No, go on please. I'm interested. Any chance of leaving John Terry, Anton and Rio Ferdinand, Patrice Evra, Luis Suarez, the price of tomatoes and the entire city of Leeds to other threads?
I am trying to be fair here so google Paul Elliot's little white lies and read the article and respond.
Second paragraph sounds a lot like Slater's position within the club, because I don't think there is much evidence to suggest that Slater has the funds available himself to be a 'contributing' chairman. I don't want to knock Slater here, but really? Impressive footballing CV? How so? Would replacing him with someone who has experience working in national and international football result in a lesser qualified (in terms of running a football club) chairman? In another industry, absolutely, I could understand that Typical, I googled it and found a dull piece from some Rangers forum, which didn't mention Elliott. Can you please post a link ?
I don't know how to do links but old.cocoplandroad or something. If you google Paul Elliot lied, an quite daming article appears with Paul's picture on it, maybe someone else can post the link. Basically it says that Paul has on 'occasions' played up the race relations bit, particularly one occasion when he says rangers fan threw a banana at him which he picked up and ate. That was in a old firm match, he was the only one that can recall picking the banana up and eating it. The rangers fans have aways disputed this, and other allegations made by Elliot. Trouble is Celtic seem to be unable to recall the event as well. It's is there if you look. I can't say if that is right or wrong but as I'm not allowed to talk about terry and Suarez I'm not sure what is the worst offence. Lying about being racist or lying to call others racist.
Thanks for that. Found it now. I'll take it on face value because I don't care enough to look into Old Firm results when Elliott played. The excerpts from the interview given seem very Roy-of-the-Rovers, like Elliott is a bit carried away with it. An unusual statement that Rangers fans would never be racist when they had an influential black player on the pitch. Considering this doesn't stop Russian, Spanish, Croatian or Polish fans, I would be surprised if this was the case. Especially if Celtic fans had been recently shouting monkey chants at Old Firm matches. I don't follow Old Firm news at all. Is this something that Rangers fans get very worked up about, or is it used regularly as a stick to beat them? I would've thought there were plenty other issues for both Rangers and Celtic. The thing I've taken most from it is the allegation that fans of my new local club make fun of the Ibrox disaster. That's sickening.
Chris Powell is a football manager who happens to be black. He is an ambassador for aspiring black footballers who want to enter management. He is lovely, lovely man who made my kids' year at the Barnet friendly when he chatted with them, signed their autograph book and had his photo taken with them. He basically a talented guy who happens to be black. He holds his place in our hearts and our football club because he is Chris Powell the individual. Paul Elliott is devious and plotting. He contrives situations to remain within the spotlight. He holds a token position in football and does more harm than good. He is where he is because he happens to be a black man with a big mouth. If he were an experienced business man with a history of administrative and logistical success, then I may welcome his chairmanship. Anything less than that, and I would be deeply sceptical of the motives.
Couldn't be further from the truth when you say he is devious and plotting. I'm not going to pretend that I follow everything he does (which is a lot), but I always try to keep my ear to ground when it comes to Paul. I can't see where these opinions have been formed? RE the rangers story - take it for what it's worth, but my old man has always said his memory in regards to past games was pretty poor. But with something like that, he should have been certain when making those remarks. I don't think for a second it was deliberate.
He talks utter bollocks when it comes to racism in football. His diatribe is plotted, his opinions drum up media attention because they are ill-informed and biased. The man makes a living by creating something out of nothing. His opining on the lack of black managers is stomach churning to say the least. If he moved to Outer *****lia, football would not miss him. It would continue to heal itself, regardless.
Tell me how football would miss a man who agitates the issue of race? Football misses the likes of Bobby Robson and Brian Clough. Not a man who feathers his own nest by way of a personal agenda. Anyway, SuperC: I am football. I am a football fan and supporter. Or do my opinions not count because I is white?
I think it's best we take this thread back to its original topic. Maybe AH can do one of his famous polls asking if we thinks its a good idea or not?
