|
Post by RAF on Jul 26, 2014 15:34:52 GMT
If it is as bad as you say, give your job to Sol Campbell then you massive cunter! Of course you won't though.
H
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Jul 26, 2014 17:03:20 GMT
Will he fuck. Dyke loves making these headline statements with no solution or workable plan to implement his opinion. It's like he throws these suggestions out there to 'encourage debate' hoping others will run with the idea. The blokes a tool of the highest order. It was Dyke who chose the members of the useless FA commission to improve the National Team from Academies and up and they're all male with only Rio Ferdinand non-white. Many of the FA Council members were only aware of the first 8 names of the commission when the press were given the names. Dyke was heavily criticised that there was no diversity on his new commission and so added Roy Hodgson and Rio Ferdinand. He was then accused of tokenism by selecting Ferdinand. Which does seem valid because if Rio was on the radar in the first place why was he added only after the criticism. Also, if you're conducting a review into the failure of the National Team why would you have the National Team manager on the commission? Ask for his view of the situation or ask him to submit a report, absolutely but surely Hodgson's going to have a totally biased view of why it went wrong which might skew his recommendations of how it needs improving. He'll never admit it was his fault, his staff's fault of the fault of the players that he's assembled, trained and sent out with his tactics. I know the FA Commission is a different animal to the FA Council but it's an example of Dyke's mentality of a 'new broom' approach which seemingly just reuses the brush and handle from the old one. Nothing new. No forward thinking.
|
|
|
Post by ohbottom on Jul 26, 2014 18:01:19 GMT
Indeed. Apparently this is the only woman on the FA board: This is a woman?
|
|
|
Post by eddyclamp on Jul 26, 2014 18:19:18 GMT
Indeed. Apparently this is the only woman on the FA board: This is a woman? looks like Hayley Croppers stunt double
|
|
|
Post by cheekymatt71 on Jul 26, 2014 18:38:06 GMT
hes just bored of talking to white middle aged blokes I reckon.
He wants some tarts at work he can chat and invite out for a glass of wine. who wouldnt do the same?
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Jul 26, 2014 19:09:59 GMT
Indeed. Apparently this is the only woman on the FA board: This is a woman? She looks like a Shotputter.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Jul 27, 2014 0:15:22 GMT
The future of English football in the hands of the man who gave us Roland rat.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Jul 27, 2014 0:21:33 GMT
I may be missing something here.
All these problems are with the men's game in this country and the repeated failure of the men's national team. The FA commission is set up to address these problems and find solutions. Now while the lack of racial diversity in the commission is a perfectly valid concern, I don't quite understand the fuss about there only being one woman. These are problems concerning the men's game, so unsurprisingly, a commission mostly made up of people with a role in the game is predominately male.
I'm sure somebody will set me straight here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 1:37:45 GMT
hes just bored of talking to white middle aged blokes I reckon. And who wouldn't be, matt? The FSF campaigns on behalf of football fans, and its chairman Malcolm Clarke sits on the FA Council as the fans' representative.
Clarke declined to comment on Dyke's claims.The most sensible decision I've ever read the owd bugger make! Well done Malc But next time, decline while wearing a "Fuck Off You Jumped Up Toady" T-Shirt, then Dyke stands a bit more chance of getting the message and the media will never realise what has gone on. IMPORTANT MESSAGE TIMELet me be clear: As far as I am concerned, the 10% or so of people in the country - any country - that are not classed as white, female, lesbian and vegetarian are under absolutely no obligation to watch football. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by britsabroad on Jul 27, 2014 3:14:04 GMT
Hes the problem with his stupid statements.
Who cares if theyre black, white, pink or purple, male, female or somewhere in between. Pick the best people for the job.
To get to the level of experience required for the panel means some level of seniority and interest in the sport. Proportionally, not many women are interested in football. Likewise, the guys old enough to be involved in senior levels at the FA come from a time when not many black people were in the sport. In 10/20 years time there will be a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by thedeadlyshart on Jul 27, 2014 3:33:05 GMT
I may be missing something here. All these problems are with the men's game in this country and the repeated failure of the men's national team. The FA commission is set up to address these problems and find solutions. Now while the lack of racial diversity in the commission is a perfectly valid concern, I don't quite understand the fuss about there only being one woman. These are problems concerning the men's game, so unsurprisingly, a commission mostly made up of people with a role in the game is predominately male. I'm sure somebody will set me straight here. I don't know if this is the case, but when I read it I assumed the FA also oversaw the women's leagues and national team for the women's world cup. If that's the case I think it makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 27, 2014 5:59:07 GMT
I may be missing something here. All these problems are with the men's game in this country and the repeated failure of the men's national team. The FA commission is set up to address these problems and find solutions. Now while the lack of racial diversity in the commission is a perfectly valid concern, I don't quite understand the fuss about there only being one woman. These are problems concerning the men's game, so unsurprisingly, a commission mostly made up of people with a role in the game is predominately male. I'm sure somebody will set me straight here. Isn't there some confusion here. Dyke's speech (on the first BBC link above) was about the make up of the FA Council. The FA Council is not the body charged with addressing the failure of the men's national team. The FA Council (which our own Malcolm Clarke sits on) is the board which oversees the whole game (from youth to club to international level - both male and female) so Dyke is probably right to suggest that it should be more representative of the stakeholders in the game as a whole - not just the stakeholders in the men's national team. Well, that's my take on what he said and why he said it - if I've got it completely wrong then I apologise for throwing a red herring into the debate! I'll send the link to Malcolm - hopefully, if I've got it wrong he'll soon tell us.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 6:16:48 GMT
As I have said many many times before , there are too many people in a position of power who should not be there because they don't know what they're doing . Too many are hangers on and the rest don't want to rock the boat in fear of losing their highly paid job for doin basically fuck all.
