No one has been "shutdown". If that was the case one or more of several things would have happened: thread closed, posts deleted / edited, poster banned / suspended, etc. None of that has happened, and it has got nothing to do with "wokeness" (the most overused and pointless word in the world IMHO). Rather, if someone is going to accuse someone or something else as being "anti-white" (i.e. by definition racist) they have to provide evidence for that statement. Doesn't matter whether it is made against the FA, a government, a person, what/whoever, you can't make allegation such as that without having very clear evidence to back up your claim.
Discounted Referee Courses
- Thread starter grey59
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
- Status
Why are you engaging with my reply to someone else?
You made some false claims:
How many of englands cricked board are BAME? How many of the England test squad?
You were answered:
Board 4/12 = 1/3. Is that ok for you? Should be 18.2% really - nearly double that currently.
Ashir and Archer when fit. Around 20%.
That's the replies to your spurous claims about the ECB and the squad. That's what i was querying.
Does this make sense?
That’s the same as saying only BAME refs could do the courseHere's a better way.
Civil service interns must all be working class, government says
Internships will only go to students from poorer families in a push to make Whitehall more working class.www.bbc.co.uk
Nothing to do with the narrative fitting or not. Wrong sport, wrong forum. Since we are just copy pasting other members posts
Edit: a test match squad is 15! Not ten
so it’s less and there have been several changes between tests so it’s less than 20
bester
RefChat Addict
That’s the same as saying only BAME refs could do the course
With respect if you don't understand the difference then I cant help you.
I'm not willing to engage directly with you on the subject (free ref courses) (or any other subject to be honest), but I was partly motivated to defend Kent as you're never off his case. I've no idea why he sticks around on here. It has a whiff of bullying, not in any one moment, but over a long period of time
Last edited:
I mean - the policy uses “job your parents had as a teen” which means teachers and teaching assistants don’t count but a plumber who has millions and owns his own business would have kids who would be considered working class.
So like the bame policy it potentially benefits wealthy people and it excludes - to a greater extent than subsidised courses - a group of people.
If it’s poor implementation - the exact issue you appear to have with this CFA scheme - then why bring it up as a better option?
Runner Ref
RefChat Addict
To be fair, whilst this is a refereeing forum, you started talking about supermarkets. So I’d say cricket is fair game to be brought in!It
This is a football refereeing forum, I couldn't really care less about cricket, so why should I reply to a post about it?
If you don't like my posts ignore them, or even put me on the blocked lists should you so desire. You seem to waste a lot of time arguing with someone that you find to be arrogant, rude and condescending
I'm not on anyone's case. As an admin I have a responsibility to call out incorrect statements, everyone can state an opinion but when that moves into making statements that can't be backed up with any kind of evidence it crosses a line. If someone accused you of being racist would you be happy if we just ignored it and laughed it off, because that is exactly what @Kent Ref did, the fact he accused an organisation rather than a person doesn't make it any more acceptable.
Back onto the subject in hand, I'm just back from an international football tournament. We had 25 referees and observers from the UK, 24 were white British, if people think that is representative of society then that is their belief to hold, even though I would strongly disagree with that view. Refereeing in England does not even come close to matching the demographic, whereas I was told the host country of the tournament have over 30% of their referees from ethnic minorities. And they have done that by using positive action, which as I again keep coming back to is completely allowed in the UK.
Nothing is personal. You will probably have seen that I deleted a video that had been linked in another topic, probably posted in good faith, because it referred to someone who has been charged with rape as a rapist. Does that mean I'm also bullying the person who posted that? No, of course it doesn't, I am doing what any forum admin or mod has to do.
Last edited:
I stated that i felt the FA are showing anti-white bias. Bias is defined as:
"inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair."
Where did i call the FA racist?
With all these initiatives not aimed at the vast majority and not targeting and/or helping financially poor white people what else can you make of it?
The FA are well-off and should be helping ALL those that need it, not just a few select people. Inclusivity?
IF they did both there would be nothing to talk about, Most of this thread would not exist but they choose not to do both.
That's my evidence.
"inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair."
Where did i call the FA racist?
With all these initiatives not aimed at the vast majority and not targeting and/or helping financially poor white people what else can you make of it?
The FA are well-off and should be helping ALL those that need it, not just a few select people. Inclusivity?
IF they did both there would be nothing to talk about, Most of this thread would not exist but they choose not to do both.
That's my evidence.
This is a CFA acting independently, not the FA. Other CFAs have run discounted courses in poorer areas or for those in care in the past!
CFAs are definitely not well off, the argument that the FA is is tenuous at best too.
I'd accept the FA showed anti white bias for this one (1) discounted course if they weren't dominated by white people!
Accusing someone of being biased against someone based on the colour of their skin is very clearly calling them racist, and you know that, you can have that discussion with their lawyers when they come calling though.
You are also again trying to pass off false information as truth to further your narrative. The FA and CFAs are not for profit organisations, are not "well off", and any funds allocated to helping everyone that needs help with the referee course fees would need to be reallocated from somewhere else.
In the 2022-23 season, the FA generated a turnover of £551.2 million and an operating profit of £64.1 million,
I've never claimed the CFAs are well off but the amount of money being given to them by the FA is being reduced, year-on-year.. But the FA have serious funds (see above).
"Operating profit is the net income derived from a company’s core operations."
So after the FA paid out all it's handouts and funding to the CFAs there was still £64.1M pounds left.
Which bit of my statement is not true, out of interest?
Yes, but that profit is reinvested into the game. Being a not for profit organisation doesn't mean they will just try to break even, no organisation would do that as if there was an unexpected fluctuation in income vs expenditure the very existence of the organisation would be put at risk. If the FA had operated that way Covid would have completely killed it. Rather it isn't like a traditional company where the shareholders take money out, all profits are reinvested.
There is no spare cash, so for a budget to be uplifted funding has to be removed from another area. Whilst there was a profit in 23-24, as you have selectively chosen to post, there have been significant losses in previous years, and it all balances itself out. But the overall premise is that a not for profit organisation has to "rob from Peter to pay Paul" if it wants to make something that is currently chargeable free, that is just basic economics.
Plus there would be very little support from the general football population for offering people with low income free refereeing courses, on the basis they make that outlay back in 3 or 4 games. Whereas, for example, a coaching course doesn't, people paying out to take the coaching course will generally be volunteers who don't make any money from the game.
bester
RefChat Addict
There's no spare £250 for many on low incomes.
Coaching courses will usually be paid for by clubs.
Both coaching courses and referee courses are massively overpriced compared to the majority of Europe and the after support is generally poor as well.
It does feel like a few members on here (members that I generally enjoy reading posts of on many topics, and some of whom can be very knowledgeable) have an Anti-FA agenda, whereby it wouldn't matter what the FA do, it would get bemoaned.
I don't think anyone at the FA is making decisions because they have any sort of negative intentions. I firmly believe every decision they make is what they believe is in the best interests of the game / it's participants.
Do I think they could improve at certain things? certainly... but the way I see it... it's a little like refereeing... we don't turn up to ruin 22 peoples match, but the way they interpret our decision making often means they go home thinking we did. You can please some of the people, all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
I don't think anyone at the FA is making decisions because they have any sort of negative intentions. I firmly believe every decision they make is what they believe is in the best interests of the game / it's participants.
Do I think they could improve at certain things? certainly... but the way I see it... it's a little like refereeing... we don't turn up to ruin 22 peoples match, but the way they interpret our decision making often means they go home thinking we did. You can please some of the people, all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
- Status