I probably shouldn't wade in like this, but I will anyway. As far as I can tell, the major question here is whether or not racism against black people is still a problem in football. My own view is that it isn't any more. Like Ponders has said, none of us Charlton fans cares that much that Chris Powell is black, only that he is a Charlton legend doing a cracking job as a manager, who happens to be black. And the monkey chants etc, which are admittedly still visible at times in other parts of Europe (like when Peter Odemwingie left Lokomotiv Moscow, or when Spanish fans chanted at black England players in 2004), have more or less disappeared in this country. David James has recently said something along the same lines (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19918671). I have no knowledge whatsoever of Paul Elliott's suitability to be a chairman. I would be unhappy if he became chairman if a major part of the reason was that he is black, as I do not want a symbol of tokenism in charge of my club.
Beautifully put, Captain B. A most eloquent post. You are right, SuperC. We should stick to the crux of the thread. I apologise if my words were a little spikey.
From the 'Kick it out' website - Paul is spending a lot of his time working on racism in Europe now rather than in the UK and building strong relationships with the 'movers & shakers' in FIFA..... a Chairman is more of a PR role in a business, it is the MD (or Chief Executive Officer if we have to be Americanised) who should run the Club on a day to day basis. Our problem is that we have Prothero who seems to be doing one day a week, which obviously isn't enough, so he is probably a stop gap figure. Are we really saying that the possibility of a 'made up' story about the eating of a banana is a big thing? and should stop a good candidate becoming Chairman? If we were offered Richard Branson as Chairman would people be happy? Richard built his business through tax fraud .......and when it was found out he just had to repay the tax due.... no penalties, no community service, just had to pay the VAT! So a banana story is no biggie! If you met Paul PEA (rather than go by what is in the media) I am sure you would change your mind, a loving family man, very open with people, very intelligent and remembers where he learnt his football.....he's NOT Chelsea he's Charlton through and through!
I don't really think that is the major question with regard to Elliott becoming chairman. For me, it's entirely about whether he would be suitable for the job, and what it signals in terms of the club's direction. Given AllHell's point about Elliott's current work with UEFA and FIFA, it's possible that he could have very useful connections within football, and, even if he doesn't have the commercial experience, he may have the connections to help him along the way. Typical's point about lying is also interesting. I wonder what Slater's position is in all this. If the story is true, will he be taking a back seat or leaving entirely? It's been a strange week or so in the news for him, after his disagreement with the Spanish police - could this have had a bearing on the moves?
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/sport/...olice_at_Manchester_City_v_Real_Madrid_match/ http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view...odges-formal-complaint-against-Spanish-police http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...hester-city-champions-league-tie-8196169.html
Football never needed Paul Elliot the campaigner. It needed Paul Elliot the footballer. All his career has been about litigation, courting controversy, the dean Saunders case, the exaggeration, the white lies. The constant throat but( legally unproven) throat ramming allegations of racism. He was a superb defender and could and should have been a England regular and probably the best export England had sent over to Italy certainly for what they paid and what they got. Will he make a good chairman? No. Here's why He does not have any concrete links to fa and uefa over and above what Chris Powell already has. We assume that he has, but what really football matters has Paul taken on other than in a political role. He is not bright. Interviews stretch him and once the rehearsed diatribe has been spouted he has struggled badly, using long words in that Chris Eubanks sort of way. It's not his fault of course he was a blackheath Bluecoat after all. He is probably disliked by the white money men he has referred to as racist. Who would want to do business with a guy that if you say no to him has the race card in his pocket. I don't know if he would play it, but why would other chairman take the risk? Surely he recognises his own arguments on racism. He has a lie hanging over him, it's been around for years. The banana gate was hushed up. John terry would have had the flying squad kicking down his backdoor had he made that allegation. its another divide and rule argument, Paul should be made to explain this or at least let an investigation decide. There were about 50,000 at that game surely someone can qualify his story. Until someone clears this up, it's a very bad smell.
