Alex Ferguson on Ferdinand and Roberts

Pro. F

Drumpot wrote: »

3. Because it allows people to be smug , focusing on the small problem (players insulting each other) at the expense of properly addressing the real problem (vicious hatred among supporters within the game). Its like FIFAs "fair play" bull**** PR spin. The FA banning Suarez was an excercise in using a high profile footballer as an example, so they dont really have to deal with the problem. How many football teams have had to play matches behind closed doors ? How many teams have had points docked over the years (the things that will really hit clubs)?

Again you are confusing two separate issues. You think that if there was racist chanting from the stands in England the fans wouldn't be punished or the media wouldn't cover it?

Drumpot wrote: »

4. Do you really think a latino south American was racially abusing Evra ? Really, do you think he was slagging off all blacks (even possibly some of his own family) of the world and trying to use the venom attached to the N word to promote racism ? Of course he wasnt, he was using it to wind Evra up, but society (since it doesnt really want to deal with the problem) chose to show collective disgust because it meant it could feel good about itself that its properly dealing with the racist problem.

You say that Suarez was using it to wind up Evra yet you doubt that he was racially abusing him. You clearly don't even understand what you are saying yourself.

Punishing people who racially abuse others is of course dealing with the problem. Anybody used to be able to sling racial abuse in football grounds, now anybody caught is punished.

Drumpot wrote: »

Lastly, I think in the context of this discussion, the whole idea of racism has been disolved. I consider racism to be hatred of another person because of where they are from or the color of their skin. I dont think use of words constitutes or warrants the same response as specified actions or aggression towards a particular race. If a person is racist they will use the use of the word to further their cause, if a person is not racist they will either ignore it or condemn it. I dont believe stamping out things like "you black x" or you "n**ger" are vital for the betterment of the game as much as changing the way there is so much anomosity and hatred from certain supporters.

I personally dont agree that its ok to call somebodys mother a whore, slag family members or use any sort of insulting language to rile another player, but its fair game once its not considered racist. Its just hypocricy because its saying that its ok to slag my sick dad, but not the color of his skin simply because its PC to "not go there" . . I never said calling somebody a black X was fine. This is my main point, that football has zeroed in on one issue at the expense of the wider problem of violence, hatred and other issues within football.

Incidentally, the FA have done more to add to tensions by giving a non UK player a bigger ban for racism then an English one. And now there is talk of a breakaway players association. Obviously they are dealing with the problem brilliantly . .

Use of racially abusive words does not carry the same punishment as racially abusive actions. So the rest of society agrees with you on that point you are just completely uninformed about the facts of the matter.

Slagging somebody's mother and generally insulting language is also punishable under FA regulations as well.

Football in England has zeroed in on racism, hooliganism and fan safety because those were the biggest issues facing the game (society and football is mostly ignoring homophobia for now unfortunately). Quite a good job has been done on all three. And while hooliganism is probably the issue that still causes the most problems it doesn't follow that we should give up on the other issues.

With regards to your last paragraph, so now you want the FA to do more about racist abuse, not less? You are so confused it's funny.

Liam O

Is it not racist to give black coaches more opportunities just because there is a perceived lack of them? Clubs have shown that if the coaches have the right qualifications they have no problems hiring them. Sure if anything Paul Ince was under qualified when there was a big deal about hiring him. I'd be very against anything like this new directive that seems to be counter racist. The best should rise to the top, regardless of their colour and I haven't seen any evidence of black coaches being discriminated against with regards to hiring.

Pro. F

Liam O wrote: »

Is it not racist to give black coaches more opportunities just because there is a perceived lack of them?

No it is not. Positive discrimination makes no judgement on whether one race is superior to another, racism does.

Liam O wrote: »

...I haven't seen any evidence of black coaches being discriminated against with regards to hiring.

There is clear evidence that black coaches are underrepresented in management roles compared to all other aspects of football. Whether that underrepresention is caused by discrimination or self selection or something else is another matter. A period of positive discrimination could fix the balance. It has worked quite well in the USA.

