Simon Jordan

[Cobs]

Fined £10,000

[Knox_Harrington]

Heard on SSN and he's bloody brilliant even if he is a bit of a prick. He's exactly what the game needs.

[Cobs]

i wonder if he'll write out the £10grand cheque before or after he pens his next article....

[Stevie H]

ridiculous.

[Earl Hafler]

A joke.

 

Refs know the position theyre getting themselves into. Criticism is part of the job and deservedly so when they are as poor as some. Last night's officials were appalling.

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

i wonder if he'll write out the £10grand cheque before or after he pens his next article....

1103913[/snapback]

 

in which he said he'll write about teh hearing whether they put an injunction on him or not

[DanielS]

The Observer this Sunday will be a must buy item. I'm really looking forward to it.

[Stevie H]

did everyone read the follow-up to this?

 

So who is Barry Bright?

http://football.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/...1664680,00.html

Sunday December 11, 2005

The Observer

 

Last year the FA lauded its revamped disciplinary system. It was, they said, now both 'open and transparent', a modern FA success story. So what's it like inside? It leaves you with some big questions. Why did the new transparent system respond last week to my Observer column on refereeing standards by passing a gagging order backed by a £10,000 threat, all underwritten by a slur on my integrity? Why was it done in a 'secret' venue, with a confidentiality clause? And who the hell is Barry Bright?

 

Wednesday's hearing was a trip into the FA's personal Narnia. True, my legal team and I knew being summoned to appear before the committee on any charge means suspending disbelief for a morning. But casting aside all you know and understand about law and fair practice - faced with a committee acting as judge, jury and executioner - isn't easy, particularly for a QC.

 

Barry Bright, it turns out, is a retired estate agent, chair of the Kent FA, chair of the FA's disciplinary committee, and the chair of my disciplinary hearing panel - one of four faceless Barry figures, plus two helpers, who charged me with 'improper conduct' for my column in September. Bright's profile is deliberately low: his committee is unaccountable and not exactly the definition of open or transparent. Among their preliminary pre-hearing edicts: the session would be moved from the usual Soho Square venue to an office in Oxford Street apparently 'to avoid the press', and the proceedings would not be made a matter of public record.

 

The key to Bright's low profile is his apparent desire to keep it that way - and his colleagues would, I'm guessing, also rather not be named in this column. There's Alan Wilkes, head of the FA's compliance unit, whose job it is to read and listen to all football media output so he can see if he can fine anyone - no doubt a fulfilling existence. Then there's Bright and his board, Alan Turvey, Peter Hough and Alan Jones, plus a compliance officer and a QC acting for the FA.

 

So how does it all work at a 'transparent' secret hearing? Once we were in and settled - they kept us waiting for 20 minutes to make us sweat - the compliance officer began by explaining the charge against me. I'd written a column that contravened the FA's rule E3. I'd gone beyond fair comment in my criticism of referee Brian Curson, and the article was, in its entirety, a personal attack on an individual. My article wasn't constructive, it was a 'rant', a vapid 'emotional outburst'.

 

I took that. We kept the environment deliberately relaxed in an attempt to surprise them into listening. Among the two hours of submissions we put across were points like these: if the FA had attempted to bring this case in a libel court, they would be laughed at. The article's focus was on Sepp Blatter's inadequate embrace of technology - and at no point was I personal about Curson.

 

We then moved on to a cross-examination from their QC, an unexpected extension of his role as adviser to the panel. He decided to focus, at length, on words and their many meanings. He asked me what I meant when I said I thought my article was 'pragmatic'? I asked what he thought I meant, and the chairman said 'answer the question'. I accused the QC of meaningless semantics, so he asked me: 'What do you mean by semantics?' He wasn't joking.

 

They questioned me about my motives for the article. Were they malicious, emotional and personal, or were they, as had to be obvious to English speaking readers everywhere, to address the system around Curson, the structure that led to bad performances, the lack of technology in the game? That answer, like the rest of our submissions, was met with totally blank faces.

 

The problem the FA faced before we ever reached Oxford Street was this. If they resolved this case and didn't fine me they'd set a precedent; if they did fine me they'd open a can of worms. So they retired for 45 minutes then returned with this coup: a suspended fine of £10,000, to be triggered if I ever criticise them again. A censure, backed by a threat.

 

Whoever advised them this would be a good, decisive move - an end to the matter - must have been on day release. I'm not worried about triggering the fine. God knows I've probably done it already in the first three paragraphs, and I really won't be turning this column into one about recipes or knitting to appease them. What really concerns me most is the thinking behind the fine - and what Chairman Bright said in his summing-up.

 

The panel did not, he concluded, agree that my motive for writing the article was 'pure of heart'. In saying that, they alleged I'd spent the previous two hours lying to them, that there was no integrity behind my stance and that the column had been written simply to be malicious and to persecute an individual. In essence they expanded on the compliance officer's opening statement, and added a breath-taking slur for effect.