Year after year , decade after decade ....failure.
A crock of shit.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 27, 2014 6:22:05 GMT
As I have said many many times before , there are too many people in a position of power who should not be there because they don't know what they're doing . Too many are hangers on and the rest don't want to rock the boat in fear of losing their highly paid job for doin basically fuck all. Year after year , decade after decade ....failure. A crock of shit. I don't think the members of the FA Council are paid - other than travel expenses etc. I'm sure Malcolm will answer this question if/when he replies to my comment above (which I have copied to him).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 6:23:56 GMT
He'd be better off asking Sven on the quiet, how he manages to do it at his age.
I'm sure he'll have a few hints and tips for him.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 6:28:39 GMT
As I have said many many times before , there are too many people in a position of power who should not be there because they don't know what they're doing . Too many are hangers on and the rest don't want to rock the boat in fear of losing their highly paid job for doin basically fuck all. Year after year , decade after decade ....failure. A crock of shit. I don't think the members of the FA Council are paid - other than travel expenses etc. I'm sure Malcolm will answer this question if/when he replies to my comment above (which I have copied to him). Makes you wonder why they're bothering to do the job at all then , unless the expenses they claim equates to more money than some people get paid in wages. Regardless it is all a shambles.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jul 27, 2014 6:38:08 GMT
I don't think the members of the FA Council are paid - other than travel expenses etc. I'm sure Malcolm will answer this question if/when he replies to my comment above (which I have copied to him). Makes you wonder why they're bothering to do the job at all then , unless the expenses they claim equates to more money than some people get paid in wages. Regardless it is all a shambles. Hopefully Malcolm Clarke will be able to give you the answers you seek Mumf! I suspect that, these days, expenses are more tightly controlled than they would have been years ago. That was certainly the case in my job.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 6:47:16 GMT
Makes you wonder why they're bothering to do the job at all then , unless the expenses they claim equates to more money than some people get paid in wages. Regardless it is all a shambles. Hopefully Malcolm Clarke will be able to give you the answers you seek Mumf! I suspect that, these days, expenses are more tightly controlled than they would have been years ago. That was certainly the case in my job. Hopefully , he won't because I wouldn't want any more more drained out of the football money pit just to establish how much is claimed / drained out of British football unnecessarily. There's a whole multi million pound industry doing that as it is.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 6:52:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 27, 2014 6:53:56 GMT
The future of English football in the hands of the man who gave us Roland rat. i would hope the initiatives he intends to implement at the FA are half as imaginative and successful as Roland Rat proved to be
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jul 27, 2014 19:40:22 GMT
I may be missing something here. All these problems are with the men's game in this country and the repeated failure of the men's national team. The FA commission is set up to address these problems and find solutions. Now while the lack of racial diversity in the commission is a perfectly valid concern, I don't quite understand the fuss about there only being one woman. These are problems concerning the men's game, so unsurprisingly, a commission mostly made up of people with a role in the game is predominately male. I'm sure somebody will set me straight here. Isn't there some confusion here. Dyke's speech (on the first BBC link above) was about the make up of the FA Council. The FA Council is not the body charged with addressing the failure of the men's national team. The FA Council (which our own Malcolm Clarke sits on) is the board which oversees the whole game (from youth to club to international level - both male and female) so Dyke is probably right to suggest that it should be more representative of the stakeholders in the game as a whole - not just the stakeholders in the men's national team. Well, that's my take on what he said and why he said it - if I've got it completely wrong then I apologise for throwing a red herring into the debate! I'll send the link to Malcolm - hopefully, if I've got it wrong he'll soon tell us. You've pretty much got it right, John, except that most of 15 minute video was about the England commission's report. Only a small part was about governance, including the make up of the FA Council but that remark by GD is the one that has captured the headlines. England Commission - a group of 10 people ( all male, 9 of whom are white) set up by GD specifically to look at what can be done to improve the performance of the England men's team. It has published its first report on how to stop the rapid decline in the amount of game time english-qualified players are getting in the Premier League. I think it's a very good report with some good analysis of the causes of the "problem" even though I don't agree with one of its 4 major recommendations (League 3) and am very doubtful about another (strategic loan partnerships). But I recommend reading the report ( available to download on the FA website). Its 2nd report on the grassroots and coaching will come out later in the year. FA Council - The Governing body of the whole game in England on which I sit, along with 120 others of whom I think 3 are not white and 5 are women. 2 are non-white women so that leaves 115 white men ( including me). I would guess roughly half are older than me (I'm 68), but that's only a guess. There are numerous committees which mumf has provided the link to. I sit on two ( and am vice-chair of one) as well as the judicial panel of members who sit on disciplinary hearings. FA Board - The main Board of Directors of the FA, of 12 people, 11 of whom are white men plus Heather Rabbatts whose picture has been posted in this thread. None of the above are employed by the FA. The FA staff, led by Alex Horne, the General Secretary, have a far higher proportion of women and non-white staff, although I don't know the figures off the top of my head. I hope that clarifies it.
