# Mark Sampson



## Sweep (Sep 21, 2017)

Mark Sampson has been sacked as England Women football head coach by the FA after nearly 4 years in the job. Apparently he was dismissed after the FA was made aware of his conduct when he was manager at Bristol Academy. The FA say a report "revealed clear evidence of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour" and the full report was only brought to the attention of the current FA leadership last week. However, Bristol Academy say that they were made aware of the FA investigation into allegations over Sampson in 2014 but they haven't had any further contact with the FA on the issue. The 2014 report concluded that Sampson "did not pose a risk".
The FA says it still stands by the findings of the investigation into the more recent allegations made by player Eni Aluko which found no evidence of any wrongdoing, so Sampson's sacking is nothing to do with that. Sampson was immediately removed as patron of the charity Women in Sport after his dismissal. 

Seemingly the FA decided to sack him last week but left him in post for the match against Russia. In any event they had full knowledge of the report and the "clear" evidence last week.

This all seems a bit odd. Even the Sports Minister has waded in, saying it's "a mess".

So, as I understand it, he has been sacked for something he did in a former job that was investigated 3 years ago by the people who have just sacked him, after he has been doing a very successful job for almost 4 years. On top of that, the people who have just sacked him say it's nothing to do with allegations of a similar nature that they have also investigated and also found nothing. Despite him then being deemed guilty 3 years after the fact and against the findings of the original report, it seems they let him carry on for a few days more. As this would seem to leave the current players at risk it would be interesting to know what this "inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour" consisted of. I am sure I am not the only one wondering if the FA was more concerned about the Russia result than protecting their players from this kind of behaviour. Behaviour bad enough to get him the sack.

This all seems a bit strange and as the Minister says, it's a mess.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 21, 2017)

Also, it seems that the FA had the report of the Bristol case but nobody had bothered to read it??

You couldn't make it up!


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 21, 2017)

There's no mystery, the FA has very recently received new information and then sacked him.

You have to give the FA credit for acting decisively and honourably. There must have been a huge temptation to sweep it under the carpet as Sampson looks to be doing a great job.


----------



## rudebhoy (Sep 21, 2017)

Bizarre that the 2015 enquiry cleared him of any wrongdoing at Bristol, yet they are now using that as an excuse to sack him, while at the same time saying he is clear to work elsewhere as a coach, so presumably not considered a risk.

it all stinks.


----------



## sawtooth (Sep 21, 2017)

rudebhoy said:



			Bizarre that the 2015 enquiry cleared him of any wrongdoing at Bristol, yet they are now using that as an excuse to sack him, while at the same time saying he is clear to work elsewhere as a coach, so presumably not considered a risk.

it all stinks.
		
Click to expand...

That would be a rather silly and expensive mistake to make. The FA and their solicitors would know the financial consequences of sacking Sampson unless they had a water tight case.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 21, 2017)

Shows real failures in their recruitment that he ever got the job in the first place but strange that he can be sacked for something that happened before he was in the job.

Can't help but thinking they've been looking for a way to get rid of him after there wasn't enough evidence to support the more recent allegations against him.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Can't help but thinking they've been looking for a way to get rid of him after there wasn't enough evidence to support the more recent allegations against him.
		
Click to expand...

This. A forgotten report, that they actually knew about, suddenly appears and out he goes. All very convenient. This makes the FA look both incompetent and weasely at the same time.


----------



## Old Skier (Sep 21, 2017)

Nice way to get sacked - full buy out of the contract. FA once again played/pays a blinder.  If the guy has done something wrong and failed to disclose information at interview why has he been sacked on such a big wedge.


----------



## rudebhoy (Sep 21, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			That would be a rather silly and expensive mistake to make. The FA and their solicitors would know the financial consequences of sacking Sampson unless they had a water tight case.
		
Click to expand...


they've paid up the rest of his contract, I guess he will have signed something to say it's the end of the matter, in order to get the settlement.

another good question is why did the FA pay Aluko 80k if her allegations were dismissed?

some papers dropping heavy hints that he got into "relationships" with a couple of female players while at Bristol. it's possible that one of the tabloids was about to run a "kiss and tell", and the FA wanted to do a bit of damage limitation.


----------



## Sweep (Sep 21, 2017)

sawtooth said:



			There's no mystery, the FA has very recently received new information and then sacked him.

You have to give the FA credit for acting decisively and honourably. There must have been a huge temptation to sweep it under the carpet as Sampson looks to be doing a great job.
		
Click to expand...

But what new information? When he was accused about his time at Bristol a full report was commissioned (which concluded he posed no risk). When Aluko accused him the FA commissioned an independent enquiry which also cleared him. So now the FA receive new information and they take it at face value, no report, no enquiry. This then causes them to read the 2014 report for the first time (!) which concluded that he posed no risk and say it contains clear evidence of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour. I'd say that constitutes some mystery. I'd say none of this means the FA have acted decisively or honourably. Unless decisively means reading a report years later and it's honourable to not immediately remove someone when you have clear evidence of inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 21, 2017)

rudebhoy said:



			some papers dropping heavy hints that he got into "relationships" with a couple of female players while at Bristol. it's possible that one of the tabloids was about to run a "kiss and tell", and the FA wanted to do a bit of damage limitation.
		
Click to expand...


Aye, it's pretty obvious to me he's been rogering the right back.


----------



## Crazyface (Sep 21, 2017)

I think he knew before the match this was going to happen. If you watched his reaction when the girls ran over to him when they scored the first, he almost shunned them, with a wry smile. I thought this was odd when it happened. 
As for the FA, they are bunch of, well I hate every single one of them. They do nothing to help at grass roots level. DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY !!!!!


----------



## pbrown7582 (Sep 21, 2017)

it was all sorted before the match the other night.

A right old mess surely if the allegations of inappropriate relations with players at Bristol were around when he was appointed the FA should of fully read the report then not NOW.

Not a safeguarding issue which is really big at present in light of the sad tales which have been exposed recently but a conduct issue so those relationships weren't with U18's but deemed inappropriate for a coach.


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

A 'whistle blower' brought the alleged inappropriate relationship/s to the FA attentions which is why they only just read the reports in detail recently as they took all the previous allegations at face value when he was cleared of them.

This just stinks of sour grapes from someone acting on behalf of Aluko (or even herself) who although has had an nice little earner for some reason, is still seeking some kind of personal attack on Sampson because she couldn't accept being dropped at times and thought she was better than she was and as such through in the race card!

His relationship/s were clearly mentioned in the report that cleared him of any wrong doings so it's very poor of the FA to look back at the report and now decide that he's not the 'character' they want to fill the current role.

I think the FA are having their balls squeezed personally, the 'whistle blower' is obviously threatening to air everything and question his appointment.  They (the FA) are showing weakness by bowing to this because if he was cleared of everything they have nothing to be concerned about, but once again the PC brigade win and the weak people in authority bend over to appease them!

