Eni Aluko / Mark Sampson (Merged)

[Monkeh]

8 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

In regards to safeguarding and welfare its a duty to know. Its a duty to make sure all policies and procedures are followed. And it would be a duty for individuals who continued to be involved in Bristol Academy to Bristol City Ladies to pass on relevant information to line Management and appropriate individuals e.g Welfare officers - To the top.

This type of thing is not swept away, or should never be.

but Sampson wasn't in the role or manager when city took over so how can it be swept away?

What are you acusing Bristol Sport of?

[View from the Dolman]

26 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Yes. It was absorbed into Bristol Sport. People are colleagues of each other. People will often have multiple roles across different clubs, senior and junior ... Its a small world there.

The people I have met and know in that word don't tolerate power abusing shites ..

I'm really not following. In summary, are you accusing Bristol Sport of being complicit in events that may have happened before of its existence?

[Cowshed]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

but Sampson wasn't in the role or manager when city took over so how can it be swept away?

What are you acusing Bristol Sport of?

I do not understand your first sentence. Relevant information is kept for years. Its handed on.

What are you accusing Bristol Sport of? Absolutely nothing because I think the poster is casting wild aspersions. The people (Coaches) I know involved in that small world do not tolerate people described thus; Total abuse of power. This slimey little**** has had this coming for some time.

One option would be a slap, but there procedures to use then and now. If he really was as described he would not have progressed past Bristol Academy. 

 

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I do not understand your first sentence. Relevant information is kept for years. Its handed on.

What are you accusing Bristol Sport of? Absolutely nothing because I think the poster is casting wild aspersions. The people (Coaches) I know involved in that small world do not tolerate people described thus; Total abuse of power. This slimey little**** has had this coming for some time.

One option would be a slap, but there procedures to use then and now. If he really was as described he would not have progressed past Bristol Academy. 

 

I think I'm with you now,

Thanks for clearing that up, 

[Cowshed]

15 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

I'm really not following. In summary, are you accusing Bristol Sport of being complicit in events that may have happened before of its existence?

Not at all. Unless Mr Sampson is as described, did abuse his role and proper procedure was not followed, which would make individuals who are still employed now complicit. That is not a good place for an organisation to be. It would raise welfare issues about suitability of staff etc ... However in my experience I feel the reverse is true, people do not turn a blind eye, Bristol, Academy and on will have behaved professionally and its the FA at fault again.  

 

 

[EnderMB]

Given all the recent accusations against him, and what's recently come out about his time at Bristol Academy, it's a lose-lose situation for all.

Sampson's reputation is in tatters. Whether you consider his comments bad or not is one thing, but he abused his position in the chain of command for personal gain, and that should have ruled him out of the job in the first place. Again, whether you consider it racist or not is irrelevant. It was an inappropriate comment to make in a professional context, and as the manager of the team he is held to a higher standard than the average person. He won't get another role in women's football, and if the true extent of his conduct is as bad as some are reporting then I doubt he'll get a job in men's football either.

The FA have demonstrated once again that they are unfit for purpose, and willfully ignoring the circumstances of Sampson's alleged conduct at Bristol Academy is unacceptable. If what people are alluding to is true and Sampson traded sexual favours for preferential team selection, then the FA have ****** up beyond repair. I don't usually agree with the government stepping into these situations, but if a publicly-funded body isn't acting in the best interests of the sport then the whole organisation needs a clear-out. It's an old boys club that needs new blood, and professionals that are happy to push the sport forward. 

Bristol City/Bristol Sport weren't involved in any of the wrongdoing, but they need to be proactive in ensuring that no one from back then is still involved, and that all future conduct is above board. The women's team is going to be watched like a hawk by everyone right now, and the organisation as a whole needs to not only acknowledge the misconduct of the past, but push the women's game forward.

 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, CHIPLEY RED said:

I am very disappointed that a successful manager has got the sack due to a personal row with a player.

It will now make it difficult for the next manager who comes in - will he pick Aluko?

 

He????????????????????????

[Super]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/28508/11046024/bristol-city-frustrated-at-fa-silence-over-mark-sampson-before-his-sacking

[havanatopia]

2 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And that throws up another problem, will players that she publicly criticised want to play with her again?.

I feel sorry for the squad they have started to achieve and compete at the highest level and now this.

Might be transferred somewhere else then.

[havanatopia]

I read that sky sports article and do not understand why BCFC are angry. The article does not say anything about our club being mentioned during Sampsons tenure; it refers only to Bristol Academy. 

