Webber makes the national news

[Robert N. LiM 4,363]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

the main damage caused to our club is reputational within the black community.

Which is why it was crucial the club said something, regardless of Webber's current employment status. I would hope that our outstanding record of promoting youth talent, and the fact that it appears to be an isolated incident of Webber foot-in-mouth rather than reflective of working practices at the club, will outweigh any damage done.

[lake district canary 4,531]

8 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

15 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

If you just think about it for a minute, you will realise that people who are black, white, yellow, brown and all the lovely infinite shades in between, and come from a disadvantaged background are more likely to get into trouble and and up in jail. That's where the focus should be. If you focus on the black members of that group only, you are being racist. If you then include some other black people who ARE NOT from that disadvantaged background you are being doubly racist and a complete tvvat.

Basically this, I’m really not sure what you’re not getting @lake district canary?

There’s a difference between being a racist and saying something racist.

What he said was objectively racist for the reasons above, why he said it is probably something for Webber to reflect on.

The stats show that young black people are more likely to struggle in getting jobs etc than any other groups of people - and as I keep saying, there have been plenty of reports and studies which show this. 

So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

[Worthy Nigelton 1,049]

He's apparently a big fan of The Office and loves reciting David Brent lines - the irony of that and his own Brent-like quotes is remarkable. Having said that, I'm sure he's feeling bad and didn't mean it in that way and we should remember he's only human. Cut him some slack for this one I'd say.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

20 hours ago, repman said:

If when trying to do as you say you manage to pick out 5 black players (some of whom weren't actually raised in poverty) and then claim that the only outcome other than football is jail, then I think what while you may not be a 'rampant racist' you perhaps have some unchecked biases which need addressing pretty quickly.

Just a reminder what profiling is: it's making assumptions about people based on image.  this clearly doesn't apply here given Webber is an industry insider who will have been privy to honest discussions on the subject minus this sort of rubbish and acquaintance with the individuals. In fairness, as mentioned before, where Webber is open to criticism here is somewhat indiscreetly bringing the individuals into personally, and he has apologised to them. But while that's bad judgement and insensitivity regarding the privacy of the individuals, it's clearly well intended in context and not remotely racist.

Like I said, nearly 50% of elite British footballers are black. Coupled with the fact that most of the single issue campaigners attacking Webber will be keen to make the arguments that young black people are systematically disadvantaged, along with the known issue of black kids falling into gang warfare in cities, it stands up that there's a good chance that if you cite five players who might have avoided a very different life path without even considering race because they became successful footballers, they'll be black.

 

Edited March 26 by littleyellowbirdie

[shefcanary 2,409]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

There have been countless studies highlighting the problems for black people getting jobs compared to white people. Why shouldn't anyone highlight that if they want to? Is that racism, inverse racism or some other 'ism? I don't think so. 

Webber was ham-fisted, clumsy and wrong to name names, but that is all. 

White, yellow, brown even gammon pink kids can struggle to get jobs if they have the wrong start in life. Which none of these lads seemed to. The only thing linking them was supportive families, the colour of their skin and Norwich City. And unfortunately arrogant Mr Webber.

Shall we consider one player that went to jail whilst employed by the club. The club have been quiet on that, which is fair enough. Might have been nice for Webber to discuss the problems that too much leisure time combined with a lot of disposable income gives young players perhaps, and what the club does to help them? 

[dylanisabaddog 4,930]

21 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Which is why it was crucial the club said something, regardless of Webber's current employment status. I would hope that our outstanding record of promoting youth talent, and the fact that it appears to be an isolated incident of Webber foot-in-mouth rather than reflective of working practices at the club, will outweigh any damage done.

Just imagine you are a 16 year old kid, Norfolk born and bred and you are so good at football that several top clubs including Man Utd want your signature. A week before your final decision the Sporting Director of Manchester United tells a journalist that all Norfolk kids are inbred retards. Would that affect your decision? 

This will have long term repurcussions because, like it or not, mud sticks. 

A very simple way of looking at it is to ask yourself if it will have increased our chances of signing a young black lad. 

[shefcanary 2,409]

I am a little disappointed that posters on here don't realise the risk of the Cat 1 status of our academy being withdrawn because of the ill founded comment of someone who was responsible for its inception. And the lacklustre riposte from the club which says very little in a positive way, and also says little of how they will ensure the best care and attention will be given to future members of that academy. 

But, I'm partly a risk manager by trade so it probably is only me. After all the club has directors who know far more than me about managing a football club. Shame for them it is a Plc that relies on heavy funding from organisations that have a vested interest in the welfare of young people. 

