Just announced on the news, Jennings has done a book accusing of Dempsey receiving a $250kUSD brown envelope for abstaining and thereby awarding the World Cup to Germany.
This could get messy.
Just got this off Stuff (Yeah, I know "Stuff") but ...
Charlie Dempsey Alleged involved.......
I thought everyone had figured out he was bribed anyway? This is just giving us details
I thought he was trying to bury it (Excuse the unintended pun) when he was alive and allegedly his daughter came out in his defence saying there was no truth in the accusations.
I do not believe for one second that he took a bribe God rest his soul
Very naive of u JV
If he didn't take a bribe, would he be the only OFC bigwig who didn't? There seems to be a belief that "those other" OFC countries (i.e. the islands) are corrupt, whereas us good honest dinkum Kiwis / Brit expats are incorruptible.
It is well known that sometimes a very honest and stalwart person nearing the end of their life will sometimes do stupid, unethical things, not for their own sake, but for the sake of their kids. Cf: Raúl Julia's last film was Street Fighter 2.
Jennings has been pretty spot on with everything he's said in the past. Wouldn't surprise me if he's right on the money again (See what I did there?)
It seems such a small amount for such a big move. I'd've thought such a 'vote' (or 'no vote') would have been worth millions.
I'll remove this post. I have decided I prefer not to comment further.
I always wondered why he didnt vote, given that he had a clear mandate to do so.
His pulling out has never been explained properly
It wasnt a time for his own personal views to come through, if that is what happened, he was there as a representative.
The thing that annoys me about this sort of thing is that the accused has not ability to defend himself
At the time Jeff, he defended himself well, he said he did not take a bribe, he said he had had death threats. He was confused as to whether to vote or not to vote. He did get a very clear mandate from Oceania to vote for South Africa and he ignored it.
The thing that annoys me about this sort of thing is that the accused has not ability to defend himself
Because someone is dead you should just forget what they did?
The thing that annoys me about this sort of thing is that the accused has not ability to defend himself
Because someone is dead you should just forget what they did?
The thing that annoys me about this sort of thing is that the accused has not ability to defend himself
Because someone is dead you should just forget what they did?
Didn't say what he did, could be I was saying he did abstain because he was overwhelmed and confused. (I'm not saying that).
Charlie loved being in power and he was one tough nut. It seems hard to imagine him though wandering around with a bag of money.
However, during the 2006 World Cup in Germany he was treated like a King in Germany with first class travel, limos and 5 star hotels.
Wasn't OFC supposed to get direct entry into the World Cup thanks to the abstination? I'm sure I remember a rumour to that effect
The thing that annoys me about this sort of thing is that the accused has not ability to defend himself
Because someone is dead you should just forget what they did?
Of course, the law says the opposite; that there is no such thing as libel against the dead. Which is why we had to wait for Jimmy Saville's death for his evil to come oozing out of the woodwork.
Dead or not the guy was a clown, Never forget back in the 80s the game between Fiji vs Australia and Fiji players were punching and kicking the Aussies and when one Aussie decided to fight back Hobo the clown Dempsey ran onto the field and started hitting and yelling at the Aussies - And he was the head of the OFC? But yet it was Fiji that started it and he took there side fists and all.
Wasn't OFC supposed to get direct entry into the World Cup thanks to the abstination? I'm sure I remember a rumour to that effect
Honest Sepp Blatter certainly did organise for Oceania to get a direct route but then Bin Hammen put a stop to it at a Confederation Committee meeting I believe.
if you want to look at nepotism you need go no further
I personally think it's a clear case of being "lent on" but it's such a pultry sum of cash for a bloke like him. There has to be more to it then has so far leaked.
Dead or not the guy was a clown, Never forget back in the 80s the game between Fiji vs Australia and Fiji players were punching and kicking the Aussies and when one Aussie decided to fight back Hobo the clown Dempsey ran onto the field and started hitting and yelling at the Aussies - And he was the head of the OFC? But yet it was Fiji that started it and he took there side fists and all.
I always wondered why he didnt vote, given that he had a clear mandate to do so.
His pulling out has never been explained properly
It wasnt a time for his own personal views to come through, if that is what happened, he was there as a representative.