Drumpot

Pro. F wrote: »

Again you are confusing two separate issues. You think that if there was racist chanting from the stands in England the fans wouldn't be punished or the media wouldn't cover it?



You say that Suarez was using it to wind up Evra yet you doubt that he was racially abusing him. You clearly don't even understand what you are saying yourself.

Punishing people who racially abuse others is of course dealing with the problem. Anybody used to be able to sling racial abuse in football grounds, now anybody caught is punished.



Use of racially abusive words does not carry the same punishment as racially abusive actions. So the rest of society agrees with you on that point you are just completely uninformed about the facts of the matter.

Slagging somebody's mother and generally insulting language is also punishable under FA regulations as well.

Football in England has zeroed in on racism, hooliganism and fan safety because those were the biggest issues facing the game (society and football is mostly ignoring homophobia for now unfortunately). Quite a good job has been done on all three. And while hooliganism is probably the issue that still causes the most problems it doesn't follow that we should give up on the other issues.

With regards to your last paragraph, so now you want the FA to do more about racist abuse, not less? You are so confused it's funny.

Where did I say Suarez was not racially abusing Evra ? Please quote me on that . . I said the incident that happened is not the same as somebody with actual hatred for Black people saying the same thing and that you cannot say the two incidents are the same.

I am not going round in circles because you simply dont get it. If you think the FA are dealing with racism seriously and properly then good look to you. . FIFA are dealing with "fair play" properly too I suppose . .

The FA will and always has done things arse ways. It chooses high profile cases (like picking out clubs like United etc) and high profile players to try and create an air of change. Nothing wrong with that, but they never back it up with progressive strategies. .

All this focus on the racist comments actually seem to be dividing opinion, not uniting people. I have consistantly said that there are more pressing matters that football needs to respond to then racism. I dont believe racist comments on the park are the most important things that need to be fixed in the game and I stand over what I said about being in english football grounds. Just because you over police specific games, doesnt mean it will change the behaviour or hatred of fans and the amount of games I have been at over the years where i feel intimidated even as a home supporter is ridiculous.

I never once said racism shouldnt be stamped out (you are free to quote me where I did) , nor did I say it wasnt important, what I said was that this is overkill and there are more important aspects of football that need attention then what one player says to another. I dont believe clubs or managers (in the main) act in anyway racist towards black players and most players act the same with black players as they do with white ones.

I am certainly not confused as to where I stand on the issue, I just dont get sucked into the hyperbole mainstream western media that is full of its own self importance and loves nothing better then to blow up trivial incidents that somehow proves its got a moral consciounce when every other time it doesnt give two sh*ts about the thing its trying to expose.

If calling a player a "Black cnut" is the worse that racism is in England at the moment, then it is not a huge issue in the game. Thats not to say it shouldnt be eradicated, but like I said, I would much prefer they focused on trying to force/educate fans and penalise clubs for the vicious acts in the stands.

I also made it clear that banning players for saying racist comments is not going far enough in the game if they truely want to eradicate racism from the game. I was saying that the agression that goes on in grounds every week should be the priority. While they have made progress, it isnt being targeted as much as it should be and I think the whole "what did that player say" discussion is doing little to focus on that issue.

You keep quoting FA regulations, but you need only watch a tv match to see how players react to opponents or officials in specific incidents. While the rules might be there, they certainly are not observed in the mainstream. It goes back to the point that it seems that racist insults are taken seriously, pretty much everything else goes (but technically its not supposed to). Like Zidanes motive for headbutting Materazzi, generally there was widespread feeling that Materazzi took the bait ( as opposed to Materazzi doing anything wrong) because thats a part of the game.

Singling out black people for protection is hypocricy because it suggests that they are deserving of more protection then those who might be on the same end of a differant kind of abuse. It also ignores the bigger problem in football that is in the stands and continues to be in the stands even if the english media dont report much on it . . There is a rotten culture in football and racism is just a part of it.

