villa4europe Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 My original comment about the payout made no reference to the rights or wrongs of either party, it was more to suggest that this is going to go beyond just Sampson, there's going to be some chiefs falling on their swords over this, it's going to darken the FAs doorstep, claims this morning that allegations were brought forward to them in 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackbauer24 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 What's really weird is that they are doing the best impresson possible to make this feel like a witch hunt. I don't know anymore facts than are being reported but it does fee a little off; Sampson joins England with good references from Bristol, passes all checks. Dropped player makes complaint - FA clear him of wrongdoing. Dropped player still complains - Independent enquiry clear him. Team back him. KickitOut want ANOTHER investigation (feels like keep investigating til someone gets answer they want) FA announce sacking based on something at Bristol but he's NOT a safeguarding issue and free to work in women's football. It just stinks and something really isn't right. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisVillan Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 **** hell, this thread. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Stevo985 Posted September 21, 2017 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted September 21, 2017 3 hours ago, ChrisVillan said: **** hell, this thread. And people wonder why people are often afraid to speak out about this stuff. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvfcRigo82 Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 I think the FA have made one big mighty **** up on this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted September 21, 2017 Share Posted September 21, 2017 Can anyone explain why he felt the need to single out an individual in a team meeting and claim they'd been arrested four times when they'd never been in trouble with the law. Seems a very odd way of team building to me, bit of an odd individual but he did get good results at tournaments. We'll see if the Bristol incident gets leaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2017 I've not really followed this, so please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it... • Sampson was hired by the FA in full knowledge of whatever it was that he was accused of when at Bristol • Accusations were then levelled at him by two England players, yet he was found not guilty by two investigations and the squad clearly backed him • Despite him being cleared the FA gave the main accuser a huge payoff • He was then sacked when the previously known allegations came to light in the media Is that about the jiist of it or is there more I'm missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 1 hour ago, TrentVilla said: I've not really followed this, so please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it... • Sampson was hired by the FA in full knowledge of whatever it was that he was accused of when at Bristol • Accusations were then levelled at him by two England players, yet he was found not guilty by two investigations and the squad clearly backed him • Despite him being cleared the FA gave the main accuser a huge payoff • He was then sacked when the previously known allegations came to light in the media Is that about the jiist of it or is there more I'm missing? Seems that way to me, I was wondering if there was a way the FA could have managed this any worse? Its amazing how such an organisation clearly unfit for purpose can survive because it is awash with tonnes of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 22, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, TrentVilla said: I've not really followed this, so please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it... • Sampson was hired by the FA in full knowledge of whatever it was that he was accused of when at Bristol • Accusations were then levelled at him by two England players, yet he was found not guilty by two investigations and the squad clearly backed him • Despite him being cleared the FA gave the main accuser a huge payoff - No. The main accuser was offered a settlement for loss of earnings to stop taking legal proceedings further. • He was then sacked when the previously known allegations came to light in the media - No, the allegations came to light because he was sacked. Is that about the jiist of it or is there more I'm missing? Corrections, as I understand them, in purple. It does seem like a bit of a witch hunt by the FA. But what I'm not comfortable with is people jumping on the victims of the alleged incidents as if they're making it all up. Sampson was cleared by inquiries (of questionable competency!) because there wasn't substantial evidence. Basically, I assume it was his word against theirs and there was no further evidence to go on. Given at least one of them didn't even bother speaking to the victims, it's not too surprising that they didn't find any evidence. That doesn't mean the incidents never happened. It just means nobody can prove it. That seems to have bred a load of made up nonsense designed (consciously or unconsciously) to slander the victims. Stuff like Eluko was paid to keep quiet and she reneged on that deal. Which is totally untrue. It makes me very uncomfortable, and this thread shows some prime examples of it. Edited September 22, 2017 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 he was also initially cleared by inquiries that didn't even bother to speak to Eluko before coming to their decision, which seems farcical at the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2017 @Stevo985 On the 3rd point in my post that you offered a correction on, I don't think that is correct or that we are at cross purposes. Yes the allegation from his time in Bristol have only come to light in the press as a result of his sacking, however there is a suggestion that the FA were aware of those years ago. My point here is he appears to have been sacked for actions in a previous role prior to working for the FA, which they may have know about several years ago. If those things are accurate that throws up many questions, both from a legal perspective and ethically, morally and professionally for people at the FA. The suggestions appear to be they employed him on the strength of a verbal reference only and that shortly after his appointment they were made aware of the allegations. If this is the case not only does that open up questions about the role others at the FA played in his recruitment it raises questions as to why they didn't act on the information once received yet now appear to have sacked him for it despite