If a coach/manager or even owner cannot have a relationship with a player as it's deemed inappropriate, even though the relationship at the time could be serious and who knows where it may lead, then what of Karen Brady, or is it OK that way around?


----------



## richart (Sep 21, 2017)

Another player Chelsea's Drew Spence has now come forward to corroborate Aluko's claims.

Why pay out Â£80,000 to someone if there is no case ? Think there is a lot more to be revealed, and wouldn't surprise me if more players come forward now Sampson has gone.


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

richart said:



			Another player Chelsea's Drew Spence has now come forward to corroborate Aluko's claims.

Why pay out Â£80,000 to someone if there is no case ? Think there is a lot more to be revealed, and wouldn't surprise me if more players come forward now Sampson has gone.
		
Click to expand...

She's not _just come forward_, she was always at the center of the allegations in support of Aluko who has a confidentiality clause built into her 'settlement'.

Obviously now Sampson has gone Spence is looking for some action (money) and more snakes will come crawling out, but the actions of the players on the pitch after the goal speaks greater than a couple of players who were dropped and couldn't accept it which is why not only an internal, but an external investigation cleared Sampson of all those allegations.

This will run for a while now......


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 21, 2017)

Fish said:



			She's not _just come forward_, she was always at the center of the allegations in support of Aluko who has a confidentiality clause built into her 'settlement'.

Obviously now Sampson has gone Spence is looking for some action (money) and more snakes will come crawling out, but the actions of the players on the pitch after the goal speaks greater than a couple of players who were dropped and couldn't accept it which is why not only an internal, but an external investigation cleared Sampson of all those allegations.

This will run for a while now......
		
Click to expand...

Just because the players on the pitch  who celebrated with him didn't witness whatever Sampson may said to Aluko and/or Spence (or are not bothered by it) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Their celebration speaks to absolutely nothing.


----------



## pbrown7582 (Sep 21, 2017)

yes but spence was never interviewed in the original enquiry bizarrely as she could corroborate the claims.......


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 21, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			Just because the players on the pitch  who celebrated with him didn't witness whatever Sampson may said to Aluko and/or Spence (or are not bothered by it) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Their celebration speaks to absolutely nothing.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with this, the celebration was probably because they already knew he was getting the boot. It proves absolutely nothing about the other allegations.


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			Just because the players on the pitch  who celebrated with him didn't witness whatever Sampson may said to Aluko and/or Spence (or are not bothered by it) doesn't mean it didn't happen. Their celebration speaks to absolutely nothing.
		
Click to expand...

So an internal & external (independent) investigation both failed then?


----------



## richart (Sep 21, 2017)

Fish said:



			She's not _just come forward_, she was always at the center of the allegations in support of Aluko who has a confidentiality clause built into her 'settlement'.

Obviously now Sampson has gone Spence is looking for some action (money) and more snakes will come crawling out, but the actions of the players on the pitch after the goal speaks greater than a couple of players who were dropped and couldn't accept it which is why not only an internal, but an external investigation cleared Sampson of all those allegations.

This will run for a while now......
		
Click to expand...

 Until we know all the facts, calling people that come forward as snakes is poor.  Unfortunately a lot of people that are bullied, racially abused are too frightened to come forward, until someone else does. One of the reason abusers can get away with it for so long, as it is difficult to prove, and the abused are made to feel the guilty party.

As I said I will wait to hear full facts before judging people.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 21, 2017)

richart said:



			Until we know all the facts, calling people that come forward as snakes is poor.  Unfortunately a lot of people that are bullied, racially abused are too frightened to come forward, until someone else does. One of the reason abusers can get away with it for so long, as it is difficult to prove, and the abused are made to feel the guilty party.

As I said I will wait to hear full facts before judging people.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly this, it's so hard to come forward and to prove bullying and discrimination from a manager. I don't know what happened in the investigation but I found Aluko very plausible when I saw her being interviewed. Rightly or wrongly, I formed the view that she was telling the truth and he "got away with it" due to a lack of corroboration. The latest turn of events suggests the FA thought that too and have taken an opportunity to get rid of him. Terrible handling of a difficult situation by them.


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

richart said:



			Until we know all the facts, calling people that come forward as snakes is poor.  Unfortunately a lot of people that are bullied, racially abused are too frightened to come forward, until someone else does. One of the reason abusers can get away with it for so long, as it is difficult to prove, and the abused are made to feel the guilty party.

As I said I will wait to hear full facts before judging people.
		
Click to expand...

You stated 'just come forward' inferring another person was making allegations when in fact she was always at the center of it in support of Aluko.

The problem with throwing the race card about is that people or organisations won't challenge it or openly investigate it at times, they'd rather pay for it to be suppressed with no admission of guilt rather than make the white collar thieves more rich, usually to no end!


----------



## FairwayDodger (Sep 21, 2017)

Fish said:



			The problem with throwing the race card about is that people or organisations won't challenge it or openly investigate it at times, they'd rather pay for it to be suppressed with no addition of guilt rather than make the white collar thieves more rich, usually to no end!
		
Click to expand...

"throwing the race card" is quite a pejorative way of expressing it. It implies no racism took place and the allegation is frivolous. People should be encouraged to come forward and allegations should be taken seriously and investigated properly. Otherwise it will just keep happening and be swept under the carpet.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 21, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			"throwing the race card" is quite a pejorative way of expressing it. It implies no racism took place and the allegation is frivolous. People should be encouraged to come forward and allegations should be taken seriously and investigated properly. Otherwise it will just keep happening and be swept under the carpet.
		
Click to expand...

Just a throwaway old school 70's style phrase.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 21, 2017)

Fish said:



			So an internal & external (independent) investigation both failed then?
		
Click to expand...

Potentially, yes. That's always a possibility especially where it's people's word against each other.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			Potentially, yes. That's always a possibility especially where it's people's word against each other.
		
Click to expand...

Equally it could have been correct. How many investigations do you have until you stop? Do you keep going until you get the "right" answer?

The allegation against Sampson on England duty was very serious. If it is correct then he should have been sacked instantly, no question. Two investigations said otherwise so we can only go off that.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 21, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Equally it could have been correct. How many investigations do you have until you stop? Do you keep going until you get the "right" answer?

The allegation against Sampson on England duty was very serious. If it is correct then he should have been sacked instantly, no question. Two investigations said otherwise so we can only go off that.
		
Click to expand...

If you were the victim of racial abuse and two investigations into it didn't believe you, would you just be quiet and watch the other person enjoy their professional success partly built on the decisions based around you? Or, seeing him get away with it so publically, would you renew your efforts to out the person for their error?


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			If you were the victim of racial abuse and two investigations into it didn't believe you, would you just be quiet and watch the other person enjoy their professional success partly built on the decisions based around you? Or, seeing him get away with it so publically, would you renew your efforts to out the person for their error?
		
Click to expand...

