Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Commando Canary

Mark Sampson set to leave as England women's manager

Recommended Posts

PlatonicYou continue to pursue this abuse and child protection angle. I think you will find that when all this comes to light and it eventually will, that it has nothing whatever to do with children. Bristol Academy is a ladies football team, we are not talking about children here. I suggest you re-read the Guardian article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Aluko just can''t handle criticism. That''s not impossible. Whenever I criticise my girlfriends cooking it''s as if i''ve murdered 3 children right in front of her.
Which is a bit unfair, I always ensure my murderings are done away from the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"][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?[/quote]As the children''s rhyme goes Jim: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will cause lasting psychological damage that can only be healed by the payment of a six figure out of court settlement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I''ve said earlier, I don''t think this has anything to do with children or minors. He was the coach of the Bristol Womens Football team. If it had involved minor''s the FA, and the police, would have had no choice but to get involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ricardo,

I''ve consistently said I think it unlikely his conduct was to do with the direct abuse of minors. I specifically state that in my last post. I''m trying to show how there are a number of grey areas that we will likely never know about but which may by the letter of the law be legal. My point has always been that, from what I can see, his dismissal is the best outcome from a poorly handled situation where we are unlikely to get the full facts.

Share this post


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

I''ve consistently said I think it unlikely his conduct was to do with the direct abuse of minors. I specifically state that in my last post. I''m trying to show how there are a number of grey areas that we will likely never know about but which may by the letter of the law be legal. My point has always been that, from what I can see, his dismissal is the best outcome from a poorly handled situation where we are unlikely to get the full facts.[/quote]I find myself wondering if you would feel as passionately were it you that had been dismissed from your job after being tried in the court of public opinion, without the full facts getting disclosed. If I were to hazard guess it would be that you would claim you were being bullied.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sampson is being pulled apart in some sort of feeding frenzy, there doesn''t seem to be a great deal of justice in the way things are being handled and reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Yellowfuture"]Sampson is being pulled apart in some sort of feeding frenzy, there doesn''t seem to be a great deal of justice in the way things are being handled and reported.[/quote]

Its quite scary that someone can have his career ruined because of unsubstantiated allegations (her word against his) and past mistakes of a nature that no-one really knows the full details - if he had a dalliance with a lady player whilst coaching a ladies team, is that so wrong?  Is the world a place where someone in a job can''t have a relationship with another worker because they are beneath them in rank? I don''t know the details and can''t judge, but neither does anyone else, but there are plenty quick to jump on the lablelling "racist" "bully" "improper" bandwagon without any actual substantiated evidence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="king canary"]It isn''t just her word against his though is it? It''s hers and a few other players against his.[/quote]

I have come across several situations where adults have ganged up on members of staff wrongly because one or more of them held a grudge. It happens and in a competitive field like football, grudges are bound to happen when players egos are bruised for some reason - either being shouted at or left out of the team etc etc.   I don''t know the details of this case for certain - can anyone else say they definitely know what happened for sure??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="king canary"]It isn''t just her word against his though is it? It''s hers and a few other players against his.[/quote]

I have come across several situations where adults have ganged up on members of staff wrongly because one or more of them held a grudge. It happens and in a competitive field like football, grudges are bound to happen when players egos are bruised for some reason - either being shouted at or left out of the team etc etc.   I don''t know the details of this case for certain - can anyone else say they definitely know what happened for sure??

[/quote]Anyone who has worked in a mixed environment, be it factory, shop or office will know that illicit relationships are not that uncommon.Its a fertile breeding ground for jealousies and perceived slights. If they were all sacked the commerce of the nation would cease overnight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think people assuming that this ''previous'' is with a minor have to be barking up the wrong tree - surely the police (and media) would have been involved a long time ago if it was. Even the FA might consider ''Inappropriate'' as not being the right term for it.

