|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A History of
Spurs’ Encounters with the Football Authorities
by logan holmes (EXCLUSIVELY for topspurs)
The events
surrounding Spurs’ final game of the season against West Ham highlighted
the chequered relationship the club has had with the football authorities. Tottenham Hotspur is a club respected around
the world but when it comes to its dealings with the football authorities, it
is invariably treated and dealt with like a naughty schoolboy. The history of Spurs is littered with
examples of how the authorities have acted in such a way as to make an example
of the club, whether Spurs have come to the regulators for redress on an issue
or over some misdemeanour. The Football
Association, Premier League, the Football League before them and even the
European authorities invariably found against Spurs.
October,
1893 – ‘Ernie Payne’s Boots’
Even in
their non-League days Spurs ran into difficulties with officialdom. Founded in 1882, Spurs’ early football
was a mix of friendly games and Cup competitions under their amateur status. Eleven years after their formation Spurs drew
0-0 in a 1st Round London Senior Cup tie against Old St Marks. For that game, a new name,
‘Burton’, appeared on the team sheet, to play on the left wing for
Spurs. This was in fact, Ernie Payne who
was on Fulham’s books but being unable to get into their team, he
accepted an invitation to play for Spurs.
However, when he arrived at Tottenham he had no kit. Spurs provided him with shirt, shorts and
socks but were unable to find boots to fit him.
They gave him a loan of ten shillings (50p) to buy a pair of boots on
the understanding that they would belong to Spurs. However, when Fulham heard about this they
accused Spurs of ‘poaching’ their player and
‘professionalism’. Spurs
were immediately called before the London Football Association to answer these
charges.
The charge
of poaching was dismissed but the charge of inducing a player and
professionalism was upheld. The penalty
imposed on Spurs was harsh – their ground at Northumberland Park was
closed for two weeks, Spurs were suspended for a similar period and Ernie Payne
was suspended for a week even though he had repaid the money to Spurs. An appeal was lodged but it was unsuccessful,
the London F.A. being strongly opposed to anything suggesting of
professionalism, a view that was holding back the development of football in
London.
This matter
became known as the ‘Ernie Payne Boots Affair’ and while Payne
continued to play for Spurs, he is remembered for the longer term consequence
of the matter in that Spurs, frustrated by the views held by the London FA,
decided to turn professional. The club
had received tremendous public support over the matter with the general view
being that the London FA had been high-handed and had treated Spurs very
severely. At a meeting in December,
1895, the decision was taken that Spurs would turn professional.
June,
1908 – Entering the Football League
Having
turned professional Spurs joined the Southern League in 1896, they were
Champions in 1899 - 1900 and won the FA Cup in 1901, the only non-League Cup to
win the Cup since the formation of the Football League. During this time the Football League
continued to be a preserve of teams from the Midlands and the north of England. The League was anxious to spread its
influence into the south and was looking for clubs from that part of the
country. In 1908 Spurs resigned from
their position in the Southern League and applied for a place in the 2nd
Division of the Football League. The AGM
of the Southern League and the Football League were held on the same day at the
end of May and the Southern League moved the time of their meeting forward by
half and hour to coincide with the start time of the meeting of the Football
League. The Southern League decided to
exclude Spurs and QPR and replaced them with Coventry City and Southend
United. However, having resigned, Spurs
were more concerned with their application to the League but received a shock
when they discovered they had been unsuccessful. Spurs were out-voted, Bradford City replaced
the bottom club, Lincoln City, who had four votes more than Spurs. Being unwilling to go ‘cap in
hand’ and re-apply to the Southern League, Spurs were facing a season
without League football.
In mid-June
Stoke City resigned their place in the Second Division for financial reasons,
creating an opening which was a heaven sent opportunity for Spurs. Initially, Stoke were willing to support
Spurs application but the matter would be decided at a special meeting of the
Football League at the end of the month.
Stoke had now decided they wanted to retain their place and were among
the list of applicants which included Lincoln, Rotherham Town and
Southport. In the voting Spurs and
Lincoln were tied, the other clubs withdrew and in a straight contest Spurs and
Lincoln were again equal. The decision
was left to the Management Committee who voted in favour of Spurs who as former
FA Cup winners had the potential to attract large crowds in London.
