someone else?

[Flynny]

Because they still have pride at stake. Would you want to humiliate yourself to get back at someone else?

If I was getting paid 70k a week I wouldn't really give a shit how badly I lost, if I lost. And if I was asked to throw a game I might just do something petulant to register my disgust.

Like I say, not likely, but perfectly plausible.

[Babylon]

If I was getting paid 70k a week I wouldn't really give a shit how badly I lost, if I lost. And if I was asked to throw a game I might just do something petulant to register my disgust.

Like I say, not likely, but perfectly plausible.

But they wouldn't be getting their 70k a week when they got found guilty of match fixing they would be banned for a long time whether they got told to do it or not. If they had lost 2-0 people wouldn't even be having this conversation, they ship 7 goals and people look for another reason because it doesn't happen very often. Not exactly the smartest way to fix a match is it????

If they are willing to throw a match, they will also be willing to throw it in the manner instructed... I doubt they were told to go and shit 7 goals.

[Bryn]

Alexander,

Are you just embarrassed about being taken in by last night's (literally) incredible scoreline, or do you prefer to live in a land of doltish ignorance?

Rest assured, major newswires, the dead tree press and electronic media are all aware of what happened last night. But remember my friend, we live in a news MANAGEMENT age: the deafening silence surrounding our own footie corruption scandal is evidence of that.

As for 'the deserved winner going through in the end' well, how can a win be 'deserved' if it is a gift? Man U were effectively given a bye to the semi's last night. But you didn't waste good drinking time to come on here simply to share this little pearl of absurdity with me.

The umbrage you took though over my well placed source (absurdly topped off with your irrelevant, silly boast about your knowledge of politicised Ultra's) gives away the real motivation for your post: YOU WISHED YOU'D BROKEN THE STORY YOURSELF.

Your mean spirited demand for the thread to be moved is proof of that. Frankly, I don't give a tinker's cuss where it ends up because I didn't fookin' start it.

Now grow up and get that chip off your shoulder.

Regards,

Chandler

You come across as quite mental and deluded.

Also, I have to say this, but if it means nothing to you just ignore it- are you Damper in disguise?

[Chandler]

As the tone on this thread appears to be getting a little bit more reasonable I will attempt to shed more light on Tuesday's too-good-to-be-true encounter.

Whilst Flynny feels that a 'fix' was unlikely his hypothetical rationalisation for the margin of defeat (player petulance) was the same as that provided by my source today (I'll call him Franco). He thinks Roma players would have gone ballistic when they were first provided with their match 'instructions' and, as a result, might have derived perverse pleasure out of their own humiliation (certainly they didn't look enthusiastic like Peru did when they allowed Argentina through to the World Cup Final in '78 by losing 6-0 to them. The 'deal' there included foreign debt cancellations and free grain shipments).

Whilst Franco is confident Tuesday's fix is linked to AS Roma's offiicially sanctioned disturbances in Rome (and Manchester United's evidence of Roma's involvement and police collusion) neither he nor his colleagues are quite sure why things went off. It could have been a misguided attempt to demonstrate to the Italian authorities (who clamped down hard after the football riots in Catania) that Britain, too, has still got a problem with its own football fans.

One wonders also whether the three most recent publicised instances of crowd trouble in Europe that have all involved English clubs (Man U x 2 & Spurs) in three different countries (France, Italy & Spain) might be linked in some way. A bit far fetched admittedly but, (and both Franco and I realise that this is a very BIG but), what if there was an underlying cause that did link all three events? There was only one explanation that we could come up with that might fit the bill - the World Cup bid.

Now, it's no secret that England wants the WC in 2018. And it's no secret either that lots of other countries want to stage it too, European countries especially. But that's a long way off. After all, 2014 hosting rights have yet to be formally awarded to Brazil. So how could England's bid to host the World Cup have anything to do with a few out of control Carabinieri?

It all depends which World Cup you're talking about now doesn't it? How about THAT one in South Africa in 2010. Yes THAT one, the next one, the one that's barely 3 years away, the one that is looking distinctly wobbly and pear shaped.

