Paul Ince is he deluded or does he have a point? (3 Viewers)

[Covstu]

Discrimination is out there and clear there is no two ways about it. There was a asian chap who wasnt getting much luck in the job market, he changed his name to an English sounding name and got interviews galore. Needless to say that he made claims against all of these companies for discrimination.

As for football, i think more work needs to be done at the coaching level so instead of coming in as manager this should be more at number 2 level. Lets face it no manager with little or no experience should get a job in the premier league as a manager. I suppose its the equivalent of applying for Director roles when coming out of university. They must earn their stripes but some form of programme that helps this would greatly improve the chances of black managers of getting managerial jobs down the line. They then have more on their CV, badges etc and we would see an increase in numbers.

Football is still a old boys brigade so its more about who you know rather than what you know in alot of cases (only have to look at the current situation in Newcastle!). The club legend status does help in alot of cases also but top black players are not moving into management (or been shunned maybe?) but take the likes of Ian Wright, Dion Dublin to name two have moved into broadcasting and been very successful. This is never really about numbers its about fairness and equality.

 

---

[mrtrench]

I have an Msc in Applied Economics....I understand statistics thanks. Please tell me how that strengthens your argument? It has been highlighted that some people who have applied for a lot of managerial jobs are black. That is all right? Yet you conclude that this means there is an obvious implicit racism in football. And that clubs should be forced to interview a black candidate. That is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard

OK, I'll take you at your word and assume that you are intelligent. Although I dispute the assumption that an Economist by definition understands statistics. Here's the argument, would be happy to hear where you think it is flawed.

1. Hypothesis is that black people are not misrepresented in football management. Sample size is all football clubs in the 4 main leagues. If we assume that almost universally ex-managers are also ex-players, we compare proportion of players between 10 and 40 years ago to the proportion of managers today. We conclude that the hypothesis is significantly false.

2. Given 1, we propose that black people are misrepresented in football management because they are less talented at football management than white people. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, it is not logical to assume it is the case and the sample size is big enough to reject the hypothesis.

Hence by contradiction black people are misrepresented in football management for a reason other than ability.

This is the definition of racism.

 

[Huckerby]

Um.

It wasn't logical. It was a non-sequitur. So it shouldn't be applied to my argument or any other.

So no, it's not the same thing.

My ego isn't too big to prevent me from conceding when I don't understand something. I don't understand your point here...what I was trying to get across was that the non-sequitur statement (I literally had to google "non-sequitur"!) you posted is the same argument people are trying to use to claim that there is an implicit racism in football. Just because black people are under-represented doesn't mean they are being discriminated against..?

OK, I'll take you at your word and assume that you are intelligent. Although I dispute the assumption that an Economist by definition understands statistics. Here's the argument, would be happy to hear where you think it is flawed.

1. Hypothesis is that black people are not misrepresented in football management. Sample size is all football clubs in the 4 main leagues. If we assume that almost universally ex-managers are also ex-players, we compare proportion of players between 10 and 40 years ago to the proportion of managers today. We conclude that the hypothesis is significantly false.

2. Given 1, we propose that black people are misrepresented in football management because they are less talented at football management than white people. There is no evidence to suggest that this is the case, it is not logical to assume it is the case and the sample size is big enough to reject the hypothesis.

Yeh I wouldn't say by definition an Economist necessarily understands statistics, but the nature of an applied Economics course is really quite quantitative and uses Econometrics and other boring regression/statistical analysis to try and prove/disprove theories/models.

Accept that you can confidently reject the hypothesis in 1, but I wouldn't say you could reject 2 quite to easily. Also the wording of it is misleading..it gives the impression that I was stating that those (would-be) managers are less talented at football management because they are black (if I've misinterpreted that I apologise). More so that the men are less talented at football management and just so happen to be black. Nevertheless, I concede that this is arguable somewhat improbable so, you can have it. Reject it.

The part where I think it is flawed is that next bit.

Hence by contradiction black people are misrepresented in football management for a reason other than ability.

This is the definition of racism.

That is a very large jump. Could it not be that, perhaps, there is some omitted variable bias here? Is it not possible that due to some other circumstance, characteristic, or culture they are mis-represented? Perhaps a good proportion of the black players come from overseas and therefore have no desire to become managers (edit: in this country). Maybe they are more committed to their families than white people and would prefer to spend their remaining days after their playing careers spending time with their loved ones. Maybe, just maybe, they might even feel like there is an inherent racism in the game and they don't feel confident enough to go on and manage. This could be the case because people merely purport that there is.

