Culture, Media and Sport Committee
Football Governance
Tuesday 5 April 2011.
IMAGE ONE: Sir Dave Richards Chairman, the Premier League.
IMAGE TWO: Richard Scudamore Chief Executive, the Premier League
IMAGE ONE: Batman
IMAGE TWO: Robin
Oral evidence presented to the House of Commons UK, Culture, Media and Sport select committee inquiry into 'Football Governance' on Tuesday 05 April, 2011.
Chairman: John Whittingdale
Committee:
Ms Louise Bagshawe
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Damian Collins
Philip Davies
Paul Farrelly
Mr Adrian Sanders
Jim Sheridan
Examination of Witnesses: Sir Dave Richards (Batman), Chairman - Premier League and Richard Scudamore (Robin), Chief Executive- the Premier League.
Mr John Whittingdale (Chair): This is a further session of the Committee’s inquiry into football governance. I welcome for the first part of this morning’s session the Chairman of the Premier League, Sir Dave Richards, and the Chief Executive, Richard Scudamore. Adrian Sanders will begin.
Mr Sanders to Sir Dave Richards: Do you accept that the Football Association is the governing body of the English game?
Sir Dave Richards: Yes.
Mr Sanders: Unquestionably?
Sir Dave Richards: It is the governance of the game.
Mr Sanders: Would English football benefit from having a stronger Football Association as well as a strong Premier League, and will you support FA Chairman David Bernstein’s efforts to achieve this?
Sir Dave Richards: We have always supported the FA in every way we could. The FA is an association of people, but it needs to keep the balance among those people who are associated with it. As regards supporting David Bernstein, yes, we will support David Bernstein in what he is trying to do.
ROBIN BUTTS IN...
Richard Scudamore: Can I maybe add some detail to what Sir Dave has said? The FA is the governing body of football in this country. Under the FIFA statutes, that is the way it must be and has to be. We are a league and therefore we come under the auspices of the FA and the FA sanctions our rulebook every year. That rulebook is effectively the contract between our member clubs and therefore we do support that. We have a history, certainly in our time at the Premier League, of supporting the reforms of the FA whenever they have come along. Sir Dave was instrumental in moving the board to six and six-national game/professional game-in 1999. That was four representatives from the Premier League, two from the Football League and six from the national game. Those reforms were brought in around then.
We also were and are on record as being the only people who came out and unconditionally accepted the Burns report. When Lord Terry Burns did his report on the governance of the FA, out it came and we supported it. Even though there were elements of it that we would not have, perhaps, as individual items have supported, we absolutely supported it. So we have a history of progressive modernisation of governance and we would be more than happy, as I say, to support proportionate proposals.
But Dave does hit upon the fundamental point that the Football Association is an association of interests, and that is its genesis. Its genesis goes way, way back to the mid-19th century: J.S. Mill-I am sure you are all familiar with him-freedom of conscience and opinion, freedom of association, freedom of getting involved in pastimes and interests that interest you. So, 1859. The FA itself was being formed around about 1863 and this is what we are-we are an association of interests. It might be difficult, it might be tough, but that is what we are. That is where we are today and I would defend the FA. No matter what other issues we may discuss today or at any point, I would absolutely defend the FA’s right to associate as an interested group-those who are interested in football and those who actually run football to form as an association.
Mr Sanders: That is an encouraging answer, because the FA has told us that it wants to rethink the architecture at the top of the game. Do you therefore agree that the respective roles of the FA and the Premier League need to be looked at and, if so, how should the division of responsibilities change?
Richard Scudamore: Well, there is a concept of constant improvement. We have never, ever rested on our laurels and therefore, in a sense, we are looking at all things all the time. We have strategic reviews; we have regular dialogue. I think people misunderstand a lot of the relationship between us. We have such regular dialogue. Every two weeks the executives of all three football bodies-Football League, Premier League and FA-get together. We exchange and work together on most initiatives. Yes, if there is ever a discussion around moving the game on-progressing the game-we want to be active participants in that because we think we have a role to play, but we are not resistant to change, as I said. Any review that comes along we will take our full part in. I go back to Burns. Burns, as I say, was absolutely endorsed by us. We were the first to do that and I think we were the only body to do it.
