Rooney Rule Take Two

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schoolreport/31907241

being a short fella, who's over 40, can I perhaps ask for a Rooney rule?

Well prove it.

Jesus christ, the lowest of the low argument there

Fantastic retort, if you have no proof or foundation for what is effectively slandering the whole FA then maybe you shouldn't say it in the first place and get upset when someone calls you up on it being a BS opinion.

Basically what youve said is "My argument is whether you have an argument or not" like a 5 year old saying prove it

I better be careful you might ban me for being childish.

I might now

I do have Malky Mackay, Dave Whelan and continued sexism and racism from the stands in my argument though

And of course Keith Curle and Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink have both said in the recent past that they don't support the Rooney Rule. A victory for common sense.

Its good there are two names that can be brought up. Thats a good percentage of the managers in the football league. So much so that thats half the black managers in England's football league system.

I despair for this country sometimes. People are so pig-headed. There's a fear of change so widespread that you'd think some miss the days of the blitz because they could call on "good old English spirit" that they don't think exists today. And now UKIP exists full of people who think England has lost the kind of spirit that fought the Nazis, the irony lost on them entirely.

The argument can call on Gordon Taylor, the whole PFA, American sports coaches who suggest the game should try it and have "nothing to lose", Paul Ince, Jason Roberts, Brendon Batson.

My eyes were opened to some of this by Out of His Skin: The John Barnes Phenomenon by Dave Hill. A cracking book.

If positive discrimination can put pay to negative discrimination, which would then put to bed the need for positive discrimination, then why is it a bad idea?

These nonsensical ramblings and generalisations of yours have little effect.

Positive discrimination is a bad idea because:

a) It's hypocritical. You can't defeat discrimination by discriminating.

b) It reinforces boundaries that modern society needs to move away. Rather than say, there are 68 white managers and four black managers in the Football League, for instance, shouldn't we be saying there are 72 football managers, of whom their skin colour is an irrelevance? Otherwise, how can society truly move away from these boundaries which reinforce supposed differences in race?

I do apologise, there is no need to bring politics in to here, although I do think there are links to the idiocy of some parties and attitudes towards prejudice.

But thats such a weak argument. The best way to fight a problem isnt to ignore it. Like you ignored all the relevant information from my point cos, really, you have no comeback to it.

What we would be doing is attempting to defeat prejudices by challenging them. A huge amount of people believe there to be prejudice in the sport. Why should we not take positive steps to stop that?

So far, you seem to fear that if we start here then where does it end. The point being that no one is suggesting anyone has to hire anyone. If the system has been shown to work and improve other sports, why not here?

To b, I wonder why the world would be so naive as to think hiding from a problem would defeat it. In many ways, it is similar to waging war to stop an evil. Did World War Two prevent more deaths than were caused by fighting? Or was it just the right move? Whilst you can justify reverse discrimination, there is no justifying ignoring the discrimination that is evident in football today.

Its probably worth noting here that "positive discrimination" in this example does not really compare to its use in the workplace. There would be no encouragement to hire the minority candidate, but merely that they are interviewed. Representation is huge in the battle against prejudice. The utopia where this isn't needed is not a world we live in. I see the point, but sadly we are not in a society where we can wish these things sort themselves out.

The best way to fight discrimination is logically and sensibly, not by discriminating.

Do you not see the paradoxical idiocy of positive discrimination, in that it just creates more discrimination? A eye-for-a-eye makes the whole world blind, after all.

If employers, or such like, are guilty of discrimination in their hiring policies, then they need to be dealt with by the law. As in being fined, removed from office, even custodial sentences.

And the same applies to football.

Not that there is any clear evidence, mind you, for discrimination within football.

If this supposed discrimination does exist towards non-white people in the footballing world, why does it only exist on the coaching and management section? Why not on the playing side as well?

And even if there were such evidence, it would be the height of foolishness to believe that discrimination can be defeated by discrimination.

In what sense? When evidence suggests it worked quite quickly in America?

The eye for an eye analogy doesn't work. It's not negative for a negative

And how can you prove endemic racism? With facts and figures that suggest under representation? By accounts from those who suggest discrimination?

It's like saying there's no proof of homophobia in football. Yet there are wide reports of there being far more gay players than we know who are too, maybe not scared, but certainly not comfortable coming out due to how people may react. And not personally, down to impact on their careers.

But you can't prove that, either.

