Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Rooney Rule

12467

Comments

  • edited January 9

    So according to the FA guy on SSN

    the Rooney rule is simple

    “take the role of England manager, they have to have the right technical qualifications so that would be their professional coaching badges and you have got to have managed a club. Provided on meeting that criteria, on the shortlist for that job would be a BAME candidate”

    So if they advertised for the England job tomorrow, Chris Powell, Jacob Lester, Chris Hughton, JFH or Keith Curle would be interviewed for the highest job in English football if one of then applied even though none of them have completed a season of managing at premiership level let alone won anything

    Like every other England manager then.
    Yeah what’s Sven or Capello ever won as managers.
    *English. Kinda meant in more recent memory too.
  • thenewbie said:

    So according to the FA guy on SSN

    the Rooney rule is simple

    “take the role of England manager, they have to have the right technical qualifications so that would be their professional coaching badges and you have got to have managed a club. Provided on meeting that criteria, on the shortlist for that job would be a BAME candidate”

    So if they advertised for the England job tomorrow, Chris Powell, Jacob Lester, Chris Hughton, JFH or Keith Curle would be interviewed for the highest job in English football if one of then applied even though none of them have completed a season of managing at premiership level let alone won anything

    Like every other England manager then.
    Yeah what’s Sven or Capello ever won as managers.
    And look how much they won with the England team...
    That wasn’t his point
  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    No these were so called indentured engineers
  • edited January 9
    Mc Bobbin


    I was going to have a go at that. But i'm discriminated against, as my nationality isn't listed.
  • I am not against anybody.. The fact that my two immediate bosses are women and i spend half my day explaining their job is irrelevant, and of course their on more money than me, but hey ho.
  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    No its called the race card.
  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    No its called the race card.
    Maybe it's cos I'm not white, but I'm all in favour of the "race card" being played as many times as necessary to ensure a truly equal society.

    Some goes with the LGBT card, or feminism card, and so on.
  • Also lol at who I presume is a white man explaining racial injustice to me. Come be a chink/slit-eye like me, see how it feels. And we don't get anywhere near the worst of it.
  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    No its called the race card.
    Maybe it's cos I'm not white, but I'm all in favour of the "race card" being played as many times as necessary to ensure a truly equal society.

    Some goes with the LGBT card, or feminism card, and so on.
    So as a white man are you now saying your glad i am dis-advanted if i have no card to play.
  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    No its called the race card.
    Maybe it's cos I'm not white, but I'm all in favour of the "race card" being played as many times as necessary to ensure a truly equal society.

    Some goes with the LGBT card, or feminism card, and so on.
    So as a white man are you now saying your glad i am dis-advanted if i have no card to play.
    You hold all the other cards, though.
  • Sponsored links:


  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    No its called the race card.
    Maybe it's cos I'm not white, but I'm all in favour of the "race card" being played as many times as necessary to ensure a truly equal society.

    Some goes with the LGBT card, or feminism card, and so on.
    So as a white man are you now saying your glad i am dis-advanted if i have no card to play.
    You hold all the other cards, though.
    If i had your view i would be deemed a racist
  • Long ago, I remember on the Ben Elton show a spoof sketch called the "oompah Winfrey show". A lady was suing her parents because she was upset at having nothing to complain about. Not sure what made me think of that.

    They also had someone suing the people "who would have adopted her had she been up for adoption" for 25 years worth of birthday and Christmas presents.
  • Surely the whole BAME exercise is racist as it dsicriminates against possibly interviewing the best candidates. if followed to its logical conculsion why not just appoint the first striped tall short disabled multigendered person who has done a coaching badge
  • edited January 9
    .
  • I think we need @Leuth to come and put this one bed. This is going round in circles.
  • So according to the FA guy on SSN

    the Rooney rule is simple

    “take the role of England manager, they have to have the right technical qualifications so that would be their professional coaching badges and you have got to have managed a club. Provided on meeting that criteria, on the shortlist for that job would be a BAME candidate”

    So if they advertised for the England job tomorrow, Chris Powell, Jacob Lester, Chris Hughton, JFH or Keith Curle would be interviewed for the highest job in English football if one of then applied even though none of them have completed a season of managing at premiership level let alone won anything

    And therein lies the problem. The Rooney Rule originated in a sport where a significant proportion of those applying for and qualified to fill roles are non-white and there was evidence of ingrained discrimination against non-whites and their difficulty in even getting their foot in the door, let alone getting the position. Also of note is the fact that the sport is exclusively played in one country where 3/10 of the population are non-white.

    Whereas in the UK with (association) football, whilst there is clearly a lack of diversity in top management positions when compared to the UK population, there is not, as far as I am aware, as wide a body of evidence as there was in the USA that this is due to discrimination and as you highlight is more likely down to the fact that there are simply not enough non-white candidates, as well as the fact that, unlike the USA, UK teams go abroad for many of their manager/coach appointments and the countries that most non-UK managers/coaches come from are predominantly white. The reason why there are not enough non-white candidates is worth inspecting but a Rooney Rule here simply is not going to correct that specific problem because the Rooney Rule only deals with getting candidates a foot in the door, as opposed to making sure the candidate pool is diverse enough. The situation you highlight is ridiculous but it is the logical consequence of this rule being imported here. Maybe the managers you listed above could start a Whatsapp group to see how many more interview offers they get or which one will be interviewed next time we change England manager (!).
  • Once again the FA completely miss the point.

    The first thing they should do is reduce the cost of gaining coaching qualifications in the country, making it more affordable for all whether you’re white, black or green. Better affordability would mean a greater percentage of minority representation, especially in inner city football associations like London FA.