Damian Collins: Sir Dave Richards, do you think, thinking purely of the England national team, there will be an advantage to having a winter break in the season or fewer premiership games played in the season as part of a reduction in the number of domestic matches?
Sir Dave Richards: It goes a lot deeper than that. Obviously we want to do the very best we can for the English game, being the England team. We want to do the best. We have been discussing ways forward on how we could introduce a winter break by possibly looking at the FA Cup, looking at the league, and Richard and the executives of the FA have been looking at that to try to find a proper synergy where it actually works.
Richard Scudamore: Damian, your question hits upon a number of things-helping the England team and, effectively, fixture congestion. I have to say that in my time here we have had four goes at this, looking at the fixture calendar. It is very difficult because if you go back from the formation of the Premier League, remember English football was historically 22 teams in the top division and each team playing 42 matches. That is not now the situation. We are now down to 20. If you remember in the season prior to the Premier League’s formation the FA Cup was open-ended and, therefore, the replays went on ad infinitum or ad nauseam, depending on your particular view of each particular match. Now, winning the FA Cup is six matches plus replays, but at least only one replay and it doesn’t go on for ever. The Football League Cup used to be eight rounds plus replays to win it, and that has been reduced to seven finite rounds with every game played to a finish.
When you are looking at fixture congestion, which really is your question, I think, I am afraid we have to look at our friends at UEFA and FIFA as more the culprits than ourselves. UEFA used to have-in the season we started in, 1992-93-13 match dates they required. Now they need 21 match dates to fulfil their fixtures. FIFA traditionally were about nine or 10 international dates, which is now averaging 12. The difficulty is somebody has to give something up. We put on 380 events and those events are watched around the world. They are extremely popular. Those 380, if you took two teams out, don’t go down by a few; you go down to 306 events. There is no way that you would do that in terms of public interest, in terms of fan interest, in terms of the expense of other competitions.
If you want me to talk about other competitions-the Football League Cup, for example, or the FA Cup-we have never advocated the radical altering of those competitions because they are hugely, hugely important to the solidarity of football in this country. The FA Cup is worth about £100 million value. Basically, if you mess with that competition, that reduces. Of that £100 million, £75 million is for the benefit of the FA and redistribution. The calendar is extremely difficult. We have always said if it could be practically done we would advocate some sort of winter break, but we have failed because it is just hard to come up with a practical suggestion.
Damian Collins: Thank you for a very full answer, and you are right, the general congestion of the calendar was part of my question. I did mention the English national team and neither of you mentioned the English national team in the answer to the question. Sir Dave, do you think all this complexity and all this work that might be undertaken in reducing congestion in the fixture list, if that could be achieved, would be to the benefit of the English national team?
Sir Dave Richards: I think it is an old answer to give you. The winter break would help providing we didn’t put extra games in on friendlies. That is always the danger, but more and more, our Chief Executive and the executives of the Football League and the FA are looking at these scenarios all the time, and looking at not just what is best for the Premier League, but how we can develop better youngsters and better playing of the England team.
Richard Scudamore: Can I go back to the winter break-
Robin is really quite RUDE! Butting in...
Damian Collins: If I may, Mr Scudamore, I would like to follow up on the question before you come in. In what you are saying in your answer, do you accept that there is an issue that people in football have to address, which is that England players are tired at the end of the season because they play too much football and we should look at how they can prepare for major championships by easing some of that burden on them?
Sir Dave Richards: You say, how can we prepare for major championships? I can tell you the preparation for the World Cup was incredible. The training, the high altitude training, the training in South Africa-you couldn’t have done any more. It is not about just saying, "We want to find a little bit more space for the English team to play." It is about how we can bring the whole game to a higher level to win competitions.