Positive discrimination isn't even discrimination by definition of what discrimination is.

Again, what is there to lose?

Where does it end though dolphin? There are many asian people living in this country. Should they get an interview in front of an Hispanic woman?
Plus, the inevitable will happen, if not enough women or black people don't get sufficient jobs.

Why will the inevitable happen?
I'm hugely, hugely against positive discrimination (I want my kids to get a job based on suitability, quality for a job) but I don't see this as anything other than, lets get more people doing their coaching qualifications and we'll give them an interview, no guarantee of a job or anything.

As Dolph has said, it's been implemented in America with no issue's, are we now saying we're unable to cope with it?

Instead of having the usual merry go round of coaching, some of these people may come in with new ideas and actually give a club a new way of doing things.

The only issue seems to be people being afraid of change.

If and when a woman doesn't get one of these jobs, the goalposts will get moved, and it will be 'a percentage of all women interviewed have to get employed'. This is my problem with it. If there's a job going then a woman, like a black person, can apply. It should be up to the employer who they employ.

Frankly as ever, the Rooney Rule massively misses the point.

Rather than sticking a massively inferior candidate in a position out of their depth, you should focus on making them not inferior.

That's the idea GSC, to incourage people to take the courses, get the qualifications and at least get an interview (As said before Stella, the rule has been implemented in America with this not happening, if all you did was look at the worst case then nothing will ever change)

As Hampo (or Dolph) said, an ecouragement for more people to go for the coaching badges can only be a good thing (although also making them less expensive might be a start too)

But it doesn't encourage the employer.

9/10 in American football, a GM/Owner will grab the nearest minority candidate and give them a token interview before hiring who they actually want. And in this country there's far less emphasis on managers interviewing for a job. Make minorities better candidates than forcing them to be candidates.

Sometimes the world just ain't fair. And that is unlikely to ever change

How do you make minorities be better candidates in an old boys club like football?

Token interviews, why not!!!

Derby

If you're hugely against positive discrimination then why are you fine with this scenario?

Because it's an interview, it's no guarantee of a job but more of an incentive to take the courses and complete them.

I've go a similar thing going with the CCNA i'm doing at the moment.

I don't really see it any different than everyone complaining that not enough English managers/players are given a chance either.

I'll be honest, the prospect of a pointless interview down the line would not incentivise investing time and money in a course

Most people accept that on the whole, British managers aren't of a great quality

Derbymanc wrote:Because it's an interview, it's no guarantee of a job but more of an incentive to take the courses and complete them.

I've go a similar thing going with the CCNA i'm doing at the moment.

I don't really see it any different than everyone complaining that not enough English managers/players are given a chance either.

So, just give them an interview to shut them up?

When does the line get drawn? We don't have many if any asian managers. Why do you think a black person or woman should get an interview over an asian person?

So why should we push for more English managers or players in the game, where do we draw the line there?

If they're qualified then yes, why not. Because there doesn't seem to be any opportunities in the game for other than White middle aged men why should anyone spend their time getting the qualifications to try when (as it stands) you know your not even going to get a chance to get your foot in the door.

As our nation changes, then Football will follow suit. In time they'll hopefully be asian, women, and more black manager amongst the 92 teams. I'd just like to see it done in the right way, rather than the BS one.
Fanciful maybe?

Of course, having many more Paul Ince at Blackburn stints is entirely preferable to hiring more competent people.

Most accept that British managers generally aren't as good as those on the continent.

Of course it will, its why we have no issues with equality elsewher....................oh wait.

If my daughter came to me now and asked for the money to do coaching badges and get qualified, i'd advise her to look at something else as the opportunities for her just aren't there at any level. If in 5 years time we see more people getting the oportunity then i'd encourage her as she'd get a fair crack of the whip. As it stand the whip doesn't even get out of the holster.

Derbymanc wrote:Of course it will, its why we have no issues with equality elsewher....................oh wait.

If my daughter came to me now and asked for the money to do coaching badges and get qualified, i'd advise her to look at something else as the opportunities for her just aren't there at any level. If in 5 years time we see more people getting the oportunity then i'd encourage her as she'd get a fair crack of the whip. As it stand the whip doesn't even get out of the holster.

It's better than it was, and will continue to improve. People in general have different attitudes these days, whether it's to homosexuality, race, and sex.

