Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Commando Canary

Mark Sampson set to leave as England women's manager

Recommended Posts

That appears to be the suggestion and its worth noting that Bristol Academy is the old name for Bristol City Ladies and not the youth academy and the name perhaps suggests.

The whole episode has been a mess from start to finish and you do wonder if there has been a lot more behind the scenes than has ever been made public. My perception of him is he''s always been a bit of a c**ky t**t but by the same token this latest action and the letter released by the FA has essentially destroyed him.

It would not surprise me at all if he sues them and i''m struggling to see how they can sack him for something they knew about (they knew he had been investigated and cleared so they must have known the accusation), acknowledge was lawful, he was essentially cleared of and doesn''t prevent him from being a fit and proper person to coach at any other football club.

Seems to me they were just desperate to find a reason to get rid to bring an end to this whole Aluko race saga and they have delved around to find something to enable them to pull the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, the Bristol Academy thing is just an excuse to get rid of him after the FA said they were happy to continue employing him after the farcical enquiry surround the Aluko allegations.

When the FA say ''sacked'' - what they really mean is paid off his contract, so Sampson won''t have much room to sue them. Doubt he''d want to go to an employment tribunal and drag up all this unpleasant history again.

Speak to anyone who has worked with Sampson and they will have a story about how much of a c**t he is - was a ridiculous appointment in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That''s not to say I condone his behaviour if what he is rumoured to have done is true. Its just I don''t see how the FA can just sack him for it now with it having been investigated and him cleared to continue working in the game and with them knowing about that investigation. They may well end up paying out more compensation to him as well as to Aluko.

Unless he didn''t disclose something to them perhaps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They don''t need an excuse to sack him, like football clubs don''t need an excuse to sack their managers. As long as they pay up the value of the contract (or a pre-agreed fee to terminate the contract) then they can remove him at any moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"] Seems to me they were just desperate to find a reason to get rid to bring an end to this whole Aluko race saga and they have delved around to find something to enable them to pull the trigger.[/quote]

Once he fell foul of the PC brigade there was only one outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/sep/20/mark-sampson-fa-england-buck-passing-daniel-taylor

It seems to me inconceivable that those in power at the FA were not aware that the manager of their ladies team was under investigation and precisely what for when that investigation (by them) was going on for more than a year whilst he was their employee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Jim Smith"] Seems to me they were just desperate to find a reason to get rid to bring an end to this whole Aluko race saga and they have delved around to find something to enable them to pull the trigger.[/quote]

Once he fell foul of the PC brigade there was only one outcome.[/quote]Agreed. With Aluko being black, a woman and having an unknown sexual preference there was only ever going to be one side that the PC fascists would support. Regardless of whether her allegations were accurate or if she was just being a b**ch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure about that IBT but I do think that the issue wasn''t going away and the FA have sought to close it down by getting rid of him over these unconnected issues.

Even more bizarre when you look at the timeline properly which most people don''t seem to be doing. the assumption was that this Bristol investigation was before he went to the FA but it was actually after he was already employed by the FA, went on for a year and he was then sent on a course to address his behaviour whilst he was employed as the manager of the England ladies.

I''m sorry but I just do not accept that top people at the FA were not aware that the manager of the England ladies team was the subject of an investigation and/or was sent on a course to teach him that he shouldn''t behave "inappropriately" with his own players.

It may be of course that the powers that be have decided that being accused of being hopeless (in the past) by not doing their due diligence is better than the alternative which is that the FA covered up the original scandal and they knew that it was going to come out following the Aluko allegations so have tried to pre-empt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Utd II"]Aluko has accepted an £80k settlement, that all happened very quickly![/quote]It happened in March 2017.March 2017 - Sampson and his staff are cleared of

wrongdoing by the independent investigation, but Aluko is paid £80,000

in a confidentiality agreement, which, at a later date, the FA insist

was to avoid disruption to England''s Euro 2017 campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Canary Utd II"]Aluko has accepted an £80k settlement, that all happened very quickly![/quote]It happened in March 2017.March 2017 - Sampson and his staff are cleared of

wrongdoing by the independent investigation, but Aluko is paid £80,000

in a confidentiality agreement, which, at a later date, the FA insist

was to avoid disruption to England''s Euro 2017 campaign.

[/quote]

That''s just f#g ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sampson allegedly had a relationship with a player at Bristol. The FA knew about this, or should have done, so to bring it up now is rather strange. It cant have been "underage" because the FA ,a nd the police, would have had to act. So it must just be "inappropriate" .