Richard Scudamore: Can I just answer specifically about the winter break? We have no body of absolute evidence that a break around about December/January time, whenever you might choose to do it, would make a physical difference come May/June. That is one of the problems. We have opinion. There is a body of opinion on this subject, but there is no empirical evidence that says take your break then-clearly, any break any time. Then there are some doctors who talk about having to get back to match fitness after that short a space of time. It is all quite difficult and we certainly don’t yet have a body of evidence that says, "A break now leads to success in June and July." There are many other factors, which I am sure you will want to ask us about.
Damian Collins: Of course. There is another part to my question. The reason I am particularly directing it to you, Sir Dave, and the reason I am particularly asking about the England national team, is whether you think you are conflicted as Chairman of the Premier League and sitting on the FA board, because the FA is responsible for the national team and you have responsibility both to the Premier League and to the national game. Certainly, your answer betrays the complexity and the torment that you might find within yourself, but I am not sure whether the England national team is uppermost in your thoughts.
Sir Dave Richards: I can tell you that when I go on any tournaments or help in organising any tournaments, my uppermost thought is how we can do it best. Not the team, but how we can deliver the facilities, the training time, the transport, the hotel, the food, because that was part of my job. My job was not to decide how the team trained, when it trained, what the tactics were. That is the manager’s job, but it is our job to give him the time to facilitate all those things. People talk about conflict. I don’t really understand how you get to that because it is an association of people. People say, "Well, you were Chairman of Team England during the World Cup." It is just a name of a person who had the responsibility if anything went wrong. Whether a player got injured, whether it was the medical staff, whether it was part of the staff that had to be flown home, they were responsibilities that I had, but not the team and the way it played and the way it trained. That was the manager’s job.
Damian Collins: But if the England team manager said to you, "I think the players are too tired. We need to reduce congestion in the game," and the FA board agreed, there was consensus among FA people that was the right thing to do and we should look at that, would your first reaction be, "Let us go away and see how the Premier League can make a contribution to that along with other competitions."?
Sir Dave Richards: No, it wouldn’t.
Damian Collins: Do you not think that does slightly conflict you? You said no, it wouldn’t; that is not how you would respond. Do you not think that gives you a slight conflict being Chairman of the Premier League and being on the FA?
Sir Dave Richards: If you just give me some time to answer you, I will try and answer you the best way I can. If you say that fixture congestion is too much, we have to go right back and start looking at how fixtures are made at UEFA, FIFA, the FA and the Premier League. The Premier League has tried over many years to make the calendar fit to suit everybody’s purpose. It has tried extremely hard. The manager has never, in all my years-I have been on the FA since 1994-said to me, "The players are too tired, they have over-trained," because it is his job to decide that. The board and everyone else do not have any input into that. It is purely what the manager decides.
Here comes ROBIN (Pain in the Arse), again...
Richard Scudamore: In a sense, Mr Collins, the issue has moved on because I think you would admit, Dave, you were the reluctant sole representative with that title during South Africa, because Lord Triesman had left the organisation, and the minute David Bernstein arrived you handed over that title or that pass had gone. Some may call it a hospital pass, who knows? But it has been handed on to David Bernstein and that is right in some ways. In some ways we are talking about an issue that has passed.
Damian Collins: I am not doubting these are very difficult issues or saying that there are easy solutions to them. A lot of our inquiries have looked at the FA board and the way it is made up, the people who are on it, the way they make their decisions. Is there an inherent conflict of interest in your role, Sir Dave, and would it be better, as has been recommended to us by Ian Watmore, that the FA has a wholly independent board and, therefore, these conflicts don’t arise?
Sir Dave Richards: We would like to discuss that further, but can I say to you the FA needs the whole of the balance from the Premier League, the Football League, the national game, the Conference. It needs that because each person brings something a bit special to it, where we have accountants, club chairmen, club chief executives, professional game chairmen, professional game representatives and secretaries from the national game, because it creates that balance inside the FA of what is really needed. What we are not saying is that it doesn’t need some independence.
Damian Collins: But you would not go so far as having a wholly independent board or a majority independent board?
