Its probably worth noting only one of the enquiries was undertaken by the F.A, the other one was an independent enquiry conducted by a barrister.
Jimmy Greaves, as one example, wasn't removed from the whole squad a few weeks after giving what he thought was an anonymous statement to one of Ramsay's superiors. Ramsay didn't drop Greaves a few weeks later for anything akin to 'unlioness behaviour'. The team were doing very well with Aluko in it too, finishing third in the World Cup after she'd finished top scorer in qualifying. You're right, managers drop good players fairly frequently but the timing is rarely - if ever - as coincidental as it has been in this case. I've stated clearly that I agree with this. I was simply making clear that the FA finding someone not guilty isn't quite what you and several others are making it out to be. You can read in any newspaper today how shambolic the FA's investigations towards this have been. He was always likely to be found not guilty when it was Aluko's word against his and little else was seemingly done to ascertain if he'd said anything inappropriate to anyone else. A more in-depth investigation might well find him not guilty. I still can't fathom why Aluko got such a payout if there was nothing in the allegations, however. Eh?
I think it became pretty clear to her that she had no evidence to back up her accusations so she took what she could, remember she's had legal training, if she knew she could win and get more then she would have done but she know she doesn't have a case. If she makes it back into the England squad I hope the players who supported Mark and enjoyed playing under him don't hold back in telling her what they think of her.
Hence why an independent enquiry was also conducted. She had no evidence so he's innocent, its as simple as that, unless she can prove otherwise he's done nothing wrong. It doesn't matter who conducted the investigation or what you think of them, until there is evidence he said it then he's innocent, its the entire premise of the justice system in this country.
An independent panel - seemingly commissioned by the FA - that saw fit to pay Aluko £80,000 for some reason... I'm not arguing with you, however. I've written above, when it's one person's word against another, unless you can corroborate what's been said then that's pretty much the end of the story. There is a technical difference between innocent and unproven but I'm not bothered about the semantics. However - as another contributor has written - my interest was piqued when Sampson kept using the word 'understandable' regarding what Aluko had said. And the timing of Aluko's strange dropping from the team does seem unusual. It's all very unedifying and yet more fuel for those who see the FA as an incompetent, self-serving organisation that needs a complete overhaul. My ire on this is not aimed at Sampson, who is probably a bit of a dick. Nor at Aluko, who comes across very well on TV and seems to be genuinely aggrieved. We just have an FA that is not fit for purpose. The more I read about it, the more I see how it operates, the more I feel that way.
I know the argument you're trying to imply, that just because he hasn't been proven guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it because he hasn't proven himself innocent either. However in this country that makes him innocent by definition, regardless of your opinion on the case. He's not been 'proven' innocent but he is by definition innocent. Essentially your logic states that I could accuse you of something we both know to be false but unless you were able to prove it you'd not be innocent, luckily the law sees things differently.
Hush money requires a confidentiality clause or its not hush money, there was no clause. I think both parties knew they had no evidence either way, Aluko could have made it difficult for them with drawn out legal battles and investigations, but she also knew the best she was going to get was a cash settlement because she was never going to play again under him. The FA gave her money to stop wasting their time, its a fraction of what the legal costs would have been had she taken them to court (even if they won) and she just took it because she knew she couldn't prove anything.
Like this? https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/16/eni-aluko-fa-under-pressure-explain-money
Exactly “Notwithstanding the independent investigation’s findings, the FA agreed a mutual resolution so as to avoid disruption to the squad’s tournament preparations. It was not to prevent disclosure.”
I know the law pretty well. And I've stated twice already that when it's one person's word against another then the person doing the claiming will lose if there is no further evidence. It doesn't mean that nothing of that ilk was said, it just means it can't be proven ergo the accused is innocent. You seem to have made your mind up that what Aluko claimed can't be true, from what I can gather. I find a few things about the case unusual to say the least, more from listening to Sampson's interviews than anything else. And I repeat, the FA have done a pretty shocking job all round.
I haven't made my mind up about anything, I'm just going with the current facts which are simply that Mark Sampson is an innocent man and Aluko has made unsubstantiated accusations, if anything changes I will change my opinion accordingly. Anything else is conjecture and speculation which is largely ill-informed.
You seem to have skirted past the bit that says Aluko, also a qualified lawyer and Aluko has declined to comment due to the terms of her confidentiality agreement. Which you said didn't exist.
