How do you think those comments made the players in question feel? Whether he meant to be offensive or not (and I have my opinion) the impact on those players is the same. Their careers, their mental health, their lives may be affected forever.
It makes a complete and utter mockery of all efforts taken to combat racism in football. Next time the FA say they're doing enough, people will rightly point to this case as proof that they don't take it remotely seriously enough. The Bayo case had pretty much the same outcome, with the offender getting let off the hook because their comments were deemed 'not objectively racist.
No abuse from me @DevC. I broadly agree with what you say. There are encouraging trends (baby steps I think is the popular phrase) but I’m far from convinced that workplaces have been cleansed to the extent that you suggest.
Beyond the workplace (admittedly amongst the elderly retired community I’m mainly in touch with these days) things don’t seem to have changed much. Friends emailed me about a month ago to let me know that Jim Davidson was due to appear at the Wycombe Swan (I think next month) and did we want to join them. My initial reaction was to think they must be jesting. Rather than get into an argument with friends we’ve known for decades and whose company (including on holiday) we’ve generally enjoyed , I simply said that we weren’t interested. I still don’t know if it was a windup but, sadly, I suspect not.
The only other comment I have is on your use of the word “actions” in relation to what, I assume, have only been words on Yems’ part.
I agree Chris which is why I think it is appropriate that a severe sanction should be applied. In practice, he has been sacked for gross misconduct but in addition banned from future employment for a further 18 months (I believe sanction applies from now) and in reality he will never work in his chosen industry again.
What sanction would you have chosen, given the conclusion of the panel based on the evidence presented to them was that this was a case of a guy causing real harm inadvertently rather than by intent.
Absolutely @ReturnToSenda. I swerved the FA response element in my personal viewpoint post about attitudes in society more widely but the FA response is totally outrageous.
You're right in the broad sense Dev, people claim offense at a lot of things no one noticed ten minutes ago. But, the things Yems said have never been acceptable in the mainstream, and neither should they be.
I'm not sure there's really that much difference between someone so ignorant that they're "accidentally" racist, and someone so ignorant that they're deliberately racist. Also see absolutely no point in trying to differentiate.
If John Yams was truly racist then Crawley Town wouldn't have had any non-white players. So I don't think it was racism but i don't think it was banter either. I'm guessing if the players started calling him 'grand dad' or 'gammon' they'd soon discover that the banter only went one way. It was a power trip.
But aside from that who wants to employ a manager who still thinks it's the 1970's? I wouldn't expect him to roll up for training in a Skepta t-shirt but at the same time he ought to have some idea of how young people think, especially as his entire job is working with them.
There's no way that manager hasn't been exposed to and involved in anti-racism initiatives and doesn't know the context and possible harm caused by the kind of comments he's been making, it's far too easy to excuse it because it might not have been illegal or unacceptable to some a few decades ago. It would have been unnaceptable to many a good long time ago, and as a manager and leader of people to basically not care and prioritise his popularity over the wellbeing of his players is disgusting tbh. Even if he has some black friends....
On a more general point than this particular case, there is an increasing trend, fuelled by the internet I think, to not trust the detailed investigation and conclusion reached by our representatives appointed to take the time to investigate the true detailed facts of the case in question and instead believe that we are qualified to know better the "truth" of the case and to form our own judgement of the "truth" based not on the detailed evidence but on a few selected headlines and our own political preconceptions and prejudices. We are reverting to justice by public lynch mob rather evidence based justice delegated to our representatives. Not a good development in my view.
Need a bit of balance here. While there are internet loudmouths some people are just a bit more aware of miscarriages of justice, abuses of power and poor practice and resourcing in the legal system than they ever were.
I don't necessarily see this all as a bad thing when the government seek to make disagreeing with them a legal offence.
The FA don't inspire a lot of respect generally, and a look back over there handling of numerous situations from Hillsborough to how their own respect campaign petered out all play into that.
Again notwithstanding the individual merits of this case, if I was one of the members of the FA's own committee tasked with giving up my time to hear and consider the evidence and make a judgement on that evidence only to be thrown under the bus by the FA's PR department, next time they asked me to investigate a case, my response would be very short and very to the point.