Sir Dave Richards: I think it would be a retrograde step if you did that.
Damian Collins: One final question: given you think there should be a role for independents on the FA board, should there be a role for independent directors on your board, like most successful companies have independent directors?
Sir Dave Richards: We are governed by shareholders.
Richard Scudamore: That is the point. You cannot conflate our board with anything like a business board. Effectively, if you go back to CAB or you go to the Combined Code, it quite clearly says that independents are there to represent the shareholders’ interests. All our shareholders get to make every material decision that goes on. All our 20 shareholders meet at least five times a year, usually six, and we have ad hoc meetings if an issue arises. I think the maximum we have had is 12 meetings in a year during certain times when the European Commission issue was around. Basically, our constitution, deliberately written by Rick Parry and our forefathers, enabled the shareholders to vote on every material issue. Anything that exposes the shareholders to either a £200,000 liability or an income, a contract that generates £200,000 or we spend £200,000-we had one only last week-all the shareholders have to approve that. Therefore, effectively, our shareholder meetings are the board meetings. Once a year we agree on a rulebook and then, yes, we have summary ability to apply that rulebook during the year where we use extensive external legal advice, so you can’t conflate it.
When I came back to the Football Association, though, the reality is that since the mid-19th century, as I said before, these associations have been formed and it is an association of interests. On the idea that you would have a wholly independent board, independent of whom? Representing whom? The whole point is with the FA, it might make it more difficult, but the essence of the FA has to be a representative body where representatives of the game come together in an association to try and do what is in the best interests of the whole game. I would defend the FA to the ends of the earth, really, to make sure that it was allowed to associate as an association of interests.
Damian Collins: You both are in favour of having independent representation on the FA board, but you wouldn’t countenance it for the Premier League, even if that might bring an outside view, some other expertise?
Richard Scudamore: Just so as we are clear, a personal view: I don’t think independents necessarily are necessary on the FA board because it is an association of interests. However, if that is what Mr Bernstein, as the FA Chairman, wishes to promote, I think we would support that, as we did with Burns. I did say we didn’t like everything in Burns, but Burns basically said, "We think you should have independents here." It said an awful lot of other things as well, which I said to you. In the round, we think Burns, therefore, was worth adopting.
Paul Farrelly: Mr Scudamore, have you not just said of the FA, "We are an association of interests."? In 2008, responding to a speech given by the now departed Lord Triesman, you said, "We are like competitors. We compete for sponsorship and for television rights and we are in the same space." How do representatives of the Premier League manage those competitive interests while at the same time, as you say, recognising the FA as the authority and the governing body of the game?
Richard Scudamore: Of course, in one sense I can’t deny we do compete, but there is a difference between competing and it necessarily being conflicting. Of course, when it comes to our broadcasting rights, for example, we don’t compete directly in the sense of we are out to market together and we are out to market at the same time and we are taking each other’s revenues. In fact, we Chinese wall that entire discussion. We are regulated-heavily regulated-in that sense.
But, yes, there is an element on the commercial side where there are properties that we each have, but it is not a zero-sum game here. When you go back to the way the game has grown, the game has grown immeasurably in interest. If you look at all the data since the Premier League was formed, 1992-93 to today, our revenues have grown; I can’t deny that. Our television viewing has grown; can’t deny that. But so have attendances grown. Attendances have grown at the Football League; attendances have grown certainly at England matches; television rights have grown at the Football League; television rights have grown at the FA. The whole economic interest in English football has all grown. It is not a zero-sum game. The game has generated huge amounts of interest and we have not just become of national interest. As you know, we have become of global interest.
You raise an interesting point, though, as to where the properties of the FA sit in terms of the governance structure because, in effect, like us they are competition owners, just like UEFA are competition owners. That is a very separate issue from the governance in terms of disciplinary matters and regulatory matters, and it is also a very different issue in terms of running the England team. It is a different issue in terms of running Wembley. Of course, that has always been the situation where these interests come together and it is perfectly possible. We, even within our Premier League environment, have to manage and reconcile individual clubs’ commercial aspirations with our own collective Premier League aspirations. The clubs to date, over the 20 years since the Premier League has been in existence, have had this interesting dynamic where they have stayed very solid with the collective on television rights; on other commercial matters, they are out there looking for the same sponsors and competing. It doesn’t mean to say you can’t reconcile that, you can’t manage that. There is space for all of us and I don’t see it is an inherent difficulty in running the organisation.
