So Giroud's red card stands. A blind man and his pet mole could see that Giroud tried to control the ball and his trailing foot gave way, it was accidental, but more to the point not in anyway dangerous and would most likely never have been given if i) Sidwell had not gone earlier ii) It had been at the Emirates. Anyway, Manchester United secretary John Alexander chaired the FA Disciplinary Committee today. Oh and who is their next game against? None other than Manchester United. This is not primarily a Manchester United issue. David Dein was FA Chairman and Arsenal chairman and it was similar then, I mean, I'm sure Dein - who was negotiating Ashley Cole's new contract in 2005 - could be expected to act with absolute impartiality and free of conflicted interest when deciding Chelsea's punishment for the tapping up affair (which was extremely harsh). Similarly, with the decision to allow the Spurs game with West Ham to go ahead after 10 Spurs players were ill with food poisoning, which coincidentally led to Spurs losing and Arsenal clinching the final Champions League place at their expense. People are human, irrespective of what anybody says it would be impossible to combine both roles without conflict of interests and its a farcical situation. If this happened in Italy they would come down on it like a ton of bricks with our media first on the scene to claim how corrupt Italian football is and upstanding the Premier League is by comparison. I'm not suggesting corruption as I have no proof, but it certainly opens the door. I'd like to see a reform whereby the FA has a more horizontal hierarchy with a mix of people from non-Top flight clubs.
Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. Whether there's been any bias or undue influence at work or not isn't the issue. It looks dodgy, it's unnecessary and it needs to change. I'm aware that there are other clubs represented in a similar fashion, but they don't do exactly the same duty. I don't agree with either of your examples DL, but you wouldn't have a judge or a member of a jury rule on something if they were already involved in a case. It's the same principle here. I think that the FA does have representatives from each level, though. I'm sure Bolton have someone in there and I think Barnet do, too.
They were a conflict of interest, but I don't disagree with the decisions that were made. Chelsea got caught tapping up an opposition player and Spurs were in no position to ask for the game against West Ham to be rearranged. There's no precedent for it. Should someone with a personal interest in the outcome of both of those situations be involved in the decision making process for the FA? Clearly not.
