London Blue

Look at the below table and tell me what is wrong with it; As you can see there is quite a disparity in Black players playing in the league and those who manage or control teams. So if we take Newtys starting point in that people who are interested in football as our reference point, we can assume that the people who are playing the game are interested in it. Most managers and coaches are ex players to some degree or another. So why are there so few Black managers and coaches despite making up such a large proportion of those playing the game? I don't think anyone seriously thinks its due to cultural reasons or DNA, people who play football are part of the footballing cultural community which is very diverse. If as others in the game have said that there are not enough doors open, so if by helping Black people and People of Colour through the door, and making sure clubs have to interview, not necessarily hire, just interview a non-white person we can change that then what's the problem with that? I agree there are very few people of Asian heritage playing the game, and I don't know the reason for that, but is you are not playing the game you are less likely to take up a career in coaching that game. I think there was an effort a few years ago to broaden footballs appeal to different ethnic groups. Its strange that countries like China, India, Pakistan do not have serious football leagues given the sizes of their population. Its a good question. But looking at the English leagues it's wrong to me that there are so many Black players, yet so few Black managers and coaches. It is something that must change, imho.

I'm not talking about quotas of managers or coaches, I'm talking about getting more Black Coaches on training courses they meet the requirements for and given an interview for jobs they are qualified to do. That's all. Doing what we have done so far has not worked. So let's look to do something that has worked, such as in the NBA.

How many talented managers and coaches do we miss out on when there is such under-representation?

Not in NFL because the owners have so much power, but it has started conversations on TV shows and in the media asking clubs why they are not giving chances to certain coaches, the Washington Commanders and Colts are two clubs that have come under real scrutiny over their hiring policies. Its not enough but having it discussed bt mainstream media is a step in the right direction. NBA on the other hand is much more effective: English soccer could look to another league as an example of better representation: the NBA. In the 2021 NBA offseason, seven of the eight head coaching vacancies were filled by Black coaches. Overall, according to The Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, Black people during the 2020-21 NBA season made up 50 percent of head coaches, 53 percent of assistant coaches and 40 percent of general managers. These numbers reflect the dominance of Black players in the league: Almost 75 percent of NBA players are Black.

What about taking away from people who never got the chance in the first place? Its not a zero sum game where its all Black coaches or all White coaches, what we are saying is change the balance so more Black coaches get on the courses for a while so we get balance and fairness. It doesn't mean no white coaches get trained, and all those participating have to meet the same standard. I don't know what the figures are Black coaches doing the Fifa top courses are but say its 10% Black, then if we increase it to 30 % for that, in conjunction with the Rooney Rule would make a difference. There is a good article here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-arent-there-more-black-managers-in-english-soccer/

You cant force but you can set the conditions necessary to have change. If you have candidates of equal quality and under-reputation of one community then it makes sense to employ people from that community to get balance.

The only reason Viera had a door to be opened was because he was one of the premier leagues best players, that kind of pre-requisite limits the opportunities for other Black people who want to be managers. In order to get balance and fair representation Black players and coaches need to be prioritised to achieve it then that seems to be a fair price to pay. Nobody is saying white players can't do the coaching courses or be appointed to jobs, just that more people of colour need to be trained and given a seat at the table to get an interview to be given a chance.

If he had not been Viera he would not of got a sniff of a job. As Haff said more needs to be done to get black players / people onto the coaching courses and supported through them, then the Rooney rule to get them job interviews. Until then nothing will change.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63385012

Your right there needs to be more done to encourage Black managers to become managers and get the chances in the lower leagues so they can get the experience. Its not just a PL problem its the same in many leagues. I think a version of the "Rooney Rule" is needed.

With Palace sacking Viera will they get a new manager bounce? Viera seemed to be a popular manager with the squad, from a selfish viewpoint I hope they finish below us but sad that Viera has gone. No black managers in the PL is shocking, so much needs to be done on that front, but that's for another thread.

All true, we just need to keep it clean, let the board be the bad guys. At least it was not violent or threatening, no excuse though.

Good goal, he seems to know where he needs to be, and he certainly knows where the goal is! Certainly an exciting prospect.

Maybe on the subs bench, I think 20 minutes or so could be useful or hi recovery.

I've just finished a 16 hour shift, taken my son swimming and by the time of the match I'll of been up for nearly 30 hours. I can't go to bed I have to watch the match as this game will define our season. If we win we will have belief. If we lose I just can't see us have enough confidence to get clear of relegation Coyb do a tired man a solid and send me to sleep happy with 3 points in the bag!

The stadium (and the fans) is / are the saviour of the club, it makes us a very salable asset. No matter what happens with the stadium we will attract investment.

Its ok Keane is playing upfront and Maupay is at centre back.

Anyone know how long DCL is out for?

If we get relegated its because we don't have a effective striker. DCL is but he is plagued by injury and sadly I don't see him playing much for us again. There are not enough goals in the side, simple as that. I love Everton, but HATE what the board has done to my club. There is simply no excuse for bringing more strikers in during the window. Deep down I believe we will be relegated, we should keep with Dyche as he has us playing a good mix of football given his limited time here and lack of attack. We need to continue to support Dyche and the side and protest peacefully against the board. Apart form prayer, its all we can do.

A bit like....

They are all hired hands to one degree or another.

Who could refuse the chance to "live you"?

I think it is important to remember that around 300,000 people had died in air-raids excluding the atomic bombings and over 500,000 injured, and countless thousands homeless. These raids would have continued until the Japanese surrendered, which without the atomic bombings may of taken months or an invasion. At the same time due to the blockade there was food shortage and probably famine. Could the war of ended without the atomic bombs being dropped, yes, but would it of cost more lives undoubtedly just due to the terrible cost in lives of the war. Another reason for the Japanese surrendering was the invasion of Japanese gains in China. If that had continued then the cost in more killed in that campaign would have been very high. The Russians were fighting in Manchuria not Japan, and the Japanese had not surrendered in any campaign so the fight with them would have continued, even though it would have been a bloodbath given the mismatch in equipment. Even then given the fact that the majority of the Japanese cabinet favoured a fight to the end, the majority of the Japanese people were prepared to fight to the end the only way the Japanese would have surrendered was if the allies invaded. War is Hell, the atomic gene was out of the bottle before the Americans used it as the Germans, and then the Russians were developing it. Did the atomic weapons shorten the war, almost certainly yes in my opinion.

Did the Allies need to drop the atomic bombs to force Japan to surrender?

Eisenhower was C in C Europe and not as well as informed as the secretary of state for war and the Pacific campaign was not in his remit. The Allies had agreed that all the Axis countries would have to surrender unconditionally, it was a stated war aim, not Trumans decision. Japan never tried to surrender for the most part, Suzuki's (Last War prime minister April to August 45) military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been successfully invaded or lost a war in its history. Only the Navy minister, was known to desire an early end to the war. According to historians Although Suzuki might indeed have seen peace as a distant goal, he had no design to achieve it within any immediate time span or on terms acceptable to the Allies. His own comments at the conference of senior statesmen gave no hint that he favored any early cessation of the war ... Suzuki's selections for the most critical cabinet posts were, with one exception, not advocates of peace either. Given the above what was the more humane way of ending the war? Shall we continue this in another thread?