Mark Sampson

[Deleted member 16999]

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.

You said you still don’t know why he was sacked, that’s in the article.

The Parliamentry enquiry was into the FA’s handling of racist complaints, that’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 couldn’t answer any questions.

 

[Sweep]

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

So I believe, but what does that mean?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So I believe, but what does that mean?

Sampon’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]

You said you still don’t know why he was sacked, that’s in the article.

The Parliamentry enquiry was into the FA’s handling of racist complaints, that’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 couldn’t answer any questions.

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]

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?

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 he’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 he’s a racist, I don’t know, but once thing is definite, he should not of made them.

Impact not Intent, he failed to think or didn’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]

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.

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]

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.

Disagree mate, we’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 you’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 there’s one common theme running through this thread it’s the ineptitude of the FA.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

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]

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.

Yes mate I am calling us tin pot in relation to a national governing body, as for the FA, don’t think 1970’s, think 1870’s :rofl:

 

[pbrown7582]

Yes mate I am calling us tin pot :rofl:

:thup:



:rofl:

 

[Lord Tyrion]

:thup:



:rofl:

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

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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

Parliamentry committee? :rofl:

 

[Lord Tyrion]

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

 

[Beezerk]

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

 

[Sweep]

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 he’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 he’s a racist, I don’t know, but once thing is definite, he should not of made them.

Impact not Intent, he failed to think or didn’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.

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]

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.

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

The independant lawyer who carried out the 2nd investigation in to Aluko’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 “fluff” 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 don’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]

The Parliamentary board, invited the FA and Aluko to the hearing, they were asking questions as to why the FA paid Aluko £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.

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]

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.

You seem to be far more concerned about this than me, I’m only going on what I’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]

You seem to be far more concerned about this than me, I’m only going on what I’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:

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]

Haven’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?