Graham Kelly: Thompson shown to be leader without original thought

Geoff Thompson, the Football Association chairman, certainly caused a stir with his bizarre ramblings last week. Confiding that he believed he had been called on by God to lead the national game, Thompson said that his Christian faith had helped him to withstand the widespread criticism he had received for his part in the recent downfall of the FA chief executive Adam Crozier.

Ironically, Thompson's comments came as part of a charm offensive, launched from the cosy confines of his London club, and were designed to mitigate the attacks on his moral courage for his refusal to stand by Crozier when the Premier League started demanding more representation within the FA.

Thompson has now found that when he wears his faith on his sleeve outside headquarters he comes across as more than merely idiosyncratic and sanctimonious. Inside, it is just tiresome when he takes offence at the phrase "singing from the same hymn sheet" or argues against the replacement of "Christian" names by "forenames" on registration forms in this multi-cultural, secular society.

It was ironic too that, like Glenn Hoddle, who was undone by remarks of a religious nature and was effectively sacked by Thompson, the chairman later claimed the comments in question were made to the reporter in passing. Shades of Hoddle's "I never said them things". Why mention his beliefs at all if he regards them as a private matter?

Irrespective of his religion gaffe, Thompson's defence of his general position in the wake of the Crozier resignation did not amount to a row of beans in the current football climate and revealed a leader without original thought.

According to chairman Geoff, England were not far from winning the 2002 World Cup. He did not notice how often the team surrendered possession, but liked watching David Beckham and Michael Owen. England were tired because the players did not have a mid-season break, but Thompson has never widely supported Sven Goran Eriksson and Crozier against the Premier League chairmen on this issue.

For Thompson to say that it was time for Crozier to move on, as his time was up after barely three years, was disingenuous and stretched credibility. Had he possessed an ounce of faith in the future of the game, he would have told Crozier to ignore his own publicity and stay to resist the Premier League, because Crozier was truly independent.

Thompson is now a lame-duck chairman drawing his £70,000 FA salary and it looks as if it will appoint a lapdog as Crozier's successor, one who will not rock too many boats, for we have seen a lack of true resolve over the years in cleaning up the murky area of agents and transfers.

Whenever there is a hint of any real action from the FA, the Premier League flexes its muscles and it is made absolutely clear that no stones will be allowed to be overturned. It happened after the George Graham case in the 1990s when a compliance unit was first proposed by the chief executives in the game.

Keith Wiseman was then the Premier League's man at the FA and he had a mandate to oppose any effective policing. The clubs were all subject to company law already, he argued, and perfectly adequately regulated. "Compliance" became "advisory" and very soon club chairmen were arguing from a position of strength against the "massive bureaucracy" of professional people who would surely be needed to keep the game clean. Was it all really worth it?

The FA had the power to enter clubs and inspect the books but, every time it was about do so, it was as if nuclear war was threatened and the executive committee, with Thompson and all his brave men, backed off. On one occasion a letter was prepared instructing clubs to disclose sweetheart deals they had made with the Inland Revenue. That was dynamite. Sadly, it was never issued.

Now we have a situation where managers hold shares in agencies which take millions out of a game which is fast bankrupting itself and anyone of independent mind is hounded out of office.

It is true that Thompson was unfairly ridiculed for claiming it was he who restructured the FA before Crozier's arrival. He can legitimately claim credit for splitting what he terms the only governing body into separate professional and grass-roots sections and the establishment of the executive board.

But we need better. None of the professional representatives are fit to be chairman of the FA, because of their conflicts of interest with the amounts of money involved. Those from the grass-roots are not qualified to oversee the high finance. Therefore, the FA should go the whole hog, make a further change and appoint a fully independent chairman.

grahamkelly@btinternet.com