Eni Aluko / Mark Sampson (Merged)

[RedM]

He was doing well at Bristol from what I remember, so did the FA offer him the England job without checking out his references as such? Or were they aware and employed him anyway hoping they could bury 'bad news' as they got a successful manager? As I said before it was only by chance the Aluko thing was discovered. 

[1bristolcity]

1 hour ago, Monkeh said:

Like with with fat Sam (who was also proved innocent)

This is about the FA trying to save face and the "gentlemans" club at the top of the game

No smoke without fire in both cases, would you rather we have a cover up? 

Not sure what you are alluding to with your comments. The way I see it he was sacked  because of his previous actions, which cast doubt on his innocence, but supported the complainents' side of the story.

The silence from him his is deafening. 

[Monkeh]

18 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

Something came out of some incident(s)  whilst he was at Bristol, the testimony given by the black player was very compelling for me, and I said similar on here at the time. However despite this some on here merely put i down as a witch hunt What should the FA do, forget it ignore and be no better than the Russians?

 

Whatever happened here must have been pretty serious, let's see if he contests the sacking shall we?

so serious in fact that two investigations found nothing (one independent ) and they have gone back to something from 2014 and stating the fact no law has been broken and that he can still work in the game,

 

yea sounds really serious and not a witch hunt at all,

[1bristolcity]

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

so serious in fact that two investigations found nothing (one independent ) and they have gone back to something from 2014 and stating the fact no law has been broken and that he can still work in the game,

 

yea sounds really serious and not a witch hunt at all,

By a witch hunt you are saying that he is innocent, the girl a liar and Fat Sam should be the England Manager...leave the keyboard alone, take a walk and clear your head.

[Trueredsupporter]

18 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

By a witch hunt you are saying that he is innocent, the girl a liar and Fat Sam should be the England Manager...leave the keyboard alone, take a walk and clear your head.

the player doesn't come across very well either. neither do a lot of people. if Mark Sampson was all its said some think he was. why was he employed by Bristol Academy? why did they give him a reference for the England job? Bristol Sport also made a statement yesterday which appeared to go against the FA.

[Maesknoll Red]

17 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

By a witch hunt you are saying that he is innocent, the girl a liar and Fat Sam should be the England Manager...leave the keyboard alone, take a walk and clear your head.

So if he is not innocent, what is he actually guilty of?  And if he is guilty of a crime or a serious FA rule breach, why has he not been convicted or banned?

[Monkeh]

19 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

By a witch hunt you are saying that he is innocent, the girl a liar and Fat Sam should be the England Manager...leave the keyboard alone, take a walk and clear your head.

whats he done wrong? 3 investigations one dating back to 2014 that the FA had before he was employed,

Where's his conviction? why isnt he in prison as its so serious?

I suggest you leave the keyboard alone,

Or produce the evidence to prove he is in the wrong because that doesn't seem to be forth coming at the moment,

[Cowshed]

14 hours ago, RaspberryRed said:

Believe me the FA knew about this waaay way before then. His inappropriate behaviour was common knowledge in and around Bristol Ladies/Girls team.

Total abuse of power

This slimey little**** has had this coming for some time 

What does that say about Bristol Academy, Bristol City Women, Bristol Sport and BCFC?

The four are linked to individuals who were present when Mark Sampson was employed by Bristol Academy.

 

[phantom]

Maybe being a bit thick here, but a statement was released by Bristol Academy womens team last night - does that actually still exist?

I thought they evolved into Bristol City ladies team?

[View from the Dolman]

5 minutes ago, phantom said:

Maybe being a bit thick here, but a statement was released by Bristol Academy womens team last night - does that actually still exist?

I thought they evolved into Bristol City ladies team?

Bristol Academy of Sport still exists - maybe it's their statement as it relates to the time when they were running the team?

Bristol Sport appears to have got involved in 2014, after Sampson left although the Community Trust was a shirt sponsor in 2013.

[Red-Robbo]

7 hours ago, Dollymarie said:

DBS checks are done every 3 years, (used to be a CRB check) I wonder if his had expired and when it was renewed, this "new info" came out. As in someone could have come forwards since his last one was done, with info from before 2014, so it's now showing up. Just an idea. 

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Dolls,  as the FA have said it isn't an issue related to safeguarding. 

It's also not a new allegation, as it was made and investigated (by the FA) in 2014.

They appear to have developed collective amnesia however and it is convenient for them now to resurrect this issue to get rid of someone who is at the centre of a controversy. 

[Monkeh]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

What does that say about Bristol Academy, Bristol City Women, Bristol Sport and BCFC?

The four are linked to individuals who were present when Mark Sampson was employed by Bristol Academy.

 

nothing to do with city or Bristol Sport,

Bristol Sport didn't take over the womens team until 2015 after Sampson had already left his post and two years after the allegation according to a statement 

[BobBobSuperBob]

If Sampson deserves to lose his job 

Dan Ashworth and particularly Martin Glen certainly do

[BobBobSuperBob]

18 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

I think you're barking up the wrong tree, Dolls,  as the FA have said it isn't an issue related to safeguarding. 