the outcomes of the recent investigations whatever their limitations. In regard your wider point, I don't think anyone has enough information to make any kind of judgements on Sampson or the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 22, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted September 22, 2017 9 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: @Stevo985 On the 3rd point in my post that you offered a correction on, I don't think that is correct or that we are at cross purposes. I'm uncomfortable with the term "pay off". It's just semantics, but to me it implies some sort of reward or bribe. You yourself implied that it was despite Sampson getting cleared. Whereas the result of the inquiries have no bearing on whether a settlement is made or not. But yes, a payment was made. That is true. 11 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: Yes the allegation from his time in Bristol have only come to light in the press as a result of his sacking, however there is a suggestion that the FA were aware of those years ago. My point here is he appears to have been sacked for actions in a previous role prior to working for the FA, which they may have know about several years ago. If those things are accurate that throws up many questions, both from a legal perspective and ethically, morally and professionally for people at the FA. I agree with this completely. I was just correcting your point that the sacking came as a result of the allegations coming to light in the media. As I understand it it was the opposite. I totally agree that they've known about it for ages, and it seems very convenient that the report was only properly read last week! 13 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: In regard your wider point, I don't think anyone has enough information to make any kind of judgements on Sampson or the players. Again, I totally agree. And my wider point is exactly that, people are making huge judgments on Aluko based on misconstrued (at best) information. All I've tried to do here is correct things that people have been posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted September 22, 2017 Moderator Share Posted September 22, 2017 @Stevo985 some poorly worded points from me originally. In terms of the payment made to Aluko my actual point of query was way the payment if he was cleared. That to me doesn't sit right, not from the perspective of querying her but more the motive and actions of those who sanctioned the payment. Regarding the point about the previous allegations coming out in the media prior to the sacking, yes I had that wrong. I think we are largely of the same view on this, what seems clear to me is that several people will likely lose their jobs on the back of this and it would seem Sampson, irrespective of his actions, could have a claim for wrongful dismissal. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 22, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted September 22, 2017 8 minutes ago, TrentVilla said: In terms of the payment made to Aluko my actual point of query was way the payment if he was cleared. That to me doesn't sit right, not from the perspective of querying her but more the motive and actions of those who sanctioned the payment. As I understand it, and I'm happy to be corrected on any of this, the payment was completely separate to the enquiries. In fact it might even have been made before the inquiries. The payment was made to stop Eluko taking the case any further. That is the legal case in the courts, not independent enquiries. Eluko's case was that she lost earnings due to racism and i assume that was what she was chasing in the courts. The settlement was made to stop legal proceedings. The FA claim to avoid disruption. That means even if the FA was confident they would win the case in the courts, they felt it better to make the settlement and stop the proceedings than to encounter the consequences of a high profile court case even if they would win. In theory, it gives absolutely no indication of guilt or innocence. It is independent of any verdict. Person X could be sued for sexual harrassment. He might be 100% innocent and 100% confident he could prove it in court. But he might make an out of court settlement to avoid the costly and damaging legal proceedings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 David James has come out and slammed Aluko. Said she not good enough for team and bitter about it She is league topscorer apparently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 22, 2017 Share Posted September 22, 2017 These two inquiries seem to have been something of a joke. As I understand it, the second one didn't interview someone whose name was not disclosed, yet was known to be a mixed-race woman from London on her first international call-up. There was one mixed-race woman in the squad at the time. My impression - and I haven't been following the story massively closely - is that both inquiries are whitewashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 (edited) I don't think the FA could have made more of a balls up of this if they deliberately tried! It is a mess from start to finish. Edited September 23, 2017 by Xela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 I have read what Sampson was alleged to have said to Aluko. One could possibly have been seen as racism, because of us becoming a pussy nation, the other was not bullying. Lets just say it would have been brushed off in the men's game. I'm no fan of Sampson to be honest, but its a little strange Steveo985, that none of the other girls supported what Aluko was blaming Sampson for. As for her being a trained Lawyer, she had a degree, yes, although she more than took advantage of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 44 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: I have read what Sampson was alleged to have said to Aluko. One could possibly have been seen as racism, because of us becoming a pussy nation, It was a pretty stupid thing to say, regardless of whether we're becoming a 'pussy nation'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: It was a pretty stupid thing to say, regardless of whether we're becoming a 'pussy nation'. I'm not saying it wasn't. But do you think this never happens in world football. It was obviously ment as a joke, though not a very good one, it was not viscous. If she was close to the manager as players usually are, it would have been ignored. She had issues previous to this. To me, it's like saying to white players, hope no one has brought mad cow disease, surely. I'm not agreeing he didn't cross the line, but we would be suing every manager every day in any employment if we took everthing said to heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts