November was a Bad Month for PFA
The PFA has been embroiled in a war of attrition since chairman Ben Purkiss publicly called for modernisation. Gordon Taylor the well paid executive who has led the PFA for 37 years is having to defend on many fronts.
- Why do millions of pounds sit unused in the PFA accounts.
- How Taylor was able to earn £2.29m last year, remuneration that makes him the highest-paid union official in Britain?
- Ben Purkiss wants better communication with players and to have mental health higher on the agenda.
There is media interest in the growing number of former players now suffering from dementia.
- Taylor is facing a wide-ranging number of complaints about his leadership over, the sexual-abuse scandal, stamp it out and the amount of money used to help former players.
- Taylor has questioned Ben Purkiss’s eligibility as unpaid chairman.
The Charity Commission
The Charity Commission confirmed that another trustee Paul Elliott, has resigned after he had entered into an IVA. Elliott’s resignation is due in part to the failure of the charity to obtain a waiver for him and represents a further blow to the PFA.
The Charity Commission has now opened a regulatory compliance case into the governance of the PFA charity, in effect an investigation into whether it has complied with charity rules. This followis concerns about matters of governance and the £2.3m salary of the PFA’s chief executive, Gordon Taylor.
The PFA have made a statement indicating that the recommendation for a review had come from the administration, headed by Taylor, rather than the union’s trustees, who are responsible for its governance as a charity, or management committee, responsible for its running. It said an independent QC would be appointed presumably by the administration.
Too many own goals have been scored by this well funded and well paid administration. Where are the footballing members who should be helping to bringing the organisation to account.
Football teams have to pay for policing at matches. It seems reasonable that excessively affluent organisations such as this should pay for any necessary charity commission investigations.