RE: he would have had to declare an interest and take no part nt then what is the point in having a director connected to the FA if he cannot represent the clubs interest in any way? Is what I'd be asking....
they are there to represent all clubs belonging to the Association........... otherwise it would be unfair on those without representation
RE: they are there to represent all clubs belonging to the Association........... no tangible benefit whatsoever then to the club? No influence at all over where International under 21 games are held etc? I suspect he's at least discussed the subject off the record with other board members to canvass opinions, no harm in that....
so actually having him in the FA is a disadvantage to the club As it means that unlike other clubs around us we have no local representation at the FA as he isn't allowed a say in matters relating to BFC
RE: so actually having him in the FA is a disadvantage to the club ?????? I'm pretty sure there won't be a Sheff Utd representative making the decision either. The same reason as if a ref is from a certain area they're not allowed to ref their teams' games.
No but in an incident involving say rotherham they have a local representative on the board in barry taylor. Somebody who is from the area and knows the fans etc, listens to radio sheffield and the like and can be swayed by the opinion of people on there, we don't have that luxury
I noticed earlier that Davey has until 28th November to respond to his charge. Could it be possible that the FA want to announce both decisions together?
