Jack Warner and cronies re-elected to CONCACAF posts

[AndyMead]

CONCACAF press release
JACK WARNER RE-ELECTED AS CONCACAF PRESIDENT

NEW YORK (Wednesday, 14 March 2007) - CONCACAF (Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football) announces that Jack Warner of Trinidad & Tobago has been re-elected as CONCACAF President for another four-year term, which will run from 2007-2011.

With the passing of yesterday’s deadline for nominations to all positions up for election at the XXV CONCACAF Ordinary Congress to be held in Toronto, Canada on 12 May 2007, Jack Warner stood as the only nominated candidate for President and will formally commence his fifth term at the Congress.

In a demonstration of the ongoing stability and unity within CONCACAF that has characterized his Presidency, Warner received multiple nominations from every sector of CONCACAF’s diverse membership of 40 nations.

Warner was first elected as CONCACAF President in 1990 and he has been re-elected on every occasion since then (1994, 1998, 2002 and now, 2007). Warner is also the longest continuously serving member of the FIFA Executive Committee having first taken his seat on that body in 1983.

In other election news, Lisle Austin is re-elected unopposed as CONCACAF Vice President (Caribbean Zone). Austin has served as CONCACAF Vice President since 1992.

Also elected unopposed to new positions are the following:

CONCACAF Vice President (North American Zone) – Guillermo Cañedo (Mexico)
CONCACAF Executive Committee Member (Central America Zone) – Ariel Alvarado (Panama)
FIFA Executive Committee Member – Rafael Salguero (Guatemala)

The CONCACAF Congress returns to Canada for the first time since 1992, when it was in Vancouver, British Columbia. Attendees at CONCACAF’s XXV Ordinary Congress will include delegates from each of CONCACAF’s 40 member nations along with invited guests from the global football family.

About CONCACAF
CONCACAF "The Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football" is one of six continental confederations of FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association) and serves as the governing body of football in this part of the world. It is composed of 40 national associations, from Canada in the north to Guyana, Surinam and French Guyana in the south.

The only news to me is that CONCACAF is up to 40 members. I wonder who they've added. Last count I saw was 39 with 37 "FIFA" members and 2 associate members (like Martinique) who can't join FIFA because they're legally part of another federation.

[sidspaceman]

Wow Mexico didn't even oppose him this year.

I guess after all these years they just gave up and decided it's better to be friends with him.

[Guatefc]

CONCACAF press release


The only news to me is that CONCACAF is up to 40 members. I wonder who they've added. Last count I saw was 39 with 37 "FIFA" members and 2 associate members (like Martinique) who can't join FIFA because they're legally part of another federation.
5th term:eek:

this is basically a dictatorship!!!:mad:
as long as Warner keeps promising Great things to the Carribbean , Warner will be in office till his deathbed.

[IASocFan]

CONCACAF press release


The only news to me is that CONCACAF is up to 40 members. I wonder who they've added. Last count I saw was 39 with 37 "FIFA" members and 2 associate members (like Martinique) who can't join FIFA because they're legally part of another federation.


3 associate members: Martinique, Guadaloupe, and French Guyana

[Deathdealer]

All I got to say is BULL SHITTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!

[ZeekLTK]

CONCACAF press release


The only news to me is that CONCACAF is up to 40 members. I wonder who they've added. Last count I saw was 39 with 37 "FIFA" members and 2 associate members (like Martinique) who can't join FIFA because they're legally part of another federation.


No actually there are 35 "FIFA" members and then someone listed 3 others: Martinique, Guadeloupe, and French Guyana. Also Saint Martin and Sint Maarten are CONCACAF members (but not FIFA).

[Vasco]

this is sad really really sad.

this thief is going to re-elected unoppossed.

truly a sad day in concacaf

[CrewDust]

Well he did get the Fed another .5 WC spot, if he can get another .5 for a whole 4, that is what he will be remembered for. Just wish he could make the Championship Cup better.

[The Perfesser]

Just to put this all in perspective:

http://www.filibustercartoons.com/charts_rest_long-leaders.php

:eek:

[jamison]

Amazing. I thought after the WC06 FIFA Ticket Scandal, he'd just be nice enough to retire with his phat check and go away.

Lord, if you're listening...I'd appreciate you rubbing this guy out. Thank you.

[GIO17]

This is terrible. No change, no breath of fresh air. This guy is such a thief it's amazing that all the Caribbean nations allow this wolf in sheep's clothing to continue not just representing the CFU Zone, but as a whole for CONCACAF.

I'm just a football supporter. But if I had some form of power to un-seat him, I would & make the necessary changes to make this region better. I would improve the Champions Cup & expand it into a League, I would also create the CONCACAF Cup like the UEFA Cup or at least make it something like that.

This new Superliga between MLS & FMF, I would get involved & chat with CONMEBOL to allow the two Semi-Finalists of the tourney entrance into the Copa Libertadores since they always invite Mexico & another CONCACAF Nation to perform in the Copa America.

These are some of the things I would do to make CONCACAF a better region, but I have no clout or wealth to speak of. I'm just a lonely Football Supporter of RBNY & the US National Team.

[Azuran]

Mexico bough the CONCACAF, so they can put them in an easy group for the 2010 qualifiers just like in 2006 where they drew the same group as Saint Vincent.

That way they lie to the country and make them believe they're the best team in the region. Those sneaking bastards. Why couldn't I see that before?







Nah, I'm just kidding (or am I?)


Seriously though, we have to deal with that guy for at least another four years? Damn, and just when I thought only good thing could happen to this confederation.

[FnordUnitedFC]

I give credit to T & T for fluking 4th in the hex (with more losses than wins) and getting into the World Cup, but that semifinal group was the biggest joke in the history of World Cup Qualifying.

Mexico (legit 1 seed)
T & T (3 seed at best)
St. Vincent & Grenadines (4 seed, period)
St. Kitts & Nevis (4 seed even weaker than SVG)

How this got into one group is a sham. What did Mexico finish with, a goal differential of +1,000?

Compare that to the Canadian quartet and it was a complete mockery.

[Daniel from Montréal]

I give credit to T & T for fluking 4th in the hex (with more losses than wins) and getting into the World Cup, but that semifinal group was the biggest joke in the history of World Cup Qualifying.

Mexico (legit 1 seed)
T & T (3 seed at best)
St. Vincent & Grenadines (4 seed, period)
St. Kitts & Nevis (4 seed even weaker than SVG)

How this got into one group is a sham. What did Mexico finish with, a goal differential of +1,000?

Compare that to the Canadian quartet and it was a complete mockery.

I had posted something on the Voyageurs, but if you take into account the last 12 of 2002, the groups were as follow (pots 1-4 according to 2002 results, 1-2 are hex):

USA (1), Jamaica (2), El Salvador (3), Panama (4)
Costa Rica (1), Honduras (2), Guatemala (3), Canada (3)
Mexico (1), T&T (2), StVG (4), St Kitts (4)

CONCACAF "decided" to put all non-hex semi-finalists in ONE pot.

[ZeekLTK]

I had posted something on the Voyageurs, but if you take into account the last 12 of 2002, the groups were as follow (pots 1-4 according to 2002 results, 1-2 are hex):

USA (1), Jamaica (2), El Salvador (3), Panama (4)
Costa Rica (1), Honduras (2), Guatemala (3), Canada (3)
Mexico (1), T&T (2), StVG (4), St Kitts (4)

CONCACAF "decided" to put all non-hex semi-finalists in ONE pot.

Yeah because it doesn't matter what place in the group you finish: you either qualify to the next round or you don't. There is no difference from 3rd or 4th place. That's how CONCACAF divided it up: you either advanced (Pots A & B) or didn't (Pot C). The only reason they used 2 pots for teams who advanced was because they broke it down again: either qualified to the World Cup (Pot A) or you didn't (Pot B).

Canada beat Panama 1-0 in one of the games. If that score was reversed then Panama would have finished 3rd instead of Canada (assuming all other results were the same). It's not that big of a difference between taking 3rd or 4th in the semifinal round.

Plus, to nit-pick, St. Kitts & Nevis wasn't even in the 2002 semifinals so they shouldn't be a "(4)" on your list.

[Bluecat82]

ok...here's a thought...

What's the nominating process? Surely there's someone that can be nominated when Smilin' Jack's trem expires in 2011...he'll probably win again, but he should at least have some opposition...

Heck, put my name in the pot...

[Daniel from Montréal]

STK took Barbados' spot for 2006.

To have two groups so unbalanced when you could have made the system fair is ridiculous.

Of course, that would now mean that Saint-Vincent would have a #3 seed...

And we can't use the FIFA rankings either because they're garbage with uneven regional competitions.

[Wile Coyote]

You know some thing, I was just thinking how a stroke to Chuck Hillbilly Trash Looking Blazer and a horriffic car accident for jack warner sending them both to the after life cant come soon enough........................

[Mel Brennan]

You know some thing, I was just thinking how a stroke to Chuck Hillbilly Trash Looking Blazer and a horriffic car accident for jack warner sending them both to the after life cant come soon enough........................

Easy; that's a bit harsh ain't it?

CONCACAF and FIFA only exist and persist b/c we can't be bothered to offer an alternative. There's nothing inherently necessary about these organizations as such; if we organize a transparent alternative, FIFA and CONCACAF wither away, replced by organizations of which Blazer and Warner would have no part, due to such institutionalized, authentic, actionable transparency.

They really have very little to do with the discourse; they are shaped by it, and, right now, advantage themelves by it. But it's our choice, everyday, to tacitly or openly affirm or demolish the structure by which they persist.