Anyways, each to their own . . Sorry I dont share mainstream conventional wisdom that this is getting to the heart of the problem, as far as Im concerned its skating around it and is now threatening to open up a divide between black and white footballers because of the FAs inconsistant stance . .

Pro. F

Drumpot wrote: »

Where did I say Suarez was not racially abusing Evra ? Please quote me on that . .

I said that you doubted that Suarez was racially abusing Evra. Here is the quote where you were doubting that Suarez was racially abusing Evra:

Drumpot wrote: »

Do you really think a latino south American was racially abusing Evra ?

This is just another example of your inability to carry on a discussion. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because it is just a continuation of your confused, self contradictory, uninformed rambling nonsense. I'm done humouring you for now.

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

I said that you doubted that Suarez was racially abusing Evra. Here is the quote where you were doubting that Suarez was racially abusing Evra:



This is just another example of your inability to carry on a discussion. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because it is just a continuation of your confused, self contradictory, uninformed rambling nonsense. I'm done humouring you for now.

I love the way you manage to insult the poster as well as giving your reply, your really quite good at it i must say. Well done you.

CSF

niallo27 wrote: »

I love the way you manage to insult the poster as well as giving your reply, your really quite good at it i must say. Well done you.

He is bang on the mark though.

niallo27

CSF wrote: »

He is bang on the mark though.

He may well be, but why he feels to act like a dick and talk down to posters who have a different view to him.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

I love the way you manage to insult the poster as well as giving your reply, your really quite good at it i must say. Well done you.

niallo27 wrote: »

He may well be, but why he feels to act like a dick and talk down to posters who have a different view to him.

I don't talk down to posters just because they have a different view to me. I disagree with plenty of posters and still keep it civil with them. I just don't have unlimited patience for dealing with stupid arguments.

What I said about Drumpot and his argument is evidently true and it is perfectly reasonable to say as much. If somebody wants to talk nonsense and post incoherent arguments then it is fair to call them on that.

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't talk down to posters just because they have a different view to me. I disagree with plenty of posters and still keep it civil with them. I just don't have unlimited patience for dealing with stupid arguments.

What I said about Drumpot and his argument is evidently true and it is perfectly reasonable to say as much. If somebody wants to talk nonsense and post incoherent arguments then it is fair to call them on that.

You do though, you have done it to me and several posters on here, you make great points and your obviously an intelligent guy, just leave out the snide ****e.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

You do though, you have done it to me and several posters on here, you make great points and your obviously an intelligent guy, just leave out the snide ****e.

I have pointed out where you have said stupid shít on occasion because on occasion you have said a lot of stupid shít. You have done this as a pretence because you didn't want to have a proper discussion or admit where you were wrong, so pointing it out has been completely justified.

I'm not saying that I never act dickish towards other posters or that I am always as polite as I should be when arguing about something. But since there are a lot of people trolling on any forum and plenty of people who will pretend they can't understand any simple point if it means they might prolong the argument, then that is hardly surprising.

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

I have pointed out where you have said stupid shít on occasion because on occasion you have said a lot of stupid shít. You have done this as a pretence because you didn't want to have a proper discussion or admit where you were wrong, so pointing it out has been completely justified.

I'm not saying that I never act dickish towards other posters or that I am always as polite as I should be when arguing about something. But since there are a lot of people trolling on any forum and plenty of people who will pretend they can't understand any simple point if it means they might prolong the argument, then that is hardly surprising.

Well i think sometimes you confuse understanding a simple point with not accepting a simple point.

Pro. F

niallo27 wrote: »

Well i think sometimes you confuse understanding a simple point with not accepting a simple point.

The mods agreed with me and gave you a yellow for what I'm talking about before, so in your case I doubt it.

J. Marston

Statement from Rio and Anton...

