Non-league Football Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Non-league Football

John Glen Excerpts
Thursday 4th September 2014

(9 years, 9 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Glen Portrait John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
- Hansard - -

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I want to raise the plight of Salisbury City football club, the oldest and biggest club in my constituency, which is in dire straits, and its experience over the past few months.

I have two suggested improvements in governance that could help. The first is about prize money. I believe that there needs to be a reallocation of prize money from the FA cup to the FA trophy and FA vase. It is ludicrous that at the moment, small clubs can find themselves in the third or fourth round of those competitions, yet the cost of travel to an away match outweighs the money that they will gain from winning.

The second suggestion is about the fit and proper person test, which is not fit for purpose and needs to change urgently. As I speak, the ownership of Salisbury City football club is in dispute in the courts and the club’s very existence is threatened. Its fans are bereft and feel badly let down. It is a far cry from just a few months ago, when I saw Salisbury win 3-1 in the last home match of the season to finish in 11th place in the conference south. The then chairman decided that he could not continue to look after the club and devised a plan with a local businessman, Mark Winter, to transfer ownership. Mr Winter put up £70,000, but he needed a business partner. He was introduced to Mr Outail Medi Nader Touzar, who appeared to have a great deal of enthusiasm for the club as an investor. He had previously been presented to Reading and had been publicly linked to a consortium bidding to take over Crystal Palace.

Mr Touzar’s credentials seemed sound. He was presented as a potential chairman and was waved through the owners and directors test without a murmur of dissent. However, the reality was that this man was not fit to be involved in the running of a football club. He said that he would bring huge wealth to the club—promises witnessed by several people but unfortunately never put in writing or subjected to official scrutiny. It was no more than a handshake behind closed doors. His cash did not arrive, and he started behaving rather oddly. He was sleeping in the stadium, removing season ticket cash from the safe and making outlandish claims about foreign signings at a time when the club was barred from registering players. He claimed to have sold shares to other foreign investors, but to this day he declines to name them. Rumours therefore started that he had not had any money in the first place. Mr Winter, the original fan-investor, sought to replace Mr Touzar with another consortium of people who were prepared to invest. However, when they went to the authorities they were met with resistance at every moment, because technically Mr Touzar was still the owner.

Salisbury’s experience highlights the fact that the current fit and proper person test is a rubber-stamping exercise that makes a mockery of the FA. It freely admits that it is a tick-box exercise, not a subjective, full assessment of whether a prospective owner would be good for football. I feel that what is needed is a Disclosure and Barring Service-type check specifically aimed at potential football directors. The verification of claims and means, the taking up of references from previous business associates, proof of assets and basic oversight of business plans is surely not too much to ask.

At every level, football requires more careful financial handling and astute management. My impression is that the FA and the regulatory bodies turn a blind eye because fans want to see their club continue to operate, but my club has nowhere to play this season. Mr Touzar is still not being dealt with, and it is outrageous.