It's also not a new allegation, as it was made and investigated (by the FA) in 2014.

They appear to have developed collective amnesia however and it is convenient for them now to resurrect this issue to get rid of someone who is at the centre of a controversy. 

It's the same concerns RR that Safeguarding examined and came to the conclusion there wasn't a safeguarding issue

The FA have just decided to make their own judgement on those concerns , now , some years later

 

[Monkeh]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11046024/bristol-city-frustrated-at-fa-silence-over-mark-sampson-before-his-sacking

 

[sh1t_ref_again]

Certainly seemed to have the backing of the players the other night, they are on the inside and will know what has happened or alleged to and the individuals involved

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

It's the same concerns RR that Safeguarding examined and came to the conclusion there wasn't a safeguarding issue

The FA have just decided to make their own judgement on those concerns , now , some years later

 

Exactly Bob. Not a safeguarding issue as it doesn't involve an under 18 or an abuse of a power situation. Sleezy perhaps, but not criminal. 

The FA however have already made a judgement in 2014. They are now saying that the people running the organisation now weren't aware of this allegation so they have looked afresh at it and decided that while it raises no safeguarding issue it amounts to conduct below the standard expected of its employees.

[Cowshed]

3 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

nothing to do with city or Bristol Sport,

Bristol Sport didn't take over the womens team until 2015 after Sampson had already left his post and two years after the allegation according to a statement 

And people who were there are time are now part of?

If as the poster implies Mr Sampsons alleged behaviour was common knowledge why was it tolerated

There are a myriad of connections between Bristol Academy, Bristol City women and Bristol Sport and Bristol City FC.  

Coaches above work in various roles, in the community and at junior clubs.

I have a personal interest in this as a Bristol City women's coach is a friend and coached my son in another role. He is a credit to he coaching profession. I simply do not believe that people as admirable and responsible as he is would tolerate inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour at a organisation they coach at.

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

And people who were there are time are now part of?

If as the poster implies Mr Sampsons alleged behaviour was common knowledge why was it tolerated

There are a myriad of connections between Bristol Academy, Bristol City women and Bristol Sport and Bristol City FC.  

Coaches above work in various roles, in the community and at junior clubs.

I have a personal interest in this as a Bristol City women's coach is a friend and coached my son in another role. He is a credit to he coaching profession. I simply do not believe that people as admirable and responsible as he is would tolerate inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour at a organisation they coach at.

It's the FA trying to save face and throw everyone under the bus and try and resit the reform the government wants

[BobBobSuperBob]

4 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Exactly Bob. Not a safeguarding issue as it doesn't involve an under 18 or an abuse of a power situation. Sleezy perhaps, but not criminal. 

The FA however have already made a judgement in 2014. They are now saying that the people running the organisation now weren't aware of this allegation so they have looked afresh at it and decided that while it raises no safeguarding issue it amounts to conduct below the standard expected of its employees.

Agree - but the FA were in possession of all the facts but now claiming they didn't read them fully / properly

The whole thing stinks from top to bottom and it sounds like a few should be going

[Coxy27]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

so serious in fact that two investigations found nothing (one independent ) and they have gone back to something from 2014 and stating the fact no law has been broken and that he can still work in the game,

 

yea sounds really serious and not a witch hunt at all,

Can you not think of anything that a male manager could do whilst in charge of female players that would not be a crime but would be completely inappropriate? It doesn't have to be anything to do with the Aluko allegations.

Everything is wild speculation obviously until anything actually comes to light, but by constantly defending the man and making claims like it's a witch hunt you're running the risk of seeming very silly when the true extent of the situation is revealed.

Why not wait and see.

[Monkeh]

3 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

Can you not think of anything that a male manager could do whilst in charge of female players that would not be a crime but would be completely inappropriate? It doesn't have to be anything to do with the Aluko allegations.

Everything is wild speculation obviously until anything actually comes to light, but by constantly defending the man and making claims like it's a witch hunt you're running the risk of seeming very silly when the true extent of the situation is revealed.

Why not wait and see.

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,

[Cowshed]

17 hours ago, RaspberryRed said:

Believe me the FA knew about this waaay way before then. His inappropriate behaviour was common knowledge in and around Bristol Ladies/Girls team.

Total abuse of power

This slimey little**** has had this coming for some time 

 

44 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's the FA trying to save face and throw everyone under the bus and try and resit the reform the government wants

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.  

[1bristolcity]

3 hours ago, Monkeh said:

whats he done wrong? 3 investigations one dating back to 2014 that the FA had before he was employed,

Where's his conviction? why isnt he in prison as its so serious?

I suggest you leave the keyboard alone,

Or produce the evidence to prove he is in the wrong because that doesn't seem to be forth coming at the moment,

It was not a criminal offence, but fell short of what was to be expected, seems like he might have had a warning, and then this...two strikes and your out?

