By Franklin Sone Bayen
Our qualification and greater ambitions for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa should not in anyway blunt our lethal power at the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) in Angola. This country has often been hard put to manage both tournaments in the same year. It is as though World Cup euphoria downplays Nations Cup importance.
Excepting 2002 when we won the Nations Cup even as we were in for the World Cup, the story has been bleak from 1982, through 1990, 1998. In 1994 when we took part in the USA World Cup, we did not even qualify for the Nations Cup. Conversely, we were out of World Cup 2006 but failed to reach the top in the Nations Cup. We stumbled before the Ivory Coast at the quarter-finals after penalty shootout.
In 1982, we had a disastrous Nations Cup in Libya prior to an unprecedented wonderful World Cup for Africa when we went undefeated, conceded only one goal in three group stage games and played a draw with eventual World Cup winners, Italy.
Meanwhile, glory was all ours barely two years later when we won the Nations Cup for the first time in 1984. Of course, that was not a World Cup year. In 1986 when we did not qualify for the World Cup, we had another wonderful Nations Cup, stumbling only at the final in a hard fought game with hosts Egypt. Likewise, in 1988, a non-World Cup year, the show was again all ours. We won the cup.
Next, the memorable 1990 World Cup and again the Nations Cup that year was a fiasco. Meanwhile, after another unmemorable Nations Cup in 1992, our worst Nations Cup-World Cup story was in 1994 when we did not even qualify for the Nations Cup and later witnessed our worst World Cup in the US.
South Africa 1996, though not a World Cup year, was a Nations Cup many Cameroonians hate to remember. But France 1998, another Nations Cup-World Cup year for us, equally brought a vexing Nations Cup experience. We were licked by half-baked teams like the DR Congo and were eliminated at group stages.
As the Song-Mboma-Eto’o-Etame-Njitap generation ripened, they renewed Cameroon’s romance with Nations Cup glory in 2000, defeating our traditional Nations Cup final sparring partners Nigeria in their own backyard to take the cup home for keeps according to the former three wins rule. That same generation it was, that defied the Nations Cup-World Cup spell to play great in the 2002 Nations Cup in Mali. They won the cup a fourth time, though they were headed for the Japan-Korea, our last combined Nations Cup-World Cup year.
Here we are again with both tourneys to manage. SA 2010, Africa’s first World Cup, is ours to grab. But Nations Cup 2010 is equally a must-do for us. It comes nearly a decade since we last won the trophy.
The World Cup, we wish to win, and yes, we can. But the Nations Cup we already know how to win. Unquestionably, we must win it again. We cannot lie on our laurels when Egypt’s six wins have dwarfed our four. For that matter, going to the World Cup with a Nations Cup title in hand should be a big morale booster. Whatever distracts our team during the twin tourney years, they should be reminded that, in any case, a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
This posting first featured as Editorial in my sport supplement "This is SPORT! This is FOOTBALL! on the back cover of Standard Tribune currently on the market
Monday, 30 November 2009
Fotso's battle with Cameroon & E. Guinea gov'ts
By Franklin Sone Bayen
If no one is suspecting anything beyond regular procedure in the recent decision by the Central African Banking Commission (COBAC) to place the Commercial Bank of Cameroon (CBC) under watch for possible liquidation, Yves Michel Fotso, proprietor of the bank, is crying foul.
While admitting that CBC is not faultless, Fotso is alleging that COBAC is being manipulated by Equatorial Guinea to settle scores after his bank won a case against the neigbhouring state, obtaining 40 billion FCFA as damages because Malabo illegally prohibited establishment of a CBC branch there. CBC lawyers were in the process of identifying Equatorial Guinea accounts abroad to obtain payment of the penalty when the COBAC sanction fell. Fotso considers the sanction, that discharges him of his functions as board chair of the bank, too severe and hides ulterior motives.