The one in a country whose stadia are described by BBC reporters as being way behind schedule. The one in a country where the crime rate is supposed to be soaring (John Simpson's recent vox pop from Joburg on the subject must have been shown a zillion times on BBC 24) even though the stats since 2003 show otherwise.

Anyone who follows current affairs knows that the 2010 World Cup might be taken away from South Africa. But just as Paris lost the 2012 Olympics on political grounds (France's continued opposition to the Iraq war) to a city that really didn't want them because of the expense (and may well be forced to 'hand back' if Cameron becomes PM next year and Jacques continues to 'behave' himself) South Africa could also lose a sporting tournament for political reasons (Mbeki's support for his good friend, neighbour and blood diamond dealer, Chaiman Bob Mugabe).

The country most often cited as the probable beneficiary of South Africa's misfortune is Australia. One might be forgiven for thinking that a country like Oz with a weak footballing infrastructure might struggle to host the World Cup at such short notice. Of course, the Aussies could make a great song and dance of wanting it whilst secretly 'auctioning it off.' But which country is most likely to rub them up the right way?

How about one that speaks the same lingo and has deep historical ties and cultural links? How about one that is football mad and also has the shiniest, newest, most expensive (if not the best) football stadium in the world that has practically bankrupted its owners, the Football Association, to the extent that it might stoop to unheard of lows to recoup its losses?

The unheard of lows in question, the nicking of the 2010 WC from a third world country (FIFA permitting, of course, but Sepp always has a figure in mind), is the political equivalent of stealing candy from a baby to the enlightened blazers of France, Spain and Italy. And, (going from the sublime to the ridiculous) the Latins probably also feel Anglo Saxondom has a habit of welshing on its promises NOT to bid for the WC (Germany 2006) so what's the harm in setting up their hoolies and, in so doing, making INGERLAND appear unfit to wear the hosting shirt?

Now, that's what I call a conspiracy theory (he said ironically)...

PS If you've read Garrison, Babylon, you can't be all that bad so apologies for any venom disproportionately sprayed in your direction. But as a 'believer' you must realise that the idiom 'conspiracy theorist' was coined specifically to denigrate all those who doubted the official explanation of JFK's death.

[James.]

You've written it eloquently and persuasively and no doubt they'll be people on here taken in by it but come on now you don't really believe that do you. Far fetched doesn't even come close. That is prime bullshit of the finest quality.

By all means call me a sheep but you my friend clearly can't see the wood for the trees.

This was a freak result. Nothing more, nothing less.

[MC Prussian]

Chandler's babbling...

[Manwell Pablo]

You've written it eloquently and persuasively and no doubt they'll be people on here taken in by it but come on now you don't really believe that do you. Far fetched doesn't even come close. That is prime bullshit of the finest quality.

By all means call me a sheep but you my friend clearly can't see the wood for the trees.

This was a freak result. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't personally believe it, but picking up on a couple things that have already been said, it is plausible, and mobsters do get away with it 9 times out of 10. And Roma were inexplicabley poor. So I wont be abusing Chandlers little theory.

However I don't know why the Italian authorties would try to discredit us, and I don't believe the World Cup thing, as he said the Aussies will probabley get it should South Africa fall through.

[Floating Fox]

I've just wasted 20 minutes of work time to read your story and to be quite honest it was 100% worth it becasue some of the stuff you have just come out with is pure comedy.

Funniest thing i've read for a long time.

[breadandcheese]

Ha ha. Last night, I was reading your conspiracy (before your lost post Chandler) thinking, "but you haven't given a reason for the crowd trouble." It would have to be a good reason, particularly after linking crowd trouble in Spain and Italy.

It was obvious to me that you would pull up the world cup bid, however, needed something better than the 2018 bid. My hat off to you for the 2010 world cup bid story. However, there are too many flaws, which I would be interested to hear you answer.

Firstly, who is behind the events in your theory? Who is pulling the strings? Talk of powerful factions, countries being named. It sounds like it must be either the Italian, Spanish and possibly the French governments or their footballing authorities. That is a lot of trouble to go to for a tournament, particularly when it would be politically unacceptable to pull the bid from South Africa.

