ALEX FERGUSON’S sense of grievance with the English FA has been exacerbated by the discovery that one of the men who banned Patrice Evra for four matches recently is an Arsenal season-ticket holder.
Ferguson felt strongly enough to express his displeasure about the way the case was handled in the original draft of his programme notes for Manchester United’s game against Chelsea on Sunday, only for his comments to be toned down after the intervention of the club’s chief executive, David Gill.
Nicholas Stewart QC chaired the four-man independent disciplinary panel appointed by the FA that investigated Evra’s scuffles with the Chelsea groundsman Sam Bethell after a match at Stamford Bridge last April. The panel held the France left back largely responsible in a verdict Ferguson later described as being one of the worst he had known in his 22 years at Old Trafford. “Of all the things the FA has done to this club over the years, that was one of the big shocks,” said Ferguson.
While there is no question of Stewart’s integrity or professionalism, Ferguson has strong reservations about a supporter of one of United’s major rivals being involved, on the basis that there could be allegations of a possible conflict of interest. Ferguson’s notes on the Evra case were edited down to a paragraph which stated: “I am still shocked by the four-game ban handed out to Patrice following the incident at Stamford Bridge that saw him at odds with one of their groundsmen.”
Although Gill shares Ferguson’s disquiet, he does not have his manager’s famous desire for confrontation, and his own position on the board of the FA may have contributed to him not wanting to inflame an already tense situation. How Ferguson feels about his notes being changed is unclear, although it is believed to be unusual in the extreme.
Despite their private misgivings, United have opted against making a complaint to the FA. The club had described Evra’s punishment as “excessive” and “extremely harsh” and said the reasons for banning Evra were “flawed in many respects”.
Of Stewart’s appointment, one well-placed source said: “They (the FA) at least should have let us know before the case was heard. If that had happened we could have pointed out our concerns.”
Despite what Liverpool’s manager, Rafael Benitez, has said over the past few days, Ferguson’s belief is the FA is historically tougher on United than other clubs. The Evra case has strengthened his opinion, even though the club decided not to appeal on the grounds “the focus of the whole squad needs to be on matches and not bureaucracy”. United may consider objecting if Stewart is appointed to any future cases involving their players.
Whether that will carry any sway with the FA is debatable. Stewart is a specialist in sports cases and has worked for the FA on various other matters. He is highly regarded within Soho Square and his directory notes, at Ely Place Chambers, describe him as “a charming man and a safe pair of hands” with “a reassuring manner and a great ability to put everyone at their ease”.
Stewart had not been aware of Ferguson’s anger but declined to comment when contacted. The FA has also chosen not to comment.
There is, however, strong support for Stewart within Soho Square. Colleagues have pointed out that he is far from the only person involved in the FA’s disciplinary processes to have an affiliation to a particular club. Lord Triesman, the FA’s chairman, is a Tottenham fan, for instance. To Ferguson’s occasional irritation, Brian Barwick, until December the organisation’s chief executive, is a Liverpool fan.
The other people who heard Evra’s case were Barry Bright, the chairman of the FA’s disciplinary committee, Roy Carter, from the West Riding FA, and David Pleat, the former Luton Town and Tottenham manager.
Guardian Service
