Mark Sampson done one.

[Barchullona]

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.

Inquiry.

 

[Walter Sobchak]

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.
Why he dropped her is irrelevant and he shouldn't have to provide chapter and verse reasons in my opinion.


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.
All I'm saying is let's not hang a man until he's been found to have done something wrong. So far all we have is allegations which shouldn't be a sackable offence and if anything shouldn't be public knowledge until the facts are known.


Eh?
I meant that the actual truth of this case is irrelevant to how it has been handled. Whether someone is guilty of something or not, they should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

 

[Dills double deckers]

Correct. They have nothing against faces.

Spelling fascist ...

 

[balkan tiger]

So to sum up the last 3 pages, you can make accusations with no evidence and win a compensation payout. You can be investigated about allegations 3 times, be found not guilty in each case and yet still get the sack.

It's a wacky world we live in these days. Happy to be corrected.

 

[Barchullona]

So to sum up the last 3 pages, you can make accusations with no evidence and win a compensation payout. You can be investigated about allegations 3 times, be found not guilty in each case and yet still get the sack.

It's a wacky world we live in these days. Happy to be corrected.

That seems to sum it up pretty well.

 

[Barchullona]

Spelling fascist ...

No politics. Ta.

 

[SW3 Chelsea Tiger]

Do we actually know what he was accused off & then cleared??
I haven’t got a clue despite reading the bbc artical

 

[Fez]

At that time any comment about Ebola, whatever the connotations were was ill advises and insensitive. I go to Africa a lot, and it just isn't something you joke or make glib remarks about.

I have not read about what he is supposed to have said, just observing that it might be early to judge.

 

[Fez]

I have no idea whether or not Sampson said those things, but it's worth pointing out that he was found not guilty by the FA - who had a vested interest in him being found not guilty - and not a court of law. As we've seen with the name change - in which the chairman of the FA was anti-name change until he granted Assem Allam a private audience after which he changed his mind - the FA is an utter shambles. So when you say he's been 'proven not guilty' it's worth noting who he's been proven not guilty by. That doesn't make him guilty, but there are clearly questions still to be answered (such as, as mentioned previously, why he kept using the word 'understandable', or why he would drop a current golden boot winner and senior player) that the FA don't seem to have bothered themselves all that much with.

He has been sacked on the strength of an old full disclosure enquiry that his employer hadn't before thought to be of much consequence.

All he can do now is keep his powder dry until he is in a position to challenge the decision of the FA. It seems that everyone is gleefully dispatching him to the bad lads bin.

He may be guilty as sin, I don't know, but if it turns out that this is all over-egged vitriol then there will be a big financial payday, but his reputation will not recover. I think the whole turn of events smacks of something not right, but ...

 

[Fez]

The manager picks a team he thinks will succeed and the team have been doing very well. Alf Ramsay also picked players ahead of others who were better individually because it made the team better.

Absolutely this. It is simply remarkable that a someone loses their job because the job they are paid to do - make hard decisions, is not only carried out to the best of their ability and judgement, but also done very successfully.

 

[Mark de Klein]

Harry Redknapp is available.

And Pearson

 

[Newland Tiger]

Absolutely this. It is simply remarkable that a someone loses their job because the job they are paid to do - make hard decisions, is not only carried out to the best of their ability and judgement, but also done very successfully.

It would be remarkable but that isn't what happened

 

[Fez]

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.

You seem to go out of your way to emphasise your evenhandishness, yet consistently push an opinion that is judgemental and damning. Have you considered that others might have an endgame that needs the oxygen of social and national media?

 

[Chazz Rheinhold]

The temptation must be unbelievable. How can a bloke do the job anyway.
Can you imagine after the match' him going over the game while they're stripping off. Right girls all in the bath.
It's ****ing stupid.

 

[askewshair]

Smacks of FA ineptitude, surprise surprise.
For such a high profile job, I can't believe they haven't carried out very careful vetting. The ongoing investigation by Bristol Womens FA should have come to light. Looks like they chose to ignore this.

 

[Dills double deckers]

And yet as the FA say he has done nothing illegal and this is seperate to the Aluko situation. I would imagine Sampson is sorting himself a good lawyer.

 

[Fez]

It would be remarkable but that isn't what happened

Isn't a part of this whole furore based on the fact that Aluko thought she should not have been dropped and that he must have had an ulterior motive for it?

 

[askewshair]

And yet as the FA say he has done nothing illegal and this is seperate to the Aluko situation. I would imagine Sampson is sorting himself a good lawyer.

But references from previous employer would have alerted them of the ongoing investigation AT THE TIME had they bothered to read them.

 

[Tuckin]

Isn't a part of this whole furore based on the fact that Aluko thought she should not have been dropped and that he must have had an ulterior motive for it?

No.

 

[Fez]

No.

Okay, maybe not; but what is this quote, from the Guardian, saying?

Like this?

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/16/eni-aluko-fa-under-pressure-explain-money

Publicly, Aluko has stated only that she believes team selections were made on the basis of “popularity” rather than form. However, privately the player who has won 102 caps for her country appears to have felt like she was the victim of sustained bullying and alleges the unfavourable treatment began a month after Sampson’s appointment in April 2014.