She was given 40g and told the rest wouldn't be given to her unless she signed a favourable to the FA statement,she gave evidence to the MP's yesterday and the fa had to appologise for the treatment of her and she has been proven right,you have the same tone a lot of men in here have that she is the one who is in the wrong,she is not
Hopefully, everyone at the top table of the FA will be sacked or forced to resign.
Then English football might have a chance to rebuild.
Why would you not believe her? a whistleblower is always the one who gets the hard time,we all know the FA are are steaming pile of shitsters,she wouldn't take on an entire organisation on a lieThat was her statement, but I thought it was her opinion of what happened.
The FA denied that was the case, didn't they?
The FA apologised for the remarks made to her by FA employees (based on the barrister's second review), but I don't think they apologised for anything else.
I agree with that, it seems the funding the FA receives from Sport England is dependent on abiding by their code of conduct which prevents the FA chairman from commenting on such disputes.The chairman pointed out that he's not allowed to get involved, by regulation; people still asked him for his opinion (external and internal - the 'outrage' over the 14 word email is misplaced in my view).
Surely the counter to that is that if the FA had hard evidence to back up their denials then a parliamentary hearing would be the ideal place to produce it, but they didn't, they didn't even claim that they had the evidence as far as I can tell.If anything the FA people said was not true, I would expect a hack to be able to raise it by today's papers;
She was given 40g and told the rest wouldn't be given to her unless she signed a favourable to the FA statement,she gave evidence to the MP's yesterday and the fa had to appologise for the treatment of her and she has been proven right,you have the same tone a lot of men in here have that she is the one who is in the wrong,she is not
Well that view depends on whose evidence you believe. Aluko says that the FA made the second half of the £80k settlement dependent on her issuing a public statement saying that the FA was not institutionally racist, which she refused to do. The FA chief exec Martin Glenn denies this.
One thing that stood out for me from the hearing was the fact that centrally contracted footballers had no clearly set out grievance procedures to follow (in contrast to the FA's paid employees) - the FA's staggering levels of incompetence show no sign of disappearing anytime soon.
I agree with that, it seems the funding the FA receives from Sport England is dependent on abiding by their code of conduct which prevents the FA chairman from commenting on such disputes.
Surely the counter to that is that if the FA had hard evidence to back up their denials then a parliamentary hearing would be the ideal place to produce it, but they didn't, they didn't even claim that they had the evidence as far as I can tell.
Why would you not believe her? a whistleblower is always the one who gets the hard time,we all know the FA are are steaming pile of shitsters,she wouldn't take on an entire organisation on a lie
Sorry i misunderstood youKaren, I had no tone in my question other than an interrogative tone. Often written words can be interpreted differently than they were meant. If you think I had an agenda that is how you interpreted not how it was meant.