Kiss England's World Cup 2018 Bid Goodbye

 Kiss England's World Cup 2018 Bid Goodbye

You may as well kiss England’s chances of winning the 2018 World Cup bid goodbye. England’s 2018 World Cup bid lay in tatters this weekend after The Mail On Sunday newspaper revealed that FA Chief Lord Triesman accused Spain and Russia of trying to bribe World Cup referees.

And today, it was announced that Triesman has quit as chairman of the 2018 World Cup bid.

In addition to that, The Mail revealed that Triesman was cheating on his wife and was involved in an intimate affair with a girl who was formerly his private secretary. This coming from a man who was supposed to be rebuilding the scandal-clad reputation that the FA has had and the disastrous 2018 World Cup bid thus far.

Lord Triesman’s intimate relationship with his former private secretary became so cozy that Triesman confided inside information about the 2018 World Cup bid process. Namely that Triesman believed that Spain may withdraw its bid to stage the 2018 finals if Russia, which also wants to host the event, helps it to bribe referees in next month’s World Cup tournament in South Africa.

Whether Triesman’s allegations are factual or not, it’s a damaging blow to England’s chances of winning the 2018 World Cup bid. The latest scandal certainly helps Russia’s chances of winning the race for 2018.

For the Football Association, it’s another dark day in their history. Mistake after mistake. Scandal after scandal. When will they learn?


26 thoughts on “Kiss England's World Cup 2018 Bid Goodbye”

  1. The bribery accusation is bad, but the affair could help get seppblatter on board. The jt affair did not raise many eyebrows across the channel.

    1. US has no chance at 2018, it’s all but assured it’s being awarded to a European Nation.

      2022 is the best chance for the US

      1. cr7 you are probaly right. but remember how much fifa loves money. all the infrastructure and big stadiums the us has means lots of money. correct me if im wrong but wasn’t usa 94 the most profitable world cup up to date.

  2. The private secretary must have been ugly and fat. That guy is disgusting looking.

    I hope England can somehow rebound from all this. We need the WC back in England. The usa just had it!! Only 16 years ago to England’s 44!!! 16 is much less than 44.

  3. This Triesman guy seems like an entitled twunt of the 1st order. With one of those two countries he accuses not adverse to a bit of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours, it doesn’t seem that outlandish a thought…however, he should have kept a conspiracy theory like that to himself.

    As an aside, FIFA is generally a pretty corrupt organization, with guys like Jack Warner and Blatter at the helm.

  4. It’s a shame, Lord Triesman should’ve kept his bloodly mouth shut but at the end of the day it’s another example of the shocking state of journalism in the UK. It seems that privicy means NOTHING to them. First Max Mosley now this.

  5. The married Lord Triesman moralizes to his former mistress about John Terry’s adultery while heading the FA?

    Melissa Jacobs wears a wire and turns over her text messages to nail the man that she describes as still being a “friend.”

    Triesman implies that he would attempt to get the Queen to knight a prospective voter if it was an option.

    Why did the high court abrogate Lord Triesman’s right to privacy? Was it similar to the improper usage claim in Terry’s super injunction? On the surface it looks like a poor ruling and scary precedent. You can no longer have dinner with someone and expect that your conversation will not potentially be on the front page of the Sunday Mail?

    There might be attempts at bribery in Russia. That’s shocking?

    The privacy concerns and the accusation of the Spaniards having something to do with bribing referees are worrisome however.

    1. I’m confused by your comment. If two people have a conversation are they then not allowed to talk about that conversation with the press. I agree that it is obnoxious to reveal a supposedly private conversation with the press. But, last time I checked it doesn’t classify as illegal. Secondly, if someone gets a text message are they not allowed to show anyone the text message they received on their own phone?

      1. Paul Dacre and Colin Myler would probably tell you otherwise but you should be getting consent to tape record and (I assume) sell off a private conversation between ostensibly intimate friends to the press. You’ve created a breach of confidence and in so doing violated their expectation to privacy. And you should be financially culpable for that harm to their privacy.

        “The law now affords protection to information in respect of which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, even in circumstances where there is no pre-existing relationship giving rise of itself to an enforceable duty of confidence.” – Mosley v News Group Newspapers Limited, Justice Eady

        Checkout McKennitt v Ash, & Campbell v Mirror Group,

        As to the text message, is it in the context of an ongoing private conversation? or is it a bizarre one off like I just send someone a salacious picture of myself? If it’s in a conversational context then yes there are relevant expectations to privacy.

        1. I forgot that the UK and the US have significant differences in libel/slander and privacy law.

          Let me rephrase. It shouldn’t be illegal in the UK. I don’t see how taping a conversation should be any different than somebody talking to a third-party about a private conversation. Gossiping about a private conversation is definitely slimy, but it seems ridiculous to make it illegal.

          1. I’d argue that there is a very significant difference between gossiping about and selling details of. Recent UK rulings of law have upheld the concept of an individual’s ability to have off limit private conversations. I’d also argue that UK rulings have erred in expanding that role to corporate entities but that is concomitant concern in the States as well.

  6. The latest scandal certainly helps Russia’s chances of winning the race for 2018.

    Perhaps. But it definitely puts the Spaniards in an awkward spot, especially if they do throw their support behind Russia (and even more so if there happen to be any particularly dodgy referee calls during their World Cup matches).

    1. There is always dodgy refereeing at the World Cup. That’s going to happen regardless of whether they be bribed or not. But, yes, certainly more controversy if Spain benefits from some calls.

      I think it depends on if Lord Triesman’s accusations have merit. If they don’t, then I think Spain probably should throw their weight to Russia (assuming they can’t get it for themselves). If they do have merit then maybe this is a good thing in that it could scare away an evil plot.

  7. Once again, the snatch brings down a proverbial empire… But why journalists would willingly sabotage the England bid is beyond me

      1. Because mouthbreathing morons continue to buy these newspapers even when they do this sort of thing. Blame the consumer of this crap.

  8. It is quite damaging but England far and away is the most prepared place to have a World Cup with their vast amount of stadiums ready-to-go

    It hurts but I can’t imagine it really kills it

  9. I’m English and in favour of the 2018 World Cup being held in England, but I think Fifa should be aiming to have future World Cups in countries that have never hosted the tournament. It’s a shame that they have the problem of the AFL and NRL seasons being in progress during World Cup time in Australia as I think they’d make for fantastic hosts.

  10. I guess thats why the ref went 5 minutes extra time against the winning Swiss team… I haven’t seen such noticeable unfair reffing in a long time… it was so obvious commented on it at the time… before reading this thread.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>