Paul Farrelly: Is it unequivocally a good thing that the likes of Newcastle Town from NewcastleunderLyme get the opportunity through the FA Cup to play the Manchester Uniteds?
Richard Scudamore: Absolutely is
Paul Farrelly: Is that unequivocally good for the game?
Richard Scudamore: Absolutely unequivocally good, yes.
Paul Farrelly: Sir Dave, I put a passage in a book to Lord Triesman, so it is only fair I put the same passage to you. This goes back to the time of Adam Crozier, before his resignation. The author of the book, David Conn-it is The Beautiful Game?-said of the events at that time, when you were questioning the potential participation of the clubs and the future of the FA Cup, "I have it from three members of the FA’s main board that Dave Richards was constantly threatening to withdraw the premiership clubs from the FA Cup or saying that clubs would withdraw if he didn’t get his way on an issue, usually over money. The sources complained that they would not debate with Richards in any detail. He would fly off, be dismissive or issue a threat. I put this question, whether he threatened that the premiership clubs would withdraw from the FA Cup, to Richards through the Premier League press office because he never talks publicly. He was walking past and I asked him and he said, ‘Bollocks’." That was the passage I put to Lord Triesman in the context of the picture he was painting of the behaviour of the professional game. Could I give you a fair opportunity to respond to that in more than one word?
Sir Dave Richards: Yes, certainly.
Richard Scudamore: Be careful which word you use.
Sir Dave Richards: At the FA Cup Committee, we had lots and lots of debates about what was the best way forward. I had a particular friend on the FA Cup Committee in Barry Taylor and we had this rivalry about what is best for English football in the FA Cup. One day we were discussing replays and he said, "No, no"-he has always been a great adversary of having to keep replays, which sometimes we look at and we think, "That’s odd," but that is the way it is and we accept that. It got on to, should clubs be seeded? Should clubs be seeded so that they could pick out of the box that club against that club? I said, "If you do that I will take it back to the Premier League and I know some of them will not do that and they won’t play." That is the kind of statement that was made. When Mr Conn rang and put that statement to our press officer, Phil French, I did use those words. I did say to him it was that word. Yes, sir, I did.
Its getting quite heated now...
Paul Farrelly: That is a lovely response and a lovely anecdote, but it doesn’t respond to the central question, which is the portrait that is painted of the behaviour of the professional league representatives on the FA board. Let me give you another instance. If you recognise the FA as the authority in the governing body, why did you not allow the Football Association, either in the same terms as Lord Triesman wanted or in different amended terms, to make any submission to Andy Burnham’s questions, rather than simply referring to the submissions made by the Premier League and the Football League?
Sir Dave Richards: Sir, may I give you the actual story? Andy Burnham came out to the FA and asked for a submission on the governance of the game. A dialogue was started with the Premier League, the Football League and the FA. Originally, it was going to be one submission from all parties, but after a lengthy discussion between the three executives they decided the best way was to co-ordinate a reply from all three parties, and they did that. They worked on it for weeks and weeks. There was consultation between the three leagues and between the board, saying, "Do we believe that is right? No, we should take it back and look at it because that doesn’t fit with that." Eventually, the submissions were made to the DCMS.
Lord Triesman came to a board meeting after the submissions were made and agreed with the executives of the three different bodies, came to the board with some papers and said, "This is the FA’s response to the DCMS." It had already gone in. Nobody had seen those papers. There had been no consultation. The deadline had passed, and not just me, but everybody on the board, was astonished at the way that came about. Lord Triesman started to discuss the changes and the board said, "We have submitted the information that we want. We won’t allow that to go forward." Now, that was not just me as one independent person; it was 10 people. It is a matter of record in the minutes, sir.
