hypochondriac

If that is the case then you think we would be selling the likes of Fernandes, THB, Sulemana, Onuachu etc. Downes Charles Armstrong Archer Are all proven championship performers. Selling them now just makes our rebuilding job in the summer that much harder. Potentially we could then lose: Downes Charles Armstrong Archer Aribo Sulemana KWP SAA Onuachu Ugochukwu Fernandes Dibling Which will leave us with virtually no midfielders or attackers at all. We will have to rebuild the entire team in one window which is incredibly risky. I'd be very tempted to keep quite a few of those players for next year even if some of them aren't keen purely because it's going to be too difficult to replace everyone and we would potentially be left with Smallbone, Bree and Bazunu...)

Some of them were the best players in their positions last year. The last thing we want in the summer is loads of new players and even more upheaval than necessary. I just don't see the logic in getting rid of proven championship performers and gambling that we will find better.

Potentially losing Armstrong Archer Downes SAA Could be disastrous for our promotion hopes next year.

Sound alike he plays primarily on the left wing. If anything he's an Amo Ameyew replacement.

This fucking club.

We won a game! Amazing.

Smallbone playing in the premier league sums up why we are where we are.

Delap turned us down.

So frustrating to see how deep we are at times. Nothing for Ipswich to worry about in terms of attacks from us.

Let's be honest he's been shite all season. Biggest disappointment of the season for me with Downes just behind.

He's a loanee with an option so no transfer involved. Also a gamble since he flopped at his current club.

To what end are we improving it? At a certain point you are chucking good money after bad. What matters now is promotion next season and anyone decent who wants to come and stay for that should be welcome. I'd imagine that's a very small group of players at this point though.

The club would be absolutely idiotic to spend a bunch of money now when we will be relegated in a few months. Plus nobody of any use would want to come here and we already have a bloated squad.

Thanks goodness he's out but what sick barbarity these innocent people have endured. Kidnapping and killing young children and mothers, laughing about it and filming his devastated reaction. Just absolute scum.

I did say all other things being equal to be fair. The assumption would be that they have had a similar amount of time on the pitch but I'm sure you can understand the analogy.

Agreed. He was also our captain and supposed to lead by example so he's got a greater responsibility than the players might.

Whilst this is not bad news by any means, if you read the article there's some important context to the headline.

I wasn't talking about candidates that are equally good. In a scenario where you have two candidates who are equally competent then there may be other factors to take into account. I'm talking specifically about if lesser black players were promoted over better white players due to their race. That would also be the case if lesser white players were promoted over superior black players due to their race. If certain South African players felt that this was happening and that wasn't the case then they are wrong clearly.

Again, my point was about hiring practices in general and you clearly know more about ATC hiring practices than I do but even if you meet rigorous standards (I know standards in other jobs have been watered down somewhat for some categories but I'm not saying that's the case here) it shouldn't be the case that someone with a higher competence for the job is passed over in favour of someone else due to their skin colour. According to the person I posted about earlier he got 100% on the test. Granted this was seemingly a while ago but hypothetically if that person was overlooked due to his race in favour of a black candidate who got 80% then that's not right. That's not to say that the person who is hired is incompetent, in my hypothetical scenario they still would have got a passing mark. Using another example if I wanted an airline fighter pilot I may have five outstanding candidates but I want the absolute best one for the job. That might involve looking at thing like temperament but it's ultimately going to come down to the practical skill involved in the role. All five might be more than capable of doing a job but there's clearly going to be an advantage to choosing the best person. Choosing the third or fourth best because they happen to be black isn't the way to go in my opinion.

I don't understand the logic. Removing prejudice from hiring decisions that may have prevented the best players from playing because they were black is clearly a good thing, as is providing opportunities for black players to show their superior talent. That's not the same as demoting superior white players and promoting lesser black players in the hope that some better black players will come through eventually. Football has never taken that approach and we have loads of incredible black talents who are strengthened by the fact that they have arrived at the top table on merit due to their own superior abilities.

Like I said, I don't know the specifics of air traffic control but I would say it is measured in quite a similar way in terms of the requirements of doing the job well. With regards your last point, are you suggesting that the diverse individuals in the rugby team are there because they are less competent than alternatives but were chosen anyway due to their skin colour?

Are you suggesting there is no evidence of some companies moving away from a merit based system to one where the most competent person is not always hired for the job?

My point was a general one rather than talking about specifics in air traffic control as I have little knowledge of that. If you have a football team and you have a choice of two strikers to sign with identical characteristics except that one has scored 20 goals the previous season and the other has scored 5 and you choose the latter because they happen to be Asian, there's a fairly high risk that you've made your team weaker than they otherwise would have been and increased the likelihood that they will perform below where they could have performed all other things being equal. If you want to recruit in order to foster a better work environment, I would explore why a DEI policy has had that affect and look at how I could replicate that environment without blatant discrimination based on something like race or gender.

Worth pointing out we still don't know in this case if that has any relevance but the general point is 100% correct.

It's not a non point if less competent people have got a job due to a DEI initiative and a more competent person is overlooked because the risk would then be that the role is performed less well or not as well as it could be if a hiring decision is made on merit. That's really not a controversial position to take.