- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,221
Good answer (my quesion was semi rhetorical but I clearly didn't make myself clear)
Oh. Apologies then
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
*Sampson RESIGNS*
- Thread starter Ernest
- Start date
Oh. Apologies then
Ah, the Mike Gatting tactic - well, it's worked before.
As an aside, if the FA look to get embroiled in a row with a player, isn't one who's also a fully-qualified lawyer, looking to build her own law practice, the absolute worst person to pick on?
AlastairWatts
Active member
Didn't he point out that after all the fuss Aluko has caused she's unlikely to get picked again? Selecting her would be a little like becoming the turkey who voted for Christmas - everyone would be terrified to say anything about her as it would then be their turn to be publicly criticised.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,569
It's another example of Wing It Britain - top people pretending they know what they're doing when they haven't got a f**king clue. And nobody does a cluster **** like the FA.
How ironic it is that the FA have just sacked a man after saying they shouldn't have appointed him in the first place when that man is the most successful England manager since Bobby Robson.
How ironic it is that the FA have just sacked a man after saying they shouldn't have appointed him in the first place when that man is the most successful England manager since Bobby Robson.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
darkwolf666
Well-known member
Now THAT would be funny!
Lower West Stander
Well-known member
I wonder if it now comes down to what is deemed to be acceptable behaviour and whether that has changed.
Comments which previously would have been accepted as banter (rightly or wrongly) are now deemed as sackable offences. In no way am I defending Sampson but I can't see a situation where casual racism can slip out because some have not moved on from the bad old days.
I do worry about interpretations of racism sometimes - as I'm genuinely unsure as to what may be interpreted as unacceptable. It is very easy to avoid getting into trouble though - think before you speak.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Comments which previously would have been accepted as banter (rightly or wrongly) are now deemed as sackable offences. In no way am I defending Sampson but I can't see a situation where casual racism can slip out because some have not moved on from the bad old days.
I do worry about interpretations of racism sometimes - as I'm genuinely unsure as to what may be interpreted as unacceptable. It is very easy to avoid getting into trouble though - think before you speak.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
As an aside, is it just me or.....funny old job for a bloke, coaching women's football.....
No, it's not just you. And even for a veritable saint of a man (which it seems Sampson may not have been), the job is fraught with pitfalls. The allegations (for which he wasn't sacked) include bullying - is it bullying to criticise a players performance? How do you define where the line is?
I'm not defending Sampson, but I am saying a bloke would be nuts to take the job.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
What I don't get is why there has been no mention of pending prosecution (unless I have missed it).
Commons Select Committee now piling in, planning to interview Aluko, to determine if there is a culture of bullying at the FA etc. This has got legs.....
Tis true. That team should never have been relegated either.
For what?
Not sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the bullying players is all right if they're male but not if they're female?
That was announced some days ago; nothing to do with Sampson's sacking. That's more to do with the FA's approach to investigations
Napier's Knee
New member
Seems to me that this is the key insight, the final part of this sentence, from Daniel Taylor's piece in The Guardian today:
"Ultimately, though, Sampson has gone for something entirely different, involving a safeguarding investigation that went on for the best part of a year, a breakdown in communications within the FA structure and, it appears, some particularly dubious behaviour from his time at Bristol Academy where there are first-hand reports that some of the club’s trips were more like a coming together of stag- and hen-dos."
"Ultimately, though, Sampson has gone for something entirely different, involving a safeguarding investigation that went on for the best part of a year, a breakdown in communications within the FA structure and, it appears, some particularly dubious behaviour from his time at Bristol Academy where there are first-hand reports that some of the club’s trips were more like a coming together of stag- and hen-dos."
How many years ago now did an independent inquiry state the FA was not fit for purpose and had to reform? The government should disband it, appoint someone and tell them to start again from scratch.
Tooting Gull
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 11,033
That may or may not be true. But how on earth did the FA, who now three years later deem it to be of sufficient seriousness to sack him, appoint him in the first place when that report was always there? 'Breakdown in communications' hardly begins to describe it.
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Its a classic FA fudge.
They paid Aluko £40,000 hush money, and the problem didn't go away. They conducted two internal "investigations" and said they found no wrongdoing, the problem didn't go away. In the end, they couldn't put up with the continuous headlines over this, and realised they just had to bin him off to draw a line under it. But they couldn't do it over the Aluko fiasco, because that would then undermine the results of their two shoddy investigations when they cleared him. So with astoundingly convenient timing, something else comes up from YEARS ago that all of a sudden, they can sack him for. Whoopee !
The recurring theme is that the FA get very hot under the collar when the headlines start flying around. It was the same with Allardyce. They couldn't get rid of him quick enough once the media had hold of him, even though he'd done absolutely nothing wrong other than shoot his mouth off. The FA is an organisation of middle-management fops and crusty stuffed blazers who have the collective backbone of a dried up jellyfish.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,807
Looking at the chain events it's possible that the following has occurred.
Following Sampson being in the headlines someone has come forward and possibly agreed a deal with a newspaper about certain revelations. From what has been communicated this relates to Sampson's time when he was in charge of Bristol Academy and the girls team there. Though the exact nature of the offence hasn't been revealed it is unlikely to have been what you might be thinking now as it'd be a straight sacking at that point and a case brought against him.
Therefore it's likely something was said or he did something which was low grade (e.g. bought a player a beer or made an inappropriate joke).
The player(s) in question or someone with the info then approaches the media about this and the FA get wind, they realise that this, added to the current heat is simply too much and sack him on the back of it. I imagine there is now a clusterf**k at the FA where people are pointing at someone else and saying X should have told Y.
Again - all speculation but when the exact facts aren't they we can only try and tie together what's been said by the parties involved.
Following Sampson being in the headlines someone has come forward and possibly agreed a deal with a newspaper about certain revelations. From what has been communicated this relates to Sampson's time when he was in charge of Bristol Academy and the girls team there. Though the exact nature of the offence hasn't been revealed it is unlikely to have been what you might be thinking now as it'd be a straight sacking at that point and a case brought against him.
Therefore it's likely something was said or he did something which was low grade (e.g. bought a player a beer or made an inappropriate joke).
The player(s) in question or someone with the info then approaches the media about this and the FA get wind, they realise that this, added to the current heat is simply too much and sack him on the back of it. I imagine there is now a clusterf**k at the FA where people are pointing at someone else and saying X should have told Y.
Again - all speculation but when the exact facts aren't they we can only try and tie together what's been said by the parties involved.