|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 14:45:18 GMT
also, we seem to be only highlighting racism against black players. what about when fans call players sheep shaggers because their welsh, or paddy wankers because their irish?? that racism as well. In that case there's an absolute pendemic of it throughout the whole country exactly, yet we just seem to be bashing football again. racism as far as im concerned will always exist to an extent, we would all love to live in an ideal world where it would not exist, but the ideal world will never exist, thats the reality unfortunatly
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 22, 2012 14:52:46 GMT
I think all this racism in football has been blown way out of proportion. also, we seem to be only highlighting racism against black players. what about when fans call players sheep shaggers because their welsh, or paddy wankers because their irish?? that racism as well. Don't be daft. Whites can't be the victims of racist abuse Surely abusing the Irish or the Welsh is xenophobic not racist - because Irish and Welsh are nationalities not races.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 14:54:42 GMT
exactly, yet we just seem to be bashing football again. racism as far as im concerned will always exist to an extent, we would all love to live in an ideal world where it would not exist, but the ideal world will never exist, thats the reality unfortunatly But you kind of contradict yourself by saying 'from what i can see, countries like serbia has a massive racism problem, english football does not' You're using the examples of the Serbian football crowd/players compared to English football, then saying that we're bashing football again. Dont forget that people formed a huge negative opinion on Ukraine as being a racist country following half an hour on a documentary prior to the Euro's. Yet i've lived there cumulatively for over 3 years now and never had or seen any problems. Any Tom, Dick, Harry, Ahmed Bin Ali Mohommad or Jengo with a camera/laptop and a travel ticket can find the best or worst in society and use it to their advantages. There just seems to be an entirely over-reactive storm brewed up by certain people over a handful of players chosing not to wear a t-shirt.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 22, 2012 15:00:05 GMT
there is loads of racism in football as: suarez terry millwall some of our idiot fans lack of ethnic coaces, managers, administrators prove some of our idiot fans some of most clubs idiot fans prove time after time How is the 'lack of ethnic coaches, managers and administrators' proof that there is still racism in football ? If it's a matter of 'best man for the job' then it makes no difference what colour the coach/manager/administrator is. Some one is bound to say something about 'proportional representation' but if black people make up say 10% of the country's population then why do black players make up 24% of the premier league, surely they are over represented in that particular area, so if they are under represented in another then it kind of 'evens it out' It should be 'best man for the job' every time and race shouldn't come into it. If the best man for a particular job and that particular time doesn't happen to be from an ethnic minority then that's just the way it is. Its nothing do with 'racism' I agree that racism still exists amongst fans , as I witnessed some of 'our lot' singing some anti pakistani songs in Manchester City center on Saturday :/ part of the kick it out is to raise awareness and promote more ethnic people in the other parts of the game apart from on the field
|
|
|
Post by rlcstokie on Oct 22, 2012 15:21:55 GMT
Don't be daft. Whites can't be the victims of racist abuse Surely abusing the Irish or the Welsh is xenophobic not racist - because Irish and Welsh are nationalities not races. So calling some one a 'paki' isn't racist because pakistanis arent a race either ?
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 22, 2012 15:25:07 GMT
Surely abusing the Irish or the Welsh is xenophobic not racist - because Irish and Welsh are nationalities not races. So calling some one a 'paki' isn't racist because pakistanis arent a race either ? a weekly debate?
|
|
|
Post by rlcstokie on Oct 22, 2012 15:29:15 GMT
How is the 'lack of ethnic coaches, managers and administrators' proof that there is still racism in football ? If it's a matter of 'best man for the job' then it makes no difference what colour the coach/manager/administrator is. Some one is bound to say something about 'proportional representation' but if black people make up say 10% of the country's population then why do black players make up 24% of the premier league, surely they are over represented in that particular area, so if they are under represented in another then it kind of 'evens it out' It should be 'best man for the job' every time and race shouldn't come into it. If the best man for a particular job and that particular time doesn't happen to be from an ethnic minority then that's just the way it is. Its nothing do with 'racism' I agree that racism still exists amongst fans , as I witnessed some of 'our lot' singing some anti pakistani songs in Manchester City center on Saturday :/ part of the kick it out is to raise awareness and promote more ethnic people in the other parts of the game apart from on the field I'm all for raising awareness and kicking racism out of football and society in general but as for 'promoting more ethnic people in other parts of the game' - Bollox to that. At worst that is racist in itself. At best its fucking patronising to some one from an ethnic minority to give them a job based on their race and not their merit. If I was black and I knew I only had the 'managers job' because of the colour of my skin I'd feel insulted. It should be best man for the job and if the best man for the job happens to be white then the black chap should take it on the chin and it works the other way round as well, if the best man for the job happens to be black then the white applicant should except it and not bring it down to race all the time. Jobs should be given based on merit, not on race.......But that's just my opinion
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 22, 2012 15:46:06 GMT
the fact that there at best 5 black managers in the league says football off the pitch is just as institutionally racist as organisations such as the police or forces have been accused of.
