Mark Sampson done one.

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Fez said:
I really do not see what was childish about my original post, I simply used your own words to agree with you. My growing up was done a long time ago and I have been viewing this as fairly as I am able (with the information available).

Your involvement in disputes must surely have given you a good insight to matters such as this, so why so coy, our life experience should stand us in good stead?

The barrister who judged this review said he wasn't racist, Sampson has said he isn't racist. I have only ever discussed the situation and cause of Sampson's dismissal from the England post; Kendall was never given as a part of the reason. Or do you know something other to that?

I have yet to see Bernstein's comments.
Click to expand...

I thought the tone was on the sarcastic/childish side. If it wasn't, fair enough, I apologise for the tone of the retort.

As for my involvement in such disputes, to be honest I've never sat in one that fully resembles this (and I can't really go into details of those I have been in, as I'm sure you'll understand, though there have been parallels in some cases). I find the issue of what is and isn't racist and who is and isn't racist an extraordinarily complex one, for myriad reasons, and to be honest struggle with someone being able to say someone is simply 'racist' or 'not racist'. My own personal feelings are the such issues are always much more complex than that. There was, based the barrister's summation, discrimination on the grounds of race involved here. Which is why the topic has arisen. I know that that wasn't officially why he was sacked. But it's inevitably going to be a cause for discussion in the case given the ruling and the words used by Newton. You seem to find the whole issue behind the official reason for the sacking was suspiciously convenient for the FA, which I agree with, though we perhaps have differing levels of sympathy for Sampson (which isn't to say I have no sympathy). I don't 'know' anything regarding Kendall, hence my saying "If the allegations against Kendall are proved to be true". That one is, of course, still to run.

I found the Bernstein comments quite telling given his former role at the FA. He was essentially saying that something like this was always going to happen and that he association isn't fit for purpose. Usually in these circumstances the blazers tend to stick together so it was interesting to see one of the group - albeit a former one - so brazenly admitting that he's given up on it. He's not the only one.
 
RichardG said:
I thought the tone was on the sarcastic/childish side. If it wasn't, fair enough, I apologise for the tone of the retort.

As for my involvement in such disputes, to be honest I've never sat in one that fully resembles this (and I can't really go into details of those I have been in, as I'm sure you'll understand, though there have been parallels in some cases). I find the issue of what is and isn't racist and who is and isn't racist an extraordinarily complex one, for myriad reasons, and to be honest struggle with someone being able to say someone is simply 'racist' or 'not racist'. My own personal feelings are the such issues are always much more complex than that. There was, based the barrister's summation, discrimination on the grounds of race involved here. Which is why the topic has arisen. I know that that wasn't officially why he was sacked. But it's inevitably going to be a cause for discussion in the case given the ruling and the words used by Newton. You seem to find the whole issue behind the official reason for the sacking was suspiciously convenient for the FA, which I agree with, though we perhaps have differing levels of sympathy for Sampson (which isn't to say I have no sympathy). I don't 'know' anything regarding Kendall, hence my saying "If the allegations against Kendall are proved to be true". That one is, of course, still to run.

I found the Bernstein comments quite telling given his former role at the FA. He was essentially saying that something like this was always going to happen and that he association isn't fit for purpose. Usually in these circumstances the blazers tend to stick together so it was interesting to see one of the group - albeit a former one - so brazenly admitting that he's given up on it. He's not the only one.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Richard, I simply didn't want to be seen as using a decent conversation as an excuse for being argumentative, which I wasn't, so thanks.

I have experience of quite a bit of big company employment nonsense; none with my own though.

Without much more information I take the barristers words as written, he's not a racist. I do think him a fool, but is that sackable on first offence, I don't think so.

I loath the FA and it's institutionalized choke hold on football. I have held that view from first hand experience and have voiced it on occasion - I am no longer involved in local football as it all became too tedious. I concentrate on moving my 9yr old granddaughter forward as a footballer (I think she will do very well) and my grandsons through boxing.

Much of this ****e was right, but dealt with in the wrong way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RichardG
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back