BBC Sport @BBCSport The FA has apologised to two players after Mark Sampson made remarks deemed "discriminatory on the grounds of race". please log in to view this image
The main takeaway from this latest revelation - as it was always going to be - is that the FA are an incompetent bunch of clowns.
This verdict sounds about right - he's not the devil, but he was a bit naive/crass. He's from the generation that grew up with Loaded and FHM, and mistakenly thought (perhaps because he's not much older than the players) he could get away with "bantz" after rising to a management position.
Reading through it all now, you can't help but feel for Aluko and Sanderson. They've been painted as all sorts of things in the past year and unfairly so. As you say, Mark Sampson (and Lee Kendall) sound like insensitive morons as opposed to members of the KKK (though who does a fake Caribbean accent to black people in this day and age?). But something about the manner in which the FA attempted to tackle this never sat right with me, and they are rightly getting an absolute hammering now.
The FA are absolute ****ing clowns, Simpson will clean up at tribunal and rightly so! What they sacked him for is an absolute joke and all to try and save face over and self inflicted **** up! I'm really surprised the fa and the allams don't get on better! They are both at ****ing useless as each other
What annoys me is they still come up with weasel words rather than a straight apology. The "it is regrettable" sentence is unnecessary and just smacks of them trying to cover their backs. I suspect the FA will be replaced sooner rather than later. The downside for us is that members of any new body will probably roll over and let the Allams tickle their tummies as they nod through another name change application.
Do you think? It seems the FA have accepted racially insensitive behaviour based on them finally speaking to witnesses, and Sampson's 'understandable' quotes as to Aluko's complaints seem to suggest he knew there was something there even if he didn't see the potential seriousness of what he'd said. I'm no expert on these matters, but there seems to be enough against him - even if he's not the Eugene Terreblanche figure he'd been portrayed as - to warrant action being taken regards his employment. The big fall out from this should be at the FA, however. Not just resignations, but an overhaul of its make-up and its procedures. We see all too often how self-serving it is.
That wasn't what they sacked him for though, they sacked him for what his apparently did it Bristol which is pointed out a few posts above is an absolute joke and not braking any laws or rules. If they had just done their job properly from the start they wouldn't have been scrambling around for a reason to sack him.... It will cost them dearly in the long run
I'm aware of why he was sacked. I simply wonder if the fact that he was perhaps rightly sacked but potentially for the wrong reason (and it may well be that the FA are justified in what they did conveniently get rid of him for. I doubt either of us are experts in that field) will have an effect on matters. Either way, I doubt he'll have been on megabucks, contract-wise. The pay-offs that the hopefully-soon-to-be-resigning top brass will get will probably dwarf it.
I doubt he'll go anywhere near a tribunal, his career's ****ed enough as it is, he needs this story to die off as quickly as possible.
Maybe so but as you say his career is ****ed so might need the £££ and If it does get there the fa are screwed, I imagine though the fa will settle before it
Looks like I was wrong, he's got nine months wages as a payoff from the FA, but is considering a wrongful dismissal case anyway.
We don't actually know what he was sacked for yet, they never released details, they just said 'inappropriate behaviour'.
