BIG SAM TO SUE THE FA
They ‘didn’t wait for evidence’ before axe
Sam allardyce is pursuing damages from the Fa for the way they handled the fallout from his removal as england manager.
a 5,000-word letter has been sent to the Fa high command of chairman Greg clarke and chief executive martin Glenn from allardyce’s lawyers.
The 62-year-old was essentially sacked in September 2016 after one game following a sting by undercover reporters posing as businessmen.
He is said to be furious with subsequent comments from the Fa and believes they did not wait until they had the full facts before firing him. allardyce is taking action over opinions later expressed by clarke to the department of culture, media and Sport at a parliamentary hearing about football governance, and by Glenn when speaking to the BBc.
central to the Fa’s decision was the
accusation by the Daily Telegraph that he had advised the journalists, who were claiming to represent a fictitious company called Meiran, on how to circumvent FA rules on third-party ownership.
Now, however, Allardyce and his legal team have obtained a transcript of the recordings, taken over the course of two meetings, and insist he did nothing of the kind. They argue that he did not breach the terms of his employment and although they are currently unable to pass the evidence to the FA they have made their feelings known in recent correspondence.
Sportsmail has obtained a copy of the letter, which calls into question the process by which Clarke and Glenn terminated Allardyce’s tenure after only 67 days in charge. More crucially, the FA ditched him within 24 hours of the publication of the Telegraph story and before waiting to see if a series of articles on alleged corruption in football would further implicate him. As it turned out, they did not.
This newspaper understands that, as yet, there has been no substantive response from the FA to the letter from Allardyce’s lawyers at a time when the events surrounding their recent dismissal of England women’s coach Mark Sampson are under intense scrutiny. Clarke and Glenn are also at the centre of that storm.
It is clear from the letter that the FA had initially said they would need to see transcripts of recordings of the meetings with Allardyce before reaching a decision, only to rush into forcing him out. Allardyce is said to be furious that the FA did not wait until they were in possession of the full facts. A source who has known Allardyce for many years said: ‘The FA bottled it. They saw the negative coverage and seemed to panic, being more concerned about appearing decisive than the truth.
‘Look how the clubs dealt with the Telegraph’s claims — they did not pre-judge — and the accusations (from a series of articles entitled Football For Sale) amounted to one investigation into a Barnsley assistant coach.’
At the time, Allardyce accepted he made ‘an error of judgment’ in attending the meetings and regretted comments about his predecessor, Roy Hodgson. However, he maintained he was a victim of entrapment.
Allardyce and his legal team insist the allegation that he advised the fake business executives how to circumvent FA rules was false.
But it is the FA’s comments about the allegations that seem to have particularly incensed him, including remarks made to MPs when Clarke and communications chief Robert Sullivan gave evidence at a parliamentary hearing about football governance. The FA chiefs may feel these comments are protected by parliamentary privilege.
The lawyers representing Allardyce focus on a claim in the
Telegraph report that Allardyce had proposed a scheme that would see a third-party owner receive a share of a player’s transfer fee via an agent, which would breach FA rules that prevent third parties sharing in a transfer fee.
In the letter to the FA, Allardyce’s team refer to a fundamental discrepancy between what the
Telegraph claimed Allardyce said and what he actually said, evidenced by the video the Telegraph published alongside their articles.
In that video Allardyce is seen telling the undercover reporters that third parties could not share in transfer fees, saying: ‘You’re not getting a part of the transfer fee any more, you can’t do that.’
As the letter states: ‘ The video then shows Mr Allardyce telling the reporters they would be better having a company which employs agents because they can then receive a share of the commission. This does not break or even engage rules relating to third party ownership and is entirely legitimate.’
There is no doubt it was Allardyce’s reported comments on the issue that led to his departure from Wembley. Speaking to the BBC on October 26 last year, Glenn said: ‘The issue we had with Sam was that in implying he could help people circumvent the rules, we felt in every other situation in the next few years we would have that thrown back in our face. We have to apply the rules consistently. This would have impaired our ability to do that.’
This is one of the comments that seems to have infuriated Allardyce and the letter to the FA also includes the accusation that the Wembley hierarchy are in breach of an agreement not to make statements in the wake of Allardyce’s departure that were ‘adverse, hostile, critical or misleading’ about their client. The letter says: ‘It is clear that the FA have acted in breach of that agreement, in particular by suggesting the allegation that our client had advised on how to circumvent FA rules was correct and some further sanction may flow from this.
‘In fact, that allegation and the other allegations made by the
Telegraph were false, as the FA would have known if it had sought to maintain its original position that it would require sight of the transcripts before being able to reach any conclusions.
‘In any event it should have been — or was to the FA — obvious that the Telegraph’s allegations were false and inconsistent. In fact, Mr Allardyce made clear that you could not have third party ownership in the UK.’
Allardyce’s lawyers have asked the FA to explain some of the evidence that was given by the FA to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Clarke told the committee Allardyce had been in breach of his employment contract, based, he said, on evidence published by the Telegraph.
However, Sullivan confirmed to the committee that what Allardyce told Telegraph reporters about third-party ownership was ‘a factual, correct statement around the laws of the English
game’. Allardyce’s lawyers have asked the FA to explain how they could give weight to the Telegraph’s claims when they must have accepted a significant element of it was incorrect.
The Telegraph story appeared under a headline stating that the England manager was ‘for sale’, and in the conversation at the first meeting in a London hotel how much Allardyce might charge Meiran for some motivational speaking was indeed discussed.
But Sportsmail understands it was made clear at the beginning of the meeting that it was unlikely Allardyce could work with Meiran in any capacity while he was England manager, and would not agree to anything without a proposal being put in writing by Meiran, due diligence being carried out on them and the approval of the FA being sought.
It was apparently made clear he would do nothing to compromise his position. Indeed it was made clear he was only at the meeting at the request of Scott McGarvey, an old friend whom Allardyce knew to be struggling financially and who hoped to secure a job with Meiran.
The letter from Allardyce’s lawyers responds directly to ‘allegations that Mr Allardyce had an agenda to make as much money as possible before his first match as England manager’. His lawyers write: ‘ These allegations were entirely false and inaccurate’.
They add: ‘As was made clear to the Telegraph reporters Mr Allardyce had received other commercial approaches which he had declined to advance. He had only attended their meeting because of Scott McGarvey; and any proposal would have to be cleared by the FA before it was agreed.’
The letter challenges the FA’s subsequent handling of the Telegraph allegations, complaining that Allardyce had attended a meeting at Wembley with Clarke and Glenn without his agent or a lawyer present and was ‘clearly disadvantaged by not having a recording or transcript of the meetings upon which the
Telegraph articles were based to evidence the falsity of the allegations’.
Neither Allardyce’s team nor the FA would comment last night.