May,
1913 – The Invasion of the Woolwich Nomads
Five years
after entering the Football League and having then gained promotion to the
First Division, Spurs found their patch of North London under invasion. As stated in the recent edition of
‘Spurs Monthly’, ‘Woolwich Arsenal were in crippling debt,
had a rapidly dilapidating stadium and were struggling to attract supporters
owing to their poor location.’
It was then that their Chairman, Henry Norris decided to move the club
from the southern side of the Thames, north to Islington, less than five
miles from Tottenham. This was a direct
invasion of the area from where Spurs drew their support. There were immediate objections from Spurs,
Leyton Orient and Chelsea and local newspapers wrote articles of protest. The protests fell on deaf ears at the
Football Association and the move was sanctioned, enabling Arsenal to play
their first game at Highbury in September, 1913. The reason for their move was confirmed in
the programme for the first 2nd Division match at Highbury, ‘…the
depressing times we had at Plumstead, with its poor
train service and the lukewarm support we received from those in the immediate
neighbourhood.’
The rivalry
that had existed between two London clubs was now intensified as they became
neighbours vying for support from the people of North London.
May,
1919 – Spurs Manoeuvred Out of 1st Division by Arsenal
Before the
War, Spurs were in the 1st Division while Arsenal spent their first
few seasons in North London in the 2nd Division, following their
relegation in 1913. Although war was
declared in September, 1914, League football continued for another year. Unfortunately for Spurs, that season saw them
finish bottom of the Division, after losing three of their final four games.
With League football suspended until the War was over, the rivalry between the
two clubs would have been less intense as the whole nation worked together to
support the ‘War effort.’
Indeed, in 1916, when White Hart Lane was taken over by the Ministry of
Munitions, Arsenal and Orient offered Spurs the use of their grounds. For three seasons until the end of the War,
Spurs alternated their home games between Highbury and Orient’s
ground.
However,
when the War hostilities ended in 1919, hostility between the two clubs broke
out with renewed vigour. If their offer
of assistance during those three seasons was intended to soothe the
relationship between the two clubs following their move into Spurs’
territory, Arsenal’s action immediately after the War, only intensified
the situation.
For the
restart of League football in September, 1919 the authorities decided to
increase the 1st Division to twenty two clubs. On previous occasions the two clubs in the
relegation places retained their status.
Spurs assumed that this procedure would be maintained again but they
hadn’t allowed for the scheming of Arsenal and Sir Henry Norris. He was desperate to get Arsenal into the 1st
Division and although Arsenal had finished fifth in the 2nd Division
in 1915, he managed to bring influence to bear to gain support for his
club. It was only when the meeting was
held that Spurs realised they had a fight on their hands. Spurs thought they had ‘right on their
side’ but Arsenal had managed to gain eighteen votes to Spurs’
eight in second place. There was no
logical reason for the decision but Spurs had lost their 1st
Division status to the manipulation of their nearest neighbours.
Spurs were
stung into action and won promotion at the first attempt, with a record number
of points, won the FA Cup for a second time a year later and finished runners-up
in the 1st Division in 1922, the highest finish by a London
club. Needless to say, relationships
between the clubs and fans reached a new low.
To this day Arsenal have never earned their right to play in the top
division – having had to rely on secretive negotiations carried on behind
closed doors.
Spurs
slipped into the Second Division in 1928 and apart from a two year spell in the
early 1930s, they remained there until gaining promotion in 1950 when they
began to establish themselves as a power in English football. There may be incidents when Spurs and the
authorities didn’t see eye to eye during this period but it is in more
recent times that the uneasy relationship again comes to the fore.
May,
1984 and May, 1987 – Fielding a Weakened Team
In
today’s football, games are routinely changed for television or postponed
to accommodate European games and assist clubs playing in the European
competitions. The League Cup has removed replays from the fixture list, while
second and third replays are a long time gone.
It is now acceptable for teams to field under strength sides in the Cup
competitions so that they can concentrate on the more lucrative European or
Premiership games. This has greatly
devalued these competitions but back in the seventies and eighties when Spurs
were campaigning successfully around Europe, no such assistance would be
provided under any circumstances. Today,
managers and players complain of too many matches in the English game but back
then, a successful team could routinely play sixty to seventy games in a
season. In 1971-72 as Spurs when Spurs
won the UEFA Cup they played 68 games.
