Sol Campbell - The Manager

[Anon]

31 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Can I get an 'orange man bad'?  Or is that racist?

Orange people have institutional power, therefore it is not possible to be racist against them.

[Carl Sagan]

3 hours ago, StringerBell said:

If that's the main problem then the Rooney Rule would discriminate against the white people who aren't in the group of experienced candidates you mention.

No it doesn't have to, because there isn't a fixed length of shortlist. There's nothing to prevent inexperienced white candidates also being shortlisted. It simply means at least one black or minority ethnic candidate must be. 

[StringerBell]

31 minutes ago, Carl Sagan said:

No it doesn't have to, because there isn't a fixed length of shortlist. There's nothing to prevent inexperienced white candidates also being shortlisted. It simply means at least one black or minority ethnic candidate must be. 

There's nothing of any substance to suggest there's currently something preventing inexperienced ethnic minority candidates from being shortlisted, based on their race anyway.  What this proposes is that inexperienced ethnic minority candidates are given an institutional advantage over inexperienced white candidates, white candidates who are presumably supposed to take solace that somebody who shares their skin colour is currently statistically more likely to get the job, even if they don't get the opportunity to be interviewed themselves.  You say the rule proposes that there must be one ethnic minority candidate, but does this rule say that there must be one white candidate?  And what kind of person pits whites and non-whites into two distinct groups like this anyway?  Black racists might be happy that Sol Campbell has a job. Are Chinese racists supposed to be happy about it too?

If the problem is the same old managers being given jobs then why is this racial issue?  This social engineering needs to go back to the Soviet Union where it belongs. 

[TigerTedd]

1 minute ago, StringerBell said:

There's nothing currently preventing inexperienced ethnic minority candidates from being shortlisted.  What this proposes is that inexperienced ethnic minority candidates are given an institutional advantage over inexperienced white candidates, white candidates who are presumably supposed to take solace that somebody who shares their skin colour is currently statistically more likely to get the job, even if they don't get the opportunity to be interviewed themselves.  You say the rule proposes that there must be one ethnic minority candidate, but does this rule say that there must be one white candidate?  And what kind of person pits whites and non-whites into two distinct groups like this anyway?  Black racists might be happy that Sol Campbell has a job. Are Chinese racists supposed to be happy about it too?

If the problem is the same old managers being given jobs then why is this racial issue?  This social engineering needs to go back to the Soviet Union where it belongs. 

I actually agreed with your argument, but then you kind of counter argued it and sold me on the counter argument. 

Is there a rule saying that there must be at lest one white candidate? No, and that would be an issue if it ever got to a point that there were 5 black candidates and no white candidates. But that is very unlikely to ever happen. So that rule sort of defecto exists. 

I guess it’s more of an issue if there were only 2 candidates, and one of them had to be black. That’s disproportionate. 

But social engineering is not necessarily a bad thing to try to skew the playing field in favour of monitoreos, but it has to be until such a time as it’s been evened up a bit. Then they should probably get rid of the rule. Does the rule have an expiry date? Or will we still be following the rule in 100 years time, when it really should have achieved its job and everything is even. 

I like an analogy, so it’s like playing table football, and for half the game, we’ve been cheating, maybe not even consciously, maybe the other team has just had a sticky goal keeper, and now it’s 5-0. Once we’ve discovered the sticky goal keeper, we’ve piled it, but that doesn’t really make up for the 5 goals we’ve already scored. So we tilt the table in their favour for a bit, we might even still scored a couple, so eventually it gets to 7-7. Then we’ve got to remember to tilt it back, so it’s a true even playing field. 

[StringerBell]

1 minute ago, TigerTedd said:

I actually agreed with your argument, but then you kind of counter argued it and sold me on the counter argument. 

Is there a rule saying that there must be at lest one white candidate? No, and that would be an issue if it ever got to a point that there were 5 black candidates and no white candidates. But that is very unlikely to ever happen. So that rule sort of defecto exists. 

I guess it’s more of an issue if there were only 2 candidates, and one of them had to be black. That’s disproportionate. 

But social engineering is not necessarily a bad thing to try to skew the playing field in favour of monitoreos, but it has to be until such a time as it’s been evened up a bit. Then they should probably get rid of the rule. Does the rule have an expiry date? Or will we still be following the rule in 100 years time, when it really should have achieved its job and everything is even. 

I like an analogy, so it’s like playing table football, and for half the game, we’ve been cheating, maybe not even consciously, maybe the other team has just had a sticky goal keeper, and now it’s 5-0. Once we’ve discovered the sticky goal keeper, we’ve piled it, but that doesn’t really make up for the 5 goals we’ve already scored. So we tilt the table in their favour for a bit, we might even still scored a couple, so eventually it gets to 7-7. Then we’ve got to remember to tilt it back, so it’s a true even playing field. 