    Nail on the head... The Rooney rule is inherently racist
  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    So you agree they have got special treatment for being a minority? Bollocks to that, even if you believe thay society is "tailored towards white people", it should not effect a free-market economy, and expecting a correction at the the expense of a firm is an absolutely outrageous position to hold.
  • Sponsored links:


  • FA are dying for a qualified or something they can spin as qualified black manager for the England job.

    Maybe Chris Hughton? Certainly more qualified than Southgate.

    I imagine Hughton would be far more interested in the Ireland job anyway
  • CAFCsayer said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    So you agree they have got special treatment for being a minority? Bollocks to that, even if you believe thay society is "tailored towards white people", it should not effect a free-market economy, and expecting a correction at the the expense of a firm is an absolutely outrageous position to hold.
    Well, I don't fundamentally agree with capitalism, but that's another issue.

    As for the situation above - Chippy appears to say that equally incompetent workers were fired from different backgrounds. Then, the BAME employee(s) was/were re-hired. In this instance I would say this was pretty fair.
  • PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    PaddyP17 said:

    All this is total crap just like a certain percentage of MPs must be male or female. What next a certain must be BGLT/Bald or fat/thin... Ridiculous, best person for the job end of story.

    I hope you read my post immediately after yours. But if you don't, to sum it up:

    Yes, best person for the job. However, society has been historically racist (and in some ways may still be, but I'm not an expert), which means white people/white men tend to have everything set out tailored to them, which is an artificial and unjust head start.
    I have found the opposite, i have worked with/ been in charge of people of ethnic minority and of course white people who both wernt up to the job but have been sacked purely out of incompetence. But of course some were reinstated. Leave it to you to guess who.
    Minorities. Because they'd find it harder to get back onto the job ladder than a white person.

    Again, yes - these are artificial legs up. But necessary, because society has been tailored towards white people (and in particular white men) for centuries.
    No its called the race card.
    Maybe it's cos I'm not white, but I'm all in favour of the "race card" being played as many times as necessary to ensure a truly equal society.

    Some goes with the LGBT card, or feminism card, and so on.
    So as a white man are you now saying your glad i am dis-advanted if i have no card to play.
    You hold all the other cards, though.
    If i had your view i would be deemed a racist
    What do you think my view is?!
  • DPFC said:

    Surely the whole BAME exercise is racist as it dsicriminates against possibly interviewing the best candidates. if followed to its logical conculsion why not just appoint the first striped tall short disabled multigendered person who has done a coaching badge

    It's not like there's a cap on the number of people that can be interviewed.

    And how is that the logical conclusion? I would have thought the aim (rather than logical conclusion) is to ensure an equal playing field. Because there sure as hell isn't one now.
  • I would like to know what the percentage of black managers in relation to those ex players who took their badges. You have to know where you have to take action - is it about encouraging more to do so, or are the numbers the same and do you have to address why they are not getting the same opportunity.

  • I would like to know what the percentage of black managers in relation to those ex players who took their badges. You have to know where you have to take action - is it about encouraging more to do so, or are the numbers the same and do you have to address why they are not getting the same opportunity.

    Good point. Want to see where the bottlenecks are. Id be interested first in seeing the proportion of BAME players, then the proportion who get coaching badges (I appreciate that not only players get the badges) then the proportion that get coaching roles, then management roles. Wherever the proportion drops is where to have a look. I suspect it's sooner than the interview stage, but that's based on nothing.
  • PaddyP17 said:

    CAFCsayer said:

    Once again the FA completely miss the point.

    The first thing they should do is reduce the cost of gaining coaching qualifications in the country, making it more affordable for all whether you’re white, black or green. Better affordability would mean a greater percentage of minority representation, especially in inner city football associations like London FA.

    Nail on the head... The Rooney rule is inherently racist
    Hahahaha because it discriminates against white people?!

    I'm going to have an arbitrary situation here so bear with me. Say there are 10 people to be interviewed for a job. Previously, all 10 were white. Now it's 9 white people and 1 non-white. We are seeing a 10% decrease in white candidacy, but an [infinite]% increase in BAME candidacy. That's still overwhelmingly in favour of the white people.

    And yet, trying to level the playing field is racist. Fucking lol
    If the previous 1white person was better suited for the job than the new black guy who gets interviewed, yes it is, he could have been the best for the job. It isn't in favour of white people at all, you can argue that social constructs may be against people of an ethnic background, but to suggest that interviewing a black guy because he's black leaves a situation that favours white people makes a mockery of the situation.
  • PaddyP17 said:

    CAFCsayer said:

    Once again the FA completely miss the point.

    The first thing they should do is reduce the cost of gaining coaching qualifications in the country, making it more affordable for all whether you’re white, black or green. Better affordability would mean a greater percentage of minority representation, especially in inner city football associations like London FA.

    Nail on the head... The Rooney rule is inherently racist
    Hahahaha because it discriminates against white people?!

    I'm going to have an arbitrary situation here so bear with me. Say there are 10 people to be interviewed for a job. Previously, all 10 were white. Now it's 9 white people and 1 non-white. We are seeing a 10% decrease in white candidacy, but an [infinite]% increase in BAME candidacy. That's still overwhelmingly in favour of the white people.

    And yet, trying to level the playing field is racist. Fucking lol
    PaddyP17 said:

    DPFC said:

    Surely the whole BAME exercise is racist as it dsicriminates against possibly interviewing the best candidates. if followed to its logical conculsion why not just appoint the first striped tall short disabled multigendered person who has done a coaching badge

    It's not like there's a cap on the number of people that can be interviewed.

    And how is that the logical conclusion? I would have thought the aim (rather than logical conclusion) is to ensure an equal playing field. Because there sure as hell isn't one now.
    You've literally just argued against your own point... Interview the them too, don't set a quota
Sign In or Register to comment.