As to the racist thing, it is a difficult one - comments can be misconstrued and/or look much more harsh out of context, or indeed also look much less ''harmful''/demeaning. It is not even necessarily an abuse of position thing, things are far more complex. In my opinion intent is the most important thing, we can all be clumsy with language/make jokes that offend unintentionally, or things can be misread or misheard.

Re: Sampson, I thought as soon as this stuff hit the news a month or so back that it was only a matter of time before he went - the story, rightly or wrongly, just wasn''t going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fundamental thing here is this is a bunch of white guys from Norfolk (I assume) who weren''t there, saying that these things we didn''t hear don''t sound racist to us. One of the people who was on the receiving end though felt strongly enough about it to risk her career.

I know where my feelings lie on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait for all the compensation claims to start coming out funded by greedy lawyers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]The fundamental thing here is this is a bunch of white guys from Norfolk (I assume) who weren''t there, saying that these things we didn''t hear don''t sound racist to us. One of the people who was on the receiving end though felt strongly enough about it to risk her career.

I know where my feelings lie on this.[/quote]I''m going to go out on a limb and guess that you weren''t there either to here the things that you "feel" are racist.As for risking her career. You could take the view that her international career was already over and the only way to force her way back into England reckoning was by getting a change of manager.Oh and be careful. Someone was banned recently for making similar sweeping accusations about the "bunch of white guys from Norfolk" that post on here. It''s a good job for you that, unlike the SJW fascists that roam our message boards, I''m not easily offended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no criminal aspect to this? If there was the FA could not suggest he''s free to look for employment else where! The whole thing has been a massive balls up from which ever perspective you look at it. My personal point of view is the FA aren''t fit for purpose. They need a massive overhaul starting from the top!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Branston Pickle"]I think people assuming that this ''previous'' is with a minor have to be barking up the wrong tree - surely the police (and media) would have been involved a long time ago if it was. Even the FA might consider ''Inappropriate'' as not being the right term for it.

As to the racist thing, it is a difficult one - comments can be misconstrued and/or look much more harsh out of context, or indeed also look much less ''harmful''/demeaning. It is not even necessarily an abuse of position thing, things are far more complex. In my opinion intent is the most important thing, we can all be clumsy with language/make jokes that offend unintentionally, or things can be misread or misheard.

Re: Sampson, I thought as soon as this stuff hit the news a month or so back that it was only a matter of time before he went - the story, rightly or wrongly, just wasn''t going away.[/quote]I can only go on the reporting in The Guardian, which is necessarily contrained for legal reasons, but it doesn''t look as if the story here is about minors or - mainly - about racism. The primary issue seems to be Sampson''s behaviour - allegations of  "inappropriate relationships with female players" - at the Bristol Academy. I don''t know but I assume there are female players there who are 16 or over.Seemingly he was cleared over these allegations, so how come he is now being found guilty? He  wasn''t cleared in a court of law (nor has he now been found guilty in such). It was only an internal FA probe. And it is not clear he was totally exonerated, in the sense that any allegations were shown to be false. He was cleared in the sense of being allowed to carry on to be England''s manager. That is not quite the same thing. Whether the Bristol allegations have been handily (re-)discovered as a reason/pretence for sacking him over the more recent claims of racism is a question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He was cleared of not being a safeguarding risk which presumably means not a risk to kids or minors. I take from that tgatvthe allegations relate to a relationship or relationships with an adult player(s) in his team/squad.

Presumably it''s perfectly possible that the outcome of the investigation was that he''d had a relationship but that he poses no risk to children/minors because it was with a consenting adult?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread seems odd to me. I get that people are emotionally invested in issues of racism and workplace relationships.

But it looks like he was prepared to pick the team based on reasons other than winning football matches.

Why would anyone want to keep a manager who did that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There seems to be a pretty strong suggestion that the initial enquires into the racism issue were ''lacking'' to say the least with key people not interviewed.

It seems like the rediscovery of the Bristol report is being used by the FA as a get out to sack him for something else knowing they bungled the first part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They clearly were lacking in that they didn''t speak to key witnesses.