The 1st Leg of the semi-final of the UEFA Cup was played on the
Wednesday after Easter. Spurs played
three league games in four days on the weekend prior to the semi-final
tie. They fulfilled the traditional
Easter fixtures on Good Friday, Saturday and Easter Monday. The request for a postponement to one of
those games to aid Spurs’ preparations for the game against AC Milan was
refused by the Football League who displayed a typical lack of vision in this
decision, being unable to see the benefits to be gained from Spurs’
success in Europe. As a result of so
many games, the players were going into a semi-final match physically and
mentally weary. Bill Nicholson had
shuffled his players to try and keep them fit and rested for this important
game but John Pratt who had established himself in the team broke his nose in
the Monday game. The one good point from
this was that Nicholson unexpectedly re-called Captain, Alan Mullery from his loan period at Fulham and Mullery ended his Spurs’ career in typical style
leading by example.
Similar
problems occurred in 1984 as Spurs again reached the Final of the UEFA
Cup. Spurs had two games over the
weekend of the May Bank holiday, immediately before the first game against Anderlecht in Belgium.
On the Saturday a full strength side defeated Norwich at White Hart
Lane. Spurs had requested a postponement
of the Monday game against Southampton but were turned down. Keith Burkinshaw
sent out a weakened team with Paul Miller the only player to appear in the
Final two days later. The reserve side
lost 0-5 and the Football League charged the club with fielding an
under-strength team.
Three years
later as Spurs prepared for the FA Cup Final against Coventry, David Pleat
rested some of his players for the final League game against Everton. All issues surrounding the season had been
settled – Everton were champions, Liverpool runners-up and Spurs third. Spurs played a total of 57 games that year
and played seventeen games in the final nine weeks of the season from
mid-March. The team lost by the only
goal of the game but the club was fined £10,000 for resting players who turned
out at Wembley a week later.
May,
1994 – Irregular Payments
During the
previous year’s High Court proceedings caused by the acrimonious fall-out
between Chairman, Alan Sugar and Chief Executive, Terry Venables,
details of irregular payments to players came to light. On 12th May, 1994 the Football
Association formally charged Spurs with misconduct for alleged irregular
payment to a number of players. These had been made under the previous regime
and were allegedly paid to players between 1985 and 1989. In the hope for clemency and that the
authorities would treat them leniently, Spurs co-operated with the F.A. and
assisted them by handing over documents which appeared to show that the
payments had been made.
However,
the F.A. were treating the matter very seriously and a fortnight later before
any judgement had been given by the enquiry team, the F.A. announced the
arrangements should Spurs be demoted from the Premier League to Division 1 as a
result of their misdemeanours. Sheffield
United who had finished 20th in the Premier League would be the
beneficiary’s of Spurs punishment by retaining their place in the top
flight.
It was
looking bad for Spurs and when the F.A. Commission gave their verdict in
mid-June, it wasn’t much better.
The investigation covered 40 charges of malpractice which involved
payments made to fifteen players. The
enquiry found Spurs guilty and imposed a record fine of £600,000. They imposed a deduction of 12 points from their
total at the end of the 1994-95 season and were expelled from the next season’s
F.A. Cup.
These were
the severest punishments ever handed out and shocked the football world. The punishments amounted to relegation by a
slow and painful process. Fans were
devastated and a heavy cloud of despondency hung over the club. Alan Sugar was so infuriated at the heavy
handed nature of the F.A.’s treatment of the
club that he immediately announced an appeal.
He regarded the punishment as ‘a deliberate vendetta against our
club and against me personally.’
The appeal
against the penalties imposed by the F.A. enquiry into the charge of misconduct
was held in early July. Chairman, Alan
Sugar, was the man for the occasion – he presented Spurs’ case
against the 12 point deduction, F.A.Cup ban and the
£600,000 fine. Having considered the
case, the Appeal panel halved the points deduction to six but increased the
fine to £1,500,000 as well as maintaining the Cup ban. Sugar was still not satisfied and immediately
announced that Spurs would again appeal against the penalties that had been imposed
against the club. Sugar felt most
aggrieved that the misconduct charges had been under a previous regime at the
club and also that he had tried to co-operate with the F.A. over the
investigation.
