This is the contents of the press release officially distributed by the Korea Football Association (Soccer Association). It is as written by the Football Association, without changing a single note.
Exactly 29 days later, on May 3rd. It turned out to be a blatant lie. Soccer fans and the public were fooled by ‘crocodile tears’. They did a ‘show’ for 29 days.
Is it a sign that we will see it once? The decision to pardon 100 people, including the match-fixing criminal, faced a huge headwind, and the Football Association apologized. At the same time, to emphasize the meaning that they are deeply reflecting, it was the ‘general resignation’ of the vice chairman and board members that was put forward at the forefront.
However, after 29 days, the words were changed. Has the mind of reflection and the will to reform changed? The Football Association proudly gave indulgence to the seven board members.
Even if we leave aside the Korean Professional Football Federation secretary general Yeon-sang Cho, who was the only one who voiced opposition, why did Vice President Choi Young-il, Vice President Lee Seok-jae, Tournament Chairman Jeong Hae-seong, National Team Power Enhancement Committee Chairman Michael Müller, Technology Development Committee Chairman Lee Im-saeng, and Medical Chairman Seo Dong-won remain in office? .
Chairman Mong-gyu Chung’s explanation is as follows.
In his position statement, Chairman Chung said, “We considered the fact that some subcommittee chairs resigned after two months of appointment, so there was virtually no opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities. In addition, some vice chairmen remained in office in consideration of continuity of work. I decided it was a good thing to do,” he said.
When the reporters asked a question about this, Chairman Chung said, “It’s a matter of how you view it. If only 7 out of 25 people remain, 3 out of 4 people have changed. He explained that he was not directly involved in the pardon or suggested it.”
It was a short answer, but ‘from beginning to end’ doesn’t match. Chairman Chung’s clarification rather amplified the suspicion. He also played a role in further increasing the intensity of distrust. Let’s go through each one.
“They were not directly involved in the amnesty, nor were they the ones who suggested it.”
Those who remained in office this time said that they were neither directly involved in nor suggesting a pardon. If so, does that mean that the rest of the executive branch who resigned were directly involved and made suggestions? I can only interpret it that way.
However, among the resigned executives, there are those who entered the board of directors and heard the news of the pardon decision for the first time. Why did they let them resign? It is still unknown on what basis the score for the degree of involvement in the amnesty was scored, and whether resignation or retention was made.
It is a typical ‘splitting’ statement to gain an advantage. An old-fashioned strategy to make the other evil and turn themselves into good. In other words, one side is a sinner who participated in the pardon, and the other side is a clean side that is not related to the pardon. If not, clarify who was directly involved and who was not.
“If only 7 out of 25 people remain, 3 out of 4 people have changed.
It’s not about playing a numbers game. It is to keep the ‘promise’ made directly by the Football Association. Who ordered the resignation of the executive branch? did you force it? It’s a decision they made on their own. Soccer fans believed in it and waited. But suddenly 3 out of 4 people changed, so please understand? Is it too much to change all 25 people?
not pass by rather lacking Where in the world is this clumsy general resignation? The decision to resign en masse of the leadership means that the entire group takes responsibility together. 크크크벳 It is not a matter of saving someone and killing someone by judging the individual’s right and wrong, but the whole thing goes the same way regardless of who did wrong or who didn’t.
Of course, among the directors, there will certainly be those who are not personally at fault and those who are unfair. However, responsibility cannot be avoided. It is a crime in itself to have attended the board of directors that voted on the amnesty. Even if you did not attend the board of directors, being included in the board of directors who enforced the pardon is itself a sin. It is right for everyone who could not prevent this to admit their sins together and step down.
