GFC to take part in tokenism | Page 4 | Vital Football

GFC to take part in tokenism

Therealwaldo - 29/9/2017 12:07All the Rooney rule seeks to do is to make sure that this isn't a factor at the first stage, that of creating a shortlist. No one says that after that point you shouldn't choose the best person for the job on the basis of the criteria that you have established.
Click to expand...

So really, you are agreeing with the title of this thread - the Rooney rule is tokenism as you're saying a black manager should be put on the shortlist regardless, and then after that the best person should be chosen. How about just having the best and most appropriate managers on the shortlist in the first place? None of the Rooney rule fans have been able to rebut my earlier post about the potential working example at GFC, whereby Scally might have to drop a serious white contender from his shortlist of say 6, if there were no serious black fellas applying, and he therefore had to interview a black chap who managed in Ryman South. How is this fair?

I have absolutely no doubt that if Scally undertakes a full recruitment campaign for the manager as he usually does (and I believe he will this time now his health is better) were Chris Powell to apply, I'd be surprised if he didn't make the shortlist; were the manager of Dulwich Hamlets to apply, he probably wouldn't. This is regardless of the whether the Rooney rule is in place or not.
 
I don't believe that is the way it works Steve. From wikipedia:

" The Rooney Rule is a National Football League policy that requires league teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates. It was established in 2003, and variations of the rule are now in place in other industries. "

I wouldn't accept anecdotal evidence from random players though it might build up to show at least a perception of discrimination. That in itself might be worth addressing but there is real evidence too. I found this article interesting mainly for Brian Deane's personal experience and thoughts than anything else. He hasn't ever made a noise over issues of race and has got on and made his own life but he's convinced there is a problem. Only a tiny proportion of the situation is down to outright bias and few are pointing fingers. I do not believe that there are huge numbers of racists in football conniving to exclude minority candidates. It's more complicated and subtle than that and we are all part of the problem and any potential resolution.


https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/14/why-so-few-black-football-managers

I don't buy your line about accepting that black players are innately better than white because of the relative numbers in our professional leagues. There are many, many reasons for that distribution. I have known people, who had trials and were accepted by professional clubs but decided to pursue education and other careers. That is just one factor amongst many. World Cup results don't support the assertion either.






 
Gills1958 - 29/9/2017 20:03

Well said jogills but you are wasting your time with JK. He doesn't mean any harm but simply doesn't"get it".
Click to expand...

Just because I don't agree with your opinion, it doesn't mean I don't "get it"... I could imply you also "don't get it" for having a differing view.
 
jogills - 30/9/2017 08:54

I wouldn't accept anecdotal evidence from random players though it might build up to show at least a perception of discrimination. That in itself might be worth addressing but there is real evidence too. I found this article interesting mainly for Brian Deane's personal experience and thoughts than anything else.

Only a tiny proportion of the situation is down to outright bias and few are pointing fingers. I do not believe that there are huge numbers of racists in football conniving to exclude minority candidates. It's more complicated and subtle than that and we are all part of the problem and any potential resolution.
Click to expand...

In a prior comment you wrote:

"There is every evidence that there are plenty of black candidates wishing to coach and manage; they keep telling us so. They keep telling us that they rarely even get shortlisted for interview too"

So do you accept their word as evidence or not since most of the "evidence" is anecdotal? I think that is part of the problem - there are a lot of people saying they know a lot of people who didn't get the interview but no one comes out so that the situation could be assessed on the individuals merit and record.

I would bet that in 99% of the time the club have a few criteria like having prior management experience at a certain level, been coaching for a certain amount of time or have won a few things relatively (ie, Stimson won things at a lower level). In the case of clubs who tend to hire Sam Aladdin dyke then they want someone with a reputation for avoiding relegation.

The problem with the debate is that there is always an assumption that racism plays the large part in the numbers.

There are a lot of nameless black candidates who claim to be a victim of discrimination, but if you looked at the histories of them then there are likely to be valid non-discriminatory reasons. And until the other potential factors are considered and looked into, it is unclear to what extent, if at all, race plays a part.
 
You really do struggle with this issue don't you JK. I made that first comment because someone had raised the question of whether minority aspirants were even applying. It is possible theoretically that large numbers of them are lying until we look at the actual evidence and yes there is pleny.

" there has been ?a systematic denial of talent and ambition?. Bradbury identified 552 senior coaching positions in English football and calculated that only 19 of them ? 3.4% ? were filled by BME candidates. This is a dismal return for a group that makes up 14% of the UK population. "

Your last paragraph is frankly bonkers a jumble of bald assertion and supposition followed by a presumption that nobody has really looked into the matter. They have.

 
jogills - 30/9/2017 14:13

" there has been ?a systematic denial of talent and ambition?. Bradbury identified 552 senior coaching positions in English football and calculated that only 19 of them ? 3.4% ? were filled by BME candidates. This is a dismal return for a group that makes up 14% of the UK population. "
Click to expand...