Are City unhappy that the FA have not distanced the club from Bristol Academy? If so why does the article not say so? All rather confusing and a non story the way it has been written.

[1bristolcity]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

no the FA didn't run Bristol Academy SGS did, so he came under their jurisdiction and was found at the time to have done nothing wrong, creepy slimy maybe but nothing wrong, If he was working for the FA at te time, they would of been paying him, much like any manager,

The FA can't decide tomorrow to sack Lee Johnson, they have no authority to do that, they can request it, they can't actually do it,

If the FA really had mis givings why emply him?, why did it take almost 5 years to come out (this happened in 2013) coincidentally the same time aluko starts kicking up a fuss about the TWO investigations 

The FA have jurisdiction over such matters, even if the didn't employ him as such. 

[nebristolred]

4 hours ago, Monkeh said:

thats why i said witch hunt, people have thrown him under the bus with out any evidence, the only facts out there is that he's been investigated twice for Aluko, found innocent both time, and something happened in 2014, again found innocent

He's a scapegoat to cover up massive failings at the FA, something that keeps happening,  

Until the FA is reformed from top to bottom, these things will keep happening,

With all due respect Monkeh, unless you know, then you cannot say it's a witch hunt. His sacking is not to do with Aluko's comments.

Trust me, it's inappropriate, and I'm not even sure I know the full story. It will inevitably come out very soon.

[Monkeh]

11 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

With all due respect Monkeh, unless you know, then you cannot say it's a witch hunt. His sacking is not to do with Aluko's comments.

Trust me, it's inappropriate, and I'm not even sure I know the full story. It will inevitably come out very soon.

It may be inappropriate but it's already been investigated and not deemed a problem and still isn't as he can still work in the game at all levels,

 

[nebristolred]

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It may be inappropriate but it's already been investigated and not deemed a problem and still isn't as he can still work in the game at all levels,

 

But how do you know they came to the correct conclusion first time around? What if not all of the facts came to light initially? Maybe it didn't come up properly until after he left Bristol Academy, and The FA have been their usual useless selves and only just investigated?

Fact is, we don't know, but based on what I've been told (which I 100% believe), his behaviour is not correct.

[Monkeh]

5 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

But how do you know they came to the correct conclusion first time around? What if not all of the facts came to light initially? Maybe it didn't come up properly until after he left Bristol Academy, and The FA have been their usual useless selves and only just investigated?

Fact is, we don't know, but based on what I've been told (which I 100% believe), his behaviour is not correct.

If they didn't it doesn't take almost 5 years to review it,

 

[nebristolred]

2 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

If they didn't it doesn't take almost 5 years to review it,

This is The FA.... and as I said, they might not have had all of the facts to hand initially. I'm sure this will all come out at some point anyway.

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

This is The FA.... and as I said, they might not have had all of the facts to hand initially. I'm sure this will all come out at some point anyway.

They carried out the investigation in the first place how could they not have all the facts?

[steveybadger]

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It may be inappropriate but it's already been investigated and not deemed a problem and still isn't as he can still work in the game at all levels,

 

True, although given the 2 previous investigations into the Aluko allegations were so shoddy (a, arguably 'the' key witness not even interviewed before a conclusion was reached) it raises concerns about all the investigations which have taken place in this sorry episode.

A proper investigation may reach the same conclusion as the flawed ones but until then we just don't know for sure. 

Just about the only thing that is certain is the FA's incompetence.

[steveybadger]

3 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

They carried out the investigation in the first place how could they not have all the facts?

In the Aluko case by not interviewing all the relevant witnesses. It's that simple.

[nebristolred]

6 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

They carried out the investigation in the first place how could they not have all the facts?

Is it really that impossible that a new fact can come up after the investigation? 

[Monkeh]

11 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Is it really that impossible that a new fact can come up after the investigation? 

Then Why not release that information? Why keep it secret?

There are so many unanswered questions

the only facts in the public domain are he was investigated in 2014 for something that happened in 2013 and was found inniocent no criminal charges

he was investigated for something else after aluko got dropped and again found inniocent

there was then an independent investigation and again he was found innocent 

that's why I feel it's a witch hunt

and until the fa actually produce evidence I will continue to think that because there is nothing else to go on,

rumours and hearsay aren't evidence 

[nebristolred]

14 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Then Why not release that information? Why keep it secret?

There are so many unanswered questions

the only facts in the public domain are he was investigated in 2014 for something that happened in 2013 and was found inniocent no criminal charges

he was investigated for something else after aluko got dropped and again found inniocent

there was then an independent investigation and again he was found innocent 

that's why I feel it's a witch hunt

and until the fa actually produce evidence I will continue to think that because there is nothing else to go on,

rumours and hearsay aren't evidence 

Why keep it secret? There could be any number of reasons! You really can't see why a case *possibly* involving sex would need to be kept secret?!

Yes, far too many questions, which means we don't know the answers, which means we cannot say whether it's a witch hunt or not without knowing the facts.

[Abraham Romanovich]

The FA have sat on a report on his shenanigans at Bristol Academy for 2 years, the findings of which would've given them good reason to sack Sampson, , 2 years ago for inappropriate (but not illegal) behaviour with women at Bristol Academy...I think we can all join the dots there.

Instead though, they sent him on a course, and buried it. NOW with this whole Aluko fiasco dragging on and on and on in the background, they've suddenly reviewed the findings in this report from 2 years ago, and decided to sack him. 

The FA have shown themselves to be totally incompetent at every level and the next person to be fired should be the bloke who was aware of the report but did not even bother to read it , FA Chief Executive Martin Glenn

Be interesting to see if Sampson brings about a case for unfair dismissal. The FA will just love that.

[steveybadger]

16 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

The FA have sat on a report on his shenanigans at Bristol Academy for 2 years, the findings of which would've given them good reason to sack Sampson, , 2 years ago for inappropriate (but not illegal) behaviour with women at Bristol Academy...I think we can all join the dots there.

Instead though, they sent him on a course, and buried it. NOW with this whole Aluko fiasco dragging on and on and on in the background, they've suddenly reviewed the findings in this report from 2 years ago, and decided to sack him. 

The FA have shown themselves to be totally incompetent at every level and the next person to be fired should be the bloke who was aware of the report but did not even bother to read it , FA Chief Executive Martin Glenn

Be interesting to see if Sampson brings about a case for unfair dismissal. The FA will just love that.

Spot on - the way Glen was squiming as he buck passed yesterday was a sight to behold. 'Wasn't in my watch' etc. 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

27 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said:

The FA have sat on a report on his shenanigans at Bristol Academy for 2 years, the findings of which would've given them good reason to sack Sampson, , 2 years ago for inappropriate (but not illegal) behaviour with women at Bristol Academy...I think we can all join the dots there.

Instead though, they sent him on a course, and buried it. NOW with this whole Aluko fiasco dragging on and on and on in the background, they've suddenly reviewed the findings in this report from 2 years ago, and decided to sack him. 

The FA have shown themselves to be totally incompetent at every level and the next person to be fired should be the bloke who was aware of the report but did not even bother to read it , FA Chief Executive Martin Glenn

Be interesting to see if Sampson brings about a case for unfair dismissal. The FA will just love that.

Please join the dots for me because all I can see is a guy did something but not a sackable offence which rules out a whole host of truly bad behaviour and only leaves either a relationship with someone he coached or dating someone because anything other than concenting relationship would have been gross misconduct and probably banned from being a coach.  

[Erithacus]

There are few, if any, winners in this quagmire of shame now. The FA chiefs are fast becoming the central target for the flak that's flying about and it has a flavour of previous episodes in the past - that of trying to protect the 'reputation' of the organisation and the said supremos, rather than the game itself. Good luck with that. I feel the way this is playing out is looking more like a rather convenient excuse to disguise or deflect some greater evil lurking elsewhere. 

Factual evidence is still difficult to find, given that there may yet be more in the pipeline that will perhaps cast a new light on the whole sorry tale. Not all the answers have been forthcoming. Not all the guilty are confessing.

Mark Sampson has conspicuously kept a pretty tight lip so far; I wonder if he has much to remain silent about, or will keep his powder dry for a counter-attack on those who he may feel have left him to hang. Time will tell. He signed a new contract only recently this year and it will be payed up in full by the FA, note.

 

All in all, the beautiful game in this country retains its ability to turn very ugly in an instant. Eventually, we will have another national manager and I trust that the same fate does not strike them - although that will largely depend on the system at Lancaster Gate. Fingers crossed. And just to make a minor point, they will have to take the Lionesses onwards - first game is against Bosnia & Herzegovina on November 24th.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 hours ago, nebristolred said:

This is The FA.... and as I said, they might not have had all of the facts to hand initially. I'm sure this will all come out at some point anyway.

