Further written evidence submitted by
the Premier League
Response by the Fans' Fund to unacceptable comments
by the then Chief Executive of Supporters Direct
Your Committee members may find it helpful to have
a record of the events leading up to the FSIF/Fans Fund decision
to withdraw funding from Supporters Direct in the light of unacceptable
comments made by its (then) Chief Executive. You should note that
his departure and replacement by the acting CEO Brian Burgess
has removed the Fans Fund's concerns as to SD's leadership and
the Premier League's interim funding has been restored to cover
staff and office costs for June and July while consideration of
SD's grant application resumes:
1. The Premier League has been providing
interim funding to SD since the last Government decided that it
was inappropriate for DCMS money to fund non-participation sport
projects and that the Football Foundation funding scope should
be adjusted appropriately. They asked the Premier League to fund
SD once their Foundation grant expired, which we agreed to consider
(and have paid over £500k so far);
2. The PL felt that grant-aiding supporter
groups, like any of our other good cause programmes, belongs more
comfortably with an arms-length body and so decided to create
the Fans' Fund to carry out the process of considering applications.
The Fans' Fund is accountable to the Football Stadium Improvement
Fund (FSIF) and administered by staff at the Football Foundation;
3. The Fans' Fund received a number of applications
from fan groups and about three months ago agreed to recommend
to FSIF that SD be awarded a significant sum;
4. FSIF agreed the recommendation, subject
to the normal grant criteria which include the requirement for
an applicant to show us their accounts;
5. SD did not make their accounts available
to the FSIF until 10 June (coincidentally the day Dave Boyle resigned)
and so had not received notification of the grant decision;
6. Dave Boyle made his offensive comments
on Twitter on 21 May;
7. They were brought to my attention on
22 and 23 May by several people who follow him on Twitter;
8. In my opinion these comments, vulgar
in themselves, displayed a level of irresponsibility inappropriate
for a person who was Chief Executive of a high-profile organisation.
It was the irresponsibility rather than the vulgarity, unpleasant
though it was, that was the issue in terms of deciding whether
our funding would be properly administered by SD;
9. I discussed my views with the other members
of the Fans' Fund, the members of FSIF and individuals involved
in grants awards in other areas of PL Good Cause work. They shared
my concerns, and in passing, agreed with my view that we would
not accept behaviour like this from employees of the Premier League
or Football Foundation, nor from our voluntary sector or public
sector partners;
10. I shared the comments with DCMS, yourself
and your Chairman, the Opposition CMS spokespeople and others
who I felt had a public policy interest in the case;
11. I wrote to the Chair of SD asking for her
views;
12. She replied that Mr Boyle had apologised,
removed the remarks from Twitter, had been warned as to his future
behaviour, and she hoped that we could end the matter there;
13. I referred Dame Pauline's reply to the individuals
previously consulted, saying in my view the response was inadequate.
There was general agreement with my view.
14. We agreed that Dame Pauline and her colleagues
had every right to stand by their Chief Executive but that we
had no obligation to continue funding an organisation whose Chief
Executive we no longer had confidence in;
15. The Chair of the Football Stadium Improvement
Fund, Peter McCormick, wrote to Dame Pauline on 9 June to inform
her that the FSIF had decided to rescind its pending offer in
the light of the irresponsibility shown by the CEO and the weak
disciplinary action taken by the Board. His letter made it clear
that this decision was made on the basis of the unsuitability
of the individual and not on any change in the policy of the PL
or the FSIF/Fans'Fund to grant-aid supporter organisations or
because we were not willing to support SD's core activities. The
letter also made it clear that SD could resubmit their application
should circumstances change and that the funds allocated to this
area would not be channelled elsewhere;
16. Mr Boyle resigned on 10 June;
17. The SD Board met on 11 June and appointed
Brian Burgess (a Board member) as acting CEO;
18. Mr Burgess sought a meeting with me to discuss
funding in the light of Mr Boyle's departure;
19. Mr Burgess was unable to meet with me until
17 June as he was at a Conference in Barcelona;
20. At the meeting Mr Burgess confirmed that
they wished us to reconsider their existing application which
I undertook to ensure. He undertook to look at the questions that
arise from their accounts (received by me on 14 June) and asked
me whether the Premier League would consider meeting their payroll
costs in the short period while these questions are resolved.
I agreed to recommend this to our Chief Executive and Director
of Finance, and reply to Mr Burgess before 28 June at the latest.
21. We received elements of the January-May management
accounts for SD on 21 June. This enabled the Premier League to
estimate the staff and office costs for SD's activities in England
and Wales and an ex gratia payment for the appropriate amount
to meet those costs for June and July has been approved and will
reach SD before 30 June.
I hope that the above summary clarifies the situation,
in the light of misleading comment in the press. Please circulate
it to your Committee, and as I understand that several of them
continue to be unaware of Mr Boyle's original comments, I have
attached them again for them to make their own mind up as to their
suitability.
The FSIF process of considering SD's application
in the light of the recently received accounts will now continue,
unaffected by the events of the last few weeks. It is not possible
for me to indicate how long this may take as it depends on SD
dealing with the questions related to their accounts, but Mr Burgess
has already responded promptly to the points I raised on Friday
so it seems unlikely that the process will be a lengthy one.
I hope this gives you sufficient information to answer
your Committee members' questions, and I will of course keep you
up-to-date with the remaining stages of the discussion related
to the SD grant. Feel free to add this note to the evidence section
of your website should you consider it helpful.
July 2011
| 
