Harry Sunderland

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

There is no mention of Harry Sunderland in those articles though, not even his name. Nor is there a mention of the reasons for Francis leaving Wigan or any theory put forward on reasons for it. There is only mention that he was transferred and that his new club were puzzled as to why his old club were willing to "part with him" to paraphrase what it says in that article. That phrasing in the article could be construed as them seeking to move him on or them not fighting harder to stop him moving on. I understand that interpreting historical sources can and does often involve drawing hidden meaning out. However when a contemporary source does not even mention an individual concerned or even suggest any reason behind Francis leaving Wigan then I can't see how conclusions that this supports claims made years later from other sources can be drawn from that contemporary source, other than by people wanting to find such conclusions and adding their own biased inference.

Ok then lets look at the sources: Newspapers from the interwar period. I must admit its not my particular area of historical expertise, but its unlikely that racism would even feature at all, either as illegitimate reason given for Francis' underusage, or much less likely to be called out as a negative. So expecting it to be openly described is probably expecting too much of the sources.

On top of that, we now have contemporary evidence that supports the assertation Francis was played significantly less than regularly and was sold/moved on in spite of being a quality player. A lot is circumstantial, but its unlikely that any smoking guns will be identified in this case (essentially what is accused of being a - potentially racially motivated - constructive bullying case from 90 years ago).

[wiganermike]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Ok then lets look at the sources: Newspapers from the interwar period. I must admit its not my particular area of historical expertise, but its unlikely that racism would even feature at all, either as illegitimate reason given for Francis' underusage, or much less likely to be called out as a negative. So expecting it to be openly described is probably expecting too much of the sources.

On top of that, we now have contemporary evidence that supports the assertation Francis was played significantly less than regularly and was sold/moved on in spite of being a quality player. A lot is circumstantial, but its unlikely that any smoking guns will be identified in this case (essentially what is accused of being a - potentially racially motivated - constructive bullying case from 90 years ago).

While you are correct that it would be unlikely to see overt reference to accusations of prejudice in contemporary newspapers nor is there any reference to statements from either Francis himself or the Barrow club to him feeling/being more welcome, or feeling more appreciated that would be less overt but would suggest that this had been an issue previously in his time at Wigan. In fact there is no contribution from Francis at all.

The contemporary source that to you supports claims that he was played significantly less than regularly and in turn you suggest supports the assertion that he received prejudicial treatment due to his race is a fan letter. Fan opinions of players within their team and the sport can vary wildly even between fans of the same club and in itself is not confirmation that a better player was left out in preference to a poorer one. While it may lead someone investigating the issue to seek to track down other sources to look for any possible corroborating evidence, in itself it is not conclusive enough as evidence. Like the other two newspaper pieces that letter makes no reference at all to Harry Sunderland, just the way the club is managed and perceived under-usage of Francis is not the only issue raised.

As you say Francis' departure from Wigan could amount to a constructive bullying issue whether racially motivated or not. It is possible for two (or more) people to just not get along without race being part of it. Even were it to be proven after further investigation to be the case that he was driven to leave Wigan for such an issue (for which no evidence has been provided whether racially related or otherwise) there is no certainty until evidence (if it exists) is found that the source of such an issue was Harry Sunderland. His so far unproven involvement in such discrimination, as well as the wider issue of racial prejudice, is what is under discussion and nothing in those sources links to Sunderland.

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

While you are correct that it would be unlikely to see overt reference to accusations of prejudice in contemporary newspapers nor is there any reference to statements from either Francis himself or the Barrow club to him feeling/being more welcome, or feeling more appreciated that would be less overt but would suggest that this had been an issue previously in his time at Wigan. In fact there is no contribution from Francis at all.

The contemporary source that to you supports claims that he was played significantly less than regularly and in turn you suggest supports the assertion that he received prejudicial treatment due to his race is a fan letter. Fan opinions of players within their team and the sport can vary wildly even between fans of the same club and in itself is not confirmation that a better player was left out in preference to a poorer one. While it may lead someone investigating the issue to seek to track down other sources to look for any possible corroborating evidence, in itself it is not conclusive enough as evidence. Like the other two newspaper pieces that letter makes no reference at all to Harry Sunderland, just the way the club is managed and perceived under-usage of Francis is not the only issue raised.