It has been a year since the incident at Loftus Road. During that time, some of the deep divisions that exist in football have been exposed. In the coming months there will be ongoing discussions, we are sure, on finding a way forward. We intend to participate in these discussions, along with numerous other current and ex-professionals of all races, from the grass roots upwards, across the football community as a whole.

On the issue of Kick It Out, we would like to go on record to say what fantastic work they have done in the past regarding education and awareness. However, times change and organisations need to change with them. We are more than happy to join the discussion, privately, to make Kick It Out more relevant in its fight to stamp out racism in football.

Although we have been left disappointed by the PFA and the FA's actions over the last year, as a family, we are committed to working with football's existing organisations towards the betterment of the game and to achieve immediate action.

We would like to thank all the fans and the staff at Queens Park Rangers and Manchester United for their support in what has been a difficult year. In particular we want to thank Sir Alex Ferguson and Mark Hughes.

We will not be discussing publicly any issues connected with the case. We are now going to concentrate on playing football.

- Rio and Anton Ferdinand

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Fe...statement.aspx

niallo27

Pro. F wrote: »

The mods agreed with me and gave you a yellow for what I'm talking about before, so in your case I doubt it.

Well as I said before your very good at what you do, your able to get away it. Your a good poster man, just leave out the snide ****. Anyway we are going off topic.

Iang87

Pro. F wrote: »

No it is not. Positive discrimination makes no judgement on whether one race is superior to another, racism does.



There is clear evidence that black coaches are underrepresented in management roles compared to all other aspects of football. Whether that underrepresention is caused by discrimination or self selection or something else is another matter. A period of positive discrimination could fix the balance. It has worked quite well in the USA.

Positive Discrimination and its positive why?

This is positively the biggest load of ballox i may ever read

Drumpot

Pro. F wrote: »

I don't talk down to posters just because they have a different view to me. I disagree with plenty of posters and still keep it civil with them. I just don't have unlimited patience for dealing with stupid arguments.

What I said about Drumpot and his argument is evidently true and it is perfectly reasonable to say as much. If somebody wants to talk nonsense and post incoherent arguments then it is fair to call them on that.

Why not just not reply to posters you dont have patience with ? Who died and made you forum warrior of political correctness?

You are also very presumptous and too absolute for the smugometer. What you said to me was evidently subjective, not evidently true. The fact that you have chosen an ignorant manner in which you have replied (intead of choosing to just ignore my posts if you really feel that strongly) shows a doubt and insecurity that exist even in your own views . If you really think that little of my posts/views I must ask, who is worse, the clown or the person arguing with the clown?

There is a big differance between views being incoherent, to you just dont understand or accepting an alternative view on society and how it deals with problems. You have a mainstream media view on this topic and think that anything is better then nothing with regards to tackling racism.

I have continually pointed out that its the usual widespresad condemnation of a smaller part of a wider problem. You dont understand that I wasnt saying racism shouldnt be tackled, but that the FA has (along with FIFA and other football authorities) continued to ignore and not properly deal with the problem in favour of using easy high profile cases to ignore its moral duty to try and stamp out agression and racism in the game.

Sure dont worry, you probobley arent even reading this so we dont have to worry about another bout of your "clever" conformed "evidently true" views ?!

Pro. F

Drumpot wrote: »

Why not just not reply to posters you dont have patience with ?

Because I nearly always have enough patience to reply but not always enough patience to reply to every part of a stupid/incoherent/rambling/illogical/ill-informed/whatever argument that I'm faced with. Sometimes I just prefer to be honest about the quality of the opposing argument being presented.

Again the rest of your post is rambling illogical nonsense and I'm again not in the mood to spend time responding to that level of debate.

Drumpot

Pro. F wrote: »

Because I nearly always have enough patience to reply but not always enough patience to reply to every part of a stupid/incoherent/rambling/illogical/ill-informed/whatever argument that I'm faced with. Sometimes 1. I just prefer to be honest about the quality of the opposing argument being presented.

Again the rest of your post is rambling illogical nonsense and 2. I'm again not in the mood to spend time responding to that level of debate.

