Mark Sampson done one.

He clearly ****ed up.
He was found out and lost his job.
Whether or not he's a racist is very debatable he just fulfilled the stereo type.
White middle class man makes uneducated stereotypical comment towards black person and thinks it's harmless.

 

The irony is dripping off your post.

 

People with confidentiality clauses don't usually do interviews with the national media

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41003827

She doesn't have a confidentiality agreement, the FA have even confirmed this.

The fact she's a qualified lawyer but still took the payment suggests she knew she couldn't prove anything and so took what she could get.

 

Of course they do, it could quite easily have been a 'timed' agreement.

Her solicitors believed the paperwork she signed prevented her from talking about it. The FA can confirm she is now free to discuss it. Clearly if she signed paperwork in front of her solicitors then they have revoked some/all freedom of speech.

Are you suggesting her solicitors don't know what she signed? A statement in the same article from the Guardian say the FA confirm she is now free to discuss it. Clearly there was something in place otherwise they would not have used the word 'now'. Either revoked or timed.

 

I find it staggering that someone can make a claim of racism and not report it or take part into an inquiry about conduct when given the opportunity and yet still continue to make the claim.

It appears to me that the reason that Mark Sampson has been cleared is simply that those who make claims against him will not participate in the inquiries held to investigate and he is then found not guilty.

Given the opportunity to have something done and then not doing it, leaves the door open to questioning the motives behind all of this.
BBC Web site

"Aluko - who has 102 caps and scored 33 goals for her country - pointed out she was asked by the FA to be part of a review.

She said she suffered "victimisation as a result of me reporting discrimination".

Aluko also claimed two investigations into her grievances were "flawed" because key witnesses were not spoken to and key evidence not looked at.

The FA refuted any suggestion the investigations were flawed and pointed out that she refused to participate in the independent inquiry.

Last year, a three-month independent investigation did not uphold any of the player's complaints and cleared Sampson and the FA of any wrongdoing."

 

Why sack him then? is it because the FA is ****ing useless at everything?

 

I'm simply responding to a few posts on here that made it seem that because Sampson had been found not guilty by the FA then Aluko's claims must be untrue and there's nothing more to see. I'm fully aware of how the media works, having worked in it for the past 20-plus years. But that doesn't alter the fact that there are some elements this saga that, understandably in my opinion, don't sit right with a lot of people. You see the dropping of Aluko as totally fine, something that happens all the time, from what I can gather. I find it all a bit odd and co-incidental. I've heard Sampson interviewed on a number of occasions, including on this issue. I don't find him particularly convincing in what he says. Part of that is because he's a bit of an odd bloke, I suspect, but I'm still allowed my opinion on the issue based on what he says. If you find that judgemental and damning, fair enough. I don't know whether he's guilty or not. I just feel that the issue has been dealt with abysmally by pretty much every party involved and there are further questions to answer. I don't have it in for Mark Sampson. I do have it in for the FA, however.

 

Pearson's back in work with some second div Belgium team. OH Leuven according to HDM.

 

Owned by the owners of Leicester City. Who sacked him. Odd.

 

The more you read about this the worse it gets for the FA

 

Nice place Leuven mind. Went there a couple of years ago.

There's a bar in the square that sells every known Belgian beer either in bottle or draught.

 

Yeah, they were certainly racist comments and in such a position, I don't think it is excusable.
I think we all need to be open to education around racism. 'Kick it Out' have apparently asked Man Utd to discourage supporters from singing the 'Lakaku' song which apparently makes reference to the stereotypical huge blackmans cock. I was listening to a debate on Talksport, immediately bemoaning more evidence of the sanitation..etc. I had always thought although stereotyping, it is surely light hearted, actually most would agree, positive and therefore fairly harmless. What I had never realised is that black men find this absolutely offensive and it is because it actually stems from the days of colonialism. White men started this myth to demonise blacks because they were frightened they would impregnate the womenfolk.
Puts a very different slant on what I thought was quite light hearted stereotyping.

 

A fair response, even though it simply seems to emphasise your judgement of Sampson on what, I admit I'm guessing, seems to be fairly lightweight evidence.

Would you agree that Sampson has been far more limited in what he can say and where he can say it - in comparison to Aluko?

We agree on the FA, I prefer for the Sampson thing to develop for a while before believing either him or Aluko.

 

Pretty much see where you're coming from with this and agree there are some strange decisions involved, but I think the bit highlighted says you think him guilty and I'm not sure if that was your intent.

 

Excellent piece in the Mail by Martin Samuel.
Nails it.

 

Are you being serious?

 

Any thoughts on a key player saying she wants a female manager, rather than the best one? Does anyone think that might be more deeply ingrained in the team boudoir .

 

Absolutely.

 

To be fair, I know just how that feels.

 

Wasn't he sacked because of his lad's behaviour? Perhaps the owners think they owe him something?