[Google Bot 3,278]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I am a little disappointed that posters on here don't realise the risk of the Cat 1 status of our academy being withdrawn because of the ill founded comment of someone who was responsible for its inception.

It's never bad to review such situations from a personal/humane level as most are doing.

We shouldn't uphold morals on the basis of how it affects business, so i'd be far more disappointed if people were taking this approach, personally.

[dylanisabaddog 4,930]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

I am a little disappointed that posters on here don't realise the risk of the Cat 1 status of our academy being withdrawn because of the ill founded comment of someone who was responsible for its inception. And the lacklustre riposte from the club which says very little in a positive way, and also says little of how they will ensure the best care and attention will be given to future members of that academy. 

But, I'm partly a risk manager by trade so it probably is only me. After all the club has directors who know far more than me about managing a football club. Shame for them it is a Plc that relies on heavy funding from organisations that have a vested interest in the welfare of young people. 

No it's not just you. 

If I was very cynical I might think that Webber said it deliberately because he's a very sick man indeed. 

Dylan - 64 year old River End divorcee

[dylanisabaddog 4,930]

2 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

It's never bad to review such situations from a personal/humane level as most are doing.

We shouldn't uphold morals on the basis of how it affects business, so i'd be far more disappointed if people were taking this approach, personally.

Will you change your mind when you see a headline that says '16 year old wonderkid signs for Ipswich'? 

Sorry to disillusion you but money makes the world go round. 

[Monty13 2,234]

1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

The stats show that young black people are more likely to struggle in getting jobs etc than any other groups of people - and as I keep saying, there have been plenty of reports and studies which show this. 

So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

Are you just being deliberately obtuse now? It was what he actually said as Cowboy described that’s the issue, not what he may or may not have been wishing to highlight.

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,310]

15 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Are you just being deliberately obtuse now?.

 

[Google Bot 3,278]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry to disillusion you but money makes the world go round. 

So we should be disappointed in those who don't first consider the effect on business operations when morality issues are presented?

The AI enabled autonomy debate will get interesting then.

[Mengo 823]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

It was only set up when his partner realised his initial infamous interview about climbing that damn mountain had got both Webber himself and the club into a pickle. Her advice to him was that they needed to demonstrate other people would benefit by him only putting "90%" into his working life. The charity was set up on 23 March 2023, some time after the interview (actually strangely about the time Stu handed his notice in to the club). The first financial year has not ended yet so no official records of what they have done so far. The trustees are as follows:

Webber made the decision to leave in March, during the last international break, and his importance to Norwich is underlined by the fact that he must (work) his notice until March next year.

He could emerge as a target for other clubs during that time, but his relationship with majority shareholders Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones remains strong.

“I just feel it’s time to do something new. I’ve had lots of opportunities to leave in the past but they have never felt quite right for me and the club,” he says.

“I wanted to give the owners enough time to get the right person so it’s not a rushed decision. I’m (excited )about what the future holds and looking forward to my next challenge, wherever that might be.” ITS EVEREST,  is it not? By the way, looks like there has been no podcasts for a long , long time. 

[Sufyellow 222]

16 hours ago, Well b back said:

A few people on here living in the past and not quite understanding racism. 
I am actually quite surprised that this thread has not been removed, with the defending of racial profiling. 

I would say not defending it , but misunderstanding it. And that's every reason for discussion.

[Sufyellow 222]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Rubbish. I have done all I can to say how stupid his comments were. I am just prepared to try and understand what was behind what he said, not just jumping on the bandwagon of accusations. 

The problem is the 5 he named didn't all come from that back ground,  if you can't understand that is the huge issue here , then it's pointless to carry on the discussion.  I am definitely not woke , but it was a racist comment. He wasn't saying it to be spiteful or aggressive,  I don't think he's racist.  But it was a racist comment.  

[Sufyellow 222]

2 hours ago, lake district canary said:

The stats show that young black people are more likely to struggle in getting jobs etc than any other groups of people - and as I keep saying, there have been plenty of reports and studies which show this. 

So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

Would of been great , unfortunately he picked people who would of had a decent future and would of done OK anyway. 

[Sufyellow 222]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Just a reminder what profiling is: it's making assumptions about people based on image.  this clearly doesn't apply here given Webber is an industry insider who will have been privy to honest discussions on the subject minus this sort of rubbish and acquaintance with the individuals. In fairness, as mentioned before, where Webber is open to criticism here is somewhat indiscreetly bringing the individuals into personally, and he has apologised to them. But while that's bad judgement and insensitivity regarding the privacy of the individuals, it's clearly well intended in context and not remotely racist.

