Among chairman Greg Clarke’s proposals for Football Association reform is a nine-year limit for members of the FA board.
This would be implemented retrospectively, meaning David Gill would leave with immediate effect. Now Gill hasn’t always been good for English football or English clubs — although he does have a way of seeing Manchester United right — but it is undeniable that his experience at FIFA, UEFA, the Premier League and Old Trafford can come in useful.
How typical that one of the first casualties of Parliament’s meddling in football’s affairs is expertise. The number of MPs whose term now dates back more than nine years, by the way? 411.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...-answer-Zlatan-Ibrahimovic.html#ixzz4YphsbQtb
This piece was written by one of the leading journalists in the country and the irony is he does not understand the scandal that he should be reporting. Samuel understands that Gill has been helping United but that because he is in the job for a while he should carry on. Surely the scandal is that a leading journlist has confirmed that United are getting favourable treatment over other clubs
We know that when FFP was first mooted that debt was going to be the focus but when it was understood that this would have a detiremntal affect on United without any discussion or outrage by the media these plans were dropped
We have the conflict of interest of Gill being able to review the financial affairs of rivals to his club and being able to punish those clubs
For Martin Samuel to acknowledge and suggest Gill is corrupt but that he should be kept on is an utter disgrace and is at the heart of the problem with football