Pulling the bid from South Africa would potentially destroy FIFA. Accusations of racism, legal action flying all over the place. FIFA would be ruined. For that reason, everything will be done to paper over cracks for 2010. Even if the stadia are falling apart or half built, the tournament will be there.

So why would any national government or footballing authority, risk all this for the unlikely event of the 2010 tournament not being held in South Africa? Particularly when the plan of "policing" the hooliganism was so poorly executed and it is clear that the poor policing methods of the Italian and Spanish police forces did not help. UEFA have said European police forces should look to adopt British police tactics, a ringing endorsement of controlling and policing football crowds. It would therefore appear to be an own goal and a shocking plan in the first place for the "Italian, Spanish and French" cabal.

So the poor plan behind the conspiracy, leads me to say, no, this is not a theory I believe. Roma were outclassed.

[Chandler]

So few points raised and so much space to answer. I'll try and do my best.

Let me start by saying that whilst 'Franco' and I are almost 100% certain that the outcome of last Tuesday's Champions League tie between Manchester United and AS Roma was rigged as a result of the former receiving information that the latter, with the assistance of the Italian police, helped to orchestrate last week's violence inside the Olympic Stadium, we are NOT so sure about the motives of these organisations in provoking hooliganism.

We believe that the trouble in Rome MIGHT be linked to other well publicised football related disturbances involving English clubs in France and Spain and that these events MAY also have been officially sanctioned. We further suspect that all of this COULD be part of a wider, covert international campaign to discredit English football and, in so doing, irreparably harm any attempt by an almost bankrupt English FA to hijack the 2010 World Cup.

Both Franco and I acknowledge that our suspicions outlined in the paragraph IMMEDATELY above is a classic conspiracy theory (keep the bricbats coming!). For those of you who believe that FIFA, UEFA, the IOC etc are essentially benign, bureaucratic, apolitical organisations I would like to draw your attention to the following:

The 1934 World Cup finals were rigged. Mussolini had dinner with the referee appointed for the Italy V Austria semi final and bribed him. He also lectured him on his patriotic duty. Incredibly, the referee, Carraro, was an Italian! FIFA later learnt of this meeting but took no action even though Italy went on to win the tournament (this incident was covered in the BBC's documentary on football under communism and fascism screened last year).

The 1954 World Cup finals were rigged directly by FIFA to stop Hungary winning the World Cup. An 'eccentrically arranged tournament' (Jack Rollin - 'The World Cup 1930-1990') pitted the 'Magnificent Magyars' against the strongest sides including holders Uruguay, favourites Brazil and ultimate winners West Germany. Despite this, the Hungarians made it to the final where, 3-2 down with seconds to go, Puskas equalised. The goal was initially given by the referee who then bowed to his linesman who had controversially flagged Puskas offside (all film footage of this 'goal' clearly showed this decision to be wrong).

Fifty years after the final a story broke that needles and vials containing steroids had been found in the West German dressing room but that FIFA had instigated a cover up. It is now acknowledged that in the run up to the '54 finals FIFA officials were heavily leant on by western diplomats to prevent a propaganda victory for the communist Eastern bloc. The West German win came to be seen as a triumph for democracy and as a symbol of national rebirth.

The 1978 World Cup group decider, where Argentina had to beat Peru by four clear goals (they eventually won 6-0 - see previous post) to reach the final, was thrown by Peru. When rumours of this capitulation began to circulate (Rollin again) skeptics pointed out that Peru had managed to hit the inside of the post while the match was still scoreless. But doubts persisted because Argentina's somewhat fortunate World Cup win was seen as essential to keeping in power a very unpopular and barbaric military junta (remember that thousands of Argentinian political activists were 'disappearing' at this time).

It is generally accepted now that CIA agents working on 'Operation Condor' (a programme which, amongst other things, organised military coups to halt the 'communist subversion' of Latin America) indirectly brokered a deal that compensated Peru for their loss of national dignity.

In addition to the above, questions have also been asked about the 1938 tournament (winners - Italy) and Colombia's loss of the 1986 Finals' hosting rights to Mexico (many similarities here with the current situation in South Africa) and the 'too bad to be true' refereeing in 2002 that allowed co hosts South Korea to progess to the semi finals at the direct expense of arch footballing minnows Portugal, Spain and Italy.

