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 thought Sampson had been cleared twice about this? Has he now been found to have said some of these comments?
I wonder how Eni Aluko is feeling after slagging them all off the other day? Can't imagine they'll be welcoming her back into the dressing room anytime soon.
He has been cleared, people are still talking about the Ebola comments like they have any relevance, they were and still are unproven allegations. He's been sacked over something that happened before he took the England job. The FA had the report into his conduct before they hired him, they didn't read it and gave him the job, three years later they read it and decide to terminate his contract.
She probably feels vindicated, the feeling I got is that most of the players were protecting the places in the squad. Why did the FA pay out £80K to Aluko, no smoke without fire comes to mind.
Given his sacking had nothing to do with Aluko she'd be wrong to feel vindicated. We don't know why the FA paid her, but we do know two separate investigations have failed to substantiate her claims. 'No smoke without fire' is an extremely dangerous precedent and ruins lives.
You're throwing a lot of mud about here John at a man who was cleared twice regarding Aluko and also cleared regarding some accusation 3 years a go. Innocent until proven guilty, and he's been proven not guilty three times.
The 'no smoke without fire' attitude to these things is 100% wrong. We have no idea whats gone on apart from that he's been cleared, and yet his reputation is in the gutter. If it comes out he's been doing things he shouldn't then fine but until then...
The anonymous claims against Sampson were made in March 2014, three months after he left Bristol Academy WFC to become boss of the Lionesses.
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.
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. The system probably is a shambles like most things at the FA but it doesn't mean Sampsons guilty. Even if he is guilty it doesn't lessen anything i've said.
Oh, he was cleared a year later. I support your view, 3 times accused and three times not guilty. Lets face it, he is an easy target and the managers job has just got virtually impossible to fill. The FA have royally ****ed up with this.
To be fair to Aluko she did get a decent payout, not sure why she is moaning so much about it. If it was the bigger an issue why accept the payment and drop the claims? I feel for Mark he was found not guilty of these allegations and is getting his reputation ruined. If he is later found guilty, then fair enough but he hasn't been yet.
The Sansom report of 3 years ago must have been shoved under the same FA door and the same doormat as the one in the Mike Bassett film and only just been found recently.
He's been the subject of a witch hunt, plain and simple. He was found not guilty of the accusations Aluko made, not once but twice and yet she still pocketed 80 grand in compo. Yet still the 'Islington Dinner Party Set' weren't satisfied. The FA were being forced into a corner and had to find something to sack him for. He's a sad victim of the humourless, colourless, characterless, intellectually facist world we live in.
When Saint Tony Blair got involved in the Hoddle sacking, I thought good on him. Now I think it wasn't such a good thing.. politicians getting involved in football is like me getting involved in rocket science.