The FA seems to have messed up here at almost every stage.

Regardless of what he did I still struggle to see how an employee of an organisation can legitimately be investigated, cleared to continue subject to going on a course and then two years later be sacked for the same matter which they acknowledge is not illegal. As a matter of employment law that seems dubious to me and consequently I suspect they will have paid him to go here despite it being referred to as a "sacking."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]They clearly were lacking in that they didn''t speak to key witnesses.

The FA seems to have messed up here at almost every stage.

Regardless of what he did I still struggle to see how an employee of an organisation can legitimately be investigated, cleared to continue subject to going on a course and then two years later be sacked for the same matter which they acknowledge is not illegal. As a matter of employment law that seems dubious to me and consequently I suspect they will have paid him to go here despite it being referred to as a "sacking."[/quote]Jim, again going by the reports, I suspect the answer is that Sampson shouldn''t have been allowed to carry on in the first place. That whatever he did (it seems there was something at least questionable in his behaviour) was more serious than warranting only being sent on some course. In other words, the first inquiry let Sampson off far too lightly. That is certainly the line the FA is peddling now to explain this revised judgment.But the FA is also in effect saying that putting whatever happened in Bristol together with the more recent allegations of racism suggests a pattern of unacceptable behaviour by Sampson, and so it is legally OK to sack him now, for the combination of events. He has not been fired purely for Bristol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary Purple I think they are saying he has been fired for what happened at Bristol and I think (for now) they have to stick to that because he has so far been cleared of the more recent racism/bullying accusations.

They may well be trying to argue that he should have been sacked for what they discovered back in 2015 but he wasn''t. Leaving aside the fact I find it completely in credible that people high up in that organisation were not aware that the current head of the England ladies team was subject to such an investigation and/or being sent on a course if a disciplinary process has run its course and an employee has been cleared to continue then I don''t see how a different boss, 2 years down the line can suddenly just decide its now worthy of sacking and retrospectively impose a different sanction.

As I have said not making any judgments on what he may or may not have done at Bristol but they have either paid him off or he will be suing them, particularly as their press releases and the way they have handled this will make it very difficult for him to work in football (certainly women''s football) again.

Share this post


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

Martin Glenn has made it clear that the Aluko stuff had nothing to do with the sacking, the decision was purely based on the Bristol Academy allegations

The whole thing is a fiasco & Glenn''s days are clearly numbered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As always it''s the cover up that does for them. I expect this to run and run until the inevitable round of resignations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]On the contrary Purple I think they are saying he has been fired for what happened at Bristol and I think (for now) they have to stick to that because he has so far been cleared of the more recent racism/bullying accusations.

They may well be trying to argue that he should have been sacked for what they discovered back in 2015 but he wasn''t. Leaving aside the fact I find it completely in credible that people high up in that organisation were not aware that the current head of the England ladies team was subject to such an investigation and/or being sent on a course if a disciplinary process has run its course and an employee has been cleared to continue then I don''t see how a different boss, 2 years down the line can suddenly just decide its now worthy of sacking and retrospectively impose a different sanction.

As I have said not making any judgments on what he may or may not have done at Bristol but they have either paid him off or he will be suing them, particularly as their press releases and the way they have handled this will make it very difficult for him to work in football (certainly women''s football) again.[/quote]Jim, I said "in effect" what the FA was saying about the reason for Sampson''s sacking, as opposed to what it was strictly speaking saying in public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see Glenn is getting himself in a further mess now having stated that he made it an express condition that the investigation into Sampson and the Aluko issues had to be undertaken by a black woman. The only problem with this being that his lawyers had recently gone on record in a letter to the guardian denying categorically that this was the case!

Its ironic of course that she cleared him because presumably the lawyers were worried about accusations that the "independent" investigation was biased in the event he was found at fault!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of which just goes to show the utter minefield that race has become and perhaps why the FA just wanted to find a quick way to end this. It appears to have backfired fairly spectacularly!

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...