FA Watch

[Montgomery Burns]

Does anyone have an e-mail address for Adrian Durham - when you go on the Talk Sport website it asks you to complete one of those annoying forms which doesn't do attachments.

Make sure that they understand you are not trying to escuse ADE's stamp, otherwise it will be binned.

The letters (the wording of which is on page 5) makes it clear this is not condoned.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

While they may be able to help informally, I think it's important that this sort of campaign is done at arms length from the club.

I know that the club are as frustrated as we are about how things panned out over Saturday's incident and the issue of consistency but you are quite right moomba.

However, don't assume that the club aren't doing anything. I think some of the sympathetic coverage we got was as a direct result of the splendid but behind-the-scenes work that Garry Cook, Vicki Kloss and the PR team are doing.

 

[Chippy_boy]

On a bit of a roll, I just emailed my MP with an additional letter:

Dear Steve,

Please forgive a second letter in such a short space of time (following
on from my original earlier today which suggests institutional bias -
perhaps even corruption - at the top of the Football Association.)

However, I neglected to mention another key point. How can the Chief
Executive of Manchester United, David Gill - a man who's income will
presumably be directly affected by the success or otherwise of his club
- be allowed to be on the board of the Football Association; the body
that oversees the game, adjudicates and exercises sanctions?

Surely this cannot be right?

Would it not make sense to require FA executives not to have any such
blatant conflicts of interest?

Is this a question that can be raised in the House of Commons?

Yours sincerely,

 

[Montgomery Burns]

I know what you mean Chelt, but the FA are simply being asked to respond to a series of e-mails raising questions about specific incidents. They not being asked to look at anything else for the time being, albeit that will probably change as time moves on.

Yeh, you're absolutely right mate, my point is meant if this campaign does indeed get off the ground and you use other incidents to back your argument. There is at least one mail on here which is exclusively rag incidents and as NMF states, it would be bad for the cause if there is any hint that this is mere Manchester rivalry being the catalyst for the campaign.

As long as there is just the one person (i.e. me) contacting the FA on behalf of 'FA Watch' there will be no problem in this area. If anyone contacts the FA off their own bat I would ask them to ensure they make it clear they are writing in a personal capacity.

 

[Montgomery Burns]

On a bit of a roll, I just emailed my MP with an additional letter:

Dear Steve,

Please forgive a second letter in such a short space of time (following
on from my original earlier today which suggests institutional bias -
perhaps even corruption - at the top of the Football Association.)

However, I neglected to mention another key point. How can the Chief
Executive of Manchester United, David Gill - a man who's income will
presumably be directly affected by the success or otherwise of his club
- be allowed to be on the board of the Football Association; the body
that oversees the game, adjudicates and exercises sanctions?

Surely this cannot be right?

Would it not make sense to require FA executives not to have any such
blatant conflicts of interest?

Is this a question that can be raised in the House of Commons?

Yours sincerely,

Good point - or for the FA Chief Executive, Ian Watmore to make public pronouncements about an incident affecting a club he supports in a matter which will result in disciplinary procedures being issued by his staff - he should remain impartial and not prejudice proceedings in the way he is perceived by many to have done.

 

[ono]

Class thread mate. Great letter and hopefully the media pick up on this.

 

[levets]

Make sure that they understand you are not trying to escuse ADE's stamp, otherwise it will be binned.

The letters (the wording of which is on page 5) makes it clear this is not condoned.

OK... I specifically meant to Adrian Durham.. He may champion this...

 

[KenTheLandlord]

On a bit of a roll, I just emailed my MP with an additional letter:

Dear Steve,

Please forgive a second letter in such a short space of time (following
on from my original earlier today which suggests institutional bias -
perhaps even corruption - at the top of the Football Association.)

However, I neglected to mention another key point. How can the Chief
Executive of Manchester United, David Gill - a man who's income will
presumably be directly affected by the success or otherwise of his club
- be allowed to be on the board of the Football Association; the body
that oversees the game, adjudicates and exercises sanctions?

Surely this cannot be right?

Would it not make sense to require FA executives not to have any such
blatant conflicts of interest?

Is this a question that can be raised in the House of Commons?

Yours sincerely,

Great letter but the Kellogg's example would have rammed home the stupidity of the situation.

 

[KenTheLandlord]

If you send something to Sky, try Mike Wedderburn or Chris Roberts, both blues.

 

[Montgomery Burns]

The letters (the wording of which is on page 5) makes it clear this is not condoned.

OK... I specifically meant to Adrian Durham.. He may champion this...

I'll send it as soon as I can get an e-mail address - I'm struggling at the moment, as with Mike Wedderburn.