the fact that there is a large proportion of ex-players go into the coaching/administration side of football after playing but the % of black players that do so is disproportionate to the % of actual black players tells its own story
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 22, 2012 15:48:00 GMT
part of the kick it out is to raise awareness and promote more ethnic people in the other parts of the game apart from on the field I'm all for raising awareness and kicking racism out of football and society in general but as for 'promoting more ethnic people in other parts of the game' - Bollox to that. At worst that is racist in itself. At best its fucking patronising to some one from an ethnic minority to give them a job based on their race and not their merit. If I was black and I knew I only had the 'managers job' because of the colour of my skin I'd feel insulted. It should be best man for the job and if the best man for the job happens to be white then the black chap should take it on the chin and it works the other way round as well, if the best man for the job happens to be black then the white applicant should except it and not bring it down to race all the time. Jobs should be given based on merit, not on race.......But that's just my opinion I agree with all of that. However, given the very few black or mixed race players who become managers, then I suspect, that some of them don't get jobs because of their colour. Of course, I can't prove this, but I do strongly suspect it is the case. Twenty years ago I could understand the lack of black or mixed race managers - given that black and mixed race players had not been around in the game in significant numbers for very long. But, by now, all things being equal, I'd have expected far more black or mixed race managers than there are, given the huge numbers of black and mixed race players who have retired from the game in the past 25 years.
|
|
|
Post by rlcstokie on Oct 22, 2012 15:52:56 GMT
I'm all for raising awareness and kicking racism out of football and society in general but as for 'promoting more ethnic people in other parts of the game' - Bollox to that. At worst that is racist in itself. At best its fucking patronising to some one from an ethnic minority to give them a job based on their race and not their merit. If I was black and I knew I only had the 'managers job' because of the colour of my skin I'd feel insulted. It should be best man for the job and if the best man for the job happens to be white then the black chap should take it on the chin and it works the other way round as well, if the best man for the job happens to be black then the white applicant should except it and not bring it down to race all the time. Jobs should be given based on merit, not on race.......But that's just my opinion I agree with all of that. However, given the very few black or mixed race players who become managers, then I suspect, that some of them don't get jobs because of their colour. Of course, I can't prove this, but I do strongly suspect it is the case. Twenty years ago I could understand the lack of black or mixed race managers - given that black and mixed race players had not been around in the game in significant numbers for very long. But, by now, all things being equal, I'd have expected far more black or mixed race managers than there are, given the huge numbers of black and mixed race players who have retired from the game in the past 25 years. So blacks are under represented as coaches and managers. If they are 10% of the population and they are 24% of premier league players then they are OVER represented on the pitch, which means whites are UNDER represented. Are we going to see a campaign to get more white players on the field ? ..............Didn't think so
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 16:07:18 GMT
Don't be daft. Whites can't be the victims of racist abuse Surely abusing the Irish or the Welsh is xenophobic not racist - because Irish and Welsh are nationalities not races. That's an interesting point you make Lakeland , both the Irish and the Welsh are Celts though aren't they? What were the Celts ? Are they a race in themselves or just an ethnic creed , some theories imply that the Celts were a race in themselves , sorry if I'm going off track a little here, I just find it interesting
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 22, 2012 16:09:05 GMT