Here comes Robin, (Pain in the Arse again),...
Richard Scudamore: Can I add some facts to that, because I think it is important? You certainly, in your jobs as Members of Parliament, will recognise the need for proper consultation. When Andy Burnham’s letter arrived in the autumn of that year, we went on an extensive consultation. We held club meetings-in small groups, wasn’t it? It is hard work when you have to meet every club on every topic, and we met them at every club. We had full club consultation. It was on our shareholders’ agenda for two of our meetings. We produced four drafts of our submission, which the clubs fully approved the final draft. We also consulted with our FA executive colleagues and our Football League colleagues. Within the time frame agreed, by 31 March, in went our submissions. It was May before Lord Triesman, without any consultation, wrote his own paper and sprung it on us-remember, we discussed our paper with the FA, because the FA attends our shareholders’ meetings and everything else. All of a sudden, Lord Triesman’s paper was late and it had no consultation process. As I say, it is a matter of history and conjecture as to whether the individual ideas within that paper had merit; in fact, most of them-I think probably 75% to 80%-were already covered by way of topic in our papers and have subsequently been acted upon by both ourselves and the FA. But it is just no way to run an association of interests, without consultation.
Paul Farrelly: I want to ask one final question of Sir Dave. This is a curiosity question, but it is asked by quite a number of people. You are the Chairman of the Premier League, but you are not the chairman of a Premier League club. Has the Premier League ever considered having one of its own as Chairman, possibly on a rotation basis?
Sir Dave Richards: I used to be a chairman of a club. When I first was asked to do this job I was a chairman of a club. The Premier League shareholders-Mr Parry will be able to fill you in-decided that they had to have someone independent of a club. I was elected and I left the club.
Richard Scudamore: Our rulebook, our constitution and our articles are very clear that the board is wholly independent of any club interest. From the time the season starts right through to the time the season ends we have to apply that rulebook in a very independent way.
Paul Farrelly: But that is not good enough for the FA to be independent?
Richard Scudamore: No, we are independent of the shareholders.
Paul Farrelly: No, but the same model is not good enough for the FA?
Richard Scudamore: Well, it is an association of interests. We are a limited company. They are an association of interests. As I say, we have no pathological objection to independence, but total independence doesn’t work.
Chairman, John Whittingdale: Sir Dave, you have been a member of the FA board for 16 years, I think?
Sir Dave Richards: Yes, sir.
Chair: It has been suggested that part of the problem is that the FA board is a narrow group of various interests and both the board, and even more so the Council, are hardly representative of either the modern game or modern Britain. Is that something that causes you any concern?
Sir Dave Richards: We have always looked at the representation of the board and every single person is elected. They are elected members of the board. They are elected by councillors, leagues and the Premier League. We have always wondered about inclusion and what it really needs, but we have always followed the Chairman of the FA, who has been the natural leader, and followed his wishes. When Burns came along, we were quite up for all the changes that Lord Burns put in because we thought it became very inclusive and it was good for the game. Unfortunately, it didn’t get through in its entirety. It was piecemealed to give the FA what they wanted at that time. So, are we up for inclusion? We are always looking at the way things ought to be brought forward.
Chair: But you say you always followed the Chairman of the FA, who takes the lead, and one of the people who made this point most strongly was Lord Triesman, who was Chairman of the FA. He suggested that he was blocked, principally by you.
Sir Dave Richards: You know, the statement that Lord Triesman made really saddened me and made me feel a little bit dejected, because on the statement that he made that I blocked him, first, I have never blocked anyone. It is a free and democratic board at the FA and to think that the Premier League Chairman could block nine others is ridiculous.