Not as good as it should be though. (I really don't get why we have such a problem with equality, that woman does the same job as that geezer, pay her the same. That geezer has better qualifications than that fella, hire him etc)

Does anyone know of any reports etc as to why we have a problem with a lack of representation at every level?

As mentioned, life isn't fair. Female tennis players wanting the same money as men is a joke. Why do women get to retire earlier than men? A woman at work informed me this morning that Polish kids get free school milk. Why's that?

Derby, do you think there should be an increase in female pilots?

The bottom line is true equality will never happen. We aren't all born equal. It is the way of the world.

Can it get better, sure. I don't see the Rooney Rule helping anything though

Yes why not Hammer, are women not able to handle a plane?
So because life isn't fair it should stay that way Stella?
(Womens Tennis I agree on btw, if they want the same pay, play the same number of sets)
I thought the retirement age had been binned (well it has at our gaff)
Never heard of the Polish kids getting free milk at my kids school, they all get the same.

The free milk thing is likely to be based on Parents income, not nationality.

With that insanity i'm out, I will however add that 99.99% of women are unable to complete the training required to become a pilot due to the high G Forces but it's bizarrely been adapted.

Can you link us to a report on that then HH as i've never heard of that before, and that makes it a totally different proposition.

If you physically can't do a job for whatever reason then of course you shouldn't do it. If your saying someone shouldn't do a job just because they're female then frankly your an idiot.

Oh and which part was insanity then?

Nakatomi Plaza wrote:The free milk thing is likely to be based on Parents income, not nationality.

It's to do with the EU, apparently.

The polish kids at my daughters school never had free milk GSC. Not sure what females being physically unable to pilot a plane due to G forces has to do with football management. Maybe we should discuss why there aren't more women doing the bins, adds about the same to the discussion.

Think your being told a porkie Stella, all kids under 5 are entitled to free milk at school

hampo171 wrote:The polish kids at my daughters school never had free milk GSC. Not sure what females being physically unable to pilot a plane due to G forces has to do with football management. Maybe we should discuss why there aren't more women doing the bins, adds about the same to the discussion.

That was me talking milk. Maybe it was just for her school?

Maybe this woman at work is a bit of an idiot?

Derbymanc wrote:Can you link us to a report on that then HH as i've never heard of that before, and that makes it a totally different proposition.

If you physically can't do a job for whatever reason then of course you shouldn't do it. If your saying someone shouldn't do a job just because they're female then frankly your an idiot.

Oh and which part was insanity then?

The insanity is again people debating upon something they have not researched, too many people want to be seen as not being racist or sexist that they think these ridiculous ideas are a great one, they have no reasoning behind it other than 'it's equality'.

Sorry Stella, I've not heard of it in my area at all mate. I know they do a scheme as someone mentioned based on parents income, open to everyone.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:Maybe this woman at work is a bit of an idiot?

She's not. I don't know the ins and outs, granted.

hampo171 wrote:Sorry Stella, I've not heard of it in my area at all mate. I know they do a scheme as someone mentioned based on parents income, open to everyone.

Don't go there.

Insanity? You've just used an argument that has no bearing on this point then wandered off. I could flood this with articles and research but the problem is this view that positive discrimination in a world full of prejudice is some sort of problem.

Firstly, the Rooney Rule here would more likely be about minority candidates rather than just black managers, equally in asking why aren't there more Asian managers I would think you should ask why a country with such an influx of British Asians still hasn't produced any high profile players of that ilk.

It stinks to me of people being contrary because they don't understand what it's like to be discriminated against

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Can you link us to a report on that then HH as i've never heard of that before, and that makes it a totally different proposition.

If you physically can't do a job for whatever reason then of course you shouldn't do it. If your saying someone shouldn't do a job just because they're female then frankly your an idiot.

Oh and which part was insanity then?

The insanity is again people debating upon something they have not researched, too many people want to be seen as not being racist or sexist that they think these ridiculous ideas are a great one, they have no reasoning behind it other than 'it's equality'.

Nope if I was educated more about pilots and you shown me that there was a bona fida reason (other than, 'thats how it's always been done') why someone shouldn't be allowed to do a certain job then i'd agree with you.

You didn't and asked a question designed for you to be able to throw your hands in the air and say 'ha ha, you know nothing, i'm right'. (although i've never seen anything that states a woman cant fly a plane)

Why is it such a ridiculous idea, without using hyperbole (OMG this means they're going to force women/minority's into taking LVG's job) explain to me why it's a dumb idea when it's worked in America?