|
|
|
Post by parttimelurker on Jul 27, 2014 19:48:23 GMT
Indeed. Apparently this is the only woman on the FA board: This is a woman? Never been seen together apparently!!
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 27, 2014 19:51:08 GMT
why is the gender /ethnic makeup of these committees considered such a hot topic , im against discrimination both negative and positive ,surely its more important to get to the heart of the problem rather than spending energy and time on political correctness . get the right people on the panels regardless
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Jul 27, 2014 19:51:17 GMT
Isn't there some confusion here. Dyke's speech (on the first BBC link above) was about the make up of the FA Council. The FA Council is not the body charged with addressing the failure of the men's national team. The FA Council (which our own Malcolm Clarke sits on) is the board which oversees the whole game (from youth to club to international level - both male and female) so Dyke is probably right to suggest that it should be more representative of the stakeholders in the game as a whole - not just the stakeholders in the men's national team. Well, that's my take on what he said and why he said it - if I've got it completely wrong then I apologise for throwing a red herring into the debate! I'll send the link to Malcolm - hopefully, if I've got it wrong he'll soon tell us. You've pretty much got it right, John, except that most of 15 minute video was about the England commission's report. Only a small part was about governance, including the make up of the FA Council but that remark by GD is the one that has captured the headlines. England Commission - a group of 10 people ( all male, 9 of whom are white) set up by GD specifically to look at what can be done to improve the performance of the England men's team. It has published its first report on how to stop the rapid decline in the amount of game time english-qualified players are getting in the Premier League. I think it's a very good report with some good analysis of the causes of the "problem" even though I don't agree with one of its 4 major recommendations (League 3) and am very doubtful about another (strategic loan partnerships). But I recommend reading the report ( available to download on the FA website). Its 2nd report on the grassroots and coaching will come out later in the year. FA Council - The Governing body of the whole game in England on which I sit, along with 120 others of whom I think 3 are not white and 5 are women. 2 are non-white women so that leaves 115 white men ( including me). I would guess roughly half are older than me (I'm 68), but that's only a guess. There are numerous committees which mumf has provided the link to. I sit on two ( and am vice-chair of one) as well as the judicial panel of members who sit on disciplinary hearings. FA Board - The main Board of Directors of the FA, of 12 people, 11 of whom are white men plus Heather Rabbatts whose picture has been posted in this thread. None of the above are employed by the FA. The FA staff, led by Alex Horne, the General Secretary, have a far higher proportion of women and non-white staff, although I don't know the figures off the top of my head. I hope that clarifies it. Malcolm why did you decline to comment on Dyke's suggestion? Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jul 27, 2014 19:56:37 GMT
Makes you wonder why they're bothering to do the job at all then , unless the expenses they claim equates to more money than some people get paid in wages. Regardless it is all a shambles. Hopefully Malcolm Clarke will be able to give you the answers you seek Mumf! I suspect that, these days, expenses are more tightly controlled than they would have been years ago. That was certainly the case in my job. There is an expenses policy ( as in most organisations) defining what you can claim for. Claims have to be backed up by receipts. It's basically just travel, and occasionally hotels where the timing of an event justifies it or where you have meetings on successive days at Wembley. An attendance fee of of £120 is also paid. In my case that is paid over to the supporters movement. I know that some Council members do not claim it, in some cases because they are paid employees ( e.g CEOs of County FAs or Football Clubs) and do it in work time. Your assumption, mumf, that people only do something for the money is quite wrong. In my case, over the years as self-employed person, I have lost a lot of income from my football roles. I'm not complaining about that - it's my choice, but must correct your assumption. I know the same is true for other members of the FA Council, some of whom have given a lifetime of voluntary service to the game, at County level and elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jul 27, 2014 19:59:42 GMT
