Jack Warner's resignation: send in the clowns

On the face of it Jack Warner’s resignation may appear to be a victory for those campaigning against the corruption that seems to have spread like fungal roots throughout FIFA. Far from it. I feel that this is a very clear case of an insurmountably embattled individual jumping before being pushed, and the only result of this final humiliation is that FIFA itself has dodged a bullet. For one of its Vice Presidents to be found guilty of bribery by its own ethics committee would have surely cemented public suspicions that the organisation is rotten to the core. However, FIFA’s statement on the resignation announced that the undertakings of the ethics committee, “…have been closed and the assumption of innocence is maintained.”

I suppose by now it is naïve to expect anything else from this unaccountable organisation, but I feel it’s worth having a quick look at the history of this wonderful servant to football:

· Accused of selling millions of pounds worth of World Cup tickets on the black market for personal gain.

· Abused his position in FIFA to further the interests of his home nation, writing letters to Premiership managers about the availability of players for Trinidad & Tobago’s international squad.

· Commented that, “…no foreigner will come to my country, particularly a white foreigner, and try to harass me, intimidate me, and push me around…” in response to questioning about the profit he made from selling World Cup tickets.

· Allegedly warned delegates to book travel arrangements (which could be claimed back in expenses) to a conference in Trinidad through his family’s travel agency, or risk having to pay themselves.

· Claimed he would like to “spit on” a Panorama reporter asking questions about the World Cup ticket scandal.

That’s off the top of my head, and with about 5 minutes research for links to support them.

It may sound clichéd, but it's fair to say that the real loser here is football itself. The game is still being held hostage by a shady organisation that bears some of the hallmarks of a large criminal network, run by racketeers. It’s interesting that Warner released an email from another FIFA executive suggesting that Qatar had “bought” the 2022 World Cup, but quickly retracted his promise to “unleash a tsunami” against his former buddies. Now it seems he wants to get off the radar as quickly as possible, before he’s shot down in a hail of friendly fire.

The ‘presumption of innocence’ is quite hard to take given the sheer volume of smoke, if one is to accept the smoke / fire adage. It suits FIFA down to the ground though because nothing has been proven, and they have a credible scapegoat with whom to try and defuse the situation they now find themselves in. As controversial and loathsome as Jack Warner is, the best result for anybody who cares about football would have been for him to stay on and be found guilty of corruption by the ethics committee. If that had happened then the footballing public would have been in a strong position to press for more investigation into FIFA’s conduct… instead one of its shadiest characters has gone for an early bath. FIFA may have lost a clown, but rest assured the carnival will continue with aplomb.

Questioning The Standard's standards

To exhausted London commuters, Chris Blackhurst’s smug visage nestled amidst a jungle of ill thought out drivel has become an all too familiar sight. The Evening Standard’s “City Editor” has a remarkably frequent residency on the paper’s comment pages, and it is interesting that a daily that generally sits right of centre should elect a thinly veiled leftist with clouded vision as its main financial correspondent. Today’s rant centred around Chancellor George Osborne’s announcement that there are plans afoot to segregate the retail and investment arms of big banks. Blackhurst appears to have mixed feelings on this subject, as his article is based on an obvious self-contradiction, to speak nothing of the shameless populism that serves as an undertone to his opinions.

The organ grinder makes all of the usual stops that a journalist desperate to appeal to the masses, ignorant of finance, makes. Project Merlin for example, is said to be something the banks “squealed” about. This is a government-mooted scheme whereby banks agree to increase their lending to business in order to regenerate the economy, with a large side of atonement for past sins presumably thrown in. As a person who is in a very strong position to gain first hand information on this matter, I would point out to the City Editor that one of the main problems with Project Merlin is the lack of demand. The numbers mentioned alongside this altruistic venture are barely a blot on most big banks’ balance sheets; however, businesses are understandably winding down their debt obligations as fast as possible in the current climate of commercial terror. It is now at a stage where banks are happy to comply to the scheme but are struggling to find takers, and are therefore worrying about the political fallout of failure to lend enough.

Blackhurst also complains about the fact that banks are still taking risks and speculating, “…as they always did.” I can understand somebody with limited financial knowledge being angry at the thought of ‘gamblers’ in ivory towers having a negative impact on their standard of living. However I feel that it’s disingenuous for a man whose livelihood is utterly dependant on banking to bemoan the risk taking it entails. If the industry he covers rid itself of risk taking, there would essentially be nothing for him to write about. Not that this stops him from taking a shot at “bankers letting their hair down” at the Chelsea flower show and Royal Ascot. This is held up as evidence that things are “back to normal” in the banking world, as though evil financiers had bought every tickets for these events to the exclusion of plebs such as him, and of course his readership. Heaven forbid that bankers should take a few hours off from being hated by everyone under the sun (largely at the whim of unoriginal hacks such as himself, it must be added).

His emotion-led tripe would be easier to stomach were it not sandwiched by an appalling contradiction. Blackhurst firstly says that bankers “know they’ve got away with it…” (referring to Osborne's edict) before concluding, “Deep down, though, make no mistake, they are smarting.” I fail to understand how his editor in chief didn’t press him on this dichotomy before submitting his work to the presses. If he wants to write an article exploring the banking industry’s reaction to this decision, Blackhurst should have the guts to say one way or the other what kind of effect it has had. His argument lacks bottle in the worst possible way.

The route he took instead was to tacitly admit that he doesn’t really understand the subject, so he has filled the rest of the article up with emotive rubbish about bankers feeling awkward at parties, or the humiliation that bankers must feel about the Chancellor dictating terms to them. Forgive me for my ignorance, but I was under the impression that government has always held the final say over finance? My understanding is that this move was the status quo until about 1999 when Bill Clinton reversed it in America, although I would hope Blackhurst is more knowledgeable given the responsibility he holds for informing the public.

Before I sign off, I would just like to give a mention to the Learned Editor’s hypothetical example of Barclays “encountering a crisis”, and how this move would make them “immune”. This must rank amongst the most ignorant comments ever published. In the same article Blackhurst mentions Northern Rock; one can only assume he had forgotten it existed by the time he’d written a few more lines of facile text. Any “City Editor” who claims this segregation will make retail banks immune to financial downturns is essentially beyond repair in terms of credibility, as they quite visibly have no idea how the markets function. The frustrating part is that the vitriol spat by this clown will almost certainly strike a chord with the public, who are starved of facts by the press and politicians alike. However, the Evening Standard should hang its proverbial head in shame for promoting this man to such a height above his competence.

If you feel like reading Blackhurst's efforts first hand I have included a link below, with the disclaimer that no rational or balanced comment is to be found therein.

Enjoy......