Aluko alleged Bullying and Racism. I''m afraid I cant see how a football coach that picks black players is a racist. Surely a coach that is racist wouldn''t pick any black players?

Whether he is a bully , we don''t know, but it would depend on which definition to use. Some coaches use such actions as a psychological method of bringing up a players performance. Did Ferguson "bully" Beckham when he kicked a boot at him? Aluko would say yes. If the bullying is consistent , over a period of time then she may have a case. But was this part of a player getting old, and losing her place in the team? Possibly.

Coaches and mangers use all kinds of methods - arm around the shoulder or a good boll1cking. I suspect that most of the top managers do so even today. Lamberts was a massive bollicker as was Culverhouse by all accounts.

When the dynamic of a team sport has this kind of scrutiny, and normal life rules applied, I''m afraid I cant quite see where it all ends.

I do hope that Aluko has donated the 80k to charity, it would seem hugely inappropriate to keep it, under the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the comments on here are pretty terrible.

His comments were racist and he abused/misused a position of power when engaging in a relationship with a player. He clearly should have never been employed by the FA and the whole affair smacks of how people with the similar attitude to some of the posters on this thread have tried to muddle on through not taking the case seriously.

It has nothing to do with political correctness. Racism is racism. Abuse of power is abuse of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.........

Agreed. With Aluko being black, a woman and having an unknown sexual preference there was only ever going to be one side that the PC fascists would support. Regardless of whether her allegations were accurate or if she was just being a b**ch.

......

So you think its ok if its true what he said about her relatives or is that hilarious bantz?

Have you not realised that being black, a woman and (if true) LGBT might mean she actually is pretty likely to be discriminated against - by actual bigots and other assorted morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of which he was found not guilty of.But the accusation is more than enough to condemn him apparently. If that''s not abuse of power I''d like to know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m black and it''s laughable to consider Sampson''s comments racist.

This is nothing more than a ploy to increase the profile of women''s football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fairness we don''t know what the details are of the Bristol Academy incident. And also in fairness nothing has been proven against him in respect of the other charges. To be honest even if he had said the two reported comments a warning probably would have sufficed and avoided much of this saga. They are not clear cut racism and without knowing how he speaks to the rest of his players (i.e. does he crack similar poor taste jokes?) its very hard to tell whether he''s just a bit of an idiot o there is something more sinister going on. I suppose at the least though the instances cited show perhaps he hadn''t quite got the need for managers to distance themselves to a degree from their players.

He may well deserve everything he''s getting, he may not. The FA has made a right mess of it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricardo,

The allegations against Saville (whom I am using as a case in point, I am not suggesting Sampson is near his level of evil) took several years, multiple allegations and multiple investigations before finally the truth came out. Sampson has not been found "not guilty" of anything, he was the subject of a safeguarding investigation following allegations at Bristol Academy (where he was working with 10-16 year olds) where apparently he admitted to having overstepped the line. The outcome was apparently that he was ''safe'' to continue with training and mentoring. The relevant FA bigwigs claim they didn''t actually read the full report, which they now state has allegations ranging from the trivial to the ''very serious''. The real issue appears to be that their two investigations of the allegations made by Aluko were, as the PFA stated, a ''sham'' and a ''farce'' designed to protect Sampson. So they use the former investigation as a means to try to bury the latter incompetence.

Lets be clear though, Aluko and now Spence feel that they were the subject of racist abuse. There is a history of ''inappropriate'' behaviour at Bristol. How you can feel that this man should be kept in his job is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought Bristol Academy is the former name of the Bristol City Ladies team and he was the manager.

I don''t think he was coaching academy kids was he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evidence should be what is heard in court not innuendo from unnamed sources. None of us have any idea of what is the truth of so called previous allegations as everything is being conducted behind closed doors. If he broke any laws charge him by all means but this has the smell of an ar$e covering exercise to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim,

The Guardian have led on this story, I quote them above - the consensus is that he was coaching 10-16 year olds and then the first team.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/sep/20/mark-sampson-leave-england-womens-manager

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/sep/20/mark-sampson-fa-england-buck-passing-daniel-taylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Jim Smith"]I thought Bristol Academy is the former name of the Bristol City Ladies team and he was the manager.