I'm not saying that any one of the above is the reason necessarily. I'm also not just being a belligerent tosser here, I just think it is really narrow minded to think that there is no other reason whatsoever that black people are misrepresented in football management, other than ability or racism.

 

[limoncello]

Could it not be that, perhaps, there is some omitted variable bias here? Is it not possible that due to some other circumstance, characteristic, or culture they are mis-represented? Perhaps a good proportion of the black players come from overseas and therefore have no desire to become managers (edit: in this country). Maybe they are more committed to their families than white people and would prefer to spend their remaining days after their playing careers spending time with their loved ones. Maybe, just maybe, they might even feel like there is an inherent racism in the game and they don't feel confident enough to go on and manage. This could be the case because people merely purport that there is.

I've tried to stay out of this but, quite frankly, you're an idiot.

 

[hill83]

Could it not be that, perhaps, there is some omitted variable bias here? Is it not possible that due to some other circumstance, characteristic, or culture they are mis-represented?

I'm at a loss here. This is racism mate. Saying 'Could it not be' before it doesn't make any difference.

 

[lordsummerisle]

The way some go on you'd think that White, English males are some of the most persecuted through the ages.

 

[mrtrench]

That is a very large jump. Could it not be that, perhaps, there is some omitted variable bias here? Is it not possible that due to some other circumstance, characteristic, or culture they are mis-represented? Perhaps a good proportion of the black players come from overseas and therefore have no desire to become managers (edit: in this country). Maybe they are more committed to their families than white people and would prefer to spend their remaining days after their playing careers spending time with their loved ones. Maybe, just maybe, they might even feel like there is an inherent racism in the game and they don't feel confident enough to go on and manage. This could be the case because people merely purport that there is.

I'm not saying that any one of the above is the reason necessarily. I'm also not just being a belligerent tosser here, I just think it is really narrow minded to think that there is no other reason whatsoever that black people are misrepresented in football management, other than ability or racism.

I think that we are very close to agreeing with each other. I accept some of your points, especially the one about black people perceiving racism and not trying as hard as a result (not individuals - as a whole, statistically). This is precisely why I call it implicit racism not explicit. Let's follow the route of 'not trying so hard' for a moment. If there were a Rooney Rule, then this could give them the confidence that they have a chance and hence break the vicious circle. Moreover, their perception has to come from somewhere. Can we imagine that they have just a 10% lower chance of landing a job (that doesn't seem unreasonable - there are plenty of publicised incidents of figures in the game making racist comments incl. our very own large Ron). That 10% might well result in two of a given person's mates not getting a job, so that person doesn't bother and the impact is that there are no black managers at all. Or even the fact that there are no serving black managers could create such a feeling of apathy or disenchantment.

Or let's look at this from another angle. Are we honestly saying that every single white manager is better and more skilled than every single black candidate? It beggars belief - cannot be so. Hence I conclude there is IMPLICIT racism inherent in the environment. Possibly no single director ever deliberately excludes - but the combination of all the factors brings the result that black people are misrepresented due to the colour of their skin. The Rooney Rule, a no blame, harmless & non-forcing rule, might just be the hammer needed to break the circle. Once it is broken I suspect the rule could be retired and everyone would think back and say "I cannot believe it when I think there were no black managers - how could that have been so?"

Would be interested discussing economics with you in the pub (metaphorically). I studied Maths but am very interested in Economics too - a fact that has caused me to have no natural political party to support: support a liberal (small l) caring social policy but a Conservative economic policy.

 

[SkyBlueSid]

People get on in football on merit. If a player is good enough, he gets to play. No different for managers, they are all hired and fired based on results. Some may talk a good game to get a job, (like Dowie did) but ultimately you get judged on what your team does.

Ince has a poor record as a manager. He has had a few chances and shown he is not up to it. Blackpool showed how he carries on. His disciplinary hearing when he was threatening to hit officials was reported verbatim by the FA online and it makes it very clear what a nasty piece of work Ince really is. I believe that clubs will be aware of that and it is unlikely any will take a chance on him again. It is all of his own making.

 

[Evo1883]

Football is clearly a racist sport in 2014 , i mean there are no black players in the english game at all , im totally disgusted lol

 

[Deleted member 5849]

black players in the english game

That's kind of the point though...

