Post by Macmoish on Mar 9, 2011 7:50:01 GMT
The Guardian - Owen Gibson and Stuart James
Manchester United's David Gill says FA should not deal with discipline• FA's remit is too broad and new body should be set up
• Sports minister says football is worst governed sport in the UK
Against the backdrop of a fresh spate of controversies involving his club, the Manchester United chief executive, David Gill, has called for the Football Association to give up responsibility for disciplinary matters.
Gill, also a member of the FA board, said it should delegate the task to a new body to avoid repeatedly finding itself at the centre of criticism and controversy.
Wayne Rooney recently sparked a furious debate when he escaped censure from the FA because it was decreed that the referee in question, Mark Clattenburg, had already seen his alleged elbow on Wigan Athletic's James McCarthy. Rooney's manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, is appealing against an FA charge for criticising another referee, Martin Atkinson, after his team's defeat to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge last week.
"The FA has a very broad remit, with grassroots, coaching, England, the FA Cup, the professional game and goes on to discipline," Gill told the culture, media and sport select committee that is conducting a wide‑ranging review of the governance of the game.
"One area I would look at seriously is separating out the discipline and making that semi-autonomous under rules and regulations stipulated by the FA but with a separate body dispensing the decisions. The FA gets a lot of bad press for not acting on particular issues for this, that and the other."
The idea is understood to have support among other clubs and the Premier League itself. The FA argues that the Football Regulatory Authority, set up in the wake of the Burns review, is already a semi-autonomous body with an independent element. But critics say it is not sufficiently independent and is interchangeable with the FA in the public mind.
Senior referees have also called for disciplinary matters to be taken out of the FA's hands. "The main issue referees want is for the retrospective action to be taken out of their hands because the current system is totally flawed," said one leading referee. "Managers and clubs know full well how the system works now, and that it goes back to referees to decide whether anything should be done retrospectively, and that means too much responsibility is being put back on the ref.
"The FA hide behind it saying 'we can't do anything' but that's a weak excuse. There needs to be an independent panel of three people that oversee the process."
Gill, who has repeatedly defended the leveraged business model of Manchester United's owners, again backed the Glazers to the hilt under questioning from MPs and said it would be "odd" to have any dialogue with fans' groups who were "at war with the owners".
He argued that he communicated with fans through a thrice yearly forum and pointed to its customer relationship programme with fans at home and overseas. But he said the club would never engage with the Manchester United Supporters Trust (Must), which saw huge growth on the back of last year's anti-Glazer protests, and now has more than 167,000 members. "Must's objective is to change the ownership. So it would be rather strange to open a dialogue with those fans," he. "We're not going to engage in a structured dialogue with organisations like that. I don't think it's appropriate or sensible."
In answer to critics of the Glazer's business model, Gill said he was "comfortable" with the club's level of interest payments on its £500m debt, which stand at £45m a year. He said revenues had risen under their ownership from £40m to more than £100m and again insisted "there has been no impact in terms of transfers".
But critics immediately said his claim that net transfer spend after the takeover had been "greater than in the five or six years before that" was untrue. Andy Green, who blogs on United's finances as Andersred, said the club's accounts showed the net spend was £89.4m from 2001 to 2005 and £56m from 2006 to 2010.Peter Coates, the Stoke City owner, also echoed recent calls for the addition of two non-executive directors to the FA board. However, he said it was crucial that they were at the expense of two existing directors, as originally envisaged by Lord Burns's 2005 report.
"It's got a recent very bad record. Lots of own goals, lots of things that have gone on that reflect very badly on the game. I'm strongly in favour of two non‑executive directors. I think we've appointed a good chairman but he has to be able to do his job," he said. "Two non-executive directors, of the right calibre, would be very good for the governance of the game and along with that you'd have to reduce the size of the board. We haven't had support for that in the FA and I hope that's going to change."
The committee, chaired by the Tory MP John Whittingdale, is likely to deliver its report by the end of next month. It will be used as the springboard for action by the sports minister, Hugh Robertson, who has called football the worst governed sport in the UK, and is likely to call for reform at both the FA and the Premier League.
www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/mar/08/manchester-united-david-gill-fa
INDPENDENT By Glenn Moore
'Glazers' passports not an issue'
Manchester United chief executive rejects MPs' tough criticism and says American owners have long-term plan
David Gill delivered a staunch defence of the Glazer family yesterday during hostile questioning by Members of Parliament about Manchester United's owners.
The club's chief executive, who was giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport select committee's inquiry into football governance at the House of Commons, said the debt loaded on to United by the Glazers did not affect the running of the team. He added the Glazers had increased the club's income, had delegated communication with fans to himself and Sir Alex Ferguson, and were taking a "long-term" view.