Yet, even those accusations seem to be only part of the story. The paternalistic intervention by the Cameroon government to “bailout” the bank looks like a calculated first step towards embracing a rival to suffocate him – stepping into the Fotso Empire to eventually own it (seize it) or crumble it.
But why?
It has not been said how Yaounde and Malabo would have conspired to suffocate CBC. However, it can be conjectured that, just as it is possible Malabo is pulling its oil weight in COBAC – that little country holds more than 47% of reserves in the Bank of Central Africam States (BEAC) – our government was also in a position to defend CBC if it had the will to. Apparently, it did not. Instead of chasing the hawk before chiding the chicks, our government seems to have let the hawk grab the chick before engaging wings to go to its rescue. All of that to look magnanimous and, while the public applauds, reap from Fotso family sweat.
There are precedents to show that when some persons in authority are uncomfortable with the actions or mere existence of certain individuals, they use the huge state machinery to crush them. They settle personal scores or sometimes do so on behalf of the president.
Henri Sack who ran TV Max, the first private TV in Douala, had a taste of it when former CRTV GM, Gervais Mendo Ze, presented him as an anti-patriot simply because TV Max acquired exclusive rights for a Cameroon international match earlier this decade, and required CRTV to buy the images. Insisting national team matches are a matter of sovereignty, Mendo made CRTV broadcast the match in defiance of TV Max’s exclusive rights, of course, without payment. Somehow, CRTV went on to defeat TV Max in a case in France.
That was only the beginning of trouble for Sack. TV Max was thenceforth always put on the wrong side of the law. Its transmission pylons around Village, a neighbourhood on the Yaounde outlet from Douala were knocked down for “being too close to the Douala International Airport, posing a risk to planes in flight”. Other pylons around were spared. TV Max eventually died slow death. In the early 1990s, Victor Fotso and Kadji Defosso turned coat from early support for the newly-created opposition Social Democratic Front (SDF), when government tax agents showed them red.
Fotso since become a pillar of the Biya regime, bankrolling its operations. He is presently mayor of his Bandjoun hometown, near Bafoussam on the ticket of the president’s party. He is also known to have used his influence to position some of his several wives at elective positions. At least one of them is deputy mayor of the Yaounde I district. Another is Member of Parliament. Apparently through the same influence, his son Yves Michel, a private sector personality, became managing director of Cameroon Airlines (Camair), a position hitherto reserved for government cadres.
Yet does it look like some elements of the Biya regime believe Yves Michel was party to a plot to have the president killed in a faulty plane by purchasing the Albatross. He was involved in the deal because the government undertook the purchase, pretending the plane was for Camair use, to avoid scrutiny by the IMF which thought such a purchase just for the president’s comfort, was misplaced priority at a time Cameroon was making its case for HIPC debt cancellation in the middle of this decade.
Now that son of Victor Fotso is swearing he will defend his property even with is life. Such statements are not often heard from people of Fotso’s stature. He believes COBAC is just a subterfuge for people with diabolic motives. “I’m sorry, but if it becomes an institution used to eliminate people, I’m ready to die. I’ll accept to be sacrificed,” said Fotso in a telephone intervention on an talkshow a fortnight ago, on a Douala-based private TV channel, STV.
So why would a “prince” put his life on the line like that?
And that was not Fotso’s first media outing on a burning issue. Late last year he came out strong in an interview broadcast simultaneously by three private TV channels (STV, Equinox TV and Canal 2) telling his side of the story over the Albatross Affair. His approach, maximizing TV audience through the three channels, was so effective everyone was talking about it the next morning. Fotso’s smartness apparently vexed certain people in authority.
The Fotso heir, who has been on a travel ban, might have been saved from prison last year only by his father’s personal intervention when he was summoned to the Judicial Police in Yaounde. To protect him, his aging father accompanied him to Yaounde, spent the night in his hotel room for fear he could be abducted and the next morning, accompanied him for the police interrogation, as if to say “that’s my son, if you will take him, you’ll have to take me too.”
