Jump to content
IGNORED

Eni Aluko / Mark Sampson (Merged)


spudski

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

1). And yet the FA still employed him, not his fault.

2). a & b again not his fault, entirely the fault of the FA.

3). Again the FA still employed him, not his fault.

Of course it's a witch hunt because the FA should not have employed him given what they knew and then to confound matters you say the 2 Aluko investigations were flawed.

Because of the FA's ineptitude a mans life and career lie in tatters and that makes yesterdays decision a disgusting witch hunt, that could have been prevented had the FA done their job properly and not employed him in the first place, otherwise what is the point of sending people who fall foul of such allegations on to a training course?. 

Exactly the FA have been the cause of pretty much all of this. Proper due diligence to start with would have solved the problem. They have made it very difficult to Sampson to move on even if innocent. They also created the Aluko situation and let her down too. They asked her to comment and then failed to investigate properly on top of that when she asked for clarification on what had happened and if it had a bearing on her being dropped by England immediately after commenting, they told her there was no link and then immediately launched an investigation of her job as a sports lawyer. It's not hard to see how things could have worked out better with common sense and decent business practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty certain this is all about the Aluko allegations.

Allegations of racism are a can of worms for any employer/organisation and even if the organisation/employer is exonerated their reputation is badly damaged as a result ( although in the case of the FA that might be difficult to believe!)

One way or another, it does seem that their were failings in the way the allegations were investigated  and the pay off to Aluko looks like hush money, and the unfortunate part in all of this is that it does not really provide a satisfactory outcome for either Sampson or Aluko, as neither side's claim or defence has been properly proven.

The reason given for Sampson's sacking looks like a convenient way to side step accusations that the FA failed to properly address and investigate Alum's claims. This would have transferred criticism from Sampson, as to his conduct, to the FA over the inept way that dealt with a contentious and difficult situation - and not for the first time.

I don;t think this ha been a witch hunt as far as Sampson is concerned. From what many have posted there seems little doubt that he acted inappropriately and unprofessionally while at Bristol Academy , and although we might question whether that made him a suitable candidate for the England job, given that he was appointed with this information available to the FA how can it now be grounds for sacking him?

Sampson's conduct as far as Aluko is concerned was investigated and he was found not guilty of what was alleged and allowed to stay in his job, so that could not now be grounds for sacking him. What now appears to be the case, is that the FA investigation was not thorough enough, did not question witnesses to the alleged incidents and was almost certainly botched. If the media push on this then the FA come right into the frame and risk allegations of cover up and whitewash.

To head this off the FA have now decided that the report into Sampson's conduct at Bristol Academy gives them grounds to sack him. 

Earlier in my career I worked for a major Building Society. From time to time a manager would be sacked for "expenses issues". WE all knew that the company looked hard enough they could probably have sacked every manager over their expenses claims ( mileage not completely accurate etc. etc.) but we all knew that the real reason for the sacking was something else - poor performance, crap attitude and the like. However, expenses irregularities was the easiest way to get rid of someone without a messy and time consuming disciplinary process.

The Sampson situation sounds similar, as the fallout from a detailed investigation of allegations of racism and bullying would be very messy for the FA so his past conduct gives them a neat and tidy way of drawing a line under the issue.

............or so they thought!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillarious behaviour from an organisation with a rich history of boss's shagging secretaries etc. 

There's no way the FA can squirm out of this: either they were wrong in 2014 when they investigated the Bristol Academy allegations or they are wrong now.

Either way, a fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/09/2017 at 08:02, downendcity said:

P.S. Re the Aluko allegations I was once told it's not what you say , it's what other people hear what you say. What goes as banter in a male dressing room is almost certainly not going to go down the same with everyone in a female dressing room and especially when issues of race come in to play. Seems to me that MS was indiscreet with comments that I suspect he thought were humorous, but in today's climate and in such a high profile he should know better.

As for allegations regarding his time at Bristol Academy, I have no knowledge of the rumours that many others do seem to know about, but putting 2 and 2 together it seems he overstepped the mark interrelationships with players and this would have then be seen to have compromised his ability to manage the players impartially, whether or not he did.

 

You are correct in terms of the 'banter' argument. 