Gill was told, by Tom Watson MP, that it "should be an embarrassment that a great British institution like Manchester United" was owned by a company registered in Delaware (a US state noted as a corporate haven). "Not at all," Gill responded.
The chief executive added: "Manchester United Football Club Limited is a UK company. The ultimate owners might be in Delaware but where are the owners of Chelsea [based]? It doesn't matter. Our ultimate ownership is 100 per cent Glazer family. Their passport is not an issue. You can have very bad British owners. It's about the right owners, not the right passport. We understand that football is an important part of the economy and social fabric of the UK and act responsibly."
Questioned over the club's debt, Gill was forced to admit "it would be better in some respects if the debt was not there," but insisted: "It doesn't hamper the club, it doesn't impact what we do. It has no impact in terms of transfers.
"Net spend on players has been greater. We have improved the facilities and the training ground. We have increased from 460 to 600 employees. We have seen great growth in terms of turnover. The Glazers have taken a view of longer-term investment than had previously been the case [at United]. They saw commercial opportunities. They have brought a lot of initiatives."
Gill said the Glazers were not alone among owners in not speaking directly to supporters, adding he speaks to a supporters' forum three or four times a year. Gill defended the refusal to engage with the Manchester United Supporters Trust "because their avowed intent is to change ownership. It would be strange and inappropriate to communicate with them."
Gill also defended Wayne Rooney's recent pay rise, and the conduct that led to it. Responding to the suggestion by Paul Farrelly MP that it was "outrageous" and "sent out a message that bad behaviour is rewarded", he said: "I don't think it is outrageous. Wayne Rooney is a great player for his country and Manchester United and we want to keep him. The club depends on success. We have a self-imposed cap of 50 per cent of turnover for salaries and we will pay players appropriately."
Gill, and Peter Coates, the chairman and owner of Stoke City, both suggested the Football Association bring in two non-executive directors, as was suggested in the last report into its structure. "The FA is not completely broken," said Gill, who is an FA Board member, "but it needs some stability." He also suggested making the disciplinary arm "semi-autonomous" as "a lot of the FA's bad press comes from that".
In later evidence, Lord Mawhinney, president of the Football League, warned that the new system of parachute payments, which will hand relegated clubs £16m a year for four seasons, would "undermine the integrity of the Football League". He added: "Next season there will be four clubs receiving £16m, and 20 clubs receiving £4m."
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/glazers-passports-not-an-issue-2236037.html
Manchester United's David Gill says FA should not deal with discipline• FA's remit is too broad and new body should be set up
• Sports minister says football is worst governed sport in the UK
Against the backdrop of a fresh spate of controversies involving his club, the Manchester United chief executive, David Gill, has called for the Football Association to give up responsibility for disciplinary matters.
Gill, also a member of the FA board, said it should delegate the task to a new body to avoid repeatedly finding itself at the centre of criticism and controversy.
Wayne Rooney recently sparked a furious debate when he escaped censure from the FA because it was decreed that the referee in question, Mark Clattenburg, had already seen his alleged elbow on Wigan Athletic's James McCarthy. Rooney's manager, Sir Alex Ferguson, is appealing against an FA charge for criticising another referee, Martin Atkinson, after his team's defeat to Chelsea at Stamford Bridge last week.
"The FA has a very broad remit, with grassroots, coaching, England, the FA Cup, the professional game and goes on to discipline," Gill told the culture, media and sport select committee that is conducting a wide‑ranging review of the governance of the game.
"One area I would look at seriously is separating out the discipline and making that semi-autonomous under rules and regulations stipulated by the FA but with a separate body dispensing the decisions. The FA gets a lot of bad press for not acting on particular issues for this, that and the other."
The idea is understood to have support among other clubs and the Premier League itself. The FA argues that the Football Regulatory Authority, set up in the wake of the Burns review, is already a semi-autonomous body with an independent element. But critics say it is not sufficiently independent and is interchangeable with the FA in the public mind.
Senior referees have also called for disciplinary matters to be taken out of the FA's hands. "The main issue referees want is for the retrospective action to be taken out of their hands because the current system is totally flawed," said one leading referee. "Managers and clubs know full well how the system works now, and that it goes back to referees to decide whether anything should be done retrospectively, and that means too much responsibility is being put back on the ref.
"The FA hide behind it saying 'we can't do anything' but that's a weak excuse. There needs to be an independent panel of three people that oversee the process."
Gill, who has repeatedly defended the leveraged business model of Manchester United's owners, again backed the Glazers to the hilt under questioning from MPs and said it would be "odd" to have any dialogue with fans' groups who were "at war with the owners".
