Academy news in conjunction with Premier League

[TedBovisPie]

Note that they need to have UEFA B licence so worse case Notts end up with a couple of free coaches can’t be that bad a thing even if it comes with the DEI nonsense.

[since41]

Yes, we do seem to have a lot of pedestrians don't we?

😃😃😃

[durhampie]

Note that they need to have UEFA B licence so worse case Notts end up with a couple of free coaches can’t be that bad a thing even if it comes with the DEI nonsense.

Doesn't Maynard only have a EUFA B Licence .. I recall JOB having the EUFA A Licence.. No wonder they got rid..

[The Dug Out]

Its better to not have an opinion on this sort of stuff if you are unfortunate enough to be white.You can bet that the FA/EPL/NCFC have sown this up legally tight,also if this helps some black/asian/ girl kid that;s had a poor upbringing best of luck to them, just don't forget about the rest of the people.
It seems like a box ticking exercise carried out by some bod that's climbing the ladder, is it Jim Rodwell?.
In another 25 years or so all this race stuff will be a thing of the past, we will be under the umbrella of Sharia Law, and that is a bang on certainty.

[slack_pie]

A lot of surprisingly utopian posts on here!

Do you lot really believe it's always the best person that gets the job?

There are myriad ways that candidates are unfairly selected through:
Money, threats, influence, power, religion, politics, prestige, looks, nationality, nepotism, friendships, regionalism, privilege, class, gender, ethnicity, etc...

I've seen it happen. And even when the selection process is exemplary, you end up with several candidates who are equally suitable. Then the final choice is made by bias and prejudice!

I agree that there are potentially infinite reasons why one person might get a job over another. I just don't think that reducing it down to one or two factors - ethnicity and gender - shows a full understanding of the complexity we're talking about here.

Perhaps ethnicity and gender play a part, but if the answer is to block entire demographics from opportunities to fix that issue, then we'd also need to block anyone from middle/upper class backgrounds, straight people, able-bodied people, able-minded people, people who grew up in settled and loving homes, people who went to good schools, people with high IQs, good-looking people, people with friends or family in positions of power, and anyone else with an inherent advantage - because not doing so would be unfair, right?

[keldsyke]

Its better to not have an opinion on this sort of stuff if you are unfortunate enough to be white.You can bet that the FA/EPL/NCFC have sown this up legally tight,also if this helps some black/asian/ girl kid that;s had a poor upbringing best of luck to them, just don't forget about the rest of the people.
It seems like a box ticking exercise carried out by some bod that's climbing the ladder, is it Jim Rodwell?.
In another 25 years or so all this race stuff will be a thing of the past, we will be under the umbrella of Sharia Law, and that is a bang on certainty.

If the applicants have a UEFA B Licence then it shows that all the applicants have something about them by achieving that grade whatever their background, which makes the whole recruitment situation even more prejudice, especially if you've achieved your badge coming from a disadvantaged background that doesn't fit the criteria.

[drillerpie]

I agree that there are potentially infinite reasons why one person might get a job over another. I just don't think that reducing it down to one or two factors - ethnicity and gender - shows a full understanding of the complexity we're talking about here.

Perhaps ethnicity and gender play a part, but if the answer is to block entire demographics from opportunities to fix that issue, then we'd also need to block anyone from middle/upper class backgrounds, straight people, able-bodied people, able-minded people, people who grew up in settled and loving homes, people who went to good schools, people with high IQs, good-looking people, people with friends or family in positions of power, and anyone else with an inherent advantage - because not doing so would be unfair, right?

Interesting topic and very relevant. I think post and the post by Mark Ross it was replying too sum up very well both sides of the argument.

There are certainly an almost infinite number of factors that dictate how lucky a person can consider themself in terms of having a good start in life, and using gender and skin colour seems to me to be a very blunt (but fashionable) instrument to use to try to level the playing field.

I know a lot of people don't want to hear this, but I think there is a question mark over the divisions these schemes create. If we keep dividing people up into teams, some people will play to make sure their team wins (i.e. see the other team as an adversary). We might not like this, but I think to deny it is to deny human nature. That is just in general, but add in the fact that a lot of white working class/underclass people are not exactly drowning in opportunities and you have a recipe for resentment.

Income seems to me to be the most widely accepted criteria we can use to try to rectify inequality. That also has its problems, and there is a question mark over that too in terms of fairness and how much talented and /or hard working people should be rewarded for their endeavours, and to what level people at the lower end of the spectrum should be supported, but pretty much everyone apart from the extreme libertarian right accepts that there should be some level of income/opportunity redistribution, even if for purely selfish reasons (redistribute just enough so wherever you're living doesn't become Haiti and you can carry on enjoying your wealth safely).

Using income as a criteria should also in theory catch a lot of ethnic minorities too.

Possibly a more important issue than the two new academy coaches is why so many areas of society (including football off the pitch) are off limits to anyone regardless of skin colour, genitalia, ***ual orientation who can't sustain a long unpaid or low paid internship (in other words have rich, supportive parents).

[lunaspie]

Have we had any managers who've used that option to get the job? 🤔

No,but we had Carl 'Ovarian' Heggs.

[Mark_Ross]

I agree that there are potentially infinite reasons why one person might get a job over another. I just don't think that reducing it down to one or two factors - ethnicity and gender - shows a full understanding of the complexity we're talking about here.

Perhaps ethnicity and gender play a part, but if the answer is to block entire demographics from opportunities to fix that issue, then we'd also need to block anyone from middle/upper class backgrounds, straight people, able-bodied people, able-minded people, people who grew up in settled and loving homes, people who went to good schools, people with high IQs, good-looking people, people with friends or family in positions of power, and anyone else with an inherent advantage - because not doing so would be unfair, right?

Yes. I was just trying to say: "If you think about it, there's no such thing as (completely) fair job candidate selection".
Why are people getting so upset by attempts to redress a few imbalances?

FWIW I'm not convinced by such attempts. They're gifting 'ammo' to the populist right.
Anyway, it seems to me like tying oranges onto an apple tree.

[Eastcoastultra1977]

Your last sentence is Spot On.