Coitus corruptus
Wasn't OFC supposed to get direct entry into the World Cup thanks to the abstination? I'm sure I remember a rumour to that effect
Honest Sepp Blatter certainly did organise for Oceania to get a direct route but then Bin Hammen put a stop to it at a Confederation Committee meeting I believe.
Blatter V Bin Hammen ..... hhhhmmmm sounds like Al Copone V Lucky Luciano
When you behave as oddly as he did I still believe the onus is on you to explain and he never did despite having the opportunity to do so. I always found his explanation odd - he didn't step down after abstaining which was apparently because he received death threats at the time of the decision but he did step down eventually because he felt like he was being harassed.
We know that South AFrica ended up bribing executive committee members to vote for them and we know that other bids were dirty (Morocco) - this is not in anyway an out there accusation. Jennings in credible in my eyes although he is slightly prone to the lurid in his accusations.
I also have my suspicions about Dempsey when coincidentally he handed over the keys to the OFC to...his daughter who succeeded him. That alone is a questionable decision and indicates some lack of probity and judgement on her part. Everyone says that the OFC was his baby and he did it for the love of the game. Sure, he was wealthy from his construction business apparently but if it wasn't a great gig then why would his daughter take over?
A lot of people saying he was rich, he didn't need the money. Well worth pointing out that a lot of people involved with FIFA got very rich (coincidentally) so I just don't get that explanation.
It is tough on his family that these accusations are coming up again now, and I say again because these are not new at all. But in the end there has never been a satisfactory explanation for what went on which leads you to this explanation.
I don't get the rich bit either.
Many have got rich by dubious means.
Being rich doesn't mean you will say no to US$250,000 in cash.
Being poor doesn't mean you will say yes to it either.
I don't get the rich bit either.
Many have got rich by dubious means.
Being rich doesn't mean you will say no to US$250,000 in cash.
Being poor doesn't mean you will say yes to it either.
I've gone back and looked at the articles from around the time of the vote. Dempsey had clear instructions from OFC to vote for England and then South Africa.
He was personally close to the UEFA head at the time Lennart Johanssen (his grand-daughter ended up working at UEFA). He felt indebted to him for assistance with creating the Oceania confederation. Prior to the vote, Dempsey's wife was contacting all of the OFC heads and asking them to change their instructions to allow him to vote for Germany. They refused. He then abstained which had the same practical effect as voting for Germany. He then went to the German world cup and as everyone knows accepted all the hospitality that went along with being the one to "give" them the cup. To claim that he was under intolerable pressure and didn't want to vote so he abstained just simply does not tally with the facts as they played out.
When you behave as oddly as he did I still believe the onus is on you to explain and he never did despite having the opportunity to do so. I always found his explanation odd - he didn't step down after abstaining which was apparently because he received death threats at the time of the decision but he did step down eventually because he felt like he was being harassed.
We know that South AFrica ended up bribing executive committee members to vote for them and we know that other bids were dirty (Morocco) - this is not in anyway an out there accusation. Jennings in credible in my eyes although he is slightly prone to the lurid in his accusations.
I also have my suspicions about Dempsey when coincidentally he handed over the keys to the OFC to...his daughter who succeeded him. That alone is a questionable decision and indicates some lack of probity and judgement on her part. Everyone says that the OFC was his baby and he did it for the love of the game. Sure, he was wealthy from his construction business apparently but if it wasn't a great gig then why would his daughter take over?
A lot of people saying he was rich, he didn't need the money. Well worth pointing out that a lot of people involved with FIFA got very rich (coincidentally) so I just don't get that explanation.
It is tough on his family that these accusations are coming up again now, and I say again because these are not new at all. But in the end there has never been a satisfactory explanation for what went on which leads you to this explanation.
\
To be fair his daughter had been working at OFC for a while and was pretty senior in her role there. Her taking over really wasnt such a surprise at the time but was always going to lead to nepotism accusations. She should have declined because of this despite the fact she was probably the right person on some levels to do the job.
Anyone who knew Charlie or dealt with him at the time would know that he was an old man and no longer as sharp as he had been in the past. I doubt he ever took a bribe but he was a stubborn old bastard and quite capable of doing the wrong thing just to spite someone. There was a story doing the rounds at the time of the U17 boys WC of Charlie driving the wrong way down an onramp because he had lost his bearings. I think a few fans on their way to the game saw this happen. I think his biggest problem was not dishonesty but he had become a doddery old geezer and not completely in charge of his mental facilities. Its why his daughter was by his side every where he went on Official business. She used to sheild him from everything.