Spurs’
season started under the burden of a six point deduction but the arrival of Jurgen Klinsmann had given the
club a much needed boost. The appeal
didn’t take place until early December when Alan Sugar had his finest
hour as he battled successfully against the Football Association to secure
Spurs’ re-instatement to the F.A.Cup. Sugar had been so enraged by the punishment
that he had promised to have the decision over turned. He was as good as his word and kept up the
fight in spite of various set-backs and won the day, much to the delight of the
fans who would be able to look forward to a 3rd Round home tie
against Altrincham in January. In the
view of the arbitration tribunal, the F.A.’s
charges against Spurs had been ‘misconceived, bad in law and should not
have been proceeded with….. and it was irrational to impose any penalty
other than a fine.’
The
authorities had treated Spurs in a heavy handed manner, taking no account of
Spurs full co-operation in the investigation and they certainly had not
anticipated coming face to face with someone like Alan Sugar. Such an encounter showed the Spurs’
Chairman at his best – he would not be put down by those in authority and
was prepared to fight to the bitter end to get justice for Tottenham
Hotspur. It is interesting that
subsequent enquiries involving other clubs have dragged on interminably and
have quietly ‘white-washed’ all issues, with no-one coming to
account.
January,
2005 – Mendes’ ‘Goal’
The first
away game of 2005 took Spurs to Old Trafford to face Manchester United where in
the final minutes Pedro Mendes scored a ‘goal’ from forty
yards. The ball was so far over the line
that almost everyone inside Old Trafford realised he had scored a wonderful
goal and certainly everyone watching the game on television knew Spurs had
taken the lead. The fourth official knew
it was a goal, Sky television had even changed their score line on screen
before realising that the Assistant referee and his colleague were unaware that
it was a goal and had waved play on.
Martin Jol responded to this decision with great dignity and
understanding, even though underneath he must have been seething. Would Sir Alex Ferguson have been so
reasonable and charitable in similar circumstances?
The
officials were amused at the end, newspapers showed photographs of the
non-goal, the authorities kept their heads down and made excuses that the
assistant referee would have needed the speed of a greyhound to have been up
with play and within a week it was forgotten about. A season and a half later and while there has
been talk of using technology to aid officials, exactly nothing has
happened. The referee’s decision
is final and Spurs had lost two points which their display had deserved, Martin
Jol and the players didn’t receive the rewards their display merited and
United were relieved to have taken a point to keep them on track for Champions
League qualification. If one of the top
clubs had been on the wrong end of such a decision, would the matter have died
away so quickly?
May,
2006 – The Viral Infection
This most
recent example came at the close of Spurs’ best ever season in the
Premiership and the best season the club has experienced in some considerable
time. Going into the final game, UEFA
cup football was assured for next season but there was still the possibility of
claiming fourth position and qualification for the Champions League with all
the money spinning opportunities it provides.
However, there was the uncertainty created by the possibility of Arsenal
winning the Champions League and so depriving Spurs of that opportunity but
Spurs had held fourth since mid-December and wanted to maintain that
position. Spurs had seen off a number of
challengers but Arsenal had reduced their lead to one point so the outcome of
this game was critical – Spurs had to at least match the result in
Arsenal’s game against Wigan Athletic in their final match at
Highbury. The rivalry between the two
clubs is such that both sets of supporters wanted to have the bragging rights
at the end of the season.
For such an
important game everything had to be right but in Spurs’ case, it started
to go wrong in the early hours of Sunday morning as up to ten members of the
squad were struck down with illness. The
initial thought was of food poisoning but subsequent tests have suggested a
viral infection had affected the players.
Such was the condition of the players that the club contacted the
Premier League to explain their difficulty and requested a possible
postponement. The Premier League sent an
England doctor to the hotel where the players had stayed overnight but before
he had provided any information, they announced that the match must go
ahead. Discussions had taken place
between the clubs and the Premier League about delaying the game but with the
police only prepared to sanction a two hour delay, the Spurs’ medical
staff were of the opinion that that would be of little benefit to the players.
While being
told that the game would go ahead at the appointed time, Tottenham were
informed that they could decide not to play but were mindful and fearful of the
punishment handed out to Middlesbrough who had not fulfilled a fixture a number
of seasons previously – a three point deduction.
