SFA's vetting process packs no punch but only because their hands are tied

Michael Grant
Chief football writer
Monday 24 June 2013

IF there actually was such a thing as a "fit and proper person test" conducted by the Scottish Football Association, Vladimir Romanov would fail.

He would fail on the grounds of attendance, let alone anything else. The state of Romanov's current credibility is best illustrated by the fact Lithuanian prosecutors have threatened to issue a European arrest warrant in order to get their hands on him. He's gone AWOL. Craig Whyte's nowhere to be seen, either.

This is how things end when football clubs go bad: on one side administration, liquidation and usually redundancies and tears, and on the other side disappearing acts, talk of arrest warrants, police investigations, sometimes convictions and even jail terms. And, inevitably, heads turning towards the football authorities and fingers being pointed: how exactly did they let it get to this? Where was the SFA and its laughable "test"?

Mark Hateley, the former Rangers striker, mocked the "fit and proper" criteria the other day. "The SFA are culpable for the shambolic state of some of our top clubs," he wrote. "It's the SFA's duty to vet these owners."

All very neat and tidy, but of course he didn't explain how they should go about it. If no company law is being broken, the SFA have no grounds to interfere with who owns, or takes a share of, a public limited company. If it did attempt to block a takeover or obstruct a club's subsequent spending it would be taken to court, and it would lose.

Imagine the reaction from Romanov if the SFA had blocked his takeover of Hearts in 2005 or stepped in to investigate how he was spending money at Tynecastle. Imagine his howls of "corruption" and "conspiracy" and the cry of "look what happens when Hearts challenge the Old Firm: they find ways to stop me."

Whyte was cheered the first time he turned up for a match as the owner of Rangers. What if the SFA involved itself then, when Lloyds Bank were pushing for a sale and Whyte was the only character on the scene? Thousands would have been out in the Hampden car park, banging down the doors to blame the SFA for obstructing the one guy seen to be rescuing Rangers. Would Hateley have confronted that crowd and told them the SFA were quite right to block the apparent saviour?

Hearing vague rumours that Whyte was dodgy, or there was something fishy about Romanov, isn't the same as launching into long and expensive investigations to prove it. Chancers and conmen tend to be pretty good at covering their tracks, at least for a few months. What if the SFA decided to probe a suspicious owner and ran up thousands of pounds in fees to private investigators, only to come up with nothing? Would that be accepted as an occupational hazard, or vilified as a grotesque waste of money and a sacking offence?

The SFA has neither the expertise nor the manpower to launch into endless investigations into anyone who buys a club or operates it at an unhealthy wages-to-turnover ratio. Even more important, it doesn't have the authority. Clubs take their own risks and they have to take the responsibility. It would make more sense to blame the Stock Exchange or the Alternative Investment Market when companies go bust: what did they do to help?

The SFA's "fit and proper" measures will always invite ridicule because they are feeble to the point of being meaningless. All clubs have to do is provide an official return, ie: a list, of directors and office-bearers who can be held accountable to some degree. All anyone has to do to avoid investigation or the risk of censure is keep their name off that list. Some clubs have football club boards and PLC boards and the SFA has no jurisdiction over the latter.

And here's the thing: it's that way because that is all the clubs themselves allow. The SFA's rules can only be as punitive as its members – the clubs – permit. Which is not very punitive, at all.

Earlier this month clubs got cold feet about introducing a strict liability rule which would have exposed them to mandatory punishment for offensive behaviour – including racism or sectarianism – by their supporters. They didn't back the resolution because they knew it could leave them all vulnerable to subsequent punishment. The same goes for club licensing. That's so half-hearted clubs can still play in the Scottish Premier League even if they haven't reached the standards necessary to gain an SFA licence.

The SFA cannot police who owns clubs because it has never been empowered to, and never will be. The shambolic state of some top clubs? Blame Whyte and Romanov, and blame the men who sold to them.

And Another Thing . . .

There's been a conspicuous absence of activity from Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea and Arsenal during what look like the final days of Victor Wanyama's Celtic career, which must make us wonder if we've been seeing much more in the 21-year-old than they do.

While we cooed over his displays against Barcelona last season, maybe they put greater emphasis on the inconsistency and losses of concentration which characterised some of his domestic performances.

This is of no consequence to Celtic: Southampton, Cardiff City or Stoke City's £12m isn't worth less than anyone else's. Liverpool and Everton are interested, but there has been no stampede of Europe's elite clubs towards the best, and the most lavishly praised, young player in Scotland.

Taken from the Herald