Jump to content
IGNORED

Eni Aluko / Mark Sampson (Merged)

spudski

By spudski
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

ZiderEyed

ZiderEyed

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, RUSSEL85 said:

Agreed. A massive chip on her shoulder. MS cleared twice and now basically told to step down.When in doubt play the race card, works a treat!!

I've kept will clear of this because I have zero interest, but is this really true? RedDave is a very good poster normally, what is going on? When I first read it in the paper I marked it down as the race card, which I'm pretty ashamed of frankly, but if he's been cleared twice then theres something more to this, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Maesknoll Red

Maesknoll Red

Posted
  • Admin
Posted

I read an interesting article back when Shane Sutton was getting loads of flack in the media and it did put across some interesting points of view.  The main thrust of it was that coaches who have gained all their experience in a male environment might well use phrases and tones that men would accept as normal, but women might react differently to, to the point of upset, whereas in a male dressing room it would get shrugged off or the coach would be called a few choice names, whilst the women wouldn't do that, so the air wouldn't be cleared and things would linger.  The author wasn't excusing any sort of offensive or racist comments, but it was a well written piece that did provoke thought - I have had a search and can't find it to link to unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EnderMB

EnderMB

Posted
Posted

I can't say I'm surprised. We won't know what the outcomes were, or which side was right, but the damage had already been done to the squad. Even if Sampson was 100% innocent, he couldn't lead a team with this hanging over his head.

Whether he jumped before he was pushed, I doubt we'll ever know either. However, if he's been cleared by the FA then I wonder if he'll be given a chance in the men's game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, phantom said:

Seems she will get her way - Sampson announced he is leaving his roll

I wonder if he told the players this last night hence the celebrations

What is surprising is various papers seem to be implying this is not directly related and is to do with some other allegations that have come up from a previous role.

I've no idea what has happened, obviously, but I really do think that, even if the allegations about his comments are true, he has been let down by the FA just as much as much as Aluko has. This should not have become the media storm it has and I really do not think it would have done if the allegations had been investigated thoroughly and transparently from the outset. As soon as it starts to look like there is something to hide, it doesn't do any party any favours.

I'm personally sceptical as to whether Aluko was ever out to get him fired. As has been said before, she only mentioned the allegations when she was directly asked if she had ever heard discriminatory comments as an England player and she was obviously happy enough keeping her peace until the allegations resurfaced in the Daily Mail. 

One thing is for sure - there are absolutely no winners from this situation and it is sad all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

I read an interesting article back when Shane Sutton was getting loads of flack in the media and it did put across some interesting points of view.  The main thrust of it was that coaches who have gained all their experience in a male environment might well use phrases and tones that men would accept as normal, but women might react differently to, to the point of upset, whereas in a male dressing room it would get shrugged off or the coach would be called a few choice names, whilst the women wouldn't do that, so the air wouldn't be cleared and things would linger.  The author wasn't excusing any sort of offensive or racist comments, but it was a well written piece that did provoke thought - I have had a search and can't find it to link to unfortunately.

An interesting article. I think that is probably true to an extent but, even more so, I think ultimately any manager in any situation needs to be mindful they are managing a group of individuals and people respond differently to different things.

I personally also think a lot of the problem is we have reached a point where, at the very second an allegation of racism is made, everyone immediately draws a line in the sand. You then get various people who respond to an allegation of racism by calling for blood and working on the basis that whatever was said sums up their entire character and you get other people who furiously deny any wrong doing and tie themselves in knots  defending the perpetrator and say, because the accused is a nice person, they cannot possibly have said the wrong thing. Often facts and context fly out the window on both sides.

I think it would be much easier all round if there was simply a focus on whether a certain action or statement has justifiably caused offence, without worrying too much about whether that sums up their entire character. You can do or say racist things without being a racist and indeed without being a terrible person but I think there is too much of an assumption on both sides that, if someone admits to having said something inappropriate, they are also admitting to being a bad person, which it harder for people to admit fault and have an honest conversation. It would be much better if someone who had said something inappropriate felt able t say "I'm sorry, I should not have said that and will try not to do it again" and someone who was upset by what someone had said was then able to accept that apology and move on. But instead it becomes this divisive argument and I think a large part of the reason is because of this failure on both sides to separate the individual and the action. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Tom said:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/sep/12/mark-sampson-defends-himself-eni-aluko-ebola

Sometime ago I said he should be keeping his mouth shut over this, no matter how innocent he believes he is. He's either not listened to his PR people, he's ignored them or his PR people are idiots. Either way, he's now paid the price.