Or take Â£80k and sign a confidentiality order with no admission of guilt or neglect being admitted or made by the FA.

If it comes to light now that the whistle blower is Aluko or she is complicit in it taking place, then she has breached that contract which is possibly an offence in it's own right and would need to repay the Â£80k!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			If you were the victim of racial abuse and two investigations into it didn't believe you, would you just be quiet and watch the other person enjoy their professional success partly built on the decisions based around you? Or, seeing him get away with it so publically, would you renew your efforts to out the person for their error?
		
Click to expand...

OR - what if you were the victim of an unfounded allegation of racial abuse, were found innocent on two separate occasions and just wanted to get on with your life and career but were prevented from doing so by ongoing rumours.

If I had been on the end of such abuse, as you suggest, then I would not take money and sign a confidentiality order. I would keep hammering away loudly and publicly.


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			OR - what if you were the victim of an unfounded allegation of racial abuse, were found innocent on two separate occasions and just wanted to get on with your life and career but were prevented from doing so by ongoing rumours.

If I had been on the end of such abuse, as you suggest, then I would not take money and sign a confidentiality order. I would keep hammering away loudly and publicly.
		
Click to expand...

She took the money because although she was a top scorer at club level, she was hard work in training, not a team player and was disruptive so she was dropped as an international player which she couldn't accept.

As you say, why would you take such a deal if you had already raised a complaint of such magnitude, you'd carry it on.....


----------



## BristolMike (Sep 21, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			OR - what if you were the victim of an unfounded allegation of racial abuse, were found innocent on two separate occasions and just wanted to get on with your life and career but were prevented from doing so by ongoing rumours.

If I had been on the end of such abuse, as you suggest, then I would not take money and sign a confidentiality order. I would keep hammering away loudly and publicly.
		
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this. She seems to be claiming the fact she was the top scorer on the league and not picked as a race issue too. How many times has the top English scorer in the league not picked for the men's national team? It happens all the time


----------



## Dasit (Sep 21, 2017)

Am I cynic for thinking they totally are blowing all this way out of proportion to try to raise the profile of women's football?


Probably the first time I have ever heard women's football been mentioned in the bar at the golf club. Even when the BBC have been forcing it down our throats with clickbait headlines for years.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 21, 2017)

Haven't read all the thread but have we got to the stage of victim blaming a black women yet?


----------



## Dasit (Sep 21, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			Haven't read all the thread but have we got to the stage of victim blaming a black women yet?
		
Click to expand...

no but we have now got to the stage of liberals getting fake outraged over what is a non issue


----------



## BristolMike (Sep 21, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			Haven't read all the thread but have we got to the stage of victim blaming a black women yet?
		
Click to expand...

Who would you say is the victim? The who who made the allegations, or the one who was cleared twice but still hounded out of a job he was doing very successfully?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			Haven't read all the thread but have we got to the stage of victim blaming a black women yet?
		
Click to expand...

No one has suggested this at all. Cheap shot.


----------



## bladeplayer (Sep 21, 2017)

People should remember the CHed Evans case and thread , we dont have all the evidence so thread & comment carefuly ..


----------



## OnTour (Sep 21, 2017)

Career ending I'd guess, media driven need the flesh ! 

What next equal pay? For crowds of 500. I'd like to hear his story published.


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 21, 2017)

bladeplayer said:



			People should remember the CHed Evans case and thread , we dont have all the evidence so thread & comment carefuly ..
		
Click to expand...

I stuck by Ched the whole time. I've got a nose for legal cases.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2017)

I think all the comments so far are within the boundaries. Fair point to raise a warning but no accusations are flying around, the discussion is reasoned.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 21, 2017)

I think Aluko is clearly looking for some sort of pay day when her international career stalled under Sampson. I guess the interesting question is what happens when the new manager comes in and she's still banging the goals in at club level. Will the new boss pick her (or will the FA "suggest" they do) and if so will she be welcomed back into the fold. I feel not as I believe the majority of the squad respected the outcome of the two reports and were enjoying the success and progress they were making under Sampson


----------



## BristolMike (Sep 21, 2017)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I think Aluko is clearly looking for some sort of pay day when her international career stalled under Sampson. I guess the interesting question is what happens when the new manager comes in and she's still banging the goals in at club level. Will the new boss pick her (or will the FA "suggest" they do) and if so will she be welcomed back into the fold. I feel not as I believe the majority of the squad respected the outcome of the two reports and were enjoying the success and progress they were making under Sampson
		
Click to expand...

i don't think she helped herself with the tweet after the goal the other day. She came across as very bitter


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

BristolMike said:



			i don't think she helped herself with the tweet after the goal the other day. She came across as very bitter
		
Click to expand...

And from what I've read about her, that's her whole attitude with everything when things don't go her way.


----------



## richart (Sep 21, 2017)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I think Aluko is clearly looking for some sort of pay day when her international career stalled under Sampson. I guess the interesting question is what happens when the new manager comes in and she's still banging the goals in at club level. Will the new boss pick her (or will the FA "suggest" they do) and if so will she be welcomed back into the fold. I feel not as I believe the majority of the squad respected the outcome of the two reports and were enjoying the success and progress they were making under Sampson
		
Click to expand...

 Think she is a fully qualified solicitor, who can practice in the UK and US, so think she might be alright after football.:thup:


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 21, 2017)

richart said:



			Think she is a fully qualified solicitor, who can practice in the UK and US, so think she might be alright after football.:thup:
		
Click to expand...

I'm sure she will be but when you see your current payday suddenly taken away you see how some would want my more big pay out before getting a "proper" job. She still thinks she can score at international level and feels her career was cut short.


----------



## Rlburnside (Sep 21, 2017)

Seems a strange turn of events, FA not come out in a good light,can't really comment as don't know the full story.


----------



## richart (Sep 21, 2017)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I'm sure she will be but when you see your current payday suddenly taken away you see how some would want my more big pay out before getting a "proper" job. She still thinks she can score at international level and feels her career was cut short.
		
Click to expand...

Why would she get pay off taken away ? Did she have to quit International football to receive it ? I am confused. I would have though that after MP's have reviewed the case, and evidence from Bristol is revealed she might be due more money. It looks like the FA employed someone who if they had read his reference, would not have touched with a barge pole. To be fair the FA are a joke. Surely if you employ someone that has been sacked from previous job for non footballing reasons, it would set the alarm bells ringing. You might want to read the reasons why.

I think there is a lot more to come out of this, so I will not speculate any further.


----------



## Fish (Sep 21, 2017)

richart said:



			Why would she get pay off taken away ? Did she have to quit International football to receive it ? I am confused. I would have though that after MP's have reviewed the case, and evidence from Bristol is revealed she might be due more money. It looks like the FA employed someone who if they had read his reference, would not have touched with a barge pole. To be fair the FA are a joke. Surely if you employ someone that has been sacked from previous job for non footballing reasons, it would set the alarm bells ringing. You might want to read the reasons why.