 

Hope that helps your understanding a bit.

[1bristolcity]

3 hours ago, Maesknoll Red said:

So if he is not innocent, what is he actually guilty of?  And if he is guilty of a crime or a serious FA rule breach, why has he not been convicted or banned?

Read the reply I made to Monk...

[View from the Dolman]

5 minutes 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.

Even if it predates Bristol Sport?

[1bristolcity]

17 hours ago, RaspberryRed said:

Believe me the FA knew about this waaay way before then. His inappropriate behaviour was common knowledge in and around Bristol Ladies/Girls team.

Total abuse of power

This slimey little**** has had this coming for some time 

Thanks for adding a bit of reason, I just really had a gut instinct about the bloke, that's all, seems like there is actually no smoke without fire. It would seem Bristol did the right and proper thing in exposing him, too much cover up in football, which has been highlighted just recently with coaches preying on young boys.... 

 

So before some condemn the FA for all this stop and think some.

[Monkeh]

7 minutes 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 was 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.  

Bristol Sport and indeed Bristol City FC didn't take over running or have anything to do with the womens Team untill 2015 2 years after he left his post at Bristol Academy so why would BCFC know? or even need to know?,

From Wiki

The first women's team to represent Bristol City were not actually part of the football club, but were actually an independent team, Bristol United, with no affiliation to Bristol City. In 1990 they were invited to represent City by wearing red kits and using the club's name. Four years later, City began work developing their own women's football section when fathers Roger Bowyer and Andy Baylis, began entering girls' teams in local 6-a-side leagues. From these beginnings a senior women's team grew, and worked their way up the leagues. They won the South-West Combination in the 2001–02 season, winning promotion to the FA Women's Premier League Southern Division.^[1]

It took them just two seasons in the Southern Division to win promotion to the FA Women's Premier League National Division, finishing the 2003–04 season with a record of 18 wins, three draws and three defeats to top the Southern table.^[2] Promotion meant they would now play in the top flight of English women's football, where they would join local rivals Bristol Rovers in the National Division.

City found life at the top of the women's game difficult, and their stay in the National Division lasted for just a single season. They ended the 2004–05 campaign with just 9 points and were relegated straight back down to the Southern Division.^[3] Two years later, in May 2007, Bristol City announced that they would no longer fund a women's team. The club moved to Bath and became part of the TeamBath group of sports teams.^[4]

The name Bristol City returned to women's football in 2016, however. In a strange twist City took over, and renamed, FA WSL side Bristol Academy. Although they had been renamed in the mean time, Academy were the same team that had been City's fierce rivals of the late 90s and early 2000s: Bristol Rovers.^[5] It was announced in November 2015 that Academy would become Bristol City W.F.C..^[6]

[Monkeh]

11 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

It was not a criminal offence, but fell short of what was to be expected, seems like he might have had a warning, and then this...two strikes and your out?

 

Hope that helps your understanding a bit.

So you have a warning in your previous job, and one in your current job, does that mean you should be sacked from your current job?

[1bristolcity]

8 hours ago, Dollymarie said:

DBS checks are done every 3 years, (used to be a CRB check) I wonder if his had expired and when it was renewed, this "new info" came out. As in someone could have come forwards since his last one was done, with info from before 2014, so it's now showing up. Just an idea. 

He had no criminal convictions so any checks on his self that was negative would be groundless. I would think that the weight of 'evidence' regarding his persona was too much to ignore. And of course in light of the new revelations about past abuse, the FA had to act.

[1bristolcity]

4 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

So you have a warning in your previous job, and one in your current job, does that mean you should be sacked from your current job?

He was working under the FA in both roles.

So yes he should be sacked.

 

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, 1bristolcity said:

He was working under the FA in both roles.

So yes he should be sacked.

 

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 

[CHIPLEY RED]

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?

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

3 minutes 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 

And the FA have known about this for 2 years why now?.

[Monkeh]

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

And the FA have known about this for 2 years why now?.

much like the child abuse  another cover up perhaps to keep the old boys in place and the fat cats keep getting richer?,

Unlike the abuse however a few players have jumped to his defense, like Steph Houghton, 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 minutes 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?

 

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.

[Cowshed]

3 minutes ago, View from the Dolman said:

Even if it predates Bristol Sport?

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 ..

 

 

 

[Gert Mare]

So Sampson is cleared twice of racism, but the FA paid Aluko out anyway? Why?.....Hmmm better mention some new evidence that he come to light so Sampson can take the rap and the FA can scuttle away quietly. Corruption springs to mind.

[Cowshed]

24 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Bristol Sport and indeed Bristol City FC didn't take over running or have anything to do with the womens Team untill 2015 2 years after he left his post at Bristol Academy so why would BCFC know? or even need to know?,

 

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.

[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?. 

[BCFC Rich]

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.