This post is already long enough without it going into IOC and FIFA corruption. So just google 'FIFA Corruption' and wave good bye to the rest of your life (just like Andrew Jennings who has spent virtually all his conscious moments investigating the issue for the BBC). All that I'll say is that these organisations are rotten to the core and both they and the shows they put on are susceptible to political manipulation both from within and from without.

So, you see, the act of shifting the 2010 World Cup Finals from South Africa as a result of externally applied political pressure (accompanied, of course, by the obligatory 'douceurs') is not so much a case of 'all in a day's work' for yer average FIFA blazer as 'Hokey-Cokey' (that's what it's all about).

I'll leave it there for the moment as you're all nodding off. Breadandcheese's skepticism deserves a bespoke reply (you really need to get more paranoid, android!).

[MC Prussian]

Lots of MIGHTS, IFS, COULDS in Chandler's previous post, followed by a World Cup/FIFA conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with the inital subject.

Chandler... are you and "Franco" by any chance one and the same person?

Schizophrenia can be treated.

[breadandcheese]

So, you see, the act of shifting the 2010 World Cup Finals from South Africa as a result of externally applied political pressure (accompanied, of course, by the obligatory 'douceurs') is not so much a case of 'all in a day's work' for yer average FIFA blazer as 'Hokey-Cokey' (that's what it's all about).

Whilst FIFA is indeed corrupt, it is too politically sensitive to take the first African world cup away and give it to a developed footballing nation. It would simply destroy FIFA. The legal action would potentially bankrupt FIFA, should they lose, and the accusations of racism, etc would force major splits, potentially leading to breakaway footballing bodies.

As corrupt as FIFA is, they are not that stupid, so I think the motive is poor as it is too unlikely to base a shoddy plan on.

Indeed, the execution of said plan, makes the plan of the Italian, Spanish cabal look shoddy to the point that I can not believe supposedly calculating people would create it. The plan seems to be, police the English matches poorly so crowd trouble arises. Senior UEFA members and I am sure FIFA members realise that the British policing methods were far superior in controlling football crowds in the return legs and that the Spanish/Italian policing helped to contribute to more trouble. Any such plan by the Italians/Spanish has only strengthened Britain's case for holding a world cup. The very opposite of what they want according to the conspiracy.

If the conspiracy is correct, the motivation is wrong (as you testify that you cannot be sure). Should have said Far Eastern betting syndicates.

[Chandler]

Time for a lot of humble pie eating and I am not worthies by the majority on this thread.

Sepp Blatter is being interviewed at 11.05 tonight on the luscious Gaby Logan show, Radio 5 Live.

I understand he is going to be talking about the 2010 World Cup and that he muses openly about the tournament being moved from South Africa.

I understand that he talks about a 'special candidate' that does not need to prepare for the tournament (?)

I understand that I know a lot more than the average bear about all matters footie (including the real reason why Allardyce left Bolton).

[Webbo]

Time for a lot of humble pie eating and I am not worthies by the majority on this thread.

Sepp Blatter is being interviewed at 11.05 tonight on the luscious Gaby Logan show, Radio 5 Live.

I understand he is going to be talking about the 2010 World Cup and that he muses openly about the tournament being moved from South Africa.

I understand that he talks about a 'special candidate' that does not need to prepare for the tournament (?)

it was on the radio this morning, he mentions several countries including england.

I understand that I know a lot more than the average bear about all matters footie (including the real reason why Allardyce left Bolton).

[Chandler]

Sorry chaps the luscious Gaby is to be SEEN on BBC 1 at 11.05 on Inside Sport.

And so is the not so luscious and utterly hideous Sepp Blatter...

[Stinkenzo]

Bollocks.

[breadandcheese]

Humble pie, tell me how it tastes.

No-one has disagreed that England are a strong candidate should South Africs be unable to hold the world cup. However, as I have stated time and again, and as Sepp Blatter put it, plan A is south africa, plan B is south Africa, then plan C we look again. FIFA will still move heaven and earth to ensure the world cup is in South Africa. If South Africa is not in a position to host the world cup, then the facilities must be exceptionally poor. With the politically sensitive nature of the first African tournament, the South African authorities could build a mud-hut stadium with mango tree turnstiles and FIFA will deem it fit for purpose, such us the desire to ensure the first African world cup.