I agree with all of that. However, given the very few black or mixed race players who become managers, then I suspect, that some of them don't get jobs because of their colour. Of course, I can't prove this, but I do strongly suspect it is the case. Twenty years ago I could understand the lack of black or mixed race managers - given that black and mixed race players had not been around in the game in significant numbers for very long. But, by now, all things being equal, I'd have expected far more black or mixed race managers than there are, given the huge numbers of black and mixed race players who have retired from the game in the past 25 years. So blacks are under represented as coaches and managers. If they are 10% of the population and they are 24% of premier league players then they are OVER represented on the pitch, which means whites are UNDER represented. Are we going to see a campaign to get more white players on the field ? ..............Didn't think so As UK football draws players from all over the world, then the percentage of black and mixed race people in the UK population is irrelevant as to the percentage you would expect in the various leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 22, 2012 16:12:19 GMT
Surely abusing the Irish or the Welsh is xenophobic not racist - because Irish and Welsh are nationalities not races. That's an interesting point you make Lakeland , both the Irish and the Welsh are Celts though aren't they? What were the Celts ? Are they a race in themselves or just an ethnic creed , some theories imply that the Celts were a race in themselves , sorry if I'm going off track a little here, I just find it interesting You can't say the Irish and Welsh are Celts any more than you can say the English and Scottish are Anglo Saxon. There are Irish and Welsh Celts and Irish and Welsh who are from other races. All the "home" countries are a mix of ethnicities.
|
|
|
Post by rlcstokie on Oct 22, 2012 16:27:35 GMT
So blacks are under represented as coaches and managers. If they are 10% of the population and they are 24% of premier league players then they are OVER represented on the pitch, which means whites are UNDER represented. Are we going to see a campaign to get more white players on the field ? ..............Didn't think so As UK football draws players from all over the world, then the percentage of black and mixed race people in the UK population is irrelevant as to the percentage you would expect in the various leagues. Most jobs in the UK are open to pretty much any one in Europe and indeed anyone from all over the commonwealth in many cases. If its about proportional representation then it doesn't matter where they are drawn from. Personally I think this proportional representation malarkey is a load of bollox as I've already said, but if its going to be applied to ethnic minority's in a way that favours them over others then that IS racist. As I have said before. - Best man for the job, race shouldn't come into it.
|
|
|
Post by rlcstokie on Oct 22, 2012 16:33:10 GMT
That's an interesting point you make Lakeland , both the Irish and the Welsh are Celts though aren't they? What were the Celts ? Are they a race in themselves or just an ethnic creed , some theories imply that the Celts were a race in themselves , sorry if I'm going off track a little here, I just find it interesting You can't say the Irish and Welsh are Celts any more than you can say the English and Scottish are Anglo Saxon. There are Irish and Welsh Celts and Irish and Welsh who are from other races. All the "home" countries are a mix of ethnicities. Correct. The English also have Celtic ancestry and the Welsh also have Norman and Anglo Saxon ancestry. Unless the words 'black' or 'white' are directly used in a 'racist' chant or a racist 'slur' there is an argument to say that its actually xenophobia that is being committed and not racism. But are we saying that xenophobia isn't as bad as racism ? If so tell that to the Poles that were massacred by the Germans in WWII for being 'Slavic'.
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Oct 22, 2012 17:38:19 GMT
There is a big difference in the intelligence and skills it takes to be a footballer and the intelligence and skills it takes to be a manager. Maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. Or maybe they earn enough money as a player to be bothered about management. Considering that a black premier league player was to start at the bottom of the managerial ladder they would be earning a massive amount less than they were earning as a player.
I agree about it being the best man for the job and not giving out token jobs just to keep certain people happy. If I was a football club owner, I'd want the best man to look after my club and ultimately my finances, I wouldn't give a job to Michael Ricketts just because the black lads need a chance.