Like I said, nearly 50% of elite British footballers are black. Coupled with the fact that most of the single issue campaigners attacking Webber will be keen to make the arguments that young black people are systematically disadvantaged, along with the known issue of black kids falling into gang warfare in cities, it stands up that there's a good chance that if you cite five players who might have avoided a very different life path without even considering race because they became successful footballers, they'll be black.

 

Great , so why did he name players who weren't brought up in that environment? Or are you saying he knows more about our ex players than their families? 

[Robert N. LiM 4,363]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Just imagine you are a 16 year old kid, Norfolk born and bred and you are so good at football that several top clubs including Man Utd want your signature. A week before your final decision the Sporting Director of Manchester United tells a journalist that all Norfolk kids are inbred retards. Would that affect your decision? 

This will have long term repurcussions because, like it or not, mud sticks. 

A very simple way of looking at it is to ask yourself if it will have increased our chances of signing a young black lad. 

Just to be clear, I was basically agreeing with you - I think it is a reputational issue for the club. I was just perhaps a bit more optimistic that the damage could be repaired. But there have been a few people on here and on Twitter saying they weren't sure why the club needed to make a statement about an ex-employee, when it seems clear to me that Webber's comments have at the very least the potential to damage the club's reputation. Like I said, I hope it's damage we can limit, but I completely accept that 'hope' might be the operative word.

[Bobzilla 144]

On 25/03/2024 at 16:57, Google Bot said:

I don't think they were intentionally racist, but you can't really defend him as he's clearly profiled those players in direct relation to their other options in life being jail.

I think it's more of a class thing, but then so was Grenfell, sometimes it goes hand in hand, sometimes it's deliberate, sometimes it's normalised and accidental.

Tricky subject really, I think he's a man that would reach out to those people and seek to help as it gives him a kick.  But his ego... again... has landed him in the not so sweet smelling brown sticky stuff.

And there’s the issue.  Any form of ‘ism’ usually isn’t intentional - not many people go out of their way to say that black kids belong on a sports pitch or in prison, for instance.  But that doesn’t make it right, or not ‘ist’.  I’ve had this in my career, where I’ve missed out on career milestones because what people have decided ‘senior’ looks like doesn’t coincide with an autistic skillset like mine.  So I’ve been discriminated against not directly because I’m autistic but because people have decided that X is necessary for a role and therefore I’m excluded, whereas X actually isn’t necessary for the role.  I.e. artificial subconscious barriers.  

The most dangerous sort of discrimination is that which isn’t always obvious, or can be excused as unintentional, because we don’t actually want to face it for what it really is.

[Bobzilla 144]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

The stats show that young black people are more likely to struggle in getting jobs etc than any other groups of people - and as I keep saying, there have been plenty of reports and studies which show this. 

So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

He wasn’t talking about ‘young black people’.  He was talking about 5 specific young black people.  He was judging the individuals by reference to statistics that apply to a general population.  If that isn’t discriminatory, I don’t know what is.

Edited March 26 by Bobzilla

[Cowboy 197]

57 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

I would say not defending it , but misunderstanding it. And that's every reason for discussion.

Yes, I would say that's a fair description; I see it as coming from lack of awareness rather than malice (on this thread anyway).

[lake district canary 4,531]

35 minutes ago, Sufyellow said:

Great , so why did he name players who weren't brought up in that environment? Or are you saying he knows more about our ex players than their families? 

Look, I don't know how many times I've got to say it. Webber was wrong to bring those players names up. I've said it several times now.

What I don't agree with is the cries of racism when he was clearly trying to make a point about the problems young black people face in society, which are well documented and how football can help.  And yes, (sigh), all young people can run into problems, no-one is denying that, but if you are making a certain point, you use examples to help your point. It was wrong of him to do that, I really don't know what he was thinking, he should just have kept his mouth shut on the subject.

But there are people who just want to see things in polar opposites all the time - and I wish people would try and understand that it doesn't have top be that way.  He was wrong, he was misguided, but he was trying to make a salient point - that football offers young black players a way out of societal difficulties. Surely - even through his clumsiness, his bad choice of words and the wrong use of names - people can see that? 

[Cowboy 197]

7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Look, I don't know how many times I've got to say it. Webber was wrong to bring those players names up. I've said it several times now.

What I don't agree with is the cries of racism when he was clearly trying to make a point about the problems young black people face in society, which are well documented and how football can help.  And yes, (sigh), all young people can run into problems, no-one is denying that, but if you are making a certain point, you use examples to help your point. It was wrong of him to do that, I really don't know what he was thinking, he should just have kept his mouth shut on the subject.

But there are people who just want to see things in polar opposites all the time - and I wish people would try and understand that it doesn't have top be that way.  He was wrong, he was misguided, but he was trying to make a salient point - that football offers young black players a way out of societal difficulties. Surely - even through his clumsiness, his bad choice of words and the wrong use of names - people can see that? 