Secondly, Lord Triesman suggested that I bullied people. Well, that really hurt me because for 12 years I have been one of the chairmen at the NSPCC, which raised quarter of a billion pounds for children-for bullied and abused children. Lord David knew that and he knew how passionate I was about protecting all these different styles of things. It makes me wonder why he said such a thing because I thought I was reasonably close to Lord T because we travelled quite extensively together. I helped him very much. When he wanted to be introduced to people and wanted to be taken into different places, I went with him. I was always very supportive to him. Why would he ever think that I blocked him? Sir, there may have been differences of opinion with me and Lord David, but I never brought them into the boardroom.
That pain in the arse again, ROBIN...
Richard Scudamore: Chairman, can I just add something? I don’t know Lord Triesman as familiarly as Sir Dave does-I certainly wouldn’t call him Lord T-but the reality is that Lord Triesman, at no point in his tenure, brought Burns back to the table because had he done that we would have absolutely supported that initiative, and I think that is very important.
I would point you back to Roger Burden’s evidence last week. He very eloquently, I think, on behalf of the FA board, talked about his view of how the FA board functioned, his view that he was not bullied or they were not bullied. Ian Watmore also clearly wouldn’t recognise that when he was asked. Roger Burden quite articulately talked about how the FA board, in his view, worked. We, the Premier League, now have three representatives on the board and there is no way we have a majority position on that board, as the professional game does not. I think you need to listen to the evidence from others as well, and I know you will do that.
Chair: Can I just be clear? Sir Dave, you are saying on Lord Triesman’s efforts to broaden representation, both on the board and on the FA Council, you were absolutely four square behind him in that?
Sir Dave Richards: Lord Triesman only ever once spoke about it and it was in the original document. He had ample opportunity to bring Lord Burns’s proposal back as Chairman and start to work in the FA board to get where he wanted to be. He had ample opportunity, but he never did that.
Chair: Were you disappointed? Were you encouraging him to do so?
Sir Dave Richards: Look, I never encouraged him; I never discouraged him. The only thing that I did discourage him from doing was becoming Executive Chairman of the FA, which probably was one of the main agreements we couldn’t reach. He wanted to be Executive Chairman of the FA and that was a very difficult scenario. We did disagree and we did consult with the other board members about it. But regarding progress at the FA, no, sir, he cannot say that.
Does'nt Richard Scudamore aka ROBIN, get it yet- The committee want answers from Sir Dave Richards aka BATMAN!
Richard Scudamore: I think Sir Dave raises an interesting point that most of this discussion we have been having around Lord Triesman, his submissions and certainly around the Andy Burnham letter was done at a time when, effectively, there was not a Chief Executive of the FA. They had announced Brian Barwick’s departure in August of that year, the evening of a friendly against Czechoslovakia and he gave notice that he was leaving. Not wishing to personalise it to Brian, there was an element of lame-duck nature of his tenure at that time, and again I think Lord Triesman did attempt to become Executive Chairman on a number of occasions, but the board resisted that particular move.
Jim Sheridan: Sir Dave, I can almost feel a lump in my throat when you talk about the sincerity and passion you feel about being hurt by Lord Triesman. Could I just clarify that the only reason that his submission was rejected was because it was time barred?
Sir Dave Richards: No, sir, it wasn’t a question of being time barred; it was a question that Lord Triesman brought a document to the board that had never even-
Jim Sheridan: Too late?
Sir Dave Richards: No, sir, it wasn’t a question; it had never been discussed. It had never been discussed at all.
Richard Scudamore: The facts on that particular document are that the entire board-the national game as much as the professional game-said that that was an inappropriate document for the FA to submit. What was submitted was a smaller, shorter letter that did get the approval of the entire FA board, which is good governance.
Jim Sheridan: But the evidence that Lord Triesman gave us is the document that he brought forward there wasn’t a page turned; it wasn’t even looked at. I think you said, Richard, that it was time barred. It was too late; the date was passed. Is that the case?
Sir Dave Richards: The submission had been made. The submissions had been made to Government and all agreed.
Jim Sheridan: No, I am talking about Lord Triesman’s submission.