Spurs
fulfilled the fixture but lost the game to a West Ham side who were fully
committed in spite of their FA Cup Final appearance the following weekend. Spurs started the game with their strongest
line-up, allowing for the injuries to King, Jenas, Stalteri
and Mido. However, it was obvious that
many of the players were suffering from the effects of their illness –
Robinson looked uncomfortable, Dawson looked dreadful from the very start,
while Michael Carrick was only able to play for an hour. Throughout the game the players lacked the
spark and endeavour that had characterised their most recent performances
against Bolton, Arsenal and Manchester United but all deserve credit for their
total commitment and that they were able to keep the game so close while never
really looking capable of achieving the win that was required as a result of
Arsenal taking the three points from Wigan.
In the days
after the game, Chairman Daniel Levy wrote to the Premier League seeking a
replay. He argued that the they had a
made a hasty decision without knowing all the facts and that Spurs had not been
given an opportunity to play their most important game of the season on equal
terms to everyone else as they had had to field players who were unwell,
depriving them of the opportunity to stake a claim for the final Champions
League place.
Having
received the letter, the Premier League arranged a meeting to consider the
request but then an official from the League announced that Tottenham had
fulfilled the fixture and the result would stand. The decision had again been taken before
consideration could be given to the matter.
The committee subsequently decided against Spurs, no surprise there,
making an issue of the fact that they had fifty three professionals registered
and so had adequate cover to replace the affected players.
The club,
manager, players and supporters were left feeling aggrieved and annoyed about
the way this matter was handled when it was such an important game for
Spurs. They felt cheated but the club
conducted themselves with dignity throughout, stating the facts and not making
excuses while the authorities would appear to have been making it up as they
went along. Their reasoning that all
games on the final day must kick-off simultaneously was unnecessary as matches
kick-off at different times and days throughout the season and Spurs already
knew that they needed to win to be certain of fourth and it wasn’t going
to be altered by knowing Arsenal’s result.
This has
been the most recent example of the authorities failing to provide any
understanding or support for Spurs in their difficulty and ultimately deciding
against them. However, everyone is left
wondering what would have been the re-action of the authorities if Arsenal,
Manchester United or Chelsea had been afflicted by illness prior to an
important game and how those particular clubs and their managers would have
conducted themselves in the aftermath.
At a time when the media has regarded the issue as something of a joke,
it would also be fairly safe to predict that they would have filled pages on
reports of injustice claims on behalf of those clubs with calls for campaigns
for mediation in their favour.
June,
2005 – Frank Arnesen’s Defection to
Chelsea.
In light of
Spurs’ record and association with the authorities over the years, it is
perhaps not surprising that in this incidence, Spurs decided to go their own
way, rather that seek retribution through the Football Association or Premier
League.
The news of Frank Arnesen’s
defection to Chelsea came as a complete surprise to everyone. The Director of Football role that he had
held for less than a year was the basis
of the club’s future planning – he worked alongside the Head Coach
identifying and signing players who would fit into the team plan. He had had a busy first year with the playing
staff requiring a massive overhaul and was expected to be busy in the summer
transfer market as more replacements were sought. That he had gone to Chelsea was a shock and
then it came to light that Chelsea had approached him without permission. The Tottenham board immediately protested and
went through protracted negotiations with the West London club before coming to
an arrangement and settlement with them.
Many wanted Spurs to make a formal complaint so that the Football
Association and Premier League could investigate Chelsea’s conduct in
this matter but Daniel Levy working from a position holding the moral high
ground conducted his own negotiations as to what was best for Tottenham
Hotspur. The Spurs directors were
perhaps fearful of a ‘whitewash’ with an inquiry afraid to
challenge Chelsea’s behaviour and allowing them to walk away
unpunished. The lack of support from the
authorities on previous occasions may have encouraged the club to fight their
own battle as they sought retribution and compensation.
Tottenham
Hotspur has received much respect for the way it has handled its business in
recent years – it has not gone down the line of shouting the odds and
blaming all and sundry – it has acted with dignity and while at times we
have felt let down and annoyed at the authorities – that is the Spurs way
and the men who did so much to create and establish this great club’s
reputation would approve. It was the
John Ripsher way, the John Oliver way, the John
Cameron way, the Arthur Rowe way and the Bill Nicholson way.
Logan
Holmes
Back to Topspurs Columnists |
Back to Topspurs Home |
Back to Topspurs Editorial |
Disclaimer: Please note the words on this page are the
opinion of Spurs supporters and are just that, opinions, not facts and are
nothing to do with Tottenham Hotspur Football club PLC. Just a supporter having
his say, nothing more nothing less