Creampuff

That's the problem, wee Aiden probably doesn't know who his da is.

I guess you'd just need to tell yourself you're not just there to make up the numbers and do your best to impress. If nothing else doing well in the interview would improve your reputation in the industry amongst those doing the recruitment.

Those stats would be great if they were available, but they would require people to admit that they break the law in their recruitment policies. I don't think anyone would be shoehorning anyone with this sort of policy. It's simply ensuring that people of all ethnicities are considered.

I can see where that argument comes from, but I don't see that happening in practice. It's not as if clubs can only interview 5 people for a vacancy, so they could in theory interview as many people as they like. In practice they'll interview everyone that has a genuine chance of getting the job.

Well if it doesn't stop there and becomes a law that 40% of everyone's workforce is a certain ethnicity then obviously that's a completely different scenario. I've met plenty of people who would always choose the white candidate over a similar black candidate, even if they're not aware that they're doing it. Without meaning to sound crude, there's no other obvious reason why ethnic minorities are so underrepresented in senior positions in football and across management in other sectors.

Again though, the idea that the best candidate should get the job is at the heart of these programmes, flawed though they may be. They consider why it currently isn't happening, and attempt to make sure that there is an equality of opportunity. I can get why people would be annoyed with positive discrimination in examples where there are quotas etc on hiring people, but this is just letting people interview. It's no different to the schemes most employers run guaranteeing interviews to those with disabilities.

But like even if it is pointless why get so upset about it? Surely something that will either help or be pointless is better than doing nothing at all, right?

What, like no one would do that? Like it never happens?

If some places treat it that way, then some places treat it that way. It'a funny, I can see how people can be for this or against it; and I can see why people would be passionately against affirmative action. But I can't really understand why someone would be so vehemently against something like a Rooney rule. What is there to get so worked up about?

It's funny that in a topic with such polarising opinions, this is ultimately everyone's ideal. What the argument is really about is how we get there.

Running out of time to interview everyone If that's the lengths you need to go to in order to make this rule discriminatory then I could probably live with it.

Tough win for Murray. Would be nice for him to get world number one at end of year. Makes your spell at the top look really long when no one is playing over the winter

Why would considering a black candidate mean that a white candidate wouldn't get the job? You consider a black manager, you consider a white manager, you hire the better candidate. I not necessarily saying I'm a fan of the Rooney rule - I think it's on a flawed premise of the reason for underrepresentation of ethnic minorities - but it's no where near as bad as some are making out.

Has anyone suggested that black coaches be hired over white coaches?