You've pretty much got it right, John, except that most of 15 minute video was about the England commission's report. Only a small part was about governance, including the make up of the FA Council but that remark by GD is the one that has captured the headlines. England Commission - a group of 10 people ( all male, 9 of whom are white) set up by GD specifically to look at what can be done to improve the performance of the England men's team. It has published its first report on how to stop the rapid decline in the amount of game time english-qualified players are getting in the Premier League. I think it's a very good report with some good analysis of the causes of the "problem" even though I don't agree with one of its 4 major recommendations (League 3) and am very doubtful about another (strategic loan partnerships). But I recommend reading the report ( available to download on the FA website). Its 2nd report on the grassroots and coaching will come out later in the year. FA Council - The Governing body of the whole game in England on which I sit, along with 120 others of whom I think 3 are not white and 5 are women. 2 are non-white women so that leaves 115 white men ( including me). I would guess roughly half are older than me (I'm 68), but that's only a guess. There are numerous committees which mumf has provided the link to. I sit on two ( and am vice-chair of one) as well as the judicial panel of members who sit on disciplinary hearings. FA Board - The main Board of Directors of the FA, of 12 people, 11 of whom are white men plus Heather Rabbatts whose picture has been posted in this thread. None of the above are employed by the FA. The FA staff, led by Alex Horne, the General Secretary, have a far higher proportion of women and non-white staff, although I don't know the figures off the top of my head. I hope that clarifies it. Malcolm why did you decline to comment on Dyke's suggestion? Thanks On a public message Board I'm going to decline to comment on why I declined to comment on it, because to do would effectively be to comment on it
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 20:02:52 GMT
Isn't there some confusion here. Dyke's speech (on the first BBC link above) was about the make up of the FA Council. The FA Council is not the body charged with addressing the failure of the men's national team. The FA Council (which our own Malcolm Clarke sits on) is the board which oversees the whole game (from youth to club to international level - both male and female) so Dyke is probably right to suggest that it should be more representative of the stakeholders in the game as a whole - not just the stakeholders in the men's national team. Well, that's my take on what he said and why he said it - if I've got it completely wrong then I apologise for throwing a red herring into the debate! I'll send the link to Malcolm - hopefully, if I've got it wrong he'll soon tell us. You've pretty much got it right, John, except that most of 15 minute video was about the England commission's report. Only a small part was about governance, including the make up of the FA Council but that remark by GD is the one that has captured the headlines. England Commission - a group of 10 people ( all male, 9 of whom are white) set up by GD specifically to look at what can be done to improve the performance of the England men's team. It has published its first report on how to stop the rapid decline in the amount of game time english-qualified players are getting in the Premier League. I think it's a very good report with some good analysis of the causes of the "problem" even though I don't agree with one of its 4 major recommendations (League 3) and am very doubtful about another (strategic loan partnerships). But I recommend reading the report ( available to download on the FA website). Its 2nd report on the grassroots and coaching will come out later in the year. FA Council - The Governing body of the whole game in England on which I sit, along with 120 others of whom I think 3 are not white and 5 are women. 2 are non-white women so that leaves 115 white men ( including me). I would guess roughly half are older than me (I'm 68), but that's only a guess. There are numerous committees which mumf has provided the link to. I sit on two ( and am vice-chair of one) as well as the judicial panel of members who sit on disciplinary hearings. FA Board - The main Board of Directors of the FA, of 12 people, 11 of whom are white men plus Heather Rabbatts whose picture has been posted in this thread. None of the above are employed by the FA. The FA staff, led by Alex Horne, the General Secretary, have a far higher proportion of women and non-white staff, although I don't know the figures off the top of my head. I hope that clarifies it. I most protest in the most vocal manner I've not said a word GD
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 20:30:33 GMT
Indeed. Apparently this is the only woman on the FA board: This is a woman? Just because he's wearing a wig and fake tan, it doesn't mean Alistair McGowan is a woman
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Jul 27, 2014 21:17:49 GMT
Malcolm why did you decline to comment on Dyke's suggestion? Thanks On a public message Board I'm going to decline to comment on why I declined to comment on it, because to do would effectively be to comment on it doesnt your decline to comment you just stated on the other decline to comment on your reasons you originally declined to comment constitute a comment ?
|
|
|
Post by Malcolm Clarke on Jul 27, 2014 21:28:08 GMT
On a public message Board I'm going to decline to comment on why I declined to comment on it, because to do would effectively be to comment on it doesnt your decline to comment you just stated on the other decline to comment on your reasons you originally declined to comment constitute a comment ? I really wouldn't like to comment on whether it does or not, Harry
|
|