However, the missing piece is your ludricous assertion that Roma lost 7-1 to Man U in a related conspiracy after the Italians "allowed" hooligan activity to develop in the Roma stadium to cast the English fans in a bad light. All this did was cast the Italian police and stewarding in a horrendous light, so if it was a plan, it was poor to say the least.

[Chandler]

Humble pie, tell me how it tastes.

No-one has disagreed that England are a strong candidate should South Africs be unable to hold the world cup. However, as I have stated time and again, and as Sepp Blatter put it, plan A is south africa, plan B is south Africa, then plan C we look again. FIFA will still move heaven and earth to ensure the world cup is in South Africa. If South Africa is not in a position to host the world cup, then the facilities must be exceptionally poor. With the politically sensitive nature of the first African tournament, the South African authorities could build a mud-hut stadium with mango tree turnstiles and FIFA will deem it fit for purpose, such us the desire to ensure the first African world cup.

However, the missing piece is your ludricous assertion that Roma lost 7-1 to Man U in a related conspiracy after the Italians "allowed" hooligan activity to develop in the Roma stadium to cast the English fans in a bad light. All this did was cast the Italian police and stewarding in a horrendous light, so if it was a plan, it was poor to say the least.

Don't you think that it's about time you left the Student Union bar breadandcheese (seeing as most of Westminster are still ensconced there I appreciate that this is easier said than done)? Once you're outside the lecture theatre puking your guts up you might realise that there is big difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.

IF FIFA are prepared to move heaven and earth to ensure that South Africa hosted in the World Cup in 2010 why didn't they let them have it in 2006 when they were the clear favourites? Why did they hand it to Europe again after an interval of only eight years to a country which had already hosted it in modern times?

Like many white liberals you choose to see South Africa principally as a country full of black victims still spiritually led by saint-in-waiting Nelson Mandela. The reality is that the country is ruled by a corrupt regime ( which pockets much of the funding for stadium building including the Cape Town development) that DELIBERATELY allows its population to die of AIDS and props up a neighbouring despot in return for their cut of Congo's blood diamonds.

However, what really alarms FIFA's arm twisters is South Africa's growing rapport with Russia and China (which is what the spat that the 'Anglosphere' has with Zimbabwe is really all about). So it is all down to gepolitics as usual (er... in this context that's who has control over world gold and diamond prices). And that's why when, according to you, Blatter blathers about plan A, B and C he's doing so out of the corner of his mouth. He knows which side his corrupt little scams are buttered on. If he wants to hang on to the presidency (and his illicit little earners) he's got to make the right call.

Does he curry favour with the Latins who, up until recently have been happy to play the East off against the West or does he throw his lot in with the 'Anglospshere?' Actually, things might be getting a little easier for him. The odds are definitely lengthening on Mbeki posturing in front of the world in some half built ruin in Soweto and are visibly shortening, day by day, on the Queen mumbling into the New Wembley PA system in 2010. And that's why Old Europe decided to take a leaf out of our book of dirty tricks (first published in Thames House, revised and updated in Vauxhall Cross) and pulled off their sad little stunts in Lens, Rome and Seville.

Still, they will be forced to come round to our way of thinking (as they always do - thanks to big bruvver over the pond) and this time they might get something out of it. Well, at least Les Frogs will. They're getting the Olympics back didn't you know? That's the scandal primed to go off in Brown's face when he become PM (do you really think all this moaning about cost over-runs has all been for nothing?).

Neat don't you think? Sarkozy get's a big albatross around his neck (but the Gauls just love to thow their money down the drain) from the reluctant, hapless Brown and David Cameron (sorry, but that's the subtext to this sordid affair) gets a bargain basement prezzie (World Cups are hassle-free freebies compared to Olympics) around this time next year. At least these are the best laid plans of the grandees, mandarins and spooks.

Which might not be good enough but are at least a notch up on the Student Union bar...

[Sods]

how long is this going to go on for.

