Shrimpsvoices

I thought it deserved it's own topic now the FA have announced an investigation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55888492

Could be facing up to a 12-match ban.

I hope the club will be releasing a statement shortly, the silence is deafening and pressure is growing now it's being widely reported.

If it's found to be true ...Needs to be kicked out of the club with immediate effect

No place for this in any walk of life

If true this is stupid behaviour that brings shame to our club. I am sure if found guilty he will be banned for the full twelve games. The only possible excuse could be as a French speaker he didn’t understand quite what he was saying! A club statement is needed.

The club could [and in my opinion, should] have suspended Songo'o pending investigation. In employment law, suspension is a neutral act, designed to protect the employer and employee. It would have given the club some control over the situation, for example, a response to the BBC. We can expect this to become a story and the club is left looking poor.

We could/should have acted on Saturday.

Keith wrote:The club could [and in my opinion, should] have suspended Songo'o pending investigation. In employment law, suspension is a neutral act, designed to protect the employer and employee. It would have given the club some control over the situation, for example, a response to the BBC. We can expect this to become a story and the club is left looking poor.

We could/should have acted on Saturday.

Talk about being found guilty before been given a chance to explain.

redrobo wrote:Talk about being found guilty before been given a chance to explain.

I know I don't comment very often, but I feel I have to, here. Suspending the player pending an investigation isn't finding them guilty, it's standard employment disciplinary procedure. It protects the player as well as the employer, as it prevents further incidents. For example, a suspension would mean the player couldn't attend training sessions, which in such incidents is probably in their best interests in any case. Songo'o is being investigated for something that is actually a criminal offence under the Equality Act 2010. Under law, it is treated the same as other forms of discrimination/abuse (such as racism). My other team (Leeds) got it badly wrong with how they handled the Kiko Casilla racism investigation. I wouldn't want to see Morecambe make the same mistake.

redrobo wrote:

Keith wrote:The club could [and in my opinion, should] have suspended Songo'o pending investigation.

In employment law, suspension is a neutral act, designed to protect the employer and employee.

It would have given the club some control over the situation, for example, a response to the BBC. We can expect this to become a story and the club is left looking poor.

We could/should have acted on Saturday.

Talk about being found guilty before been given a chance to explain.

You've literally quoted me saying the opposite.

marky wrote:

redrobo wrote:Talk about being found guilty before been given a chance to explain.

Suspending the player pending an investigation isn't finding them guilty, it's standard employment disciplinary procedure. It protects the player as well as the employer, as it prevents further incidents. For example, a suspension would mean the player couldn't attend training sessions, which in such incidents is probably in their best interests in any case. Songo'o is being investigated for something that is actually a criminal offence under the Equality Act 2010. Under law, it is treated the same as other forms of discrimination/abuse (such as racism).

Exactly. It also means that when the BBC or other media come asking for a comment, the club could say "we've suspended the player pending the outcome of the FA's investigation and will not be commenting on the specific incident further at this time. Morecambe Football Club fully support the FA's inclusive programmes." which shows it is being taken seriously and sends out the correct message while not passing judgment.

I believe the club are reluctant to make a statement until they have seen the Referee's report.

BerlinWaller wrote:I believe the club are reluctant to make a statement until they have seen the Referee's report.

The sensible thing to do.

Some are too quick to point the finger and find him guilty even though the footage isn't that conclusive.

And numerous groups have been in contact with the club.

What’s betting that we get on the news tonight !!!

marky wrote:

redrobo wrote:Talk about being found guilty before been given a chance to explain.

I know I don't comment very often, but I feel I have to, here. Suspending the player pending an investigation isn't finding them guilty, it's standard employment disciplinary procedure. It protects the player as well as the employer, as it prevents further incidents. For example, a suspension would mean the player couldn't attend training sessions, which in such incidents is probably in their best interests in any case. Songo'o is being investigated for something that is actually a criminal offence under the Equality Act 2010. Under law, it is treated the same as other forms of discrimination/abuse (such as racism). My other team (Leeds) got it badly wrong with how they handled the Kiko Casilla racism investigation. I wouldn't want to see Morecambe make the same mistake.

Spot on and also takes the heat from the serious situation, This would also allow both Club and player time to prepare their case in the event of any disciplinary action if it is there is no admittance from Songo, given the comment and no clear statement made by club, they will have to potentially rely on the refs & Players statements and version of events in their investigation before establishing facts.

Glad to see a statement release but no idea why that took two days to release? Sadly seems like a response to negative media coverage, we could have easily released that statement yesterday when Tranmere released theirs.

STATEMENT: Shrimps Trust statement regarding the incident at the Morecambe versus Tranmere Rovers match on Saturday 30th January 2021.

https://twitter.com/shrimpstrust/status ... 17281?s=20

I hope someone has got their arm round Yann and are counselling him . Whilst if the allegations are upheld sanction is inevitable and justifiable , it should also be proportionate and a learning from the event rather a mass finger pointing and pile on as seem to be favoured in some quarters . His welfare needs to be considered ', one slip of the tounge in the heat of battle ' should not be a career defining issue for him , but an opportunity to take stock , repurpose, and move forward a bit wiser.

Zippy wrote:I hope someone has got their arm round Yann and are counselling him . Whilst if the allegations are upheld sanction is inevitable and justifiable , it should also be proportionate and a learning from the event rather a mass finger pointing and pile on as seem to be favoured in some quarters . His welfare needs to be considered ', one slip of the tounge in the heat of battle ' should not be a career defining issue for him , but an opportunity to take stock , repurpose, and move forward a bit wiser.