I don't think you're listening.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Just a reminder what profiling is: it's making assumptions about people based on image.  this clearly doesn't apply here given Webber is an industry insider who will have been privy to honest discussions on the subject minus this sort of rubbish and acquaintance with the individuals. In fairness, as mentioned before, where Webber is open to criticism here is somewhat indiscreetly bringing the individuals into personally, and he has apologised to them. But while that's bad judgement and insensitivity regarding the privacy of the individuals, it's clearly well intended in context and not remotely racist.

Like I said, nearly 50% of elite British footballers are black. Coupled with the fact that most of the single issue campaigners attacking Webber will be keen to make the arguments that young black people are systematically disadvantaged, along with the known issue of black kids falling into gang warfare in cities, it stands up that there's a good chance that if you cite five players who might have avoided a very different life path without even considering race because they became successful footballers, they'll be black.

 

Sorry but I can’t agree. I do have a degree of sympathy for what Lakey is arguing. I can see what Webber was trying to get at in terms of football having the beneficial effect of giving some kids (whatever their race) from underprivileged urban areas a focus, a route to a career and it keeping them off the streets where they might otherwise fall into the wrong company . albeit he did it in a way that was clumsy at best and yes did up being racist, albeit possibly unconscious bias type racism rather than anything with intent. In my view the absence of intent when people say things is important in terms of culpability albeit it doesn’t mean it’s not a racist comment or removes culpability entirely. 

However you seem to be saying that he made these comments and they weren’t racist because he knew the specific players  backgrounds or characters which is possibly even more offensive to them and their families and doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny based on what we know about several of them?

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,550]

 

 

28 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

He was judging the individuals by reference to statistics that apply to a general population.  If that isn’t discriminatory, I don’t know what is.

I don't think you can infer that at all. In particular regarding Rowe, there seemed to be a strong suggestion that Webber's comment was influenced by a past comment from Rowe given the way he volunteered that he thought, perhaps incorrectly, that he wouldn't mind him saying.

Again, I think Webber can be criticised for being indiscrete, and his personal apologies to the players seem appropriate to me, but I completely disagree with the notion that he has made judgement simply based on ethnicity. That's a ridiculous assertion.

Note he hasn't been condemned by the players he mentioned; he has been condemned by the single issue professional campaigners plus the sensationalists jumping on the bandwagon.

Edited March 26 by littleyellowbirdie

[lake district canary 4,531]

3 hours ago, Monty13 said:

4 hours ago, Cowboy said:

If you just think about it for a minute, you will realise that people who are black, white, yellow, brown and all the lovely infinite shades in between, and come from a disadvantaged background are more likely to get into trouble and and up in jail. That's where the focus should be. If you focus on the black members of that group only, you are being racist. If you then include some other black people who ARE NOT from that disadvantaged background you are being doubly racist and a complete tvvat.

Basically this, I’m really not sure what you’re not getting @lake district canary?

There’s a difference between being a racist and saying something racist.

What he said was objectively racist for the reasons above, why he said it is probably something for Webber to reflect on.

The stats show that young black people are more likely to struggle in getting jobs etc than any other groups of people - and as I keep saying, there have been plenty of reports and studies which show this. 

So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

[S_81 798]

18 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The stats show that young black people are more likely to struggle in getting jobs etc than any other groups of people - and as I keep saying, there have been plenty of reports and studies which show this. 

So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

My word, time you got out and about in society a bit more. You’d find plenty of black people highly successful in life and many of whom were raised in middle and upper class backgrounds. 
 

and that’s where Webber went wrong - he picked out black players and offered a stupid statement about football or jail. No midpoint. No alternative career path. And little to no insight into their upbringing or personal values. 
 

it was a statement riddled with lazy prejudicial stereotype. And you’re making yourself look foolish to try and argue the toss on it. 

Edited March 26 by S_81

[Google Bot 3,278]

24 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

So why is it wrong to highlight that? 

Have you heard the interview?  He wasn't highlighting the struggles on a racial level, he was talking in a much broader sense as concerned about the world his children will grow up in.

The discussion was how some organisations are ignoring top 'privileged' uni grads and turning to less privileged individuals due to having a greater determination to seize the opportunity provided.  I think Red Bull were the example.

He then goes on to say that football has always done this,  Naming several black players and relating them to facing jail if they didn't make it as footballers.  And that's what upsets people, as it goes against the point being made.  That they got to this point on their own merit and determination, not because they were afraid of jail.

[The Real Buh 3,432]

23 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

If you’re always right in the first place how can you be getting righter ?

I’m achieving levels of right I didn’t think were possible