|
|
|
Post by rlcstokie on Oct 22, 2012 18:19:39 GMT
There is a big difference in the intelligence and skills it takes to be a footballer and the intelligence and skills it takes to be a manager. Maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. Or maybe they earn enough money as a player to be bothered about management. Considering that a black premier league player was to start at the bottom of the managerial ladder they would be earning a massive amount less than they were earning as a player. I agree about it being the best man for the job and not giving out token jobs just to keep certain people happy. If I was a football club owner, I'd want the best man to look after my club and ultimately my finances, I wouldn't give a job to Michael Ricketts just because the black lads need a chance. Fuck may. A common sense post on the Oatie. Thats a refreshing change
|
|
|
Post by jamrock on Oct 22, 2012 21:34:04 GMT
..... Maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. ..... Yes, maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Oct 22, 2012 22:00:24 GMT
..... Maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. ..... Yes, maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. Many of them come from poor backgrounds, just because they learn what to do with a football doesn't mean they learn all the skills necessary to be a manager. I didn't mean that to be describing every black player, just that maybe the home-grown players have had better resources throughout their life (starting at school) to develop themselves academically. Also I don't think idiots like Rio Ferdinand help their case either. If he's the person to stand out for black players in their battle with racism then God help them. The racist against racism, priceless. Whatever next, an anti-swearing campaign led by Roy Chubby Brown?!
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Oct 22, 2012 22:02:26 GMT
..... Maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. ..... Yes, maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. I'm sure cheadlepotter forgot to add the words "or maybe they were too intelligent"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2012 22:22:07 GMT
You can't say the Irish and Welsh are Celts any more than you can say the English and Scottish are Anglo Saxon. There are Irish and Welsh Celts and Irish and Welsh who are from other races. All the "home" countries are a mix of ethnicities. Correct. The English also have Celtic ancestry and the Welsh also have Norman and Anglo Saxon ancestry. Unless the words 'black' or 'white' are directly used in a 'racist' chant or a racist 'slur' there is an argument to say that its actually xenophobia that is being committed and not racism. But are we saying that xenophobia isn't as bad as racism ? If so tell that to the Poles that were massacred by the Germans in WWII for being 'Slavic'. Well of course the English are very much Celtic as we evolved from the Germanic tribes the Angles and the Saxons being just two , its an enthraling subject the generic make up the inhabitants of this Island . Interesting about the Poles being massacred by the Germans for being Slavic, several thousand of them were also executed by the Russians at Katyn, the Russians also being Slavic, xenophobia or racism it's sometimes hard to split them . A fascinating subject
|
|
|
Post by cheadlepotter on Oct 22, 2012 22:46:22 GMT
Yes, maybe foreign black players lack that intelligence. I'm sure cheadlepotter forgot to add the words "or maybe they were too intelligent" Quick everyone, Lakeland's back. Get your newspapers and put the news on, we're not allowed to have our own opinions whilst he's around remember so just copy what they say so that we don't say anything controversial or anything that may offend someone's sensitive being. And God forbid you spell something incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 0:15:28 GMT
I'm sure cheadlepotter forgot to add the words "or maybe they were too intelligent" Quick everyone, Lakeland's back. Get your newspapers and put the news on, we're not allowed to have our own opinions whilst he's around remember so just copy what they say so that we don't say anything controversial or anything that may offend someone's sensitive being. And God forbid you spell something incorrectly. Quite right absolutely no excuse for incorrect spelling !
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 0:30:18 GMT
That's an interesting point you make Lakeland , both the Irish and the Welsh are Celts though aren't they? What were the Celts ? Are they a race in themselves or just an ethnic creed , some theories imply that the Celts were a race in themselves , sorry if I'm going off track a little here, I just find it interesting You can't say the Irish and Welsh are Celts any more than you can say the English and Scottish are Anglo Saxon. There are Irish and Welsh Celts and Irish and Welsh who are from other races. All the "home" countries are a mix of ethnicities. Well yes you can because they are in essence , going back to the roots of these societies as I was this is a fact and the original English were Anglo Saxon , the name " Engle " a British word ( Welsh ) being attributed to them thus the area of Britain they migrated to became "Engelland " the Scots however were never AnglonSaxon , initially they were Picts later to be pushed out by the migrating Scots from Ireland , any Norman influence didn't really occur until after the Conquest , although The north of England had a huge Danish influence inflicted on it before then
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 8:59:46 GMT
the way i see it is that the campaign IS a charitable organisation independent from the sports officiating bodies (they contribute towards some of the funding but they also receive funding elsewhere through their own work) and therefore the players refusing to wear the t-shirts are doing nothing but taking a cheap shot at a body who are genuinely trying to do what they can in terms of educating on and publicising the issue. the campaign's budget last year (for the entire year!!) was only £500,000 i.e. an awful lot less than the amount that most charities have to even advertise and publicise their charity let alone then carry out the work they do (which includes work within schools and with kids at football clubs in various communities in harder hit areas where any divide or difference is always jumped upon more heavily.) if Rio et al wanted to take a stand then take a stand against the FA, UEFA or FIFA and really say what they think; the simple reason they will not do this to the extent they want to is that the fines/suspensions they would receive for standing up to the officiating bodies would be detrimental to them (they're happy to take a stand by boycotting a charity trying it's best but if it involves them making personal sacrifices to make their point.......)