[breadandcheese]

Don't you think that it's about time you left the Student Union bar breadandcheese (seeing as most of Westminster are still ensconced there I appreciate that this is easier said than done)? Once you're outside the lecture theatre puking your guts up you might realise that there is big difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.

IF FIFA are prepared to move heaven and earth to ensure that South Africa hosted in the World Cup in 2010 why didn't they let them have it in 2006 when they were the clear favourites? Why did they hand it to Europe again after an interval of only eight years to a country which had already hosted it in modern times?

Like many white liberals you choose to see South Africa principally as a country full of black victims still spiritually led by saint-in-waiting Nelson Mandela. The reality is that the country is ruled by a corrupt regime ( which pockets much of the funding for stadium building including the Cape Town development) that DELIBERATELY allows its population to die of AIDS and props up a neighbouring despot in return for their cut of Congo's blood diamonds.

However, what really alarms FIFA's arm twisters is South Africa's growing rapport with Russia and China (which is what the spat that the 'Anglosphere' has with Zimbabwe is really all about). So it is all down to gepolitics as usual (er... in this context that's who has control over world gold and diamond prices). And that's why when, according to you, Blatter blathers about plan A, B and C he's doing so out of the corner of his mouth. He knows which side his corrupt little scams are buttered on. If he wants to hang on to the presidency (and his illicit little earners) he's got to make the right call.

Does he curry favour with the Latins who, up until recently have been happy to play the East off against the West or does he throw his lot in with the 'Anglospshere?' Actually, things might be getting a little easier for him. The odds are definitely lengthening on Mbeki posturing in front of the world in some half built ruin in Soweto and are visibly shortening, day by day, on the Queen mumbling into the New Wembley PA system in 2010. And that's why Old Europe decided to take a leaf out of our book of dirty tricks (first published in Thames House, revised and updated in Vauxhall Cross) and pulled off their sad little stunts in Lens, Rome and Seville.

Still, they will be forced to come round to our way of thinking (as they always do - thanks to big bruvver over the pond) and this time they might get something out of it. Well, at least Les Frogs will. They're getting the Olympics back didn't you know? That's the scandal primed to go off in Brown's face when he become PM (do you really think all this moaning about cost over-runs has all been for nothing?).

Neat don't you think? Sarkozy get's a big albatross around his neck (but the Gauls just love to thow their money down the drain) from the reluctant, hapless Brown and David Cameron (sorry, but that's the subtext to this sordid affair) gets a bargain basement prezzie (World Cups are hassle-free freebies compared to Olympics) around this time next year. At least these are the best laid plans of the grandees, mandarins and spooks.

Which might not be good enough but are at least a notch up on the Student Union bar...

Blah blah blah. Now you've had your vitriol old man, answer my question of how exactly the poor show by the Italian police in Rome, would help to persuade FIFA that they would be better candidates than England to host a world cup, should the unlikely event of 2010 South Africa not happen?

This is not the first time Italian police have swung out. Remember the diplomatic incident when Roma met Galatasaray, when even the Turkish authorities asked questions about the policing and stewarding of the Italian police. A kettle calling a pot black.

This whole thing started with your stupid assertion that there was a big conspiracy to stop England hosting 2010 by the Italians who want it. I am asking how the basis of your conspiracy would work, based on the fact that the Italian police and stewarding has been frowned upon by senior members within the game.

Despite your rant, I still think unlikely the world cup will be taken from South Africa, due to the split it would create in world football and the strife it would cause FIFA.

[Phube]

On a neutral front. If ManU were that good (7-1) then how did they lose last night with a whipmer!!??

Did Roma really let them win???

[Chandler]

On a neutral front. If ManU were that good (7-1) then how did they lose last night with a whipmer!!??

Did Roma really let them win???

Fair point Phube...especially when you bear in mind Roma's superior Serie A standing (even allowing for AC's points deductions) and Champions League form.

Another look at Alan Smith's goal in the first half might heighten your suspicions further. The view from behind the goal clearly shows the Roma keeper exagerating his dive AFTER Smith's effort flew past him.

Even more impressive than the Saudi keeper's lamest effort against Germany in the 2002 World Cup (a highly believable 0-8 reverse).

[Webbo]

<utter bolox>

i bet you know who killed lady di as well.