As you say Francis' departure from Wigan could amount to a constructive bullying issue whether racially motivated or not. It is possible for two (or more) people to just not get along without race being part of it. Even were it to be proven after further investigation to be the case that he was driven to leave Wigan for such an issue (for which no evidence has been provided whether racially related or otherwise) there is no certainty until evidence (if it exists) is found that the source of such an issue was Harry Sunderland. His so far unproven involvement in such discrimination, as well as the wider issue of racial prejudice, is what is under discussion and nothing in those sources links to Sunderland.

Hmmm. Aside from the fact that as manager Sunderland would have had considerable influence.

I've never said this was conclusive evidence. In fact I've repeatedly said it needs to be taken in context with other things to build a picture of the situation. I agree this may lead others into further research.

[wiganermike]

8 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Hmmm. Aside from the fact that as manager Sunderland would have had considerable influence.

I've never said this was conclusive evidence. In fact I've repeatedly said it needs to be taken in context with other things to build a picture of the situation. I agree this may lead others into further research.

Just because he was the man at the top it doesn't necessarily follow that he was the source of the issue. The ultimate boss is not the only person in an organisation that can make someone feel unwelcome or force them out. Further investigation into the issue and of records both here and in Australia, in an effort to determine the range of evidence that can be found concerning Sunderland and his relationship regarding Francis, and to determine whether that means the naming of the award should be reviewed would be a wise way to proceed. As already stated I just don't support the removal of Sunderland's name from the trophy based solely on the few unsupported claims we have seen so far.

[Tommygilf]

25 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Just because he was the man at the top it doesn't necessarily follow that he was the source of the issue. The ultimate boss is not the only person in an organisation that can make someone feel unwelcome or force them out. Further investigation into the issue and of records both here and in Australia, in an effort to determine the range of evidence that can be found concerning Sunderland and his relationship regarding Francis, and to determine whether that means the naming of the award should be reviewed would be a wise way to proceed. As already stated I just don't support the removal of Sunderland's name from the trophy based solely on the few unsupported claims we have seen so far.

Of course what you say about management is fair, but they can set the tone and indeed stop such feelings. Having relatively good prior knowledge of constructive bullying cases that these things are almost always either solvable by management or directly caused by it.

There's also the issue of Sunderland's standing in the game making any accusation against him dangerous for their careers to a point. There's plenty of examples of this in other fields too.

[wiganermike]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Of course what you say about management is fair, but they can set the tone and indeed stop such feelings. Having relatively good prior knowledge of constructive bullying cases that these things are almost always either solvable by management or directly caused by it.

There's also the issue of Sunderland's standing in the game making any accusation against him dangerous for their careers to a point. There's plenty of examples of this in other fields too.

Good points, but at a time when sensitivity to such issues wouldn't have been as prevalent as today, a manager facing an incident of one person vs more than one or one relative newcomer vs a more prominent/established individual would possibly view the easiest way of solving the issue as being removing the one/less prominent person. Not an ideal outcome by any means but not necessarily an endorsement of the reasons behind the issue. As I said further investigation to attempt to determine the truth behind the issue is probably the best way to proceed before any decisions are taken.

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, wiganermike said:

Good points, but at a time when sensitivity to such issues wouldn't have been as prevalent as today, a manager facing an incident of one person vs more than one or one relative newcomer vs a more prominent/established individual would possibly view the easiest way of solving the issue as being removing the one/less prominent person. Not an ideal outcome by any means but not necessarily an endorsement of the reasons behind the issue. As I said further investigation to attempt to determine the truth behind the issue is probably the best way to proceed before any decisions are taken.

I agree, although I think some will see any investigation as an example of "cancel culture"

[JohnM]

On 15/07/2020 at 21:35, Tommygilf said:

You want independent, verified evidence to what amounts to a constructive bullying case at best (and a racially motivated one at worst) from nearly 100 years ago?

What sort of evidence beyond witness testimony would you suggest for that?

It has been known for witnesses to be mistaken.

It has been known for witnesses to be coached.

It has been know for witnesses to have other motivations.

 

 

[Tommygilf]

7 minutes ago, JohnM said:

It has been known for witnesses to be mistaken.

It has been known for witnesses to be coached.

It has been know for witnesses to have other motivations.

 

 

That works both ways, and in fact proves my later point.

[John Drake]

I'm locking this now before it goes completely off topic.