We've gone over this on other similar threads, but there's no reason why the percentage of BME managers should equate in any way to the number of BME players, or the number of BME people. Football managers are usually 40+, ex captains, will have done their coaching badges, will want to be managers, and will have to have applied for managing roles. If someone can state how many BME people are in this category, then we can start looking at the evidence.

It is incredibly difficult for a BME ex player to become a manager, as Brian Deane has found out. But it is also Incredibly difficult for a white ex player to become a manager
 
jogills - 30/9/2017 14:13

You really do struggle with this issue don't you JK. I made that first comment because someone had raised the question of whether minority aspirants were even applying. It is possible theoretically that large numbers of them are lying until we look at the actual evidence and yes there is pleny.

" there has been ?a systematic denial of talent and ambition?. Bradbury identified 552 senior coaching positions in English football and calculated that only 19 of them ? 3.4% ? were filled by BME candidates. This is a dismal return for a group that makes up 14% of the UK population. "

Your last paragraph is frankly bonkers a jumble of bald assertion and supposition followed by a presumption that nobody has really looked into the matter. They have.
Click to expand...

The struggle is where you make a statement and then back it up with not supporting evidence. The fact statistically only 3.4% of the successful candidates doesn't prove there is a "systematic denial" - it raised a question worthy of further investigation certainly.

You are confusing causation vs correlation...

Take a look here:
http://thesptt.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SB-final-report-screen3-1.pdf


"The FA are investing more than 1.4 million over the next five seasons to get more
aspiring coaches from BAME communities into the licensed coaching system at the elite level."

"The Football Association to set clear targets for the attainment of high level coaching (and coach education) qualifications for ethnic minority coaches to adress the under- representation in those taking the courses. "

So BAME people are under represented in taking the higher level courses that they are required to have to be managers?? Clearly racism is preventing people from BAME from taking these courses despite the FA pumping more money in to encourage BAME people....

While I don't have more exact numbers (and I suspect if I post a load of links you'll just ignore them anyway), maybe a key part of there only being 3.4% representation is due to a massive under representation of BAME taking the courses in the first place.
 
You are doing it again John. The fact that BAME people are under represented on courses is itself a part of the problem. If you and ThreeSixes take care to read Brian Deane's testimony you will see that he and others are aware of this problem too. Of course no one can quantify which influence accounts for which percentage of under representation and no one has suggested that. The fact that one can issue that caution in no way argues against the fact that BAME people, who do have the necessary qualifications, are much less likely to be called for interview.

" So BAME people are under represented in taking the higher level courses that they are required to have to be managers?? Clearly racism is preventing people from BAME from taking these courses despite the FA pumping more money in to encourage BAME people...."

That one's a bit bizarre even for you and suggests your idea of racism is strangely one dimensional. I'm not a fan of the term racism being used so widely in part because it appears to drive many to take leave of their senses.
 
This may have been written a couple of years ago but it does throw some light on the problem .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3116913/Of-44-coaches-taking-UEFA-Licence-St-George-s-41-white-male.html

If it is very expensive as this article hints maybe a small amount coming from the TV money could increase the numbers and thus quality of trained coaches .
 
Always a tricky conversation point this one in my opinion.

I have been in several positions in my career including now where I have the final say on recruitment. In all my positions I have always recruited the best person in my opinion for the job. I don?t take account of sex or colour of skin. I do take account if they have the most suitable experience, qualifications and whether they would fit in.

My career has also been in very unsexy jobs ie pest control and now chemical distribution and I am pretty sure applicants don?t line up to work in these fields.

So I suspect the Rooney Rule is great for areas where there are lots of applicants and the industry needs to be reflective of the population ie BBC where tax payers money is used but in areas where i have worked / work it would put an impossible caveat in where we already struggle for applications.

On the gills job ... I don?t give a hoot if the person is male or female or pink or black ... who cares ... as long as we start playing football .....

:18:
 
Vodapadi Beef Sache - 1/10/2017 10:00

Always a tricky conversation point this one in my opinion.

I have been in several positions in my career including now where I have the final say on recruitment. In all my positions I have always recruited the best person in my opinion for the job. I don?t take account of sex or colour of skin. I do take account if they have the most suitable experience, qualifications and whether they would fit in.

My career has also been in very unsexy jobs ie pest control and now chemical distribution and I am pretty sure applicants don?t line up to work in these fields.

