Jump to content

Should our next manager be BAME/LGBT?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, David1867 said:

Just a thought, should we be looking to lead the way with equality in football? 

 

We we have never had a first team coach or manager from the BAME or LGBT community now is the time to change this. 

 

Below are 3 BAME to throw into the mix. 

 

Sol Campbell, a risk but has played at the highest level and wants to manage.

 

Hope Powell, international experience, currently in charge at Brighton women's so will have tapped into Chris Hutons knowledge. 

 

Kiatisuk Senamuang, record goal scorer for Thailand so obviously a legend in his own country plus has decent managerial experience in his own right. 

 

Do you work for the BBC?

 

We just need the best candidate ffs.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ... said:

Ask Big Ron what he thinks?

 

Big Ron was at the forefront of bringing black players into the game. The off camera comment was just a comment reminiscent of his age not a racist. It doesn't escuse him but also doesn't make him a racist.

I deal with a lot of the older generation and that word (which was common place back in the day for numerous things and not people) is used regularly, It's a good job  most folk over the age of 70 don't use Facebook or twitter 

 

Always amazes me how if one person says the word then all hell breaks loose

But another person can say it without any reproach as it's deemed a friendly term.

 

That "word" is eirther racist or it aint, judging the persons colour on who said it ,is racist in itself 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Waning: this is going to be a dr. benway-special, too intellectual for my own good post :laugh:)

 

The issue of "positive discrimination" is something that I see a lot and I wanted to just share a couple of thoughts on it:

 

Firstly, it's true that any "end game" of equality should be that people are selected for positions without reference to or consideration of any attributes not directly related to their ability to perform a job: gender, race, sexuality etc, and so I have some sympathy with the thinking behind not specifically employing based on "filling a quota" or some such. 

 

However, one thing to consider is that under-represented groups are often under-represented because of explicit or hidden biases against them that form a "glass ceiling" to obtaining jobs (or in some cases even acceptance), and therefore a (temporary) over-representation is the only path to the "true" equality that many support. That is to say that to argue against "positive discrimination" is in fact to express a desire to maintain the status quo, which is one of under-representation of those groups.

 

Especially in a community such as football where finding a job as a manager often requires having demonstrated skill* either as e.g. a lower-league manager or as a successful player, it would be much harder as, say, a woman to even get a first step on the ladder, and it's for this reason that "positive discrimination" exists: in order to "seed" the opportunities to those that otherwise would not have them, and therefore to work towards the goal of true equality.

 

As I said, I sympathise with the idea of not needing to specifically search for a female/LGTBQ to fill a position, but I don't take offence at it happening because I see it as a necessary stepping stone on the way.

 

(I keep putting "positive discrimination" in inverted commas because I don't think what most people think of it as is what it actual is—true positive discrimination would be to discriminate against a currently-non-marginalised group in an environment where there are not in fact non-marginalised: i.e. as a simplified example positive discrimination against male candidates—or female ones!—would only be able to be effected when there is a true 50-50 split of men and women in the field).

 

* feel free to insert your own jokes here
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, dr. benway said:

(Waning: this is going to be a dr. benway-special, too intellectual for my own good post :laugh:)

 

The issue of "positive discrimination" is something that I see a lot and I wanted to just share a couple of thoughts on it:

 

Firstly, it's true that any "end game" of equality should be that people are selected for positions without reference to or consideration of any attributes not directly related to their ability to perform a job: gender, race, sexuality etc, and so I have some sympathy with the thinking behind not specifically employing based on "filling a quota" or some such. 

 

However, one thing to consider is that under-represented groups are often under-represented because of explicit or hidden biases against them that form a "glass ceiling" to obtaining jobs (or in some cases even acceptance), and therefore a (temporary) over-representation is the only path to the "true" equality that many support. That is to say that to argue against "positive discrimination" is in fact to express a desire to maintain the status quo, which is one of under-representation of those groups.

 

Especially in a community such as football where finding a job as a manager often requires having demonstrated skill* either as e.g. a lower-league manager or as a successful player, it would be much harder as, say, a woman to even get a first step on the ladder, and it's for this reason that "positive discrimination" exists: in order to "seed" the opportunities to those that otherwise would not have them, and therefore to work towards the goal of true equality.