Taking part in press conferences, unless tightly choreographed, only requires one misstep and you are buried by people solely there for the inconsistencies. Even innocent people say the wrong thing when under pressure - this is why, if you are ever arrested, you keep your mouth shut (Ched Evans is a classic example), irrespective of the bit '... But it may harm your defence if you do not...' - let a solicitor provide guidance. It's when you tell porkies that you get into trouble and look guilty even if you are not.

It's done now and he's gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BCFC Rich

BCFC Rich

Posted
Posted

Frankly, whether you believe he is racist or not it's the FA's handling that has been the problem and led to the dismissal. If they had actually had any investigation in their investigation the 1st time around he would have been cleared of proven guilty. The fact is the 1st investigation basically involved talking to Sampson and the player, they didn't then speak to any witnesses that were put forward or investigate any of the other claims linked to the case. 1 proper investigation would have put this to bed but instead, they tried to sweep past it quickly and that's the real problem. If he is racist he should have gone a long time ago and if he isn't it should have been put to bed at the 1st time of asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, BoneyardTIM said:

Who's trashing what you wrote, You answered my question and you choose to believe a "newspaper", good for you.

Surely he chooses to judge for himself on the fact that Mark Sampson's quotes directly contradict each other. He could of course be mistaken rather than a liar but it is a simple statement of fact that he has given conflicting accounts, which will naturally raise questions. 

None of us will ever know exactly what happened but what I do think is very clear is that both Sampson and Aluko have been badly let down by the FA in this process. Aluko was invited to give feedback to a discussion on the culture of the FA, asked if she had ever witnessed behaviour she perceived as discriminatory, answered that question and the FA have failed to keep that process confidential and the investigation into Sampson was so flawed that, regardless of Sampson's innocence or guilt, there can be no confidence in the outcome. The FA has a duty and responsibility to both Aluko and Sampson and have put both of them into a position where they have been torn to sheds and, whatever the truth, both have had their characters assassinated. 

What is certain now is that any player with concerns about racism in the future will be terrified of making those allegations and that the FA have managed to massively erode trust in their own organsiation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, RichardEdd said:

Frankly, whether you believe he is racist or not it's the FA's handling that has been the problem and led to the dismissal. If they had actually had any investigation in their investigation the 1st time around he would have been cleared of proven guilty. The fact is the 1st investigation basically involved talking to Sampson and the player, they didn't then speak to any witnesses that were put forward or investigate any of the other claims linked to the case. 1 proper investigation would have put this to bed but instead, they tried to sweep past it quickly and that's the real problem. If he is racist he should have gone a long time ago and if he isn't it should have been put to bed at the 1st time of asking.

Is this because the FA is full of old men who simply have not moved into the modern world.

A world where things are done on handshakes, old boy networks etc., without the due diligence.

I'm all for common sense and less political correctness but at least get the basics right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Admin
Maesknoll Red

Maesknoll Red

Posted
  • Admin
Posted
4 minutes ago, bcfcfinker said:

Is this because the FA is full of old men who simply have not moved into the modern world.

A world where things are done on handshakes, old boy networks etc., without the due diligence.

I'm all for common sense and less political correctness but at least get the basics right.

Slightly veering off topic, but handshakes and the old boy network is still prevalent in many, many walks of life, so the FA are far from alone in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LondonBristolian

LondonBristolian

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, RichardEdd said:

Frankly, whether you believe he is racist or not it's the FA's handling that has been the problem and led to the dismissal. If they had actually had any investigation in their investigation the 1st time around he would have been cleared of proven guilty. The fact is the 1st investigation basically involved talking to Sampson and the player, they didn't then speak to any witnesses that were put forward or investigate any of the other claims linked to the case. 1 proper investigation would have put this to bed but instead, they tried to sweep past it quickly and that's the real problem. If he is racist he should have gone a long time ago and if he isn't it should have been put to bed at the 1st time of asking.

Precisely. And frankly, given what he is alleged to have said was inappropriate but not massively serious, it is very likely that - had there been a thorough investigation and had it found he had made the remarks the whole thing could have been resolved behind closed doors with a reprimand and an apology rather than this PR disaster that has reflected badly on the FA and put both Aluko and Sampson in a difficult position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Maesknoll Red said:

Slightly veering off topic, but handshakes and the old boy network is still prevalent in many, many walks of life, so the FA are far from alone in this.

I agree, but, the FA has a more visible presence than many of these other old boy networks.

Some think it's a British disease, which I can tell you is bollox, as I've worked for international firms where it is also very much alive and kicking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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