 

[bigfatronssba]

99.9% of football chairman are motivated by money. Money comes from having the best players and best managers.

Are we really supposed to believe that a money mad chairman would turn down the millions associated with football success because of the colour of a person? Anyone can see that pretty much every chairman in the country would put Robert Mugabe in charge if they thought he could get them success.

Also with this ridiculous Rooney Rule where a chairman has to interview a certain amount of blacks, what happens if no black blokes fancy the job? Are they then forced to apply? Does someone go out into the street and drag in the first black guy they see?


Seems suspiciously like getting the house/token black in to me.


How can people claim this is about fighting racism, when it encourages judging people on skin colour?

 

[Grendel]

99.9% of football chairman are motivated by money. Money comes from having the best players and best managers.

Are we really supposed to believe that a money mad chairman would turn down the millions associated with football success because of the colour of a person? Anyone can see that pretty much every chairman in the country would put Robert Mugabe in charge if they thought he could get them success.

Also with this ridiculous Rooney Rule where a chairman has to interview a certain amount of blacks, what happens if no black blokes fancy the job? Are they then forced to apply? Does someone go out into the street and drag in the first black guy they see?


Seems suspiciously like getting the house/token black in to me.


How can people claim this is about fighting racism, when it encourages judging people on skin colour?

You chose your user name very wisely.

 

[Grendel]

Football is clearly a racist sport in 2014 , i mean there are no black players in the english game at all , im totally disgusted lol

By your own absurd statement you at least acknowledge the gross homophobia that exists in football.

 

[bigfatronssba]

You chose your user name very wisely.

Care to be man enough to say what you mean rather than make snide cowardly remarks?

 

[Grendel]

Care to be man enough to say what you mean rather than make snide cowardly remarks?

In sorry? Do you think Big Ron is a racist?

 

[bigfatronssba]

In sorry? Do you think Big Ron is a racist?

I think he said a racist comment.

Do you think the first manager to field 3 black players in a single game would be prejudiced against black people?

 

[Grendel]

I think he said a racist comment.

Do you think the first manager to field 3 black players in a single game would be prejudiced against black people?

No but I do think his archaic attitude is symptomatic of the issues in football.

It is insidiously racist, sexist and homophobic. Board rooms are like a 70's social club.

As I said your response on this thread serves your user name well. He'd be in denial as you are .

 

[bigfatronssba]

No but I do think his archaic attitude is symptomatic of the issues in football.

It is insidiously racist, sexist and homophobic. Board rooms are like a 70's social club.

As I said your response on this thread serves your user name well. He'd be in denial as you are .

Ok, so you think the way to solve race discrimination is to discriminate?

The problem I have with politically correct people such as yourself is you judge on words not actions. If Churchill were alive today the liberal intellectuals would brand him a racist due to his politically incorrect language, despite the fact he did more than anyone in world history to fight racial hatred.

 

[Grendel]

Ok, so you think the way to solve race discrimination is to discriminate?

The problem I have with politically correct people such as yourself is you judge on words not actions. If Churchill were alive today the liberal intellectuals would brand him a racist due to his politically incorrect language, despite the fact he did more than anyone in world history to fight racial hatred.

I suggest you read up on Churchill to analyse his true motivations to defeat Hitler .

Also I suggest you look at the reasons why he was defeated soon afterwards .

 

[bigfatronssba]

I suggest you read up on Churchill to analyse his true motivations to defeat Hitler .

Also I suggest you look at the reasons why he was defeated soon afterwards .

Point proven. Your more interested in why he did something rather than what he actually did. That's no different to the upper class lefties who come out with this PC rubbish. They don't care about racial integration, they have their own agenda to pursue.

He was defeated because after fighting a war for 6 years and the economic hardships of the 1930's people wanted a welfare state to look after them.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Ok, so you think the way to solve race discrimination is to discriminate?

Why would offering a black manager an interview be considered 'discrimination'?

 

[bigfatronssba]

Why would offering a black manager an interview be considered 'discrimination'?

They would have offered someone an interview based on their colour, not their ability.

Therefore someone who is black gets an interview based on their skin colour.

Someone who is white will not get an interview based on their skin colour.

That is discrimination.

How is that fair?

 

[Colonel Mustard]

They would have offered someone an interview based on their colour, not their ability.

They would have all the necessary qualifications, so their ability would be judged.