I think there is a lot more to come out of this, so I will not speculate any further.
		
Click to expand...

Where was he sacked from before? 

All 'evidence' of his appointment at Bristol Accademy was investigated, twice, internally and with an external barrister and he was cleared of any wrong doings and even the FA are still stating even after reading all the reports now in full, that, he poses no risk and is clear to coach!  Not that that will ever happen now with the debacle that is going on.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 21, 2017)

Fish said:



			Where was he sacked from before? 

All 'evidence' of his appointment at Bristol Accademy was investigated, twice, internally and with an external barrister and he was cleared of any wrong doings and even the FA are still stating even after reading all the reports now in full, that, he poses no risk and is clear to coach!  Not that that will ever happen now with the debacle that is going on.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 21, 2017)

Fish said:



			Where was he sacked from before? 

All 'evidence' of his appointment at Bristol Accademy was investigated, twice, internally and with an external barrister and he was cleared of any wrong doings and even the FA are still stating even after reading all the reports now in full, that, he poses no risk and is clear to coach!  Not that that will ever happen now with the debacle that is going on.
		
Click to expand...

The English legal system has two verdicts; guilty or not guilty.

The Scottish legal system has three verdicts; guilty, not guilty and not proven.

The more I hear about this, the more it sounds likes a not proven.


----------



## richart (Sep 21, 2017)

Fish said:



			Where was he sacked from before? 

All 'evidence' of his appointment at Bristol Accademy was investigated, twice, internally and with an external barrister and he was cleared of any wrong doings and even the FA are still stating even after reading all the reports now in full, that, he poses no risk and is clear to coach!  Not that that will ever happen now with the debacle that is going on.
		
Click to expand...

Apologies, he was sacked by England for allegations made when he was at Bristol. Still think FA may not come out of this well, but we will see.


----------



## Rlburnside (Sep 22, 2017)

If he thinks he has done nothing wrong could he not go to a tribunal and sue the fa for wrongful dismissal?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 22, 2017)

Rlburnside said:



			If he thinks he has done nothing wrong could he not go to a tribunal and sue the fa for wrongful dismissal?
		
Click to expand...

Reports have suggested his contract has been paid off. If that is the case then he has presumably agreed to go based on getting the pay off. Had he been sacked for gross misconduct his contract would have been terminated instantly, no pay off and then he could have sued. This is an agreed departure designed to be as painless as possible for all parties.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 22, 2017)

Blue in Munich said:



			The English legal system has two verdicts; guilty or not guilty.

The Scottish legal system has three verdicts; guilty, not guilty and not proven.

The more I hear about this, the more it sounds likes a not proven.
		
Click to expand...

so in England that's Not Guilty then!

This shows how inept the Top of the FA really are .
The ones who gave him the job in the first place should be sacked.

Hang on though he was found Not Guilty.
So they will say they did nothing wrong , what a mess.


----------



## Sweep (Sep 22, 2017)

Sky were reporting that he has not been subject to a gagging order and he had not received a golden handshake, just the remainder of his contract.

The FA made it very clear there had been no illegal activity, but inappropriate and unacceptable behaviour.

I understand there is to be a Parliamentary hearing on the Aluko accusations and whilst none of us know, it seems to me the FA were worried about that and wanted to distance themselves from Sampson.

The Sun is reporting that the FA has put a hold on some of the Â£80k "hush" money due to Aluko after she spoke out. Seemingly she signed a confidentiality agreement.

The plot thickens.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 22, 2017)

The whole thing stinks.

1) He was cleared in 2015 by the FA.

2) In a recent one he was cleared of "bullying and harassment."

3) The person who lost the bullying and harassment claim then decides on a further allegation of racism. Why didn't they raise this in the first allegation?

4) The FA then revisit the 2014/15 investigation and decide he's guilty...

4) The FA state, after sacking him, he is safe to carry on coaching.

It may be the right decision but what a messy clownish U-turn... and that's the same FA that hired Allardyce...


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 22, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			4) The FA then revisit the 2014/15 investigation and decide he's guilty...
		
Click to expand...


This isn't my understanding of it, Brian.

I'm reading it as they've gone back and read in more detail and decided that while there is no legal wrongdoing, he has acted in a way that isn't up to their standard morally.

Until we find out what he did, it's hard to know. The natural assumption is that he's had some sort of relationship with a player(s).


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 22, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			This isn't my understanding of it, Brian.

I'm reading it as they've gone back and read in more detail and decided that while there is no legal wrongdoing, he has acted in a way that isn't up to their standard morally.

Until we find out what he did, it's hard to know. The natural assumption is that he's had some sort of relationship with a player(s).
		
Click to expand...

I should be sacked for marrying another employee!


----------



## Kellfire (Sep 22, 2017)

Hobbit said:



			I should be sacked for marrying another employee!
		
Click to expand...

Do your bosses know?? :O


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 22, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Sky were reporting that he has not been subject to a gagging order and he had not received a golden handshake, just the remainder of his contract.
		
Click to expand...

If it was gross misconduct he would get nothing. How long is the rest of his contract? They have started qualifying for the 2019 world cup now so it would make sense for him to be contracted until the end of that tournament. If they paid to the end of his contract that is 2 yrs pay in your hand now. If not a golden handshake it is certainly a very decent one.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Sep 22, 2017)

Kellfire said:



			This isn't my understanding of it, Brian.

I'm reading it as they've gone back and read in more detail and decided that while there is no legal wrongdoing, he has acted in a way that isn't up to their standard morally.

Until we find out what he did, it's hard to know. The natural assumption is that he's had some sort of relationship with a player(s).
		
Click to expand...

 That suggests they could not be bothered to read their own inquiry report properly.

Thats really poor from the FA.


----------



## GB72 (Sep 22, 2017)

I think the FA are lucky if he goes quietly. Whether they read it or not, it would hard for the FA to argue that they were not legally deemed to be on notice of the report and its contents and had made the appointment taking that into account. To then use that as a reason for dismissal would be pretty suspect grounds. Taking into account damage to reputation, likelihood of future employment etc, this could cost the FA millions.


----------



## Rlburnside (Sep 22, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Reports have suggested his contract has been paid off. If that is the case then he has presumably agreed to go based on getting the pay off. Had he been sacked for gross misconduct his contract would have been terminated instantly, no pay off and then he could have sued. This is an agreed departure designed to be as painless as possible for all parties.
		
Click to expand...

If that is the case that he's accepted his contract to be paid off then I would question why If he's got nothing to hide.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 22, 2017)

Going to a tribunal can be expensive, very public in this case, and not much fun. I guess the FA made him the offer, told him he could go with his head up and a decent reference, for what that is worth in the circumstances. He has weighed up the damage and cost of going to court and decided to take the money. If I was him I would now be looking at coaching abroad and let the heat go down. The FA have deeper pockets than him and a case that gets poured over in the press whilst in court is not going to help his career going forward. Pragmatic decision.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Sep 23, 2017)

Dasit said:



			Am I cynic for thinking they totally are blowing all this way out of proportion to try to raise the profile of women's football?