In a previous role as a team manager I had a team of predominantly women. As an individual I had historically good relationships with all of them, but as a group I ran into difficulties due to what I would label as 'banter'. Don't know if there was an age-difference or a general attitude-difference but I essentially lost the trust of my team due to a number of opinions I had or comments I'd shared. Without going into the full detail it's safe to say that my experience of managing a team of women is that it's very very very easy to offend. And once the trust is lost, women are a very different breed to men in terms of the stuff they gossip and share (and generally make up). These women were not aware that I had access to their emails, and believe me, some of the things I read about myself was libellous and pure fantasy. It's amazing the stuff women can create and accuse a male of when they get their teeth into it. Didn't bother me though, easy to rise above such nonsense. But it opened my eyes as a people manager as to the potential harm a scorned group of women can bring. 

Before any sexism remarks, I'm speaking openly from my own experiences that I do not see the same desire to fabricate stories in men. A group of women turning against an individual can be a dangerous thing. 

Also, on the point about professionalism in working relationships, again in an old job of mine, I was managing a woman who was accused of having a relationship with my immediate (married) manager. Being someone caught in the middle of this is very difficult, so if there was a relationship between Samson and a player, others caught in the middle of this would have felt very uncomfortable. And in my experience, the whistleblowers can often be black-marked by others (as I was).

So in summary, if Samson was having what can only be described as an 'inappropriate' relationship, this would have impacted the morale of others in the team and he should rightfully have been dismissed as a result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

Hillarious behaviour from an organisation with a rich history of boss's shagging secretaries etc. 

There's no way the FA can squirm out of this: either they were wrong in 2014 when they investigated the Bristol Academy allegations or they are wrong now.

Either way, a fiasco.

But they will, they always do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since nobody knows what the substance of his behaviour was 5 years ago, nobody can comment meaningfully.

More worrying, if the FA paid out £80k then this could open the floodgates for more complaints of this nature not only in respect of womens football

What happens when a black player is dropped by gareth southgate? Does he just allege racism and get paid £80k?

There must be so much more to this story than meets the eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, wendyredredrobin said:

Since nobody knows what the substance of his behaviour was 5 years ago, nobody can comment meaningfully.

More worrying, if the FA paid out £80k then this could open the floodgates for more complaints of this nature not only in respect of womens football

What happens when a black player is dropped by gareth southgate? Does he just allege racism and get paid £80k?

There must be so much more to this story than meets the eye.

Not so Wendy, if what he did was so bad 5 years ago, how did FA give him the job in the first place given that they knew that there was a problem with his past, also what is the point of sending people on courses if they have been accused of stuff if 5 years later they get sacked anyway and if this turns out to be 'new' complaint, whatever happened to the Great British tradition of innocent until proven guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else watch it any of it?.

How can these clowns at the FA survive this FFS?, incompetent doesn't even begin to explain them. 

Their dealing of the Sampson case beggars belief from start to finish and Sampson is rightly considering a wrongful dismissal claim.

They even admit failings in their giving Allardyce the England job.

When asked what the FA was doing in respect of the court award of 300k to Lucy Ward of Leeds for her discrimination award/unfair dismissal not one of them giving evidence was remotely aware of case or that Leeds still owed her the money FFS, they hadn't even heard of her, but then tried to blame the courts for the failings of the then Leeds owner Cellino.

Aluko has alleged that they even tried to blackmail her over the 2nd withheld payment and 4 times the Martin Glenn skirted around answering that question.

And on several occasions the evidence given by the head of the FA's HR department was contradicted by Dan Ashworth who was Sampson's line manager in effect.

All 4 of them at one time or another shifted blame on to predecessors.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Have to say what started out seemingly like it was Aluko just stirring things up, it has made the FA to look at right bunch of crooks

They will do well to hold onto their jobs after this (though find it amusing an MP is questioning their honesty)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

After four hours of questioning, Eniola Aluko and the Football Association were released from a parliamentary inquiry on Wednesday - one vindicated, the other implicated.

Minutes before the hearing started, the FA issued a public apology to Chelsea striker Aluko and team-mate Drew Spence in light of new evidence surrounding race remarks made by ex-England boss Mark Sampson.

Here's what happened over the following 240 minutes as Aluko, team-mate Lianne Sanderson and senior figures at the FA faced the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee:

1. Black actors and fake accent claims

In a 17-page report sent to the committee, Aluko said she understood a black actor was hired to act out bad behaviour for a role-playing exercise to teach players about "Lioness standards".

"I know that some England players were uncomfortable with this demonstration, because they believed the actress was perpetrating a negative and unfair perception of me," said Aluko.

The Nigeria-born striker also accused England goalkeeping coach Lee Kendall, appointed in 2014, of speaking to her in a fake Caribbean accent.

"I don't think he meant it maliciously," she said. "He may not have been aware of how annoying it got.