I don''t think he was coaching academy kids was he?[/quote]Nothing to do with kids Jim, it''s a red herring. Read the article in the Guardian, you''ll get some idea if you read between the lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Platonic"]Ricardo,

The allegations against Saville (whom I am using as a case in point, I am not suggesting Sampson is near his level of evil) took several years, multiple allegations and multiple investigations before finally the truth came out. Sampson has not been found "not guilty" of anything, he was the subject of a safeguarding investigation following allegations at Bristol Academy (where he was working with 10-16 year olds) where apparently he admitted to having overstepped the line. The outcome was apparently that he was ''safe'' to continue with training and mentoring. The relevant FA bigwigs claim they didn''t actually read the full report, which they now state has allegations ranging from the trivial to the ''very serious''. The real issue appears to be that their two investigations of the allegations made by Aluko were, as the PFA stated, a ''sham'' and a ''farce'' designed to protect Sampson. So they use the former investigation as a means to try to bury the latter incompetence.

Lets be clear though, Aluko and now Spence feel that they were the subject of racist abuse. There is a history of ''inappropriate'' behaviour at Bristol. How you can feel that this man should be kept in his job is beyond me.[/quote]

I have no idea whether he has committed any offences or whether he deserves all this. i''m not defending him as he may well be a complete a***hole and what we are hearing is the tip of the iceberg.

I''m just a bit uncomfortable with someone being forced out of their job (and in all probability their career finished) when they have not been found "guilty" of anything and indeed thus far all investigations have cleared him.

I''m also a bit uncomfortable with the notion that because someone feels they have been racially "abused" then they definitely have. I appreciate that this is the way that the world seems to be going but we seem to be getting to a situation whereby if the accuser (however over sensitive they may be) takes offence at something (however reasonable that taking offence might be) then that''s it, case closed. I really don''t think the comments highlighted in this case amount to "abuse." Clumsy or in poor taste perhaps. Accidental racism maybe, but abuse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Platonic"]Jim,

The Guardian have led on this story, I quote them above - the consensus is that he was coaching 10-16 year olds and then the first team.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/sep/20/mark-sampson-leave-england-womens-manager

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/sep/20/mark-sampson-fa-england-buck-passing-daniel-taylor[/quote]

Ok but the FA have stated clearly that there has been nothing illegal involved. Reading between the lines the suggestion appears to be a relationship with a player(s). That sort of situation (if that''s what it was) could of course take many forms ranging from quite sinister (i.e. favouring certain players for selection) to simply having a normal relationship with one player.

I have no idea whether having a relationship with one of your players is contrary to good practice in football or against any rules but if you loom at the Olympics for example plenty of athletes are in relationships with their coaches. I also know though that the FA investigated it (whilst he was England manager) and cleared him to continue so to now sack him over it doesn''t really sit right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricardo

Well we agree on one thing, this certainly is an attempt to cover someone''s harris, most likely the FA''s.

I''d just like to make two further points. Firstly, stating that he hasn''t broken any laws is a bit of a red herring - as anyone who has worked in the courts/family law will know, to even get a case to court when dealing with suspected abuse is incredibly hard. This is why child protection measures often do not lead to the person being convicted even when the children are removed, as the burden of proof is so high in a criminal court that the CPS have no possibility of meeting it (beyond reasonable doubt vs. the balance of probabilities that is used in civil court to take child protection measures). To be clear, there is no evidence or suggestion that the allegations are this serious, I just make this point so that my second point has context.

Secondly, I think it is quite unlikely (and I will give the FA credit here) that he was suspected of flagrantly breaking any law whilst at Bristol. You can do all manner of inappropriate, nasty things without breaking the law, hence the need for things such as safeguarding reviews that are designed to be a more frank assessment of someone''s suitability to undertake a job where abuses of power are a possibility. From what we know, it sounds like the outcome of the review was that he should have training to understand what appropriate conduct looks like. The fact that he has further allegations made against him would appear to suggest he did not learn his lesson. Whether the things he did at Bristol were as bad as the FA now claim we will never know, but what is known of them is not encouraging.

So, in conclusion, whilst I do not like a witch hunt as much as the next man, I think the fact that he has been subject to safeguarding investigation before where it is accepted he was in the wrong, coupled with more recent allegations, would suggest that he is unsuitable. The FA have unquestionably messed up, and the payment to Aluko, frankly, stinks. However, the likelihood of justice being done properly now is very low. Nevertheless, I think we can be confident he should not be in a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe part of the reason the payment to Aluko was made was due to NDA she would not be able to work in the media during England''s participation in the Euro Tournament. £80k was to cover any potential loss of earnings (plus a mark-up) from TV/Media work.

The NDA only covered the time England were in the Euros and allowed her to talk about the subject as soon as England were knocked out - hence the timing of the stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...