Yes, but equally, a response and some movement needs to happen quickly.

Either...

Songo'o flatly denies the incident, or he accepts he used the word.

If it is a flat denial, then why not say so?
If he accepts the word was used, then issue a complete & sincere apology and start the process of 'fixing' this.

Silence on the matter is really not helpful.

If Yann Songo'o used the word 'faggot' as is alleged - then clearly this has no place on the football field (like a lot of words), and he should face an appropriate ban.

I completely agree that he should be suspended whilst the matter is being investigated, and we understand what was said and its intent. This would give the club the time it requires to deal with the matter appropriately.

In my opinion, it is disturbing how some quarters have quickly arrived at the conclusion (with very little evidence, only their own individual interpretation of limited audio/video) that seemingly Yann's intent in using this word is almost definitely a pre-meditated homophobic attack against somebody else (who may or may not be a homosexual) - which obviously would be a criminal offense, rather than a poor choice of words. The rush to incriminate Yann, for what could be a genuine mistake that he now regrets, is a bit too much at this stage. Lets wait and see what the club and Yann have to say before passing too much judgement.

This word can be a homophobic slur, but it is also has other uses/meanings and is generally used as distasteful insult. Like it or not, it appears in one of the nations favourite Christmas songs (apart from BBC Radio 1) - and in doing so has no reference to homosexuality that I am aware of.

RedRedWine wrote:If Yann Songo'o used the word 'faggot' as is alleged - then clearly this has no place on the football field (like a lot of words), and he should face an appropriate ban.

I completely agree that he should be suspended whilst the matter is being investigated, and we understand what was said and its intent. This would give the club the time it requires to deal with the matter appropriately.

In my opinion, it is disturbing how some quarters have quickly arrived at the conclusion (with very little evidence, only their own individual interpretation of limited audio/video) that seemingly Yann's intent in using this word is almost definitely a pre-meditated homophobic attack against somebody else (who may or may not be a homosexual) - which obviously would be a criminal offense, rather than a poor choice of words. The rush to victimise Yann, for what could be a genuine mistake that he now regrets, is a bit too much at this stage. Lets wait and see what the club and Yann have to say before passing too much judgement.

This word can be a homophobic slur, but it is also has other uses/meanings and is generally used as distasteful insult. Like it or not, it appears in one of the nations favourite Christmas songs (apart from BBC Radio 1) - and in doing so has no reference to homosexuality that I am aware of.

Very well put.

Keith wrote:

Zippy wrote:I hope someone has got their arm round Yann and are counselling him . Whilst if the allegations are upheld sanction is inevitable and justifiable , it should also be proportionate and a learning from the event rather a mass finger pointing and pile on as seem to be favoured in some quarters . His welfare needs to be considered ', one slip of the tounge in the heat of battle ' should not be a career defining issue for him , but an opportunity to take stock , repurpose, and move forward a bit wiser.

Yes, but equally, a response and some movement needs to happen quickly.

Either...

Songo'o flatly denies the incident, or he accepts he used the word.

If it is a flat denial, then why not say so?
If he accepts the word was used, then issue a complete & sincere apology and start the process of 'fixing' this.

Silence on the matter is really not helpful.

Has he been charged with with using an offensive word yet?

Maybe he doesn’t respond to social media lynch mobs.

As RRW says, let’s wait to see what develops.

Excellently put RRW.

The way some people have reacted is a little surprising to me, acting like he definitively holds views akin to the likes of Israel Folau.

My natural assumption is that he used the word to criticise somebody for staying on the ground too long/being 'soft'. What he said was without doubt unacceptable, but I think it's unlikely that he was genuinely instigating a thought out verbal homophobic attack on someone.

A ban will deservedly be incoming and some kind of education course would seem appropriate to help convey the full context and meaning of the word he used. I also like the idea mentioned on here about directing the DA fine fund to a LGBT+ charity as a wider club gesture.

Being dismissed from the club would seem an disproportionate reaction, unless the investigation does reveal that it was a genuinely pre-meditated homophobic attack.

How long a contract did we sign Y.S. on.

RedRedWine wrote:If Yann Songo'o used the word 'faggot' as is alleged - then clearly this has no place on the football field (like a lot of words), and he should face an appropriate ban.

I completely agree that he should be suspended whilst the matter is being investigated, and we understand what was said and its intent. This would give the club the time it requires to deal with the matter appropriately.

In my opinion, it is disturbing how some quarters have quickly arrived at the conclusion (with very little evidence, only their own individual interpretation of limited audio/video) that seemingly Yann's intent in using this word is almost definitely a pre-meditated homophobic attack against somebody else (who may or may not be a homosexual) - which obviously would be a criminal offense, rather than a poor choice of words. The rush to incriminate Yann, for what could be a genuine mistake that he now regrets, is a bit too much at this stage. Lets wait and see what the club and Yann have to say before passing too much judgement.

This word can be a homophobic slur, but it is also has other uses/meanings and is generally used as distasteful insult. Like it or not, it appears in one of the nations favourite Christmas songs (apart from BBC Radio 1) - and in doing so has no reference to homosexuality that I am aware of.

Totally agree with RRW. Some people are too quick to pass judgement without waiting for concrete evidence of what was actually said. The audio is unclear and that being the case nobody can be for sure what was actually said and until the referee submits his report being close to the incident nobody is in a position to pass judgement.

You would hope the referee is clear about what he heard to justify the sending off. What I am not clear about is whether Yann knew what he was saying or was it a case of a French speaker using a word without realising the meaning. He certainly needs good advice when asked for his observations.