the campaign has NO control whatsoever in terms of punishments,suspensions,judgments,fines etc. and is simply there to publicise the problem and educate people where it can to ensure the problem is eradicated.it cannot do it or survive financially on it's own and needs support from the FA etc. but it is the FA and NOT the campaign that Rio, Anton and the rest should be taking a stand against. them not wearing the shirt makes no difference whatsoever to the FA; it is not an FA campaign and will not effect them whatsoever.it's basically like saying you will refuse to give to Children in Need because the government don't do enough to stop child abuse, poverty or child illnesses. if you want to attack someone then attack the people that make the decisions and run the game NOT a small charity that has no influence in these matters at the top level.it just illustrates how cowardly the players actually are IMO.
basically it's yet another case of footballers not having the brainpower to realise that the people they are directly effecting by taking their stand are nothing to do with what they want to see. the campaign has no power to ban Serbia from tournaments, extend John Terry's ban or deport Suarez. they are a charity and do a lot of meaningful work with exptremely limited resources.
Rio is trying to set himself up to be a latter day MLK Jr. but unfortunately has missed the target of his anger and his stance that he took and most importantly completely missed the point! what they did "Kept it in the public eye" for all of 30 seconds before people didn't give a shit then carried on watching the game but Rio's ego will be flying high thinking he's some kind of spokesperson for all black people in the UK.
completely pointless protest, aimed at completely the wrong people and has achieved nothing other than boost his ego and allow a decent charity that's trying to do some good to suffer. i have nothing against people wanting to make a point but at least make it to the right people otherwise it's pointless and just shows you to be someone who would much rather let a small charity suffer than properly stand up against the people that can make a difference;THEY are the people he should be confronting but won't because he doesn't have the balls to risk his £150,000 a week career....a cheap shot trying to make his point by going against the little guy whilst the big guy sits in his Ivory tower at FIFA HQ not giving a shit about what Rio and the rest actually did.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2012 9:04:38 GMT
the way i see it is that the campaign IS a charitable organisation independent from the sports officiating bodies (they contribute towards some of the funding but they also receive funding elsewhere through their own work) and therefore the players refusing to wear the t-shirts are doing nothing but taking a cheap shot at a body who are genuinely trying to do what they can in terms of educating on and publicising the issue. the campaign's budget last year (for the entire year!!) was only £500,000 i.e. an awful lot less than the amount that most charities have to even advertise and publicise their charity let alone then carry out the work they do (which includes work within schools and with kids at football clubs in various communities in harder hit areas where any divide or difference is always jumped upon more heavily. if Rio et al wanted to take a stand then take a stand against the FA, UEFA or FIFA and really say what they think; the simple reason they will not do this to the extent they want to is that the fines/suspensions they would receive for standing up to the officiating bodies would be detrimental to them (they're happy to take a stand by boycotting a charity trying it's best but if it involves them making personal sacrifices to make their point.......) the campaign has NO control whatsoever in terms of punishments,suspensions,judgments,fines etc. and is simply there to publicise the problem and educate people where it can to ensure the problem is eradicated.it cannot do it or survive financially on it's own and needs support from the FA etc. but it is the FA and NOT the campaign that Rio, Anton and the rest should be taking a stand against. them not wearing the shirt makes no difference whatsoever to the FA; it is not an FA campaign and will not effect them whatsoever.it's basically like saying you will refuse to give to Children in Need because the government don't do enough to stop child abuse, poverty or child illnesses. basically it's yet another case of footballers not having the brainpower to realise that the people they are directly effecting by taking their stand are nothing to do with what they want to see. the campaign has no power to ban Serbia from tournaments, extend John Terry's ban or deport Suarez. they are a charity and do a lot of meaningful work with exptremely limited resources. Rio is trying to set himself up to be a latter day MLK Jr. but unfortunately has missed the target of his anger and his stance that he took and most importantly completely missed the point! what they did "Kept it in the public eye" for all of 30 seconds before people didn't give a shit then carried on watching the game but Rio's ego will be flying high thinking he's some kind of spokesperson for all black people in the UK. completely pointless protest, aimed at completely the wrong people and has achieved nothing other than boost his ego and allow a decent charity that's trying to do some good to suffer. i have nothing against people wanting to make a point but at least make it to the right people otherwise it's pointless and just shows you to be someone who would much rather let a small charity suffer than properly stand up against the people that can make a difference;THEY are the people he should be confronting but won't because he doesn't have the balls to risk his £150,000 a week career....a cheap shot trying to make his point by going against the little guy whilst the big guy sits in his Ivory tower at FIFA HQ not giving a shit about what Rio and the rest actually did. whilst i agree with most that the boycott has given said charity more publicity than its ever had before and its up to the charity to use that to its advantage