The younger Fotso walked free from there. Hardly anyone implicated in the Albatross Affair walked free after visiting the Judicial Police. But whether he can free the family empire from this suspected onslaught may take more than his father’s watchful eyes.
This posting first featured on my column "STATE OF THE NATION" in Standard Tribune (currently on the market), published in Yaounde Cameroon
If no one is suspecting anything beyond regular procedure in the recent decision by the Central African Banking Commission (COBAC) to place the Commercial Bank of Cameroon (CBC) under watch for possible liquidation, Yves Michel Fotso, proprietor of the bank, is crying foul.
While admitting that CBC is not faultless, Fotso is alleging that COBAC is being manipulated by Equatorial Guinea to settle scores after his bank won a case against the neigbhouring state, obtaining 40 billion FCFA as damages because Malabo illegally prohibited establishment of a CBC branch there. CBC lawyers were in the process of identifying Equatorial Guinea accounts abroad to obtain payment of the penalty when the COBAC sanction fell. Fotso considers the sanction, that discharges him of his functions as board chair of the bank, too severe and hides ulterior motives.
Yet, even those accusations seem to be only part of the story. The paternalistic intervention by the Cameroon government to “bailout” the bank looks like a calculated first step towards embracing a rival to suffocate him – stepping into the Fotso Empire to eventually own it (seize it) or crumble it.
But why?
It has not been said how Yaounde and Malabo would have conspired to suffocate CBC. However, it can be conjectured that, just as it is possible Malabo is pulling its oil weight in COBAC – that little country holds more than 47% of reserves in the Bank of Central Africam States (BEAC) – our government was also in a position to defend CBC if it had the will to. Apparently, it did not. Instead of chasing the hawk before chiding the chicks, our government seems to have let the hawk grab the chick before engaging wings to go to its rescue. All of that to look magnanimous and, while the public applauds, reap from Fotso family sweat.
There are precedents to show that when some persons in authority are uncomfortable with the actions or mere existence of certain individuals, they use the huge state machinery to crush them. They settle personal scores or sometimes do so on behalf of the president.
Henri Sack who ran TV Max, the first private TV in Douala, had a taste of it when former CRTV GM, Gervais Mendo Ze, presented him as an anti-patriot simply because TV Max acquired exclusive rights for a Cameroon international match earlier this decade, and required CRTV to buy the images. Insisting national team matches are a matter of sovereignty, Mendo made CRTV broadcast the match in defiance of TV Max’s exclusive rights, of course, without payment. Somehow, CRTV went on to defeat TV Max in a case in France.
That was only the beginning of trouble for Sack. TV Max was thenceforth always put on the wrong side of the law. Its transmission pylons around Village, a neighbourhood on the Yaounde outlet from Douala were knocked down for “being too close to the Douala International Airport, posing a risk to planes in flight”. Other pylons around were spared. TV Max eventually died slow death. In the early 1990s, Victor Fotso and Kadji Defosso turned coat from early support for the newly-created opposition Social Democratic Front (SDF), when government tax agents showed them red.
Fotso since become a pillar of the Biya regime, bankrolling its operations. He is presently mayor of his Bandjoun hometown, near Bafoussam on the ticket of the president’s party. He is also known to have used his influence to position some of his several wives at elective positions. At least one of them is deputy mayor of the Yaounde I district. Another is Member of Parliament. Apparently through the same influence, his son Yves Michel, a private sector personality, became managing director of Cameroon Airlines (Camair), a position hitherto reserved for government cadres.
Yet does it look like some elements of the Biya regime believe Yves Michel was party to a plot to have the president killed in a faulty plane by purchasing the Albatross. He was involved in the deal because the government undertook the purchase, pretending the plane was for Camair use, to avoid scrutiny by the IMF which thought such a purchase just for the president’s comfort, was misplaced priority at a time Cameroon was making its case for HIPC debt cancellation in the middle of this decade.