Therefore someone who is black gets an interview based on their skin colour.

Someone who is white will not get an interview based on their skin colour.

That is discrimination.

How is that fair?

98% of managers are white. How on earth can you cry discrimination in their favour?

 

[bigfatronssba]

They would have all the necessary qualifications, so their ability would be judged.



98% of managers are white. How on earth can you cry discrimination in their favour?

Their ability would be judged second to their skin colour.

98% of managers are white, so what? Your arguing that its acceptable to discriminate against them?

Discrimination is either wrong or it isn't. Discriminating against white people is just as wrong as discriminating against black people.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Their ability would be judged second to their skin colour.

No - that's what's already happening. That's why there needs to be change.

98% of managers are white, so what? Your arguing that its acceptable to discriminate against them?

They are not being discriminated against. A board can interview 3,000 white managers if they wish, and are under no obligation to hire a black manager.

Discrimination is either wrong or it isn't. Discriminating against white people is just as wrong as discriminating against black people.

They are not being discriminated against...

 

[stupot07]

Their ability would be judged second to their skin colour.

98% of managers are white, so what? Your arguing that its acceptable to discriminate against them?

Discrimination is either wrong or it isn't. Discriminating against white people is just as wrong as discriminating against black people.

It's been proven to work in NFL that we're experiencing the same issues. There are also a large number of employers including public services who run a similar scheme for people who have disabilities. Are you saying that the nhs, councils, and other organisations shouldn't be doing that? In both cases they have to meet the minimum criteria for the job, they just don't drag a random in off the street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

 

[bigfatronssba]

No - that's what's already happening. That's why there needs to be change.



They are not being discriminated against. A board can interview 3,000 white managers if they wish, and are under no obligation to hire a black manager.



They are not being discriminated against...

It is discrimination.

Black guy gets a chance to prove himself during an interview based purely on his skin colour. White guy isn't allowed that. The white guy can only get an interview based on his CV.

Its back door racism.

 

[mrtrench]

the upper class lefties.

Upper class lefties? ha ha ha. I had decided not to reply to this thread any more, due to the ridiculous uneducated Neanderthal comments from Wood End's finest. However, hearing someone claim there are upper class lefties just makes me laugh. Who are these 'upper class lefties' exactly? Name one.

 

[mrtrench]

Its back door racism.

You, sir, are a wanker.

 

[bigfatronssba]

It's been proven to work in NFL that we're experiencing the same issues. There are also a large number of employers including public services who run a similar scheme for people who have disabilities. Are you saying that the nhs, councils, and other organisations shouldn't be doing that? In both cases they have to meet the minimum criteria for the job, they just don't drag a random in off the street.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

I wholeheartedly disagree that public sector organisations should be doing that. The blatant racism that exists in some of these organisations is disgusting. I actually posted a link on here about a year ago for a job advertised at the Transport Museum which said in its advert no white applicants please.

I am against racism and discrimination in all its forms. Colour blindness should be what is promoted, and nothing else.

 

[bigfatronssba]

Upper class lefties? ha ha ha. I had decided not to reply to this thread any more, due to the ridiculous uneducated Neanderthal comments from Wood End's finest. However, hearing someone claim there are upper class lefties just makes me laugh. Who are these 'upper class lefties' exactly? Name one.

Tony Benn for a start. How many more names would you like?

 

[bigfatronssba]

You, sir, are a wanker.

Mature way to debate.

Resort to name calling, puts you on the same level as the brain dead racists.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

It is discrimination. Black guy gets a chance to prove himself during an interview based purely on his skin colour.

No. The black candidate would be selected at the board's discretion, i.e. the man/men they feel are well-qualified.

White guy isn't allowed that. The white guy can only get an interview based on his CV.

The white candidate doesn't need to do that! They are not at risk of racial discrimination and are no less likely to get the interview because of a Rooney Rule.

Fucking hell.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I am against racism and discrimination in all its forms. Colour blindness should be what is promoted, and nothing else.

How, exactly, do you think colour blindness has been coming about? It is precisely because of initiatives like positive discrimination and political correctness (from those darn lefties).

 

[bigfatronssba]

How, exactly, do you think colour blindness has been coming about? It is precisely because of initiatives like positive discrimination and political correctness (from those darn lefties).

So colour blindness has come about from analysing the colour of peoples skin? Do you realise how contradictory that sounds?

Also I've highlighted a key word there. Even you admit its discrimination.