Which is precisely why we do not specify races/genders/sexual orientation etc in anti-discrimination laws. We simply say "a person shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their ......"  Or at least that was how it worked until Stella Creasey came along with her attempt to criminalise misogyny.  All it would take is one managerless football team to draw up a list of candidates, which they could do in less than 1 hour, and any person of any race could be discriminated against.  So if someone deliberately draws up an all black list of candidates its ok because their racism offsets the nationwide statistics?   

Yes it is possible that society could be so horribly racist that it might be beneficial for such social engineering to take place.  That's not this country and hasn't been for a while.

I've heard pretty much the same analogy to justify oppression of whites in SA post-apartheid.  Its an awful analogy, and the analogy only works if you're of the mindset that the different races are in competition with each other.  I know you're not like that, so whats got you saying it?

[Anon]

Does anyone have figures for the number of "BME" coaches actually qualified? I tried searching, but the most recent I can find is from 2012 (chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.farenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/We-speak-with-one-voice.pdf) Page 7, point 2. BME individuals represented 4.8% of total UEFA A qualified coaches. This is the qualification required to manage at football league level. The current percentage of BME managers in the English league is 5 of 92 or 5.4%, and that's not even adjusting for the 22 foreign managers currently working in the English leagues.

Where exactly is the discrepancy we're trying to eliminate here?

I expect the number of BME applicants taking coaching qualifications to continue to rise because there is a higher percentage of BME ex players year by year and I would expect the number employed as managers to rise at roughly the same rate.

The number of BME qualified coaches will also have risen thanks to initiatives such as the COACH Bursary Programme (http://www.thefa.com/get-involved/coach/coach-bursary) to which "applications are restricted to individuals from the Black, Asian Minority ethnic (BAME) communities". Strange, I thought the argument being peddled was that white people were all tacitly racist, not that BME candidates simply couldn't afford the coaching courses.

 

[StringerBell]

 

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

Which is precisely why we do not specify races/genders/sexual orientation etc in anti-discrimination laws. We simply say "a person shall not be discriminated against on the basis of their ......"  Or at least that was how it worked until Stella Creasey came along with her attempt to criminalise misogyny.  All it would take is one managerless football team to draw up a list of candidates, which they could do in less than 1 hour, and any person of any race could be discriminated against.  So if someone deliberately draws up an all black list of candidates its ok because their racism offsets the nationwide statistics?   

Yes it is possible that society could be so horribly racist that it might be beneficial for such social engineering to take place.  That's not this country and hasn't been for a while.

I've heard pretty much the same analogy to justify oppression of whites in SA post-apartheid.  Its an awful analogy, and the analogy only works if you're of the mindset that the different races are in competition with each other.  I know you're not like that, so whats got you saying it?

i see what you’re saying, in an ideal world, as races we shouldn’t be standing on opposite sides of a table. But if we’re competing for a job, then we are in competition. 

So it could be two white guys on either side of the table, but the social reality there is that it’s a pretty even playing field. But if it’s a white guy competing with a black guy for a job, then the table is tilted by defaul towards the black guys goal. Or so it would be believed. I don’t actually think that’s true though. 

And if you’re positively discriminating for black people, why not positively discriminate for other minorities. Ie it could be two white guys on either side of the table, but one of them is disabled. Is that catered for in the Rooney rule?

im not against tipping the scales slightly to redress an imbalance, where an ingrained imbalance due to race can be proven, until such a time as the balance has been restored. But I’m not a fan of the Rooney rule. It’s daft. You just end up with the same black guys being put on the shortlist, knowing full well that they’re the token Rooney rule applicant, wasting their time going to the interview. How does that help?

I remember having an interview for a job in a diffferent team when I worked at the council. And the interview had one black lady on, who all but told me she was the token bme representative. Remember the character in South Park actually called ‘token’. It’s all a bit daft. 

If I ruled the world, I would redress the balance in some other way. More outreach in minority communities to get people into coaching courses, for example. More programmes to encourage people to apply for these jobs. Maybe the ability to appeal, or have a selection process investigated, if it’s suspected that race may have been a deciding factor (ie two candidates have identical cvs, the white guy gets the job, might be worth a look).

But ultimately, an interview should be offered on merit. 

[TigerTedd]

14 minutes ago, Anon said:

Does anyone have figures for the number of "BME" coaches actually qualified? I tried searching, but the most recent I can find is from 2012 (chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.farenet.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/We-speak-with-one-voice.pdf) Page 7, point 2. BME individuals represented 4.8% of total UEFA A qualified coaches. This is the qualification required to manage at football league level. The current percentage of BME managers in the English league is 5 of 92 or 5.4%, and that's not even adjusting for the 22 foreign managers currently working in the English leagues.

Where exactly is the discrepancy we're trying to eliminate here?

I expect the number of BME applicants taking coaching qualifications to continue to rise because there is a higher percentage of BME ex players year by year and I would expect the number employed as managers to rise at roughly the same rate.