He argued that he communicated with fans through a thrice yearly forum and pointed to its customer relationship programme with fans at home and overseas. But he said the club would never engage with the Manchester United Supporters Trust (Must), which saw huge growth on the back of last year's anti-Glazer protests, and now has more than 167,000 members. "Must's objective is to change the ownership. So it would be rather strange to open a dialogue with those fans," he. "We're not going to engage in a structured dialogue with organisations like that. I don't think it's appropriate or sensible."
In answer to critics of the Glazer's business model, Gill said he was "comfortable" with the club's level of interest payments on its £500m debt, which stand at £45m a year. He said revenues had risen under their ownership from £40m to more than £100m and again insisted "there has been no impact in terms of transfers".
But critics immediately said his claim that net transfer spend after the takeover had been "greater than in the five or six years before that" was untrue. Andy Green, who blogs on United's finances as Andersred, said the club's accounts showed the net spend was £89.4m from 2001 to 2005 and £56m from 2006 to 2010.Peter Coates, the Stoke City owner, also echoed recent calls for the addition of two non-executive directors to the FA board. However, he said it was crucial that they were at the expense of two existing directors, as originally envisaged by Lord Burns's 2005 report.
"It's got a recent very bad record. Lots of own goals, lots of things that have gone on that reflect very badly on the game. I'm strongly in favour of two non‑executive directors. I think we've appointed a good chairman but he has to be able to do his job," he said. "Two non-executive directors, of the right calibre, would be very good for the governance of the game and along with that you'd have to reduce the size of the board. We haven't had support for that in the FA and I hope that's going to change."
The committee, chaired by the Tory MP John Whittingdale, is likely to deliver its report by the end of next month. It will be used as the springboard for action by the sports minister, Hugh Robertson, who has called football the worst governed sport in the UK, and is likely to call for reform at both the FA and the Premier League.
www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/mar/08/manchester-united-david-gill-fa
INDPENDENT By Glenn Moore
'Glazers' passports not an issue'
Manchester United chief executive rejects MPs' tough criticism and says American owners have long-term plan
David Gill delivered a staunch defence of the Glazer family yesterday during hostile questioning by Members of Parliament about Manchester United's owners.
The club's chief executive, who was giving evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport select committee's inquiry into football governance at the House of Commons, said the debt loaded on to United by the Glazers did not affect the running of the team. He added the Glazers had increased the club's income, had delegated communication with fans to himself and Sir Alex Ferguson, and were taking a "long-term" view.
Gill was told, by Tom Watson MP, that it "should be an embarrassment that a great British institution like Manchester United" was owned by a company registered in Delaware (a US state noted as a corporate haven). "Not at all," Gill responded.
The chief executive added: "Manchester United Football Club Limited is a UK company. The ultimate owners might be in Delaware but where are the owners of Chelsea [based]? It doesn't matter. Our ultimate ownership is 100 per cent Glazer family. Their passport is not an issue. You can have very bad British owners. It's about the right owners, not the right passport. We understand that football is an important part of the economy and social fabric of the UK and act responsibly."
Questioned over the club's debt, Gill was forced to admit "it would be better in some respects if the debt was not there," but insisted: "It doesn't hamper the club, it doesn't impact what we do. It has no impact in terms of transfers.
"Net spend on players has been greater. We have improved the facilities and the training ground. We have increased from 460 to 600 employees. We have seen great growth in terms of turnover. The Glazers have taken a view of longer-term investment than had previously been the case [at United]. They saw commercial opportunities. They have brought a lot of initiatives."
Gill said the Glazers were not alone among owners in not speaking directly to supporters, adding he speaks to a supporters' forum three or four times a year. Gill defended the refusal to engage with the Manchester United Supporters Trust "because their avowed intent is to change ownership. It would be strange and inappropriate to communicate with them."
Gill also defended Wayne Rooney's recent pay rise, and the conduct that led to it. Responding to the suggestion by Paul Farrelly MP that it was "outrageous" and "sent out a message that bad behaviour is rewarded", he said: "I don't think it is outrageous. Wayne Rooney is a great player for his country and Manchester United and we want to keep him. The club depends on success. We have a self-imposed cap of 50 per cent of turnover for salaries and we will pay players appropriately."
Gill, and Peter Coates, the chairman and owner of Stoke City, both suggested the Football Association bring in two non-executive directors, as was suggested in the last report into its structure. "The FA is not completely broken," said Gill, who is an FA Board member, "but it needs some stability." He also suggested making the disciplinary arm "semi-autonomous" as "a lot of the FA's bad press comes from that".
In later evidence, Lord Mawhinney, president of the Football League, warned that the new system of parachute payments, which will hand relegated clubs £16m a year for four seasons, would "undermine the integrity of the Football League". He added: "Next season there will be four clubs receiving £16m, and 20 clubs receiving £4m."
www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/glazers-passports-not-an-issue-2236037.html