When you behave as oddly as he did I still believe the onus is on you to explain and he never did despite having the opportunity to do so. I always found his explanation odd - he didn't step down after abstaining which was apparently because he received death threats at the time of the decision but he did step down eventually because he felt like he was being harassed.
We know that South AFrica ended up bribing executive committee members to vote for them and we know that other bids were dirty (Morocco) - this is not in anyway an out there accusation. Jennings in credible in my eyes although he is slightly prone to the lurid in his accusations.
I also have my suspicions about Dempsey when coincidentally he handed over the keys to the OFC to...his daughter who succeeded him. That alone is a questionable decision and indicates some lack of probity and judgement on her part. Everyone says that the OFC was his baby and he did it for the love of the game. Sure, he was wealthy from his construction business apparently but if it wasn't a great gig then why would his daughter take over?
A lot of people saying he was rich, he didn't need the money. Well worth pointing out that a lot of people involved with FIFA got very rich (coincidentally) so I just don't get that explanation.
It is tough on his family that these accusations are coming up again now, and I say again because these are not new at all. But in the end there has never been a satisfactory explanation for what went on which leads you to this explanation.
\
To be fair his daughter had been working at OFC for a while and was pretty senior in her role there. Her taking over really wasnt such a surprise at the time but was always going to lead to nepotism accusations. She should have declined because of this despite the fact she was probably the right person on some levels to do the job.
Anyone who knew Charlie or dealt with him at the time would know that he was an old man and no longer as sharp as he had been in the past. I doubt he ever took a bribe but he was a stubborn old bastard and quite capable of doing the wrong thing just to spite someone. There was a story doing the rounds at the time of the U17 boys WC of Charlie driving the wrong way down an onramp because he had lost his bearings. I think a few fans on their way to the game saw this happen. I think his biggest problem was not dishonesty but he had become a doddery old geezer and not completely in charge of his mental facilities. Its why his daughter was by his side every where he went on Official business. She used to sheild him from everything.
Agree with all this. Although we were certainly not friends, I had know Charlie for over 40 years. He and his brother Hugh were tough businessmen but always fair. He loved football and I doubt he would ever have been dishonest.I met up with him in Australia at a bowls club some 12 years ago and although he did vaguely remember me ( I had not spoken to him for 15 plus years ) he was not in the best of health and was being looked after by his grandson.
Still no answer really why he did not vote.
His excuse of being a muddled man doesnt cut it, nor does getting a letter from his lawyer
Really poor then and still the same
Reading the Michael Brown transcript in the Herald, my head says that Dempsey didn't take a bribe.....and reading Andrew Jennings' quotes on
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/football-soccer/news/article.cfm?c_id=86&objectid=11512174
I cant see any proof there that ol' Charlie did take a backhander.....just "well, it all makes sense" from his accuser.
Charlie may've been many things to many people (good and bad), and I think abstaining was a weak way out, but I don't see as how there is any evidence to prove that he was nothing more than a confused old man who was in a situation he no longer had the faculties to manage.
Oooo, tough one. I never knew the man but given the history of FIFA, I find it very hard to believe that he didn't take a back hander on this one. I remember at the time thinking it didn't look kosher. He was on FIFA too long not to have been tainted, if he was so averse to the corruption taking place he would of either been more vocal about it or resigned, he did neither.
I personally think its highly likely he took the cash. The Journo who blew the whistle on FIFA is a highly respected investigator with years of experiance in the dealings of FIFA. If he has documentation that showed that $250,000 cash was paid out on the day that Dempsey left and he thinks Dempsey took the money then you would have to support his claim.
What annoys me most is that Dempsey didn't ask for more from the Germans. He disobeyed Oceanias voting instructions which handed Germany the world cup. If he had been smarter/more ruthless he should have cut a deal. I will abstain but Germany must do something to help Oceania. Like build us a football training centre in NZ and send out German coaches to help train Oceania and offer Oceania players scholarships in Germany etc etc.
We could have got a lot of benefit out of the deal.....instead the old fool did a runner. $250,000 is petty cash in the scheme of things. Germany got a great deal...they made millions out of hosting the WC. Oceania got zero. If you are going to get involved with corruption then play the game properly. It seems just about everyone else has been doing it.