If you'd either negligently or accidentally got it entirely wrong between the three of you in a case like this, or any other, would you expect the outcome to be appealed , or should anyone who suffered any grievance simply move on and shut up?
Hadn't realised that he was Chair of the PFA. Would be a big job for a low profile player to land as his first appointment. Good luck to him if he does.
You seem to be introducing the possibility that the committee in the Yems case was negligent. Do you have any evidence to support that ? It would be a cheap trick to subtly do so to undermine people who (in this case having heard the evidence ) have in good faith reached a different conclusion to the one you (having not heard the evidence) would like them to have done. I do hope I have wrongly interpreted here.
…in explaining the sanction the FA-authorised panel said they had opted for a shorter punishment because they did not believe Yems was being deliberately racist. The Guardian understands that such a consideration exceeded the terms under which the commission was supposed to operate.
Why would I need evidence to introduce a possibility? I'm not ruling here, I'm talking about possibilities on a chat room, not even this particular case. You do have some weird angles.
@Chris I would agree with DrCongos excellent post above. While you might get less time for not having any previous I find the definition of this chap to be fairly irrelevant.
I also find it ridiculous in these days where people claim you can't tell a joke for fear of being cancelled that he somehow thought what he was saying regularly and repeatedly wasn't intentionally racist.
Comments
How do you think those comments made the players in question feel? Whether he meant to be offensive or not (and I have my opinion) the impact on those players is the same. Their careers, their mental health, their lives may be affected forever.
It makes a complete and utter mockery of all efforts taken to combat racism in football. Next time the FA say they're doing enough, people will rightly point to this case as proof that they don't take it remotely seriously enough. The Bayo case had pretty much the same outcome, with the offender getting let off the hook because their comments were deemed 'not objectively racist.
No abuse from me @DevC. I broadly agree with what you say. There are encouraging trends (baby steps I think is the popular phrase) but I’m far from convinced that workplaces have been cleansed to the extent that you suggest.
Beyond the workplace (admittedly amongst the elderly retired community I’m mainly in touch with these days) things don’t seem to have changed much. Friends emailed me about a month ago to let me know that Jim Davidson was due to appear at the Wycombe Swan (I think next month) and did we want to join them. My initial reaction was to think they must be jesting. Rather than get into an argument with friends we’ve known for decades and whose company (including on holiday) we’ve generally enjoyed , I simply said that we weren’t interested. I still don’t know if it was a windup but, sadly, I suspect not.
The only other comment I have is on your use of the word “actions” in relation to what, I assume, have only been words on Yems’ part.
I agree Chris which is why I think it is appropriate that a severe sanction should be applied. In practice, he has been sacked for gross misconduct but in addition banned from future employment for a further 18 months (I believe sanction applies from now) and in reality he will never work in his chosen industry again.
What sanction would you have chosen, given the conclusion of the panel based on the evidence presented to them was that this was a case of a guy causing real harm inadvertently rather than by intent.
Absolutely @ReturnToSenda. I swerved the FA response element in my personal viewpoint post about attitudes in society more widely but the FA response is totally outrageous.
You're right in the broad sense Dev, people claim offense at a lot of things no one noticed ten minutes ago. But, the things Yems said have never been acceptable in the mainstream, and neither should they be.
I'm not sure there's really that much difference between someone so ignorant that they're "accidentally" racist, and someone so ignorant that they're deliberately racist. Also see absolutely no point in trying to differentiate.
If John Yams was truly racist then Crawley Town wouldn't have had any non-white players. So I don't think it was racism but i don't think it was banter either. I'm guessing if the players started calling him 'grand dad' or 'gammon' they'd soon discover that the banter only went one way. It was a power trip.
But aside from that who wants to employ a manager who still thinks it's the 1970's? I wouldn't expect him to roll up for training in a Skepta t-shirt but at the same time he ought to have some idea of how young people think, especially as his entire job is working with them.
What a fool.
Racism isn’t binary. You can be mildly racist, even without realising.
Michael Appleton sacked as Blackpool manager.
Apparently 14 of the 24 Championship clubs have now changed their manager this season despite it only being just over halfway through. Madness.