"I'm not Caribbean, I'm of African descent. I thought it was another example of an ignorant mindset and behaviour towards me."

2. 'Bordering on blackmail'

Aluko has 102 England caps but has not added to these since making her allegations as part of an FA inquiry into its management culture in 2016.

The 30-year-old reached a settlement of about £80,000 with the FA following her grievance claim - which the FA said was to avoid the threat of an employment tribunal disrupting the squad's preparations for Euro 2017.

She confirmed this payment was set to be paid in two instalments, but the second one had been withheld by the FA.

"Martin Glenn [FA chief executive] said if I wrote a statement saying the FA were not institutionally racist he would release the second tranche of the money. I felt that was bordering on blackmail."

Glenn then denied asking Aluko to do this. And when pushed over whether the FA would be making the final payment, he added: "We'll reflect on it."

3. Clarke's PFA criticism and 'fluff'

FA Chairman Greg Clarke criticised the Professional Footballers' Association, saying he had a "fundamental problem" with the governance at the top.

He said: "The PFA spends millions of pounds a year on the CEO's salary and pension and they are walking away from alcoholics, from addicted gamblers. I will never look up to their governance, though I respect their people."

The PFA denied that claim, with chief executive Gordon Taylor calling it "classic diversionary tactics".

"It's false and untrue," he said. "We've never turned anybody away, whether with problems of abuse, gambling or addiction. Why on earth couldn't he raise it with me?"

Later in the inquiry, Clarke was then criticised for referring to institutional racism as "fluff". He quickly apologised after being chastised by the committee.

"The fact you describe it as fluff speaks volumes," said Julie Elliott MP. "Language matters."

4. The apology

Glenn issued the initial apology to Aluko and Spence on behalf of the FA at the beginning of his statement in front of MPs.

When pressed on whether the FA had failed in their duty of care, he said: "There have clearly been failings. I wouldn't want to then say the organisation is failing. Clearly in this situation there have been failings.

"We have 900 members of staff. On balance I think we do a good job."

But Clarke was more resolute, adding: "That is a fundamental breach of our duty of care for that person and I feel very bad about that."

Glenn said that Sampson, who was paid nine months' salary on his departure, may proceed with a wrongful dismissal claim.

Sampson was sacked in September following evidence of "inappropriate and unacceptable" behaviour with female players in a previous role.

Glenn and human resources director Rachel Brace confirmed the 35-year-old had received a "payment related to his contract" - nine months' salary.

But Glenn added: "We've been informed by his (Mark Sampson's) solicitor that he's considering filing a claim for wrongful dismissal."

5. 'Dragged through the mud' - reaction

As Aluko, Lianne Sanderson and the FA bosses gave their evidence, celebrities reacted on social media.

Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker said: "Damning and damaging for FA with total vindication of Eniola Aluko."

In a series of tweets, grime artist Stormzy said: "After all you put the girl through it turns out she was telling the truth.

"Dragged her name through the mud and tarnished her and then anyone who came to her defence was demonised as well."

Following the FA apology, Aluko and Spence's Chelsea and England team-mate Claire Rafferty said: "Privilege is invisible to those who have it. #integrity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It remains to be seen how far down this fissure goes. The fumblings of the F.A.'s head honchos at the enquiry makes you believe this is not limited to the women's department. Allardyce's short story looks small potatoes in comparison but the obvious implication is that is how the whole of our sport's governing authority operates.

Mark Sampson's legal team must be reading all this unease with keen eyes. If, when, he does recount his side of the mess then we may yet see more dirty washing on Lancaster Gate's clotheslines. Prepare for more of the same unhealthy revelations.

I find it fairly significant that the other women who must be immediately involved as witnesses or victims (or lovers?) have kept their accounts free of any comment. Perhaps there is more good sense in the players than the management?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The FA, just like FIFA, is corrupt and run as a business, not a governing body of the most beloved of sports. Far too much money in the game for their respective PR machines not to attempt to squash anything that might damage their income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/22/2017 at 17:06, 1bristolcity said:

Sampson has admitted he needs to improve his dialogue, and I am no pc advocate gone mad, but this whole thing does stink ...especially when the FA state there e was no case to answer. mmm. 

What I said 22 months ago.... some / most on here thought she was 'playing the race card' to put it mildly, looks like some of the same are  now condemning the F.A. 

Confusing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, chipdawg said:

As the only person who's been fired thus far is Sampson, do you think he should have kept his job?

I suppose it depends what he was fired for…it was an alleged transgression in a previous job, as far as I know…

There is probably more to be revealed, only then can we make a decent/fair judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...