Now that son of Victor Fotso is swearing he will defend his property even with is life. Such statements are not often heard from people of Fotso’s stature. He believes COBAC is just a subterfuge for people with diabolic motives. “I’m sorry, but if it becomes an institution used to eliminate people, I’m ready to die. I’ll accept to be sacrificed,” said Fotso in a telephone intervention on an talkshow a fortnight ago, on a Douala-based private TV channel, STV.
So why would a “prince” put his life on the line like that?
And that was not Fotso’s first media outing on a burning issue. Late last year he came out strong in an interview broadcast simultaneously by three private TV channels (STV, Equinox TV and Canal 2) telling his side of the story over the Albatross Affair. His approach, maximizing TV audience through the three channels, was so effective everyone was talking about it the next morning. Fotso’s smartness apparently vexed certain people in authority.
The Fotso heir, who has been on a travel ban, might have been saved from prison last year only by his father’s personal intervention when he was summoned to the Judicial Police in Yaounde. To protect him, his aging father accompanied him to Yaounde, spent the night in his hotel room for fear he could be abducted and the next morning, accompanied him for the police interrogation, as if to say “that’s my son, if you will take him, you’ll have to take me too.”
The younger Fotso walked free from there. Hardly anyone implicated in the Albatross Affair walked free after visiting the Judicial Police. But whether he can free the family empire from this suspected onslaught may take more than his father’s watchful eyes.
This posting first featured on my column "STATE OF THE NATION" in Standard Tribune (currently on the market), published in Yaounde Cameroon
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
Didn't Fifa favour Egypt for Algeria playoff?
By Franklin Sone Bayen*
Algeria finally had their way over Egypt to obtain Africa's last World Cup ticket after their playoff in Khartoum Sudan on November 18, but that match should not have been necessary had Fifa followed its own rules to the very last letter.
Because Algeria scored three goals against Egypt in the away leg and Egypt scored only two against Algeria in the return leg in the Africa Group C of the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, Algeria had an advantage based on Point 5 of the new FIFA rule for teams even on points at the end of group matches, like both countries in Africa Group C.
Nearly a month before the final group games of this 2010 World Cup qualifiers, we presented an exhaustive analysis of the expected outcome for Cameroon based on the possible results from matches on November 14 in Group A: Morocco-Cameroon and Togo-Gabon. It was a two part write-up, one titled “CMR-Morocco: THE LAST IFS”. The second, “Most complicated scenario”, was based on the new FIFA rule to rank teams even on points at the end of group games.
Our emphasis in the second write-up was on a scenario whereby Cameroon and their lone challengers Gabon were tied at 10 points each after the November 14 matches, ie, if Moroco defeated Cameroon and Gabon drew with Togo.
As it turned out, Cameroon’s victory over Morocco rolled them a red carpet to the World Cup. It rendered unnecessary and useless any further calculations (ifs) based on the outcome of the Togo-Gabon match in Lome the same day.
With Cameroon’s 13 points, even a victory for Gabon raising them to 12 points would have been of the no consequence. Worst case scenario for Gabon, they were beaten 1-0 by Togo, to mark time at nine points. Cameroon thus sailed through, with safe four points from Gabon.
The Indomitable Lions thus spared already anxious Cameroonians the trouble of that “Most complicated scenario”. Instead, where it applied, and nearly so perfectly, was between Egypt and Algeria. They ended the qualifiers at par on everything from points to goals scored, goals conceded, goal difference and even more. Plus, they faced each other on the last day of play on November 14, Egypt beating Algeria 2-0 to attain that nearly perfect equality, necessitating their playoff on November 18 in Khartoum, Sudan. Algeria won the playoff 1-0 to grab Africa's last World Cup ticket.
Weeks ahead of their Saturday game, FIFA notified that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 on the last day of play, the two would go for a playoff. That was because ahead of that game, Algeria had 13 points after four matches, Egypt 10; Algeria had scored nine goals, Egypt seven; Algeria had conceded two goals, Egypt four; Algeria had +7 in goal difference, Egypt +3. Algeria had beaten Egypt in the first leg in Algeria 3-1. This meant that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 in Egypt, both teams would be tied at 13 points, they would both have scored nine goals, both would have conceded four goals, both would thus have ended the qualifiers with +5 in goal difference and each would have beaten the other at home by a two-goal difference. (Nearly) perfect equality!