 

As I said, I sympathise with the idea of not needing to specifically search for a female/LGTBQ to fill a position, but I don't take offence at it happening because I see it as a necessary stepping stone on the way.

 

(I keep putting "positive discrimination" in inverted commas because I don't think what most people think of it as is what it actual is—true positive discrimination would be to discriminate against a currently-non-marginalised group in an environment where there are not in fact non-marginalised: i.e. as a simplified example positive discrimination against male candidates—or female ones!—would only be able to be effected when there is a true 50-50 split of men and women in the field).

 

* feel free to insert your own jokes here
 

 

Note you put LGBTQ, that's another discrimination. Those that are can say the Q loud and proud, those that aren't can't go anywhere near the word.

It's offensive or it's not. Can't have it both ways (no pun intended) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David1867 said:

Just a thought, should we be looking to lead the way with equality in football? 

 

We we have never had a first team coach or manager from the BAME or LGBT community now is the time to change this. 

 

Below are 3 BAME to throw into the mix. 

 

Sol Campbell, a risk but has played at the highest level and wants to manage.

 

Hope Powell, international experience, currently in charge at Brighton women's so will have tapped into Chris Hutons knowledge. 

 

Kiatisuk Senamuang, record goal scorer for Thailand so obviously a legend in his own country plus has decent managerial experience in his own right. 

 

 

  Have you started seeing a ginger student or something.  Garbage like this is discrimination . Positive ( allegedly ) discrimination is still discrimination . Best human for the job should allways get it regardless of what you look like or who you sleep with . This isn't the police force you know . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, briggowl said:

What has it got to do with football? I hate that people are defined by their sexuality.

 

Get a great manager in because they are a great manager, not for proving political/sexuality points!

 

I agree 100% 

 

Get in a bird, with a short skirt and big knockers!!!

 

I'm all about equality.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Ron's Sovereign said:

Any point? We have a Thai owner (that has pumped in millions) and a Portuguese manager that some folk just can't take to and never have. 

That's because he's negative and wont change his ways despite things not working, not because he's from Portugal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Big Ron's Sovereign said:

Any point? We have a Thai owner (that has pumped in millions) and a Portuguese manager that some folk just can't take to and never have. 

 

that is absolute crap. Carlos has had fantastic support but that is decreasing this season due to the style of play and results....it has zero to do with his nationality and it is crass of you to suggest otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Big Ron's Sovereign said:

 

Note you put LGBTQ, that's another discrimination. Those that are can say the Q loud and proud, those that aren't can't go anywhere near the word.

It's offensive or it's not. Can't have it both ways (no pun intended) 

 

Sure you can say it—queer is not an offensive term unless you use it as a pejorative term for a gay person—in gender discourse it means something somewhat different. There's some good information on its wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jonesy87shef said:

I can't stand the idea of someone being given a job because they are black.

 

AND I'M BLACK FFS. 

 

The Rooney rule makes me feel physically sick. If a chairman doesn't want to employ/interview a black person. How is forcing them to interview them and waste their time going to change that? If anything it will make their impression worse if they are already intolerant. 

 

When will people realise that there is currently a reason for the lack of black managers. The majority of managers fall into the age bracket of 40-70. That would imply they started playing football at the earliest in the 90's, mainly in the 70's and 80's though. The number of black footballers were far less in in those days. This is why we are starting to see a rise in black managers as they played in the 90's. JFH currently at Northampton has had several opportunities, Chris Houghton etc. As time goes on more will become managers and head coaches. Hopefully this isn't down to society becoming sympathetic idiots, but down to there being a larger pool to pick from and them being the right person for the job. 

 

There is currently the same argument with the lack of women as CEO's of companies. Again the reason is women were traditionally housewives/homemakers and CEO's tend to be of a certain age. Give it 20 years and now women who are career driven will be given these opportunities because there will be many more of them and they will be qualified for the job. 

 

Cant stand how society wants to just hand people opportunities because of their gender, sexuality or ethnicity. 

 

100% spot on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...