Richard Scudamore: Let us get the facts absolutely right. The Football League’s and the Premier League’s submission had been made within the time that Andy Burnham had set. We had promised him 31 March. I think it was May before Lord Triesman’s paper was produced, almost with literally no warning. It was professional game board one day, main board the next. The main board of the FA at that time said, "There is no consultation on this paper. We don’t wish you to submit this paper." So, a letter was written, as I understand it, to Andy Burnham, which was for Andy Burnham either to accept or not accept into his evidence. That was up to him. He can write a letter to the Secretary of State if he chooses, but on this issue of time barring, I was making the point that it was late in terms of the deadline we were all set. The Football League and the Premier League were working with the FA-with the Executive-on these submissions, and it was a surprise to everyone when this suddenly arrived at the very last minute.
Jim Sheridan: What I am trying to establish is, did someone tell Lord Triesman that there was a cut-off date at the end of March?
Richard Scudamore: Well, he would have known; he had exactly the same letter from Andy Burnham that we had asking to make submissions. His public policy advisers would have known. They would all have known. We all knew we were working to a 31 March deadline, which is why we spent October and November consulting all the clubs, convening regional club meetings in small groups and going back to two board meetings, because we had to get this done by 31 March, which is the way we, the Premier League, operate. I can only give you by contrast the fact that the genesis of the Lord Triesman paper was a very different genesis.
Jim Sheridan: Therefore, Lord Triesman must have ignored this letter and carried on regardless?
Richard Scudamore: I think you would have to ask him that.
Dr Coffey: Could you just confirm how long you had sight of the proposals of Lord Triesman? I have heard from other sources it was about 48 hours before you were asked to approve this. Is that true?
Richard Scudamore: I think it was a professional game board meeting where we suddenly saw it. I think it was a Wednesday before a Thursday. It was somewhere between 24 and 48, depending on where it was, yes. But remember, I have no role in this other than I attend the professional game board, where I think we saw it first, and it was the next day that the main FA board saw it for the first time.
Dr Coffey: So a very limited amount of time for such a substantial paper?
Richard Scudamore: That is it, and there was no consultation.
Dr Coffey: I want to revisit something I brought up last week with the FA about what I thought was a terrible example of governance, which was the renegotiation of the contract of the England manager. I think you were Chairman of Club England at the time, Sir Dave?
Sir Dave Richards: No.
Dr Coffey: Okay, but you were involved on the board. Could you shed a bit more light on your role or on what happened?
Sir Dave Richards: Yes, I certainly can. Fabio Capello’s contract had a clause in it and Mr Capello spoke to Lord Triesman, because Lord Triesman was the Chairman of England at the time.
Richard Scudamore: Team England.
Sir Dave Richards: Yes, Team England. It was on 22 April that I was summoned to a meeting with Fabio Capello’s son; Adrian Bevington, the company lawyer; Lord Triesman and me to talk about the Capello Index, because Mr Capello had brought out an index on performance of players, which was against his contract and he could not do it. He had to seek permission of the FA and he had been talking to the Chairman prior to that. He requested a meeting and we went to that meeting. During that meeting, Mr Capello’s son brought up the question of the clause being taken out of his contract. He said Lord Triesman agreed that the mutual break clause could be deleted in line with his previous assurance to Fabio Capello and that he wanted him to stay until 2012. That was the very first time we had heard of that, but it was pre-agreed with the Chairman and Mr Capello that that would happen. Unfortunately, I had to pick the pieces up with that, and the press being what they are, I took the brunt of it.
Dr Coffey: I think at the time you may have taken a little bit of the credit for it in securing Fabio.
Sir Dave Richards: No, I didn’t take any-
Dr Coffey: But I recognise the brunt of it. Do you think it would have been appropriate for you, Sir Dave, to have said, "We can’t make this decision here and now, it needs to go to the whole board."?
Sir Dave Richards: I wouldn’t make decisions like that. You can ask all my colleagues on the board. I have always been one to consult: the Premier League board, the Football Foundation board, the European Leagues board, the International. I am a consultative person. I will not make a decision just like that which affects the kind of issues that these involve.
I shall carry on with Part 2 of this Hearing, after my lunch.
No comments:
Post a Comment