As we explained in our previous write-up, this is what the new FIFA rule says about ranking of teams with equal points sourced from the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia: “If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked by: 1. goal difference in all group matches (Algeria +5, Egypt +5) 2. greater number of goals scored in all group matches (Algeria 9, Egypt 9) 3. greater number of points obtained in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 3) 4. goal difference in matches between the tied teams (3-3: 1st leg Algeria 3-1 Egypt, 2nd leg Egypt 2-0 Algeria) 5. greater number of goals scored in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 2, take note of this) 6. drawing of lots, or playoffs (if approved by FIFA).”
Take note that Algeria have an advantage over Egypt on point 5. It may seem complicated but understand it in other words thus: which team scored more goals in either of the matches played between Algeria and Egypt? In the away leg, Algeria won scoring three goals. In the return leg, Egypt won scoring just two. Point 5 disregards goals conceded in matches between tied teams.
Although they were even on particular goal difference, it must be pointed out that FIFA put that as one of the conditions for ranking teams tied on points, and ought to have respected it. Algeria had the advantage, but FIFA seemed to have foreseen and ignored it. Reason they skipped to point 6, ie, the Algeria-Egypt playoff on November 18.
Rules well applied, will always penalize someone and leave them offended. Nigeria, clearly a favorite in the 2006 World Cup qualifiers, bowed to the old FIFA rule whereby the first consideration (Point 1) has now become Point 3 in the new rule. That gave Angola the ticket to the 2006 World Cup to the detriment of Nigeria who had better goal difference (+14) in all group matches (Point 1 in the new rule). Angola had only +6. Nigeria had scored far more goals (Point 2 in the new rule), a whopping 21. Angola had scored only 12. But Angola had grabbed four out of six available points in matches between the two teams (Point 1 in the old rule, Point 3 in the new rule), having beaten Nigeria 1-0 in the away leg in Angola and held them to a 1-1 draw in the return leg in Nigeria.
Nigerian fans thought they had been cheated, but that was the rule then. It was respected. Not quite so for Algeria-Egypt in the 2010 qualifiers.
BESIDES POSTING A COMMENT HERE, TO REACT TO THIS ARTICLE, WRITE TO:
editor.sportfoot@yahoo.com or
sbayern@yahoo.com
or call +237 33 12 91 97
*The author is editor-in-chief of Cameroon sport magazine “This is SPORT! This is FOOTBALL!”
Algeria finally had their way over Egypt to obtain Africa's last World Cup ticket after their playoff in Khartoum Sudan on November 18, but that match should not have been necessary had Fifa followed its own rules to the very last letter.
Because Algeria scored three goals against Egypt in the away leg and Egypt scored only two against Algeria in the return leg in the Africa Group C of the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, Algeria had an advantage based on Point 5 of the new FIFA rule for teams even on points at the end of group matches, like both countries in Africa Group C.
Nearly a month before the final group games of this 2010 World Cup qualifiers, we presented an exhaustive analysis of the expected outcome for Cameroon based on the possible results from matches on November 14 in Group A: Morocco-Cameroon and Togo-Gabon. It was a two part write-up, one titled “CMR-Morocco: THE LAST IFS”. The second, “Most complicated scenario”, was based on the new FIFA rule to rank teams even on points at the end of group games.
Our emphasis in the second write-up was on a scenario whereby Cameroon and their lone challengers Gabon were tied at 10 points each after the November 14 matches, ie, if Moroco defeated Cameroon and Gabon drew with Togo.
As it turned out, Cameroon’s victory over Morocco rolled them a red carpet to the World Cup. It rendered unnecessary and useless any further calculations (ifs) based on the outcome of the Togo-Gabon match in Lome the same day.
