Should Rage Online withdraw its sponsorship of Sam Deering?

[amershamwrighty]

This is dragging on, and on, and on.

Either sponsorship is to be withdrawn or it isn't.

Clearly there is to be no further comment from the Club or LSD, and the semantics about what does or does not constitute an apology or - even worse - the sniping that is emerging amongst RO members on this thread, is dragging what started off as a worthwhile debate into a meandering, aimless and philosophical dialogue.

I would now prefer to discuss whether Ricky Sappleton is likely to become the new Paul Moody.

[Baboo]

I would now prefer to discuss whether Ricky Sappleton is likely to become the new Paul Moody.

Or Emile Heskey.

[theox]

I would now prefer to discuss whether Ricky Sappleton is likely to become the new Paul Moody.

Or Emile Heskey.

Or Marvin Robinson.

[A-Ro]

Apology, contrition, education, action is what is required.

I fully agree, unfortunately I don't think we've seen enough of any of these as yet.

[Mally]

I'm a long way away and jet-lagged, but I am not sure that I quite understand how being dim-witted excuses a phrase like &quotf**king pa#is&quot as not being racist. By implication, a significantly high proportion of the BNP and equivalent wouldn't be racist. And an, at best, second hand apology doesn't meet my relatively generous standards of contrition, either.

I don't think it does excuse (or define) the phrase in question as not being racist. It clearly is a racist phrase and was in the context it was used.

However it doesn't mean that the person using it is necessarily a racist. Even if the person in question is a racist it doesn't mean that they can't change. Most racism is born out of ignorance and stupidity. If you can educate dim witted people who demonstrate racist tendancies you can change their views. If you simply reject and ostracise them you run the risk of entrenching their racist views.

Sam is going to have a lot of time on his hands over the next few months - plenty of time for education and opportunities to display contrition.

[Dr Bob]

Looking at this as something of an outsider (I did not cough up to be part of the sponsorship), I can understand the decision to consult before taking any action. I am, however, surprised at the mixture of views. To me, for what it is worth, the issue is simple. What he did was unacceptable. The club, as his employer, must make decisions about how to punish, rehabilitate and otherwise expect positive responses from LSD. I do not see it as part of ROs function to put similar conditions on him and your sponsorship of him. It is therefore a straight choice - and I voted to express my belief it should be to withdraw sponsorship.

[Mooro]

First time able to post since this all blew up, so a few quick thoughts:

- whatever decision we take will become public whether we issue any official statement or not, unless we truly believe that no member of the OM staff read this forum.
- given the nature of the question to which LSD was responding (ie. &quotwhat are the nurses like?&quot), it would be interesting to see what he would have had to have said of a sexist nature for a similar reaction to be felt.
- was Boris' choice of alternate recipient deliberate given the nature of the issue under discussion, (and is that a statement we want to giving) or was it dictated purely by his view of being the best player currently not sponsored, given that other YT players have featured more in the senior side this season? Perhaps a full list of the available alternatives could be posted for us to choose from?
- someone said earlier, how different would this debate have been were it a less popular/underacheiving player? Part of me wants to continue to have an association with one of our brightest stars for some time, but in the end there are plenty of other young talents at the club that could benefit from our support.

In the end, my view is that in the first instance we put together a letter to the individual expressing the stance this forum takes towards racism and other such issues and our particular disappointment that he has made such comments given both this stance and also our above average backing we have given the player (ie. buying boots).
We then finish the letter explaining the action we are taking, however then stressing that we hope that this affair will be an educational experience for him and that we still support him and wish him well at OUFC.

This action should be either:
i) we suspend our sponsorship for one month, perhaps switching it to one of the loanees just arrived, pending a personal reply and/or outward signs of learning from what has happened. If such a response is received then we resume as his sponsor, otherwise we move to another player.
or ii) we should withdraw now, and choose an alternative recipient from now on in. There are plenty of other young players we could choose, who could perhaps benefit more from our support, and we should not allow ourselves to be swayed by some sense of having 'got' ourselves a rising star.

A late contribution I know, and probably not offering a whole lot new to the debate, but I thought I'd post up anyway..

[boris]

Thanks everyone for your input (including your late but thoughtful one, Mooro). I'm very close to making a final decision, and will do so by the close of play today. I've taken into account everyone's contributions and they've all been very helpful. Who would ever have thought that sponsoring a player would be so difficult?

[Roo]

[quote=&quotOld Abingdonian&quot]I agree with all contributors that what Sam said was wrong, unacceptable and offensive. I agree entirely with the actions taken by the club. What follows is no attempt to 'excuse' or minimise what he did.

However, I believe RO should do whatever helps Sam best realise the significance of what he did, and make amends. There are plenty of people 'on his case'. So I believe that the point should be made to him that his racist comments are incompatible with RO's total commitment to Kick Racism Out Of Football. He should, hopefully, respond positively and constructively to that point, and accept that he can only continue to receive sponsorship if he demonstrates that he also accepts our values. If he does not see the problem (!), or does not care about the RO sponsorship, then withdraw it.


I broadly agree with this idea.....but I do want to hear an apology/explaination from Sam himself, or a reason from the club if isn't allowed to...............if he doesn't apologise then we should cancel the sponsorship and issue a statement to say why.

[x586]

&quotLooking at this as something of an outsider (I did not cough up to be part of the sponsorship), I can understand the decision to consult before taking any action. I am, however, surprised at the mixture of views. To me, for what it is worth, the issue is simple. What he did was unacceptable. The club, as his employer, must make decisions about how to punish, rehabilitate and otherwise expect positive responses from LSD. I do not see it as part of ROs function to put similar conditions on him and your sponsorship of him. It is therefore a straight choice - and I voted to express my belief it should be to withdraw sponsorship.&quot

Hear, hear.

If he'd got commercial sponsorship from someone they'd have dropped him like a ton of bricks following this. Don't see why RO should be any different in its actions, nor why it should be incumbent on RO to place him under any obligation to make any further apologies or explanations. If he's got any sense he'll do that anyway without prompting.

[Snake]

Just got back from Eastbourne an hour ago...

I suggest a simple vote with every person who sponsored either the shirt or the boots (or both) being given one vote for every pound donated.

Yes or No to withdraw– simple, init?

And if you didn’t contribute financially then thanks for the input in the debate but really it should be only the sponsors who decide this issue, surely?

[GodalmingYellow]

Just got back from Eastbourne an hour ago...

I suggest a simple vote with every person who sponsored either the shirt or the boots (or both) being given one vote for every pound donated.

Yes or No to withdraw– simple, init?

And if you didn’t contribute financially then thanks for the input in the debate but really it should be only the sponsors who decide this issue, surely?

Sounds eminently sensible and straightforward.

[Kernow Yellow]

For the record, I voted for the sponsorship to be withdrawn, but I did not contribute to it.

I just feel that rageonline (and all of its previous printed incarnations) have been so clearly and consistently anti-racist that it would be a weakening of that standpoint to do anything else.

[Ancient Colin]

This assumes old folks can remember how much they contributed!!

[GodalmingYellow]

This assumes old folks can remember how much they contributed!!

Surely Boris kept immaculate accounting records...