Premier League side Fulham and NFL Jacksonville Jaguars Owner Shahid Khan pulled his £600M ($787M) offer to buy Wembley Stadium after concluding the FA "could not secure support among its members to sell the venue" known as England's "home of football," according to Ahmed & Massoudi of the FINANCIAL TIMES. Khan "has been in talks since April to acquire the stadium from the FA," and the two sides agreed to draft sale terms last month. On Wednesday, Khan "rescinded the offer after calculating that the FA would not gain sufficient support from its 10-member board" and 127-member council to "sign off on a deal." FA Chair Greg Clarke "wanted unanimity from his board and a strong majority of the council for the proposal to proceed." In recent weeks, Khan's negotiating team "became aware that a small minority of the board and a large number of council members would not support the deal," according to sources familiar with the matter (FT, 10/17). In London, Samuel Lovett reported Khan expressed to the FA that a lack of support "from within the game" had discouraged him from "following through with the deal." He "also highlighted the divisive nature of the talks, which have garnered intense scrutiny from the media" and raised questions of how the FA "would use the funds raised by the sale of Wembley." Khan said in a statement, "I’ve been clear publicly as well as in my correspondence with the FA Council that it would require a proper partnership, with the full and enthusiastic commitment of all involved, to maximise the benefits to the FA and game of football by way of 100 per cent private ownership of Wembley Stadium. At this moment, following last week’s FA Council hearing, it appears there is no definitive mandate to sell Wembley and my current proposal, subsequently, would earn the backing of only a slim majority of the FA Council, well short of the conclusive margin that the FA Chairman has required" (INDEPENDENT, 10/17).
A LATER DATE: REUTERS' Simon Evans reported Khan "left the door open" for the future. He said in his statement, "I cannot rule out revisiting the opportunity at another time when perhaps the Football Association family is unified in its views on the opportunity. I recognise the passion many people have for Wembley and what it means to English football, and will be willing to re-engage with the FA on this matter under proper circumstances" (REUTERS, 10/17). In London, David Conn reported the FA said that the debate over Wembley has "undoubtedly raised awareness of the issue that community football facilities in England need significant investment." Attention will now turn to that issue and, in particular, whether the Premier League, whose 20 clubs are currently receiving £8.4B ($11B) from the '16-19 TV deals, "should contribute more to fund grassroots improvements" (GUARDIAN, 10/17). In London, Tom Morgan reported last week, FA CFO Mark Burrows told the Wembley summit that every region in England "could expect 330 improved grass pitches and 31 new changing pavilions as a result of the deal." However, councilors "had questioned the FA's financial plan," which would have seen the proposed sale release just £46M ($60M) a year to the grassroots game as the governing body "trickled payments over two decades." An FA blueprint reportedly shows the promised £71M ($93M) for each region -- totaling £3.3B ($4.3B) across England -- is based on FA accountants "assuming" high interest returns over 20 years, combined with an extra £613M ($804M) of "matched funding" from Football Foundation grants and around £1.8B ($2.36B) in existing grassroots funding plans (TELEGRAPH, 10/17).
MISSED OPPORTUNITY: In London, Henry Winter opined and a tear "slowly rolls down the cheek of a kid staring at a pitch waterlogged again, at a game called off again, at some fun with friends" canceled again. These "disbelieving children will surely struggle to understand" when they are told that the reason the facilities are not being invested in properly is "because some members of the FA Council wanted to show that they were still powerful," rather than an "anachronism in a sport trying to be progressive." Many of the "county set" do "care about the game, but they have been feeling increasingly sidelined by the suits at the FA." So they "stamped their feet," signaling disapproval of the FA considering accepting Khan's bid for Wembley. This would have "released substantial sums into grassroots." The FA "handled its wooing of the Council poorly." It needed to emphasize better that "the windfall would be dispensed sensibly." The FA "messed up" (LONDON TIMES, 10/17).