 

When he finished, I asked to speak. I was told no, tried again and was told curtly by Bright 'Good afternoon Mr Jordan'. They subsequently posted their 'findings' - including an abridged form of their allegation - on their official website.

 

My position now, four days after this bizarre kangaroo court experience, is that I can't just live with it, and I can't let it rest. To effectively accuse me of deceit and a lack of integrity is very ballsy of them, but, without wanting to sound too comic-book macho, or too self-important, they've picked on the wrong man.

 

Let's be clear. No one within football should be allowed to be irresponsible, negative for effect or outrageous for the sake of it when commenting on the game. But that article - read it again if you like, it's online - was none of those things. How can the FA accuse me of contravening their requirement that 'a participant shall at all times act in the best interests of the game'? How can they consider that article - all these articles - anything more than a genuine attempt to address serious structural issues in football?

 

Most fundamental, most hard to believe or rationalise, is this idea that I gave up my rights to free speech under the Human Rights Act by signing on as a football club owner and benefactor. That's the FA's position, and I can't accept it. I can't accept them calling me a liar in public, and I can't accept that this routinely backward organisation can be so brazenly unaccountable.

 

My legal team have asked how far I'm prepared to take this. I didn't start this fight, but it's not something I'm going to walk away from. There are several options, and the indications are that I'll have considerable support from others within football. The first step is limited to the formal FA appeal process. Yes, I expect the appeal will be another wasted morning, another cost (all the costs of an FA hearing and an appeal are charged to the individual - another mechanism for deterring dissent), but I need to show I've exhausted all the football industry channels before taking things any further.

 

And there is, at least, one added perk with an appeal: another chance to meet Barry Bright. Millwall's Theo Paphitis called last week to fill me in on the man, to help put an answer to that headline question. When the FA charged Millwall over racist abuse by fans in their match with Liverpool in October 2004, Bright was the chairman of the committee who found them guilty, fined them £32,500, then refused to apologise when Millwall spent huge amounts of money going to court to clear their name. He was never accountable for getting such a serious charge so wrong, never offered to cover their costs and won't now meet or correspond with Millwall on the subject. But that's Barry. That's the FA.

[Coyler]

Fair play to him.

 

??his colleagues would, I'm guessing, also rather not be named in this column. There's Alan Wilkes, ??

 

[Guest Anders Honoré]

brilliant. It's amazing that the FA is at all considered legal. I hope he gets backing from as many clubs as possible.

 

The size of the fine itself is outrageous. All of it would be laughable in the eyes of the law.

[DanielS]

brilliant. It's amazing that the FA is at all considered legal. I hope he gets backing from as many clubs as possible.

 

The size of the fine itself is outrageous. All of it would be laughable in the eyes of the law.

1111772[/snapback]

 

The fine is still only half a weeks wages for a crap Premiership player.

[Guest Anders Honoré]

The fine is still only half a weeks wages for a crap Premiership player.

1111828[/snapback]

 

he's not a player. he's an investor in the game.

[MarkD]

The man is an inflated egotist but I thoroughly enjoy reading his articles and long may he continue. More club chairman need to grow some balls and make the FA accountable.

[Maldini]

We then moved on to a cross-examination from their QC, an unexpected extension of his role as adviser to the panel. He decided to focus, at length, on words and their many meanings. He asked me what I meant when I said I thought my article was 'pragmatic'? I asked what he thought I meant, and the chairman said 'answer the question'. I accused the QC of meaningless semantics, so he asked me: 'What do you mean by semantics?' He wasn't joking.

 

 

Jordan is a clown, you have to admire him for standing up to this bureaucracy though

[Guest Anders Honoré]

Jordan doesn't really strike me as an egotist. He is certainly not humble, but nonetheless strike me as being very down to earth and straightforward.

[Maldini]

Jordan doesn't really strike me as an egotist. He is certainly not humble, but nonetheless strike me as being very down to earth and straightforward.

1112225[/snapback]

Seriously?

[Guest Anders Honoré]

Seriously?

1112269[/snapback]

 

yeah.

He's got a penchant for slight exaggeration but I can't disagree with much of what he says, and what I do disagree what generally strikes me as being well reasoned.

[Stevie H]

Jordan doesn't really strike me as an egotist. He is certainly not humble, but nonetheless strike me as being very down to earth and straightforward.

1112225[/snapback]

 

give over. straight-talking he might be, but he f***ing loves himself.

[Mike]

the shane warne of football chairmen

[matty]

Can't bring myself to get over-excited about Jordan and his moans. Football's just another crooked racket.

[Maldini]

yeah.

He's got a penchant for slight exaggeration but I can't disagree with much of what he says, and what I do disagree what generally strikes me as being well reasoned.

1112270[/snapback]

He's a man in his thirties with highlights.

[Guest Anders Honoré]

He's a man in his thirties with highlights.

1112323[/snapback]

 

I fold.

[MarkD]

I fold.

1112360[/snapback]

 

 

with long leather coats and ladies' sunglasses!