Bristol City not one of them which I would be a little concerned by if (and presumably when) it next comes up.
https://twitter.com/FAspokesperson/status/1615734119652024321?s=20&t=mvWp62mtd71OksizMFmgsA
I'd love to see who was on the independent panel
In this case it was Robert Enklehart (a Kings Counsel lawyer), Matt Wild (ops manager at Wolves) and ex-player Tony Agana.
https://www.thefa.com/news/2023/jan/06/john-yems-suspended-060123
Tony Agana was a key player in my Sensible World of Soccer team in the 90s
Not capturing Tony Agana from Weymouth along with Micky Doherty, led to Alan Gane's departure in 1986.
POTD
https://youtu.be/aJcPJKDQaVc
This classic tune, keeps coming into my head, when I read about Johnny Yams.
7 goalkeepers named in the squad for tonight’s cup derby between AC and Inter. That has to be some sort of record?
There's no way that manager hasn't been exposed to and involved in anti-racism initiatives and doesn't know the context and possible harm caused by the kind of comments he's been making, it's far too easy to excuse it because it might not have been illegal or unacceptable to some a few decades ago. It would have been unnaceptable to many a good long time ago, and as a manager and leader of people to basically not care and prioritise his popularity over the wellbeing of his players is disgusting tbh. Even if he has some black friends....
On a more general point than this particular case, there is an increasing trend, fuelled by the internet I think, to not trust the detailed investigation and conclusion reached by our representatives appointed to take the time to investigate the true detailed facts of the case in question and instead believe that we are qualified to know better the "truth" of the case and to form our own judgement of the "truth" based not on the detailed evidence but on a few selected headlines and our own political preconceptions and prejudices. We are reverting to justice by public lynch mob rather evidence based justice delegated to our representatives. Not a good development in my view.
Need a bit of balance here. While there are internet loudmouths some people are just a bit more aware of miscarriages of justice, abuses of power and poor practice and resourcing in the legal system than they ever were.
I don't necessarily see this all as a bad thing when the government seek to make disagreeing with them a legal offence.
The FA don't inspire a lot of respect generally, and a look back over there handling of numerous situations from Hillsborough to how their own respect campaign petered out all play into that.
The FA, who have seen all the evidence, have publicly expressed their disappointment in the verdict, because internet fuel?
Again notwithstanding the individual merits of this case, if I was one of the members of the FA's own committee tasked with giving up my time to hear and consider the evidence and make a judgement on that evidence only to be thrown under the bus by the FA's PR department, next time they asked me to investigate a case, my response would be very short and very to the point.
If you'd either negligently or accidentally got it entirely wrong between the three of you in a case like this, or any other, would you expect the outcome to be appealed , or should anyone who suffered any grievance simply move on and shut up?
Rumour is ex-Wycombe and PNL s*ithead John Mousinho may be for the Pompey job
Quite the come-down from Chris Wilder talk if true
Hadn't realised that he was Chair of the PFA. Would be a big job for a low profile player to land as his first appointment. Good luck to him if he does.
You seem to be introducing the possibility that the committee in the Yems case was negligent. Do you have any evidence to support that ? It would be a cheap trick to subtly do so to undermine people who (in this case having heard the evidence ) have in good faith reached a different conclusion to the one you (having not heard the evidence) would like them to have done. I do hope I have wrongly interpreted here.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/jan/18/fa-panel-condemned-after-finding-john-yems-to-be-not-a-conscious-racist
…in explaining the sanction the FA-authorised panel said they had opted for a shorter punishment because they did not believe Yems was being deliberately racist. The Guardian understands that such a consideration exceeded the terms under which the commission was supposed to operate.Why would I need evidence to introduce a possibility? I'm not ruling here, I'm talking about possibilities on a chat room, not even this particular case. You do have some weird angles.
@Chris I would agree with DrCongos excellent post above. While you might get less time for not having any previous I find the definition of this chap to be fairly irrelevant.
I also find it ridiculous in these days where people claim you can't tell a joke for fear of being cancelled that he somehow thought what he was saying regularly and repeatedly wasn't intentionally racist.
So no evidence whatever to support your insinuation.
Enough said.