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 9:12:44 GMT
the way i see it is that the campaign IS a charitable organisation independent from the sports officiating bodies (they contribute towards some of the funding but they also receive funding elsewhere through their own work) and therefore the players refusing to wear the t-shirts are doing nothing but taking a cheap shot at a body who are genuinely trying to do what they can in terms of educating on and publicising the issue. the campaign's budget last year (for the entire year!!) was only £500,000 i.e. an awful lot less than the amount that most charities have to even advertise and publicise their charity let alone then carry out the work they do (which includes work within schools and with kids at football clubs in various communities in harder hit areas where any divide or difference is always jumped upon more heavily. if Rio et al wanted to take a stand then take a stand against the FA, UEFA or FIFA and really say what they think; the simple reason they will not do this to the extent they want to is that the fines/suspensions they would receive for standing up to the officiating bodies would be detrimental to them (they're happy to take a stand by boycotting a charity trying it's best but if it involves them making personal sacrifices to make their point.......) the campaign has NO control whatsoever in terms of punishments,suspensions,judgments,fines etc. and is simply there to publicise the problem and educate people where it can to ensure the problem is eradicated.it cannot do it or survive financially on it's own and needs support from the FA etc. but it is the FA and NOT the campaign that Rio, Anton and the rest should be taking a stand against. them not wearing the shirt makes no difference whatsoever to the FA; it is not an FA campaign and will not effect them whatsoever.it's basically like saying you will refuse to give to Children in Need because the government don't do enough to stop child abuse, poverty or child illnesses. basically it's yet another case of footballers not having the brainpower to realise that the people they are directly effecting by taking their stand are nothing to do with what they want to see. the campaign has no power to ban Serbia from tournaments, extend John Terry's ban or deport Suarez. they are a charity and do a lot of meaningful work with exptremely limited resources. Rio is trying to set himself up to be a latter day MLK Jr. but unfortunately has missed the target of his anger and his stance that he took and most importantly completely missed the point! what they did "Kept it in the public eye" for all of 30 seconds before people didn't give a shit then carried on watching the game but Rio's ego will be flying high thinking he's some kind of spokesperson for all black people in the UK. completely pointless protest, aimed at completely the wrong people and has achieved nothing other than boost his ego and allow a decent charity that's trying to do some good to suffer. i have nothing against people wanting to make a point but at least make it to the right people otherwise it's pointless and just shows you to be someone who would much rather let a small charity suffer than properly stand up against the people that can make a difference;THEY are the people he should be confronting but won't because he doesn't have the balls to risk his £150,000 a week career....a cheap shot trying to make his point by going against the little guy whilst the big guy sits in his Ivory tower at FIFA HQ not giving a shit about what Rio and the rest actually did. whilst i agree with most that the boycott has given said charity more publicity than its ever had before and its up to the charity to use that to its advantage which a larger charity would be able to do, unfortunately though they just don't have the resources or finances to do so, plus you have to remember that youngsters are going to be influenced far more by people like Rio Ferdinand than they are by ex-footballers like Jason Euell who they've never even heard of. all this weekend has done is basically say to young kids that this campaign is pointless and is a bad thing all round. Rio,Anton,Kenwynne have unfortunately probably caused more harm than good by doing what they did as now the campaign will probably get less funding due to the adverse publicity, will have far less impact as the public will just see footballers boycotting it so will presume it's a negative thing and we'll then end up with no charity at all trying to educate against racism.....well done Rio, Jason,Anton..probably just killed off the only bloody organisation that DOES try to do something about this issue within the game by starting right at the roots and educating the youngsters that are the future players and fans that will go to the games!