Probably the first time I have ever heard women's football been mentioned in the bar at the golf club. Even when the BBC have been forcing it down our throats with clickbait headlines for years.
		
Click to expand...




Dasit said:



*no but we have now got to the stage of liberals getting fake outraged over what is a non issue*

Click to expand...

Says the man who seems to think the whole thing is is concocted publicity stunt.....


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Sep 23, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Going to a tribunal can be expensive, very public in this case, and not much fun. I guess the FA made him the offer, told him he could go with his head up and a decent reference, for what that is worth in the circumstances. He has weighed up the damage and cost of going to court and decided to take the money. If I was him I would now be looking at coaching abroad and let the heat go down. The FA have deeper pockets than him and a case that gets poured over in the press whilst in court is not going to help his career going forward. Pragmatic decision.
		
Click to expand...

According to someone I know who works in employment law, they feel he'd have a very good case, based on the facts in the public domain to date. Whether there is stuff that has remained private that has forced Sampson's hand in another matter. The problem he has though is by taking the money there's always going to an element of guilt attached whether substantiated or not. It's going to make it hard to be employed again and while he has proven himself as a decent coach in the womens game you have to wonder if any club or association will be willing to take the risk and it'll be a case of "no smoke"


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 18, 2017)

So the FA have changed there minds and the alleged racist comments did occur.........


----------



## Piece (Oct 18, 2017)

pbrown7582 said:



			So the FA have changed there minds and the alleged racist comments did occur.........
		
Click to expand...

He made remarks that were, "Discriminatory on the grounds of race", quote unquote. Not the same as a racist comment according to a barrister's report.


----------



## Reemul (Oct 18, 2017)

Still got to be a moron to make comments like that, it would certainly lead to disciplinary issues in workplaces


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 18, 2017)

Apparently not racist but a blurred line, classed in the realms of banter. As Reemul has pointed out it would not be allowed in most workplaces.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 18, 2017)

Why can't the suits at the FA just tell the truth from the start.
This has gone on for months .
They try to hush up anything that might be controversial but the outcome just makes it worse when it all comes out.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Oct 18, 2017)

Interesting watching the FA sweating. Thought the players came across well


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 18, 2017)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Interesting watching the FA sweating. Thought the players came across well
		
Click to expand...

Just don't see what they have to gain keeping it quiet.
Reporters will always get to the truth , It looks worse then.
Just tell us what happens when it happens .
Its a joke


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 18, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			Just don't see what they have to gain keeping it quiet.
Reporters will always get to the truth , It looks worse then.
Just tell us what happens when it happens .
Its a joke
		
Click to expand...

Easier to try and make her look the bad person, have a look back at this thread were people thought she may be out for a payday etc

Sheâ€™s stuck to her story and kept her dignity, the media were demonising the others that publicly supported her.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Oct 18, 2017)

It's hard to believe a word the FA says now .
Their media people have made a mess of this.
But they looked very uneasy in that MPs enquiery.
But the players came across well.
It should not get to this though it's a joke.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 19, 2017)

A couple of things from yesterday's enquiry (I have not seen it all, so apologies if I missed something).
Is it me, or is it just a little convenient that the latest report was published on the morning of the Parliamentary hearing?
According to the report, Sampson made a couple of inappropriate comments that were in the eyes of the law unlawful - Equalities 2010 - but he is not racist. Seemingly it was banter which most would accept is stupid. But he wasn't sacked for this as the FA only decided this was true yesterday morning when the report came out. Remember, he was sacked for something he did when he was at Bristol, but as far as I can tell that wasn't even mentioned.
What is very worrying to me is that the government has been complicit in holding an enquiry, hearing evidence from Sampson's accusers and his bosses but have not allowed him the opportunity to put his side of the story. I appreciate that this enquiry was not looking into the sacking in itself, but it was naturally talked about a lot. In any case surely Sampson would have been able to offer valuable evidence to the hearing.
Personally I am amazed there was a Parliamentary enquiry at all, seemingly based on one person's (later joined by a team mate) objection to what now looks like banter. I doubt many other and very probably more deserving cases of racism in the workplace would be granted such an airing. We still don't know why Sampson was sacked and until we do this whole thing will look like a public character assassination.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 19, 2017)

Sweep said:



			A couple of things from yesterday's enquiry (I have not seen it all, so apologies if I missed something).
Is it me, or is it just a little convenient that the latest report was published on the morning of the Parliamentary hearing?
According to the report, Sampson made a couple of inappropriate comments that were in the eyes of the law unlawful - Equalities 2010 - but he is not racist. Seemingly it was banter which most would accept is stupid. But he wasn't sacked for this as the FA only decided this was true yesterday morning when the report came out. Remember, he was sacked for something he did when he was at Bristol, but as far as I can tell that wasn't even mentioned.
What is very worrying to me is that the government has been complicit in holding an enquiry, hearing evidence from Sampson's accusers and his bosses but have not allowed him the opportunity to put his side of the story. I appreciate that this enquiry was not looking into the sacking in itself, but it was naturally talked about a lot. In any case surely Sampson would have been able to offer valuable evidence to the hearing.
Personally I am amazed there was a Parliamentary enquiry at all, seemingly based on one person's (later joined by a team mate) objection to what now looks like banter. I doubt many other and very probably more deserving cases of racism in the workplace would be granted such an airing. We still don't know why Sampson was sacked and until we do this whole thing will look like a public character assassination.
		
Click to expand...

Hereâ€™s a decent link which covers most of the points you missed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...y-racially-abusing-eni-aluko-drew-spence/amp/


----------



## Sweep (Oct 19, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Hereâ€™s a decent link which covers most of the points you missed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football...y-racially-abusing-eni-aluko-drew-spence/amp/

Click to expand...

Thank you, but according to this article, I missed nothing?
I have to say the comment he has been "found guilty" of making is reprehensible and just plain stupid, but as I say, he wasn't sacked for this.


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 19, 2017)

Sweep said:



			A couple of things from yesterday's enquiry (I have not seen it all, so apologies if I missed something).
Is it me, or is it just a little convenient that the latest report was published on the morning of the Parliamentary hearing?
According to the report, Sampson made a couple of inappropriate comments that were in the eyes of the law unlawful - Equalities 2010 - but he is not racist. Seemingly it was banter which most would accept is stupid. But he wasn't sacked for this as the FA only decided this was true yesterday morning when the report came out. Remember, he was sacked for something he did when he was at Bristol, but as far as I can tell that wasn't even mentioned.
What is very worrying to me is that the government has been complicit in holding an enquiry, hearing evidence from Sampson's accusers and his bosses but have not allowed him the opportunity to put his side of the story. I appreciate that this enquiry was not looking into the sacking in itself, but it was naturally talked about a lot. In any case surely Sampson would have been able to offer valuable evidence to the hearing.
Personally I am amazed there was a Parliamentary enquiry at all, seemingly based on one person's (later joined by a team mate) objection to what now looks like banter. I doubt many other and very probably more deserving cases of racism in the workplace would be granted such an airing. We still don't know why Sampson was sacked and until we do this whole thing will look like a public character assassination.
		
Click to expand...


he was sacked due to what was deemed inappropriate relations with players at Bristol academy.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 19, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Thank you, but according to this article, I missed nothing?
I have to say the comment he has been "found guilty" of making is reprehensible and just plain stupid, but as I say, he wasn't sacked for this.
		
Click to expand...

You said you still donâ€™t know why he was sacked, thatâ€™s in the article.

The Parliamentry enquiry was into the FAâ€™s handling of racist complaints, thatâ€™s why there was the enquiry.

Sampson has admitted to making comments, why then make him appear to admit them again, there is no other side to them.

The FA asked for the report to be announced prior to yesterday, otherwise they couldnâ€™t answer any questions.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 19, 2017)

pbrown7582 said:



			he was sacked due to what was deemed inappropriate relations with players at Bristol academy.
		
Click to expand...

So I believe, but what does that mean?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 19, 2017)

Sweep said:



			So I believe, but what does that mean?
		
Click to expand...

Samponâ€™s lawyer said yesterday that Sampson is still considering taking the FA to court for unfair dismissal, if he does, all should come out.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 19, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			You said you still donâ€™t know why he was sacked, thatâ€™s in the article.

The Parliamentry enquiry was into the FAâ€™s handling of racist complaints, thatâ€™s why there was the enquiry.

Sampson has admitted to making comments, why then make him appear to admit them again, there is no other side to them.

The FA asked for the report to be announced prior to yesterday, otherwise they couldnâ€™t answer any questions.
		
Click to expand...

We all know he was sacked for "in appropriate but not illegal" relationships in his previous job. That does not explain what he actually did.
The hearing surely would have benefited from hearing why he made those comments, the context they were made in and if they were part of institutional racism within the FA. Something the FA is very keen to deny. Surely Sampson's side of the story would assist the hearing to come to a balanced conclusion. Without his side of the story this seems like a done deal and actually not really an attempt to get to the truth at all.
I have to ask, why is the FA so dependent on reports? So they couldn't answer any questions at the hearing if yet another report wasn't published in time? Really??? Don't they know what is going on in their own organisation? More importantly, didn't anyone ask? In this context, is it really feasible the author of the latest report could clear Sampson again? If, as you say, he admitted making remarks, why was the report commissioned? Why didn't the FA apologise for the remarks he admitted to making before the report was published?
Again, in what other organisation would this have been granted a Parliamentary hearing?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 19, 2017)

Sweep said:



			We all know he was sacked for "in appropriate but not illegal" relationships in his previous job. That does not explain what he actually did.
The hearing surely would have benefited from hearing why he made those comments, the context they were made in and if they were part of institutional racism within the FA. Something the FA is very keen to deny. Surely Sampson's side of the story would assist the hearing to come to a balanced conclusion. Without his side of the story this seems like a done deal and actually not really an attempt to get to the truth at all.
I have to ask, why is the FA so dependent on reports? So they couldn't answer any questions at the hearing if yet another report wasn't published in time? Really??? Don't they know what is going on in their own organisation? More importantly, didn't anyone ask? In this context, is it really feasible the author of the latest report could clear Sampson again? If, as you say, he admitted making remarks, why was the report commissioned? Why didn't the FA apologise for the remarks he admitted to making before the report was published?
Again, in what other organisation would this have been granted a Parliamentary hearing?
		
Click to expand...

The 2 things are seperate, yesterday was nothing to do with his sacking.

The third report was commissioned by the FA, probably in hope of clearing their name once and for all, they asked for the report to be published yesterday, Parliament agreed for the enquiry to take place on the same day.

Why does it matter why he made the comments? Apart from the fact heâ€™d denied making them when questioned on the previous 2 occassions, we could speculate and say he denied it when manager so not to risk losing his job.

Whether it was banter or heâ€™s a racist, I donâ€™t know, but once thing is definite, he should not of made them.

Impact not Intent, he failed to think or didnâ€™t care.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport chaired and requested the enquiry, do you not think they should hold the FA to account if they believe there could be a culture of cover ups or racism in the association. If not them, who else could hold the FA accountable.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 19, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Department of Culture, Media and Sport chaired and requested the enquiry, do you not think they should hold the FA to account if they believe there could be a culture of cover ups or racism in the association. If not them, who else could hold the FA accountable.
		
Click to expand...

They only have the right to "hold them to account" as the govt gives the FA grant money. If not then the FA could simply ignore the committee, as many businesses do when summoned to appear at committees. As to who should hold them to account, that is the same with any workplace. Ultimately a tribunal or court holds a work place to account, not govt. For example, if the Chairman of Seaham GC made a poor taste comment about someone serving behind the bar he would not be hauled in front of this committee, the employee would take the club to a tribunal, if the club committee had backed the Chairman of course.

Govt committees like this type of thing as it gives some MP's a chance to grandstand. I'm not saying their work is not good at times but MP's getting pompous over certain matters seems a bit ironic when you look at their colleagues around them and those people in the HoL a few metres away.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 19, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			They only have the right to "hold them to account" as the govt gives the FA grant money. If not then the FA could simply ignore the committee, as many businesses do when summoned to appear at committees. As to who should hold them to account, that is the same with any workplace. Ultimately a tribunal or court holds a work place to account, not govt. For example, if the Chairman of Seaham GC made a poor taste comment about someone serving behind the bar he would not be hauled in front of this committee, the employee would take the club to a tribunal, if the club committee had backed the Chairman of course.

Govt committees like this type of thing as it gives some MP's a chance to grandstand. I'm not saying their work is not good at times but MP's getting pompous over certain matters seems a bit ironic when you look at their colleagues around them and those people in the HoL a few metres away.
		
Click to expand...

Disagree mate, weâ€™re talking about a national body of the biggest sport in the world, not a tin pot golf club.

How many campaigns do the FA run? Racism, Sexism, etc etc and youâ€™re implying they can say one thing and do another, their behaviour can impact on men, women and kids of all backgrounds, ages etc.

If thereâ€™s one common theme running through this thread itâ€™s the ineptitude of the FA.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 19, 2017)

Are you calling your own club tin pot? Ha ha. I was probably not clear in my response however as I was trying to be factual in my first paragraph, it was not an opinion.

I do tend to get a little annoyed by self righteous committee members however, is their own house in order? 

Regarding the FA, part of the issue is it is made up of all football clubs, it is not fit for purpose. The structure is old fashioned and stuck in the past, think 1970's football clubs. It needs to ditch most of its committees and start from scratch with a more streamlined approach. I'm not sure it can restructure itself as you are in the territory of Christmas and turkeys. There are good people there in the system but it is an oil tanker trying to turn around.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 19, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Are you calling your own club tin pot? Ha ha. I was probably not clear in my response however as I was trying to be factual in my first paragraph, it was not an opinion.

I do tend to get a little annoyed by self righteous committee members however, is their own house in order? 

Regarding the FA, part of the issue is it is made up of all football clubs, it is not fit for purpose. The structure is old fashioned and stuck in the past, think 1970's football clubs. It needs to ditch most of its committees and start from scratch with a more streamlined approach. I'm not sure it can restructure itself as you are in the territory of Christmas and turkeys. There are good people there in the system but it is an oil tanker trying to turn around.
		
Click to expand...

Yes mate I am calling us tin pot in relation to a national governing body, as for the FA, donâ€™t think 1970â€™s, think 1870â€™s :rofl:


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 19, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			Yes mate I am calling us tin pot :rofl:
		
Click to expand...

:thup:



:rofl:


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 19, 2017)

pbrown7582 said:



			:thup:



:rofl:
		
Click to expand...

He'll be up in front of his committee after that:clap:. Tin pot, ha ha


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 19, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			He'll be up in front of his committee after that:clap:. Tin pot, ha ha
		
Click to expand...

Parliamentry committee? :rofl:


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 19, 2017)

I'd have thought a golf club committee is far more scary.


----------



## Beezerk (Oct 19, 2017)

Something else to do with the goal keeping coach has kicked off now.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 21, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			The 2 things are seperate, yesterday was nothing to do with his sacking.

The third report was commissioned by the FA, probably in hope of clearing their name once and for all, they asked for the report to be published yesterday, Parliament agreed for the enquiry to take place on the same day.

Why does it matter why he made the comments? Apart from the fact heâ€™d denied making them when questioned on the previous 2 occassions, we could speculate and say he denied it when manager so not to risk losing his job.

Whether it was banter or heâ€™s a racist, I donâ€™t know, but once thing is definite, he should not of made them.

Impact not Intent, he failed to think or didnâ€™t care.

Department of Culture, Media and Sport chaired and requested the enquiry, do you not think they should hold the FA to account if they believe there could be a culture of cover ups or racism in the association. If not them, who else could hold the FA accountable.
		
Click to expand...

I already stated that the hearing was not about his sacking. However, if we are investigating the FA in this, his employment in the first place and subsequent sacking was certainly linked. If this is not the case, why was the FA questioned about it? Yet we still don't know what he did in another job that got him sacked from this one.
I am questioning why the FA needed a third report and indeed that reports effectiveness given that it had a time limit imposed on its publication of the morning of the hearing. It seems obvious to me that the reports author had to come up with something against Sampson but could only find the Ebola comment. She found no evidence of anything else against him. Do we now have to accept that all other accusations against him are unfounded? Is this like a court of law? Have we really got to the truth about anything?
It absolutely matters why he made the comments. Surely we need to know if this "banter" was part of a larger culture of bullying and racism in the FA. Was it part of the behaviour that lead to bullying claims? Without Sampson telling us, you are only hearing half the story and he is effectively being demonised without recourse.

Everyone, including Sampson I am sure, accepts that he shouldn't have made the comments.
I didn't say the FA should not be held to account. I said that there will be many, many more deserving cases of racism and bullying in the workplace that happen every single day in this country, many in public bodies, that we will never hear of, let alone will be the subject of a Parliamentary hearing. The only reason this has been heard in Parliament is because of football's public profile. This may lead certain people to believe that using its high profile may highlight the issue. However, the "victims" in this case are no more deserving and are very likely to have suffered far less than many other less public cases.
Badically, for all its bluff and bluster, all this hearing seems to have achieved is to establish that a manager and maybe an assistant made a couple of very ill advised jokes. I am not belittling the effect of these jokes, just saying that's all the hearing achieved. Oh, and to force the FA to commission yet another report that paid lip service to the complainants case and allowed a few MP's a bit of grandstanding. Not, in my view the best use of public money.
And who else could be expected to hold the FA to account other than Parliament? The law.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 21, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I already stated that the hearing was not about his sacking. However, if we are investigating the FA in this, his employment in the first place and subsequent sacking was certainly linked. If this is not the case, why was the FA questioned about it? Yet we still don't know what he did in another job that got him sacked from this one.
I am questioning why the FA needed a third report and indeed that reports effectiveness given that it had a time limit imposed on its publication of the morning of the hearing. It seems obvious to me that the reports author had to come up with something against Sampson but could only find the Ebola comment. She found no evidence of anything else against him. Do we now have to accept that all other accusations against him are unfounded? Is this like a court of law? Have we really got to the truth about anything?
It absolutely matters why he made the comments. Surely we need to know if this "banter" was part of a larger culture of bullying and racism in the FA. Was it part of the behaviour that lead to bullying claims? Without Sampson telling us, you are only hearing half the story and he is effectively being demonised without recourse.

Everyone, including Sampson I am sure, accepts that he shouldn't have made the comments.
I didn't say the FA should not be held to account. I said that there will be many, many more deserving cases of racism and bullying in the workplace that happen every single day in this country, many in public bodies, that we will never hear of, let alone will be the subject of a Parliamentary hearing. The only reason this has been heard in Parliament is because of football's public profile. This may lead certain people to believe that using its high profile may highlight the issue. However, the "victims" in this case are no more deserving and are very likely to have suffered far less than many other less public cases.
Badically, for all its bluff and bluster, all this hearing seems to have achieved is to establish that a manager and maybe an assistant made a couple of very ill advised jokes. I am not belittling the effect of these jokes, just saying that's all the hearing achieved. Oh, and to force the FA to commission yet another report that paid lip service to the complainants case and allowed a few MP's a bit of grandstanding. Not, in my view the best use of public money.
And who else could be expected to hold the FA to account other than Parliament? The law.
		
Click to expand...

The Parliamentary board, invited  the FA and Aluko to the hearing, they were asking questions as to why the FA paid Aluko Â£80,000 if there was no case to answer.

The independant lawyer who carried out the 2nd investigation in to Alukoâ€™s claims was asked to do a 3rd investigation after it came out that she had never interviewed Aluko or any other players who were allegdy there when Sampson made the remarks, she only interviewed Sampson, then after she interviewed Aluko and others, she re-interviewed Sampson and put the allegations to him.

He then admitted he had made the comments, the investigation was concluded and found Sampson had made racist comments, but he was not a racist.

Why and how different government departments have these enquiries and what the criteria is, I have no idea.

I still see no reason why Sampson needed to admit publicly he made the comments, to me it would of humiliated him, the FA Chairman showed their attitude to the problem when he called it â€œfluffâ€ and was then rebuked and he apologised.

