Whatever the moral issue in allowing for the fact that the former Arsenal manager had not committed a criminal act, once they found him guilty of misconduct the FA were bound to exercise their authority.
The embarrassment felt at Lancaster Gate last season when the Tottenham Hotspur chairman, Alan Sugar, successfully challenged the deduction of League points and expulsion from the FA Cup, ensured that Graham’s case would be conducted outside normal disciplinary procedures.In setting a precedent (it was thought in some quarters that Graham would at worst receive a hefty fine and a suspended sentence) the FA now had the responsibility of investigating thoroughly any rumours or mis- conduct that may have been brought to their attention.There have been enough suggestions of ongoing sleaze to make English football’s ruling body nervous, and it is unlikely that Graham stands alone with his financial misdemeanours. Yet he must now be cursing the day he ever heard the names Lydersen, Jensen and Hauge.. If it was always ridiculous to suppose that the Football Association would run the legal risk inherent in banning George Graham for life, the 12-month suspension they imposed on him yesterday is a clear statement of intent. They succeeded in having his 10-year banishment from English football quashed, but the former Leeds and England manager never worked in Britain again.Graham will surely be back, and will doubtless go on protesting his innocence. Revie’s lawyers argued that his former employer, the FA chairman Sir Harold Thompson, had also sat in judgement of him. “All the clubs who’ve contacted him knew he might be found guilty, but they still came forward. I think they’ll do the same next year.”There was an awful lot of pressure which others might have found hard to handle, but he’s come through it with flying colours.”The only manager previously banned for misconduct, Don Revie, carried the fight into the courts in 1977.

Taking the case further might prove prohibitive, McLintock told Radio 5 Live, although he was confident that if the midfielder once known as “Stroller” did accept his fate, he would have no trouble walking into a job next summer.”George had the possibility of joining three or four clubs in the last couple of months but couldn’t do so,” McLintock said. The fact that the commission accepted he did not engineer the deals “for personal gain” encouraged such notions, as did speculation that the FA feared being taken to court for restraint of trade if it banned him outright.However, the three-man panel – chaired by Geoff Thompson of the Sheffield and Hallamshire FA, and completed by the League president, Gordon McKeag, and Lincoln chairman John Reames – bit the bullet after continuing their deliberations and considering legal advice yesterday.Their decision, barring a successful appeal, consigns Graham to a 12- month exile from a professional game in which he has been almost continuously involved since leaving school in Lanarkshire to join Aston Villa in 1961.According to McLintock, a close friend who captained the Arsenal Double side in which Graham played, hiring lawyers for the hearing may have already cost Graham up to pounds 300,000. It had “great difficulty in accepting that Mr Graham did not know the payments derived directly from the transfer fees paid by Arsenal”.To have acquitted Graham would have been to undermine the Premier League investigations, which are ongoing, but even after the charge was found proven he must have hoped for a suspended sentence. Graham maintained that the sums were unsolicited gifts, which he eventually repaid to the club.Graham was sacked by Arsenal in February following an interim report by a Premier League inquiry into financial irregularities in the game. The disciplinary commission took into account his exemplary football and disciplinary record in considering punishment, as well as the points made in the plea for leniency on his behalf.”The commission defines ‘football activity’ as ‘any or all involvement in football administration, management or coaching, including the signing and transfer of players’.”The charge against Graham, which he steadfastly denied, related to money he received from a company run by the Norwegian agent, Rune Hauge, in the aftermath of the transfers to Arsenal of John Jensen and Pal Lydersen. Once the 50-year-old Scot had been notified in writing of the ban, an FA statement elaborated on the details.It read: “Mr Graham is suspended from all football until 30 June 1996 In addition he is to pay part of the costs of the case.