With Cameroon’s 13 points, even a victory for Gabon raising them to 12 points would have been of the no consequence. Worst case scenario for Gabon, they were beaten 1-0 by Togo, to mark time at nine points. Cameroon thus sailed through, with safe four points from Gabon.
The Indomitable Lions thus spared already anxious Cameroonians the trouble of that “Most complicated scenario”. Instead, where it applied, and nearly so perfectly, was between Egypt and Algeria. They ended the qualifiers at par on everything from points to goals scored, goals conceded, goal difference and even more. Plus, they faced each other on the last day of play on November 14, Egypt beating Algeria 2-0 to attain that nearly perfect equality, necessitating their playoff on November 18 in Khartoum, Sudan. Algeria won the playoff 1-0 to grab Africa's last World Cup ticket.
Weeks ahead of their Saturday game, FIFA notified that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 on the last day of play, the two would go for a playoff. That was because ahead of that game, Algeria had 13 points after four matches, Egypt 10; Algeria had scored nine goals, Egypt seven; Algeria had conceded two goals, Egypt four; Algeria had +7 in goal difference, Egypt +3. Algeria had beaten Egypt in the first leg in Algeria 3-1. This meant that if Egypt defeated Algeria 2-0 in Egypt, both teams would be tied at 13 points, they would both have scored nine goals, both would have conceded four goals, both would thus have ended the qualifiers with +5 in goal difference and each would have beaten the other at home by a two-goal difference. (Nearly) perfect equality!
As we explained in our previous write-up, this is what the new FIFA rule says about ranking of teams with equal points sourced from the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia: “If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked by: 1. goal difference in all group matches (Algeria +5, Egypt +5) 2. greater number of goals scored in all group matches (Algeria 9, Egypt 9) 3. greater number of points obtained in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 3) 4. goal difference in matches between the tied teams (3-3: 1st leg Algeria 3-1 Egypt, 2nd leg Egypt 2-0 Algeria) 5. greater number of goals scored in matches between the tied teams (Algeria 3, Egypt 2, take note of this) 6. drawing of lots, or playoffs (if approved by FIFA).”
Take note that Algeria have an advantage over Egypt on point 5. It may seem complicated but understand it in other words thus: which team scored more goals in either of the matches played between Algeria and Egypt? In the away leg, Algeria won scoring three goals. In the return leg, Egypt won scoring just two. Point 5 disregards goals conceded in matches between tied teams.
Although they were even on particular goal difference, it must be pointed out that FIFA put that as one of the conditions for ranking teams tied on points, and ought to have respected it. Algeria had the advantage, but FIFA seemed to have foreseen and ignored it. Reason they skipped to point 6, ie, the Algeria-Egypt playoff on November 18.
Rules well applied, will always penalize someone and leave them offended. Nigeria, clearly a favorite in the 2006 World Cup qualifiers, bowed to the old FIFA rule whereby the first consideration (Point 1) has now become Point 3 in the new rule. That gave Angola the ticket to the 2006 World Cup to the detriment of Nigeria who had better goal difference (+14) in all group matches (Point 1 in the new rule). Angola had only +6. Nigeria had scored far more goals (Point 2 in the new rule), a whopping 21. Angola had scored only 12. But Angola had grabbed four out of six available points in matches between the two teams (Point 1 in the old rule, Point 3 in the new rule), having beaten Nigeria 1-0 in the away leg in Angola and held them to a 1-1 draw in the return leg in Nigeria.
Nigerian fans thought they had been cheated, but that was the rule then. It was respected. Not quite so for Algeria-Egypt in the 2010 qualifiers.
BESIDES POSTING A COMMENT HERE, TO REACT TO THIS ARTICLE, WRITE TO:
editor.sportfoot@yahoo.com or
sbayern@yahoo.com
or call +237 33 12 91 97
*The author is editor-in-chief of Cameroon sport magazine “This is SPORT! This is FOOTBALL!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)