1. What you would call honest, is subjective. Honesty is not a statement of fact, its a statement of opinion. . Theres your problem . . .

2. Yet you spent time responding and accuse me of contradicting myself . . . . Fancy that we arent so differant afterall . . . .

Pro. F

Pro. F wrote: »

There is clear evidence that black coaches are underrepresented in management roles compared to all other aspects of football. Whether that underrepresention is caused by discrimination or self selection or something else is another matter. A period of positive discrimination could fix the balance. It has worked quite well in the USA.

Or over-represented in playing roles?

Pro. F

Drumpot wrote: »

1. What you would call honest, is subjective. Honesty is not a statement of fact, its a statement of opinion.... Theres your problem

I'm certainly not going to get into debating the semantics of the word ''honest.''

My observation is that is that your argument is rambling, self contradictory, ill-informed and poorly presented. There is ample evidence in this thread to support that observation.

Drumpot wrote: »

2. Yet you spent time responding and accuse me of contradicting myself... Fancy that

Try quoting the whole sentence and reading it in the context of what I explained in the rest of that post.

Ashbourne hoop

The statement from the Ferdinands is excellent. You could argue that they may have been better off releasing the statement before the weekend but imo they raised awareness by not wearing the t-shirts and then explaining their reasons later. Seems there is still a lot of work to do on racial issues, not just in football but in general society, and I for one find that a bit sad in 2012.

Sgt Pepper 64

ferdinand turns my stomach. Talk about hypocrite.
A guy convicted of drink driving, appeared in a sexually explict video and alleged to have threatened a female, as well as calling a DJ a ****** and calling someone else a well known racist name and now he wants to be an anti racist figure?!

Guy is an absolute joke, not really decent material

Drumpot

Pro. F wrote: »

I'm certainly not going to get into debating the semantics of the word ''honest.''

My observation is that is that your argument is rambling, self contradictory, ill-informed and poorly presented. There is ample evidence in this thread to support that observation.
.

Its not semantics, an honest opinion is just that, a subjective view or interpretation of something.

There is ample evidence that you took specified pieces of my posts and ignored the main tone. . You specifically focused on my point on how I dont find Suarez actions on Evra as racist, but I awknowledge that wider society frowns on it and might feel otherwise. I accept I didnt clarify that point, but assumed it would be understood because thats been my point the whole time (that the Suarez incident is a sideshow in the real problem of racism).


The rambling, as you put it , was me qualifying my views with alternative examples. You wanted to keep the debate about the english FA because it suited your narrow minded take on this issue (that they are properly addressing the problem). This actually qualifies my views that people are incapable of looking at the bigger picture (racism as a culture) for favour of focusing on trivial incidents that dont address the major issue.

In terms of it being ill informed, well I find it hard to believe that refs or other players havent been subjected to abuse (even racist/zenophic abuse) in the last few years. I would think an ill informed person would hide behind "the FA have laws to protect players" in presuming that all footballers get the same protection.

Whether you are a "stupid paddy" or a "diving foreigner", I dont believe it doesnt go on every other week and while it might be in the rules that you shouldnt do it , it continues unpunished and not in the media spotlight. One player insulting another person shouldnt be only punishable when its about race. Just like peoples skin shouldnt be used to discriminate against them it shouldnt be used as a reason for positive discrimination. Its complete hypocricy and while it might be said to be doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, its forcing others to conform with what is viewed as publicly correct (kind of like what you have been doing repeatedly in this thread).

Pro. F

Deleted User wrote: »

Or over-represented in playing roles?

Yes black players are over represented in football compared to black people in the national population. 13% of professional players in the English league were black british in the year 2000 as opposed to around 5% of the population of England being black. I can't remember what the number of black managers is now, I'm pretty sure it's still less than 13% of 92 professional teams.

Since the vast majority of managers are drawn from the ranks of ex-professional players then that discrepancy between percentage of black players and black managers is what would be meant by the under-representation of black people in management.