I am sure that is what they will say but it is utter bullshit, the marker came up when he applied for the job and they weren't the slightest bit interested to hear the full story? but later on looking for a way out the full story drops on to their laps, you couldn't make it up, hopefully he will get far more than the 80k Aluko got, irrespective of what he has done at Bristol academy the FA should have followed up on the marker and not offered him the job if what he did at Bristol academy was so bad.

[LondonBristolian]

2 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Then Why not release that information? Why keep it secret?

There are so many unanswered questions

the only facts in the public domain are he was investigated in 2014 for something that happened in 2013 and was found inniocent no criminal charges

he was investigated for something else after aluko got dropped and again found inniocent

there was then an independent investigation and again he was found innocent 

that's why I feel it's a witch hunt

and until the fa actually produce evidence I will continue to think that because there is nothing else to go on,

rumours and hearsay aren't evidence 

A few points:

1. After the 2014 evidence, he was found not to be a safeguarding risk or to have committed a criminal offence. That is not the same as saying he was found innocent of professional misconduct. The fact he was sent on a training course about appropriate workplace behaviour suggests he was found to have done something professionally inappropriate that needed action stronger than a reprimand, if not at the time an actual sacking.

2. I think we need to move past this idea Sampson has been adequately investigated twice over the Aluko allegations. The facts are

a) key witnesses were not interviewed 

b) previous allegations about him were not considered as background (which might not happen in a criminal trial but would in a workplace investigation.

the simple fact is nothing can be concluded from the Aluko investigations as they were insufficient. it is utterly pointless saying he was cleared as it was a failed process.

3. You are assuming that the fact the FA have not put evidence in the public domain means they do not have it. If there was a safeguarding issue considered, it suggests the allegations related to someone young or vulnerable. If he was sent on a training course that suggests evidence or admission of wrongdoing, even if he was not judged a risk to children or vulnerable adults. My point being that whatever evidence the FA has probably relates to a vulnerable person. It should not be in the public domain.

in short, nothing you consider evidence of a witch hunt is, in any way, evidence of a witch hunt. We do not know all the facts of course but you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that do not really stand up to scrutiny and seem to rely on ignoring the fact that an investigation that does not interview witnesses or consider previous evidence of misconduct CANNOT be considered a reliable investigation.

[RaspberryRed]

7 hours ago, Cowshed said:

 

The above post is the one I replied to. If Mr Sampson's inappropriate behaviour was common knowledge it is inextricably linked to Bristol Sport etc. Is the poster implying that his behaviour was tolerated by the coaches, the organisation and structure it became part of ... Covered up even!  

Part of that structure is BCFC. Part of that structure will be known to people on this forum. The coaches (several) I know who work for various aspects of BCFC - Bristol City women - The Community Trust are marvellous people.

I hope the top post is a total fabrication.  

Are you saying my post is fabricated?

[Esmond Million's Bung]

42 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

A few points:

1. After the 2014 evidence, he was found not to be a safeguarding risk or to have committed a criminal offence. That is not the same as saying he was found innocent of professional misconduct. The fact he was sent on a training course about appropriate workplace behaviour suggests he was found to have done something professionally inappropriate that needed action stronger than a reprimand, if not at the time an actual sacking.

2. I think we need to move past this idea Sampson has been adequately investigated twice over the Aluko allegations. The facts are

a) key witnesses were not interviewed 

b) previous allegations about him were not considered as background (which might not happen in a criminal trial but would in a workplace investigation.

the simple fact is nothing can be concluded from the Aluko investigations as they were insufficient. it is utterly pointless saying he was cleared as it was a failed process.

3. You are assuming that the fact the FA have not put evidence in the public domain means they do not have it. If there was a safeguarding issue considered, it suggests the allegations related to someone young or vulnerable. If he was sent on a training course that suggests evidence or admission of wrongdoing, even if he was not judged a risk to children or vulnerable adults. My point being that whatever evidence the FA has probably relates to a vulnerable person. It should not be in the public domain.

in short, nothing you consider evidence of a witch hunt is, in any way, evidence of a witch hunt. We do not know all the facts of course but you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that do not really stand up to scrutiny and seem to rely on ignoring the fact that an investigation that does not interview witnesses or consider previous evidence of misconduct CANNOT be considered a reliable investigation.

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?.