The number of BME qualified coaches will also have risen thanks to initiatives such as the COACH Bursary Programme (http://www.thefa.com/get-involved/coach/coach-bursary) to which "applications are restricted to individuals from the Black, Asian Minority ethnic (BAME) communities". Strange, I thought the argument being peddled was that white people were all tacitly racist, not that BME candidates simply couldn't afford the coaching courses.

 

Good point. It’s just occurred to me that I’m the older generation there simply weren’t that many black players. You hear about the John Barnes and the viv Anderson’s as being a bit ground breaking and suffering loads of abuse back then. They’re of the same sort of generation as your Stuart Pearce’s, and (names of examples seem to be failing me at the moment) other managers who are considered reasonably young compared to your Roy Hodgson’s. 

So my understanding was that this all cane about because ‘there are loads of black football players, but barely any black managers, what’s going on?’ Well if you think about it, it’s only been recently that there’s been a higher proportion of ex-black players, and lo and behold, we’re seeing more black managers.

It’s not because of the Rooney rule. It’s just about waiting for these minority footballers to filter through. 

Ie it’s going to take ages for their to be a few Asian managers, as there are barely any Asian players now. But more work is being done in Asian communities, to encourage Asian players, and eventually, in like 40 years, these players will be old enough to be managers. 

Or is my logic flawed?

[Anon]

7 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

Good point. It’s just occurred to me that I’m the older generation there simply weren’t that many black players. You hear about the John Barnes and the viv Anderson’s as being a bit ground breaking and suffering loads of abuse back then. They’re of the same sort of generation as your Stuart Pearce’s, and (names of examples seem to be failing me at the moment) other managers who are considered reasonably young compared to your Roy Hodgson’s. 

So my understanding was that this all cane about because ‘there are loads of black football players, but barely any black managers, what’s going on?’ Well if you think about it, it’s only been recently that there’s been a higher proportion of ex-black players, and lo and behold, we’re seeing more black managers.

It’s not because of the Rooney rule. It’s just about waiting for these minority footballers to filter through. 

Ie it’s going to take ages for their to be a few Asian managers, as there are barely any Asian players now. But more work is being done in Asian communities, to encourage Asian players, and eventually, in like 40 years, these players will be old enough to be managers. 

Or is my logic flawed?

That's the way I look at it. It frustrates me no end when almost every article written about this topic attempts to draw correlation between the current 25% of BME players and much lower percentage of managers as if the two are related in any way.

There are questions that need to be asked regarding why so few ex black pros are doing their qualifications. I can't remember my exact findings now, but I previously took the mean age of football league managers and subtracted that figure (+28) from the current year and then counted the number of BME professional footballers in the top four divisions for that season. It came out at something like 12%, so there is a big discrepancy in the number of BME ex pros getting qualified as coaches.

[bigbadbob]

27 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

Good point. It’s just occurred to me that I’m the older generation there simply weren’t that many black players. You hear about the John Barnes and the viv Anderson’s as being a bit ground breaking and suffering loads of abuse back then. They’re of the same sort of generation as your Stuart Pearce’s, and (names of examples seem to be failing me at the moment) other managers who are considered reasonably young compared to your Roy Hodgson’s. 

So my understanding was that this all cane about because ‘there are loads of black football players, but barely any black managers, what’s going on?’ Well if you think about it, it’s only been recently that there’s been a higher proportion of ex-black players, and lo and behold, we’re seeing more black managers.

It’s not because of the Rooney rule. It’s just about waiting for these minority footballers to filter through. 

Ie it’s going to take ages for their to be a few Asian managers, as there are barely any Asian players now. But more work is being done in Asian communities, to encourage Asian players, and eventually, in like 40 years, these players will be old enough to be managers. 

Or is my logic flawed?

you're just an insecure white person

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, bigbadbob said:

you're just an insecure white person

I wish I was Indian so I had a good comeback to that. 

[Boycie]

Going slightly off topic, are there many black Football Club owners in the UK?

[Rev]

3 hours ago, StringerBell said:

 

Cheers, from that post watched the whole set, didn't realise it was online to watch.

Worthwhile Vs Dancing and X Factor.

[Van der MoodHoover]

5 hours ago, Boycie said:

Going slightly off topic, are there many black Football Club owners in the UK?

More Asian ones I'd have thought. 

[cstand]

There is something fishy about Sol not getting the job at Grimsby but I can't plaice my finger on it so I trawled the inter-net but I am sure Grimsby would not want to be in the dock over a racism row unless there is a blackfishing witch hunt taking place there which is the latest snowflake fashion apparently. 

I actually admire Sol for a high profile black person to support Brexit he dashed the hopes of many insecure socialists who wanted play the racist card at anyone who dared to vote leave, so it's proves he is capable of taking tough decisions. 

I prefer managers who go to lower leagues to learn there trade anyway it shows they aren't arrogant so good luck to him. Dean Smith was my first choice for Derby manager, doing a great job at Villa now. 

Nothing wrong for a high profile player going to a small club anyway to earn his trade after all Stewart Pearce went to Notts Forest.?