I was at Remuera golf club for lunch the other day ,and they have a local monthly newsletter type publication, written by one of the long time members and there was an opinion on this topic, as Charlie had been a longstanding member there and was known it seems by the members very well and the editor , and the article was along the lines of there was no way he would have done that, was far too upstanding and had bucket loads of money already.
Interestingly in the same publication was a debate about how members join,another long standing member was about to be released form jail ( Petrovic) and questions being asked if he could be blocked.
Oceania got zero.
I personally think its highly likely he took the cash. The Journo who blew the whistle on FIFA is a highly respected investigator with years of experiance in the dealings of FIFA. If he has documentation that showed that $250,000 cash was paid out on the day that Dempsey left and he thinks Dempsey took the money then you would have to support his claim.
What annoys me most is that Dempsey didn't ask for more from the Germans. He disobeyed Oceanias voting instructions which handed Germany the world cup. If he had been smarter/more ruthless he should have cut a deal. I will abstain but Germany must do something to help Oceania. Like build us a football training centre in NZ and send out German coaches to help train Oceania and offer Oceania players scholarships in Germany etc etc.
We could have got a lot of benefit out of the deal.....instead the old fool did a runner. $250,000 is petty cash in the scheme of things. Germany got a great deal...they made millions out of hosting the WC. Oceania got zero. If you are going to get involved with corruption then play the game properly. It seems just about everyone else has been doing it.
Sunday's NZ Herald piece is interesting though because in extensive 2003 interviews with Michael Brown, Dempsey asserts that he was never carrying an instruction from OFC to vote for South Africa in the second round:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11512172
I think this may well be right. News reports at the time said that Charlie was under instruction to vote for South Africa but this may well have been inaccurate.
A lot of what appears in news reports is later proven to be wrong. Which is why we have history as an a academic discipline to attempt to sift evidence for a truer or more nuanced picture.
It seems that the OFC executive never voted on who to support in the second round of FIFA voting.
The usual OFC shambles.
So Charlie was left to vote for whoever he preferred.
He took his NZ lawyer's advice to abstain from voting.
As with NZ Football's lawyer's dodgy advice over Deklan Wynne's eligibility (not to apply to FIFA for an exemption in case they get turned down), it proves that NZ lawyers are not able to give good advice when it comes to matters of international football. They don't really have competency beyond local club rugby.
At age 79 at the time of the FIFA vote, he was too old to be left to make such decisions on his own.
I'm all for compulsory retirement at a certain age in most jobs (say late '60's to 70)
A nursing student was killed when a 75 year old commercial truck driver hit her bicycle a couple of years ago here in Christchurch.
(He was found to be entirely at fault)
How 75 year-olds can be employed as truck drivers beats me.
2006 - $ to OFC ??? Land secured before 2009 from reading or miss reading.
Not direct to CD ????? (Scandal Theory)
Sunday's NZ Herald piece is interesting though because in extensive 2003 interviews with Michael Brown, Dempsey asserts that he was never carrying an instruction from OFC to vote for South Africa in the second round:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11512172
I think this may well be right. News reports at the time said that Charlie was under instruction to vote for South Africa but this may well have been inaccurate.
A lot of what appears in news reports is later proven to be wrong. Which is why we have history as an a academic discipline to attempt to sift evidence for a truer or more nuanced picture.
It seems that the OFC executive never voted on who to support in the second round of FIFA voting.
The usual OFC shambles.
So Charlie was left to vote for whoever he preferred.
He took his NZ lawyer's advice to abstain from voting.
As with NZ Football's lawyer's dodgy advice over Deklan Wynne's eligibility (not to apply to FIFA for an exemption in case they get turned down), it proves that NZ lawyers are not able to give good advice when it comes to matters of international football. They don't really have competency beyond local club rugby.
At age 79 at the time of the FIFA vote, he was too old to be left to make such decisions on his own.
I'm all for compulsory retirement at a certain age in most jobs (say late '60's to 70)
A nursing student was killed when a 75 year old commercial truck driver hit her bicycle a couple of years ago here in Christchurch.
(He was found to be entirely at fault)
How 75 year-olds can be employed as truck drivers beats me.