So I suspect the Rooney Rule is great for areas where there are lots of applicants and the industry needs to be reflective of the population ie BBC where tax payers money is used but in areas where i have worked / work it would put an impossible caveat in where we already struggle for applications.

On the gills job ... I don?t give a hoot if the person is male or female or pink or black ... who cares ... as long as we start playing football .....

:18:
Click to expand...
Pest control and now chemical distribution. I've often wondered what Vodapadi beef sache contains :2:
 
:1:

It?s the name of my favourite restaurant in Bulgaria with my favourite dinner there ....

Thankfully no pests inside ....I hope... or chemicals.... I think ..... :3:
 
Surely the BAME rule has some major flaws in it? The rules requires us to interview at least one candidate that is of BAME right, but there is no obligation as to what ethnicity this person is. So if Mr Scally were to offer an interview to someone like Nobby Solano who is South American, Mr Scally has fulfilled his obligation. Alternatively if he offered an interview to someone who is Asian, them again he's fulfilled this obligation so therefore he would not have any need to interview of a black skin colour if he did not choose to.

Now on this occasion, I think we all consider the best candidate for the role to be black (Powell) so that would resolve our issue, but if the chairman was to follow the above, then would he still not have the racist card pointed at him for potentially not interviewing a Black manager or an Asian manager or other Minor Ethnicity etc? Surely this rule doesn't go far enough if they really want to introduce more BAME coaches/managers into English football if there's only an obligation to interview someone of whatever ethnicity the chairman chooses aslong as they're not white?
Thoughts?
 
I think some are missing the point - "The Rooney Rule is a National Football League policy that requires league teams to interview minority candidates for head coaching and senior football operation jobs. It is sometimes cited as an example of affirmative action, though there is no quota or preference given to minorities in the hiring of candidates."
 
The problem with things like the Rooney Rule is that it treats people as part of an identity group rather than an individual.

We are supposed to suspend our everyday experiences of individual differences amongst the same ethnicity and instead assume that everyone is from a homogenous ?community? sharing the same experiences and aspirations.

So as a woman, can Anne Widdicombe can ?represent? Diane Abbott or vice versa?
Can a Nigerian represent a Somalian?
Can Tutsis represent neighbouring Hutu?
Can a North Sudanese represent a South Sudanese?
Actually not. These African neighbours were involved in one of the worst genocides and a war respectively.

Surely fewer people appIying is a factor in outcomes?
And the fact of fewer people applying could be self-selection not discrimination.
Otherwise, the stats would suggest that midwifery suffers from chronic discrimination - with primary school teachers not far behind.
Apparently women can get overlooked for promotion - because they fail to share the preferences of the bosses - who favour competition over co-operation - who use ?team player? to mean ?everyone the same? (i.e. rowing ) - who favour Rugby over Football .
Plenty of men get overlooked for promotion for exactly the same reasons.

So the idea that people in any given job or rank should match the % of the population is nonsense. That denies individual differences - and probably offensive.

In fact if you took race out of it and looked at criteria relevant to the job, then you would hope that 100% of the staff had the relevant criteria - not some average of the population.

The worst suggestion above was that, because many generations ago, ?abhorrent slavery, later segregation? occurred towards previous generations, then it is OK to discriminate for or against today's descendents.
NO!
If discrimination based on race is wrong, it is ALWAYS wrong.
 
TGPL - 3/10/2017 07:26

Surely the BAME rule has some major flaws in it? The rules requires us to interview at least one candidate that is of BAME right, but there is no obligation as to what ethnicity this person is. So if Mr Scally were to offer an interview to someone like Nobby Solano who is South American, Mr Scally has fulfilled his obligation. Alternatively if he offered an interview to someone who is Asian, them again he's fulfilled this obligation so therefore he would not have any need to interview of a black skin colour if he did not choose to.
Click to expand...

More than that, the rule states that they have to interview a "suitably qualified" BAME candidate. A team can just decide that there were no "suitably qualified" candidates. Also I don't know how this is audited - Birmingham adhered to this rule apparently, and appointed Steve Cotterill as manager. Is it public knowledge who they received applications from, and who was interviewed?

Nobby Solano is quite dark skinned, maybe he does qualify as BAME? I don't think a white Frenchman would though.
 
With Solano being from Peru in South America, he would be identified in the Minor Ethnicity Group category due to the low population of people from South America living in the UK. Therefor if he was to receive an interview , this would then suffice for the criteria required for the Rooney rule in this instance.
 
If it's true that the club has made an approach for Steve Evans, how does this tally with the news story in the opening post?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.