He has 14 days in which to appeal, although his former Highbury team-mate Frank McLintock suggested after talking to Graham yesterday that financial pressures might force him to let the matter rest.After three days of purgatory while a three-man FA commission considered allegations that he received irregular payments amounting to pounds 425,000 from the transfer of two Scandinavian players, Graham spent a further 24 hours in limbo before learning his punishment. This, however, is forecast to make the O J Simpson trial look like a weekend break.West Indies flop, page 25. Football

PHIL SHAW
George Graham, found guilty of misconduct by the Association, was last night banned from “all football activity” for a year and ordered to pay towards the unspecified cost of the disciplinary hearing.The former Arsenal manager’s suspension is certain to be rubber-stamped by Fifa and Uefa, the governing bodies for world and European football respectively. England had hitherto claimed that their own walkie-talkie system was more in keeping with tradition, but they have now been compelled to comply with the showbiz method employed in other countries.There was, as expected, no decision taken on allegations of Pakistani players offering bribes for opponents to throw matches, the ICC declaring it sub judice until the Pakistani Board completes its own judicial process. Spectators at all Test matches will now receive television adjudications on stumpings and run-outs via a green and red light display. During the last Test, the West Indies’ over-rate effectively deprived spectators of 21 overs on the first two days, although if they had not, there would not have been any play at all on the Saturday.The number of overs to be bowled before a new ball becomes available is to be standardised to 80, as will all one-day internationals to 50 overs per side. The current legislation allowing two per over per batsman has obscured the catch-all clause on “intimidation” in Law 42, and there was more than one occasion at Edgbaston when the fact that the West Indian bowlers remained within their bouncer quota appeared to make the umpires forget their wider powers concerning the physical risks to the batsmen.A move by England to increase the number of overs in a Test match day from 90 to 96 was thrown out, although there was a minor concession in increased fines (from five to 10 per cent of the match fee) once the shortfall in overs climbed to more than five in a day.

“Obviously when you are playing at home you want ground advantage to count,” he said, “and you might consider asking groundsmen to load conditions in your favour.”This appears to contravene the ICC stance on standardisation of pitches, and may also be considered in breach of the gagging clause (under which Roberts was arraigned) citing “no public pronouncements to the detriment of the game”.Reid is currently on holiday, but will be asked by the ICC to review Atherton’s comments when he returns. It is not likely to result in any further raids on the captain’s wallet (Raymond Illingworth and Burge dipped in for a combined pounds 3,500 last summer) but it would probably be a good idea for him to stuff a Wisden down the back of his trousers when he reports to Reid’s office.The ICC also announced yesterday that there is to be an umpires’ meeting next month to discuss the interpretation of Law 42 (Unfair Play) with specific reference to the bowling of bouncers. MARTIN JOHNSON

Cricket Correspondent
Michael Atherton has already made a couple of high-profile visits to the International Cricket Council headmaster’s study, and the England cricket captain may shortly find himself back on the disciplinary carpet for comments he made about the Edgbaston pitch after last week’s third Test debacle.Following last summer’s two meetings with the International Cricket Council referee, the Australian Peter Burge, firstly over the dirt in the pocket business, and secondly for Burge’s high-handed interpretation of dissent, Atherton now faces a ticking-off from this summer’s appointee from New Zealand, John Reid.Having seen their own manager, Andy Roberts, reprimanded for criticisms of the Lord’s pitch during the second Test match, the West Indies complained – with some justification – that Reid had not latched on with similar gusto to Atherton’s views on the Egbaston surface.He described it firstly as “diabolical” and then told a television interviewer that home groundsmen should prepare pitches to suit their own team. It would be very good to carry on at Williams, but I don’t know what’s going to happen. If you perform, team managers want you.”Hill knows he must perform at Silverstone to stay in touch with Schumacher in the title chase, and strengthen his stock in the market-place.. I’ve been there five years as test and race driver, and they are very much my Formula One family. I’ve also been talking to Frank Williams,” Hill said.”I am very happy at Williams I’ve got a great team behind me.

Hill, whose contract with Williams expires at the end of the season, is exploring his options, and his aides are eager to convey the impression he is being courted by other teams. “It’s obvious in my position that I am keen to talk to other teams and I have been talking to other teams. “There are a number of reasons why I wouldn’t like to be his team-mate,” Hill said. “We are treading on each other’s toes all the time.”The manoeuvring for places next season has begun and, as Hill concedes, Schumacher is calling the shots. It’s very difficult to have a relationship and that partly explains the paranoia.”Hill insisted he did not intend to insult Schumacher, although he preferred not to contemplate any prospect of being the champion’s partner, although Benetton, like Ferrari, deny any interest in Hill. But my intention is to win and Michael is the guy leading the championship and my aim is to beat him. The friction should be purely competitive.”Hill continued: “There’s bound to be more static between guys who’ve got in their hands the opportunity to win, so it’s inevitably going to be difficult between us.