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Oct 23, 2012 9:16:53 GMT
the way i see it is that the campaign IS a charitable organisation independent from the sports officiating bodies (they contribute towards some of the funding but they also receive funding elsewhere through their own work) and therefore the players refusing to wear the t-shirts are doing nothing but taking a cheap shot at a body who are genuinely trying to do what they can in terms of educating on and publicising the issue. the campaign's budget last year (for the entire year!!) was only £500,000 i.e. an awful lot less than the amount that most charities have to even advertise and publicise their charity let alone then carry out the work they do (which includes work within schools and with kids at football clubs in various communities in harder hit areas where any divide or difference is always jumped upon more heavily. if Rio et al wanted to take a stand then take a stand against the FA, UEFA or FIFA and really say what they think; the simple reason they will not do this to the extent they want to is that the fines/suspensions they would receive for standing up to the officiating bodies would be detrimental to them (they're happy to take a stand by boycotting a charity trying it's best but if it involves them making personal sacrifices to make their point.......) the campaign has NO control whatsoever in terms of punishments,suspensions,judgments,fines etc. and is simply there to publicise the problem and educate people where it can to ensure the problem is eradicated.it cannot do it or survive financially on it's own and needs support from the FA etc. but it is the FA and NOT the campaign that Rio, Anton and the rest should be taking a stand against. them not wearing the shirt makes no difference whatsoever to the FA; it is not an FA campaign and will not effect them whatsoever.it's basically like saying you will refuse to give to Children in Need because the government don't do enough to stop child abuse, poverty or child illnesses. basically it's yet another case of footballers not having the brainpower to realise that the people they are directly effecting by taking their stand are nothing to do with what they want to see. the campaign has no power to ban Serbia from tournaments, extend John Terry's ban or deport Suarez. they are a charity and do a lot of meaningful work with exptremely limited resources. Rio is trying to set himself up to be a latter day MLK Jr. but unfortunately has missed the target of his anger and his stance that he took and most importantly completely missed the point! what they did "Kept it in the public eye" for all of 30 seconds before people didn't give a shit then carried on watching the game but Rio's ego will be flying high thinking he's some kind of spokesperson for all black people in the UK. completely pointless protest, aimed at completely the wrong people and has achieved nothing other than boost his ego and allow a decent charity that's trying to do some good to suffer. i have nothing against people wanting to make a point but at least make it to the right people otherwise it's pointless and just shows you to be someone who would much rather let a small charity suffer than properly stand up against the people that can make a difference;THEY are the people he should be confronting but won't because he doesn't have the balls to risk his £150,000 a week career....a cheap shot trying to make his point by going against the little guy whilst the big guy sits in his Ivory tower at FIFA HQ not giving a shit about what Rio and the rest actually did. whilst i agree with most that the boycott has given said charity more publicity than its ever had before and its up to the charity to use that to its advantage Right on all counts however I don't think Rio deserves credit for that as I think he's done it for other reasons and without thinking. However I'm sure it's a spin he can use.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Oct 23, 2012 9:18:35 GMT
talk of a balck footballers federation now.
the bottom line is the FA should have done more. chelsea should have done more
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 9:21:39 GMT
talk of a balck footballers federation now. the bottom line is the FA should have done more. chelsea should have done more exaclty my point salop! you complain/protest to the people that CAN make a difference, don't be a coward and hit a smalltime charity that has absolutely no power or influence at all..it's just cowardly,unnecessary and completely 100% pointless as the people you're attacking can't do ANYTHING about the decisions at the highest levels which is where the changes need to be made.
|
|