Will I Amnt

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

ferdinand turns my stomach. Talk about hypocrite.
A guy convicted of drink driving, appeared in a sexually explict video and alleged to have threatened a female, as well as calling a DJ a ****** and calling someone else a well known racist name and now he wants to be an anti racist figure?!

Guy is an absolute joke, not really decent material

Out of interest......does John Terry turn your stomach???

Sgt Pepper 64

cambo2008 wrote: »

Out of interest......does John Terry turn your stomach???

irrevelant - not talking about him

Will I Amnt

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

irrevelant - not talking about him

As I said....out of interest....

JimsAlterEgo

Pro. F wrote: »

Yes black players are over represented in football compared to black people in the national population. 13% of professional players in the English league were black british in the year 2000 as opposed to around 5% of the population of England being black. I can't remember what the number of black managers is now, I'm pretty sure it's still less than 13% of 92 professional teams.

Since the vast majority of managers are drawn from the ranks of ex-professional players then that discrepancy between percentage of black players and black managers is what would be meant by the under-representation of black people in management.

Management and coaching is a choice and requires qualifications, I wonder what the % of qualified black coaches & managers who are out of work is.

Sgt Pepper 64

cambo2008 wrote: »

As I said....out of interest....

he's not exactly a role model for anythinhg either and as I have posted, he should have been stripped of the captaincy.
Just saying, a guy who feels he has been wronged, yet has broken the law and brushed with the law on a few occasions and managed to upset those of 2 sexual orientations
Would you vote for him?

Will I Amnt

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

he's not exactly a role model for anythinhg either and as I have posted, he should have been stripped of the captaincy.
Just saying, a guy who feels he has been wronged, yet has broken the law and brushed with the law on a few occasions and managed to upset those of 2 sexual orientations
Would you vote for him?

Breaking the law doesn't mean you forfeit your right to avail of the law or make a complaint about something.
There's no laws against appearing in a sex tape(normal one) btw.
And allegedly means nothing either.

Sgt Pepper 64

cambo2008 wrote: »

Breaking the law doesn't mean you forfeit your right to avail of the law or make a complaint about something.
There's no laws against appearing in a sex tape(normal one) btw.
And allegedly means nothing either.

No, but it gives you a pretty good idea of the guys "true" character and their respect for the law and other people in general

PhlegmyMoses

That response from the Ferdinands is exactly what was needed. The first positive piece of work they have done since this issue occurred. They should have released it before they didn;t wear the shirts but it is irrelevant now. Let's hope they can have a positive impact on KIO.

IvySlayer

What do people think of the new black player association that's supposedly being created? Well done lads, fight racism by segregating people.

Ashbourne hoop

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

irrevelant - not talking about him

So that's a no then !!!

PhlegmyMoses

IvySlayer wrote: »

What do people think of the new black player association that's supposedly being created? Well done lads, fight racism by segregating people.

This isn't really how it has to work, though. If it is just a union of black players who will help to set mandates and processes for anti-racism campaigns etc, then it will be a positive things.

niallo27

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This isn't really how it has to work, though. If it is just a union of black players who will help to set mandates and processes for anti-racism campaigns etc, then it will be a positive things.

Do you not think you need the input of both white and black people to try and tackle this racism issue, an all black union might turn into them against us campaign.

The_Kew_Tour

Sgt Pepper 64 wrote: »

ferdinand turns my stomach. Talk about hypocrite.
A guy convicted of drink driving, appeared in a sexually explict video and alleged to have threatened a female, as well as calling a DJ a ****** and calling someone else a well known racist name and now he wants to be an anti racist figure?!

Guy is an absolute joke, not really decent material

TBF its hard to go against what you say when you put it like that.

In saying that 2 of those turned out to be untrue.

But your right Rio is not exactly a saint.

PhlegmyMoses

niallo27 wrote: »

Do you not think you need the input of both white and black people to try and tackle this racism issue, an all black union might turn into them against us campaign.