Nobody forced the FA into a 3rd enquiry they chose to have it done again after finding out the flaws in the 2nd one.

I also donâ€™t believe there is a scale of racism cases with some being more deserving of attention than others.

You seem to have little faith in the reports and worry about Sampson, what about Aluko, she has been vindicated, even on here people questioned her motives while the whole time she was telling the truth and until this week it was her who was demonised.


----------



## Sweep (Oct 22, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			The Parliamentary board, invited  the FA and Aluko to the hearing, they were asking questions as to why the FA paid Aluko Â£80,000 if there was no case to answer.

You seem to have little faith in the reports and worry about Sampson, what about Aluko, she has been vindicated, even on here people questioned her motives while the whole time she was telling the truth and until this week it was her who was demonised.
		
Click to expand...

Do we now know why the FA paid the 80k if, at the time it was paid, there was no case to answer?

You are right. I have absolutely no faith in the reports, for a whole host of reasons. Who was paying for them would be my first question.
I do worry about Sampson and I do worry about Aluko. I worry about anyone who is subjected to racism and bullying. I also worry that everyone is saying she has been vindicated when we don't seem to have got to the truth. 
Why did she take the 80k?
Was she bullied?
Did she, as some say, bring up race when her other allegations were dismissed (and still seem to have been dismissed) or was this a complaint from the start?
Did she start her complaints when she was dropped?
Would Sampson have been sacked for the mystery wrongdoings at a former employment if this case had not arisen?
Why was Sampson's contract paid up if he had committed an offence that warranted instant dismissal?
Does the FA just hand out cash to anyone with a grievance?
How do I get to work for them?
My fear is that everyone has now reached the conclusion they wanted all along and we now have a happy ending. Except Sampson's career is in pieces, firstly sacked not for this but for something, as yet unknown, that he did when he wasn't even employed by the FA and then this where he hasn't been allowed his say. I am not saying he is a saint. I am not saying he is innocent or even that he doesn't deserve to be where is he is now. I am simply saying we don't know and that he has not been treated fairly and he should be allowed the same platform as others. Clearly people at the FA are at fault here, yet only Sampson has lost his job and appears unemployable. If people are genuinely worried about bullying and racism and buying silence in the workplace, they should also be worried about this. Because if you don't get to the truth and you demonise someone because it is convenient for your case to do so then you haven't served the cause against racism or bullying at all. In fact quite the opposite. The fact that those who have set themselves up as judge and jury are complicit in this injustice makes it far worse.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 22, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Do we now know why the FA paid the 80k if, at the time it was paid, there was no case to answer?

You are right. I have absolutely no faith in the reports, for a whole host of reasons. Who was paying for them would be my first question.
I do worry about Sampson and I do worry about Aluko. I worry about anyone who is subjected to racism and bullying. I also worry that everyone is saying she has been vindicated when we don't seem to have got to the truth. 
Why did she take the 80k?
Was she bullied?
Did she, as some say, bring up race when her other allegations were dismissed (and still seem to have been dismissed) or was this a complaint from the start?
Did she start her complaints when she was dropped?
Would Sampson have been sacked for the mystery wrongdoings at a former employment if this case had not arisen?
Why was Sampson's contract paid up if he had committed an offence that warranted instant dismissal?
Does the FA just hand out cash to anyone with a grievance?
How do I get to work for them?
My fear is that everyone has now reached the conclusion they wanted all along and we now have a happy ending. Except Sampson's career is in pieces, firstly sacked not for this but for something, as yet unknown, that he did when he wasn't even employed by the FA and then this where he hasn't been allowed his say. I am not saying he is a saint. I am not saying he is innocent or even that he doesn't deserve to be where is he is now. I am simply saying we don't know and that he has not been treated fairly and he should be allowed the same platform as others. Clearly people at the FA are at fault here, yet only Sampson has lost his job and appears unemployable. If people are genuinely worried about bullying and racism and buying silence in the workplace, they should also be worried about this. Because if you don't get to the truth and you demonise someone because it is convenient for your case to do so then you haven't served the cause against racism or bullying at all. In fact quite the opposite. The fact that those who have set themselves up as judge and jury are complicit in this injustice makes it far worse.
		
Click to expand...

You seem to be far more concerned about this than me, Iâ€™m only going on what Iâ€™ve seen/read in the media and imo opinion Aluko has been vindicated.

As for Sampson, as already stated, his lawyer has said he is considering suing for wrongful dismissal, a lot of your questions will probably be answered if he does.

:thup:


----------



## Reemul (Oct 22, 2017)

pauldj42 said:



			You seem to be far more concerned about this than me, Iâ€™m only going on what Iâ€™ve seen/read in the media and imo opinion Aluko has been vindicated.

As for Sampson, as already stated, his lawyer has said he is considering suing for wrongful dismissal, a lot of your questions will probably be answered if he does.

:thup:
		
Click to expand...

The questions he asks above are excellent and very relevant regardless of whether you are worried or not. Something really stinks in the FA and the people stinking have the full support of the board who also stink if they think all is rosy in the garden.

The FA needs a deep clean but who to bring in


----------



## FairwayDodger (Oct 22, 2017)

Havenâ€™t been following this closely so might have missed something but sampson has admitted making racist comments to a black player? If so, in what sense is he not a racist and why should we have an ounce of pity for him?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 22, 2017)

Reemul said:



			The questions he asks above are excellent and very relevant regardless of whether you are worried or not. Something really stinks in the FA and the people stinking have the full support of the board who also stink if they think all is rosy in the garden.

The FA needs a deep clean but who to bring in
		
Click to expand...

As in, why ask me the questions, I explained I can only answer what Iâ€™ve seen and read.

I totally agree the FA needs rooting out top to bottom, but that adds nothing to the information currently available to the public.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 22, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Havenâ€™t been following this closely so might have missed something but sampson has admitted making racist comments to a black player? If so, in what sense is he not a racist and why should we have an ounce of pity for him?
		
Click to expand...

He admitted making the comments Aluko stated, he made them, according to him, as banter.

The Lawyer investigating said they were racist comments, but heâ€™s not a racist.

I see what youâ€™re asking, but does 2 or 3 comments label a person for life, or do we put it down to a lack of intelligence or awareness.

The goalkeeping coach is now being investigated as he would talk to the African born players in a caribbean accent, you couldnâ€™t make it up!


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 22, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			Havenâ€™t been following this closely so might have missed something but sampson has admitted making racist comments to a black player? If so, in what sense is he not a racist and why should we have an ounce of pity for him?
		
Click to expand...

Sampson has not admitted to making racist comments.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 22, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Sampson has not admitted to making racist comments.
		
Click to expand...

He admitted making the comments, the lawyer said they were racist in her report.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 22, 2017)

Yes, I saw that. I was pointing out that Sampson himself did not admit to them being racist as was stated in the post. Your previous post covered it regarding the comment but then whether the person himself was racist.


----------

