Reply With Quote
The FA are a shambolic organisation and have been for some time. Their handling of this fiasco has been disastrous.
I have tried Googling but am no better in the picture.
So he was cleared twice of the racism and bullying allegations.
But the witch hunt continued.
Now he has been sacked for something years ago that was previously investigated and found not to be a serious or significant issue.
So what in hell is he supposed to have done ?
It all seems very strange to me.
The FA are a shambolic organisation and have been for some time. Their handling of this fiasco has been disastrous.
The reports talk about safeguarding which I think is the term given to not putting yourself in a position where accusations can be flung about usually relating to young or vulnerable people.
It cannot be anything to do with child abuse, so less than 16 years old.
As that would be a red flag.
It cannot be anything to do with somebody 18+, as that would be consenting adults and therefore nobody elses business.
It cannot be anything to do with racism, as again a red flag.
Therefore that points it towards somebody in the 16-17 age group, if indeed a specific person is involved.
Maybe the FIA overheard him say that football is a sport...
Im not so sure about this one, there will be rules regarding relationships with players as his position could be seen to influence the decisions a player may make.Originally Posted by BadgerUK
To be blunt... he was shagging some of the players. Yes, they were over 18, however, it is believed he "groomed" them at younger ages.. alegedly. He should have been sacked over an alleged "racial comment" he made, in a bizzare & farcical event the FA paid off the alleged "victim" with £80,000 + a contract to comment on live games for c4.
He was NOT cleared ( in a court of law ) of the "racial comment", the FA just paid off the "victim" to keep her mouth shut & for 80k + some tv work, she did just that.
My suspision is that the other alleged "victim" of a "racial comment" wants some more cash, the FA have said "screw this" & decided to sack him over "improper conduct"... aka... shagging!
You need to be very cofident about what you have posted or you're potentially exposing yourself & Eddie to legal action. You might want to edit your post for language as well.
Let's just say ...'allegedley'.
Yes thanks for that Petrocelli…..
The way that this has gone down so quickly - it feels to me they know a big newspaper scoop is coming.
I understood the payment was made to ensure the accusing player did not disrupt the preparations for the European Championships. There was no acceptance the alleged comment had ever been made.
Both alleged comments as reported are extremely tenuous in my opinion to be construed as racist, you would really have to go out of your way with a twisted mind to try and manufacture 'playing the race card' on the basis of the comments.
Sampson is guilty of being - Welsh, Male, White, Successful, a leader who decisively roots out and removes disruptive elements ?
Well the FA have certainly thrown him under a bus.
You seem to have something of an agenda of your own, if I may say. You've already made it clear that you don't like the 'freaks and deviants' that make up a significant part of our population (and I dare say this forum). Yet you instinctively disbelieve a black woman when she says she was racially abused by a white man who was her boss, despite their employer carrying out an investigation that led to her receiving a payment.
If you want to argue that there is a conspiracy against white heterosexual men in this country, can I suggest you find somewhere else apart from a watch forum to do it?
On the other hand, if you are just having a bit of 'sport' with us, can you put on some special shoes and make sure you aren't in a vehicle with an engine, just so that we know what you are up to.
(1) Do you have all the facts?
(2) Do you think the FA would have sacked Sampson without taking advice from a top QC?
I'd be surprised if you answered 'yes' to either of these questions, and accordingly, I suggest you keep your more-than-slightly misogynist comments more firmly in check.
Last edited by Longblackcoat; 22nd September 2017 at 11:51.
Based on what has been reported over the last 2-3 weeks the employer carried out 2 investigations both of which found Mark Sampson had no case to answer and was free to carry on in his role.
The FA have also stated the payment was made on the basis and for the purpose that I state above in my earlier post.
Please advise with your sources if either of the 2 things I have stated above are incorrect ?
May I politely remind you that the topic of this thread is what Mark Sampson is supposed to have done at Bristol several years ago and something unrelated to the current Aluko episode.
Reading a few stories in the press two things stand out for me.
Firstly, stories about Sampson’s behaviour whilst at Bristol were known. Either the FA knew about it when they employed him or they didn’t know. If they did then they didn’t deem it a problem when they took him on yet it’s now important enough to retrospectively dismiss him. If they didn’t know they didn’t do their due diligence on a man who was allegedly sleeping with players about which stories were circulating.
Secondly the FA undertook two enquiries into the racism allegations yet some of the alleged victims weren’t even interviewed. You can hardly call it a thorough investigation if you’re not talking to all involved. Greg Clark told one newspaper he deliberately picked a non white person to head up the investigation despite it being categorically denied by FA lawyers days before.
The FA are masters of making a situation worse than it originally was.
Maybe he was fired for making a national team winners, seems all too often the media and doomsayers want and like our national teams to lose.
You're not reading carefully enough, or only seeing what you want. If you believe the FA then you would come to those conclusions but that was of course their intent. That credulous in my opinion. It suits your argument to divide these issues (racism and sexual misconduct) but they both point to a man unfit to be in a position of authority and leadership.
The deficiencies in those 'investigations' (cover-ups) are now well covered in the press (for example the guardian) and summarised by others here, not interviewing the subject of the comments and others present. The first ten minutes of the most recent guardian football weekly podcast cover this thoroughly. https://www.theguardian.com/football...l-weekly-extra
Sampson was made aware of what were supposed to be anonymous comments by Aluko made during a 'culture' review. He then ended her England career! No wonder others have been loathe to speak up. That treatment of a whistleblower is really shocking. One might also wonder why a review of the team culture was being conducted in the first place.
I think that it is convenient the current leadership have chosen to sack him based on these safeguarding and sexual conduct concerns which they can ascribe to past leadership. I'd be surprised if this doesn't take more scalps and that we'll hear a lot more about what the culture was like in the England team now players don't jeopardise their careers by speaking up, and of course much more about Bristol and likely before that too.
What conduct should we overlook in pursuit of success? This reminds me of the UK cycling mess. They followed the same MO if you recall, force out those who raised concerns.
Last edited by ernestrome; 23rd September 2017 at 08:29.
Posting Permissions