It absolutely has to be handled correctly. A black lobby group specifically dedicated to fighting racism with intelligent men helping to shape policy is not a problem. A black lobby group started because well, we're all black innit, them whites aren't very nice to us, would be a bad thing.

The_Kew_Tour

Also if people make false allegation about racism that also needs to be addressed.

Lee Croft case is perfect example. Just cause a White player/person confronts a Black player/person(ballboy in this case) does not make it racism all the time.

mitosis

IvySlayer wrote: »

What do people think of the new black player association that's supposedly being created? Well done lads, fight racism by segregating people.

I'm looking forward to the Black Premier League.

Ashbourne hoop

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Also if people make false allegation about racism that also needs to be addressed.

Lee Croft case is perfect example. Just cause a White player/person confronts a Black player/person(ballboy in this case) does not make it racism all the time.

That kid looked very upset about something though.

Ashbourne hoop

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

TBF its hard to go against what you say when you put it like that.

In saying that 2 of those turned out to be untrue.

But your right Rio is not exactly a saint.

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

The_Kew_Tour

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

That kid looked very upset about something though.

He was, but that does not mean he made racist remakr to the kid. It was Sheffield United who were quick to come out and say it was not racist incident.

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Not sure what that has to do with anything.

it would have everything to do with somebody if they were wrongly accused of racism

Pro. F

JimsAlterEgo wrote: »

Management and coaching is a choice and requires qualifications, I wonder what the % of qualified black coaches & managers who are out of work is.

I remember the last time this proposed rule was discussed on the SF, it was found that very few black coaches had done the UEFA A licence, which is required to manage in the PL. I can't remember exactly but I think Ince was the only participant out of the last few classes that numbers were available for. Chris Houghton has the A Licence too, I wouldn't have a clue beyond them though.

But that's for top tier management, so if black coaches aren't being hired at the lower tiers, where managers usually start out, then they aren't going to be doing coaching courses for the highest tier.

Iirc we couldn't find numbers for the entry level management courses. But tbh I wouldn't be surprised if there is a disproportionately lower number of black ex-professionals doing the basic coaching badges. There is clearly a perception that black coaches don't get the opportunities and there are precious few role models to show them any different.

Something like the Rooney rule would address the balance by fighting both possible ends of the problem. It would ensure that all football clubs do give opportunities for prospective black coaches to be interviewed and it would defeat the perception amongst prospective black coaches that there aren't a fair number of opportunities to get an interview.

Iang87

so segregating because of colour is no longer racist then

Pro. F

Iang87 wrote: »

so segregating because of colour is no longer racist then

It's not segregation it is discrimination. And no it is not racist.

Iang87

ok i'll see if i can see your logic.

A - White, 50 years old, 10 years experience, qualification ABC
B - Black, 50 years old, 10 years experience, qualification ABC

A gets selected because and only because he is white. Racist
B gets selected because and only because he is black. Not racist

That to me is ridiculous logic


There is a hidden option though. The guy who is fully qualified and is the best candidate through the selection process regardless of colour.

Oh theres a non racist option

Pro. F

Iang87 wrote: »

ok i'll see if i can see your logic.

A - White, 50 years old, 10 years experience, qualification ABC
B - Black, 50 years old, 10 years experience, qualification ABC

A gets selected because and only because he is white. Racist
B gets selected because and only because he is black. Not racist

That to me is ridiculous logic


There is a hidden option though. The guy who is fully qualified and is the best candidate through the selection process regardless of colour.

Oh theres a non racist option

That is not an accurate description of the proposed rule nor the observations of the current problem as described by people proposing the rule. You are also still not understanding what the term 'racism' actually means.

If you make all those false claims and faulty assumptions then you aren't going to see sound logic behind it all.

Iang87

ok what is racism?

I have always though it was treating someone differently based on colour or ethnicity


Also is the example I gave not an example of this rule you were speaking about