On the 4th of July 2024, the Football Association Regulatory Commission published its decision in the disciplinary proceedings arising from the dispute between Lee Power and Michael Standing regarding the previous ownership of Swindon Town Football Club.
Below, we provide a summary of the full written decision published.
A recap
Mr Power bought STFC in November 2013 through a holding company Swinton Reds and told the EFL and supporters that he owned 100% of the club.
The main issue in the Power/ Standing legal proceedings is whether Mr Power held 50% of the shares in Swinton on trust for Mr Standing, and therefore whether Mr Standing owned 50% of STFC.
Mr Power accepts that there was another person involved in the acquisition of Swindon Town Football Club but said that it was not Mr Standing, but Mr Standing’s friend, the former Premier League and England footballer, Gareth Barry. Mr Power denies that Mr Standing owns 50% of STFC, or that Mr Barry does, but accepts that Mr Barry had various contractual rights.
Mr Barry paid substantial sums to Mr Standing’s then company, First Touch Pro Management (FTPM), which were invested in Swindon Town Football Club, together with funds from Mr Standing.
The Charges
Football agents (now called intermediaries) are not allowed to hold any interest in football clubs, nor have financial or other (non-playing!) influence over their affairs. Players are not allowed to have any interest in a football agent.
In November 2021 the FA charged Mr Standing, FTPM, Mr Barry, Mr Power and Swindon Town Football Club with breach of the relevant regulations as a result of their financial arrangements.
The hearing took place in June 2024 because of the ongoing litigation between Mr Power and Mr Standing. The FA had opposed the delay and it appears that the parties finally agreed that the disciplinary hearing could proceed.
The findings of the FA’s Regulatory Commission
The Commission concluded that there was not a clandestine arrangement to disguise the true interest of Mr Barry as an owner of Swindon Town Football Club.
On balance, the Commission accepted that Mr Standing was probably the beneficial owner of STFC and that Mr Barry provided the funding for that acquisition “as an act of friendly generosity” without Mr Barry himself acquiring any interest. This means it accepted Mr Standing’s version of events and rejected Mr Power’s version of events.
However, whatever the truth, the Regulatory Commission noted that the arrangements between Mr Standing, Mr Power and Mr Barry were not disclosed to the FA. This meant that Mr Standing, FTPM, Mr Barry and STFC had breached the relevant regulations.
The charge against Mr Power was dismissed: he was not a regulated individual at the time the financial arrangements were agreed upon, and the Regulatory Commission decided that he had no obligation under the relevant regulation to disclose existing arrangements when he became a regulated individual.
The decision refers to a witness statement given by former TrustSTFC Chair, Stephen Mytton. That statement was provided to support STFC’s argument that any penalty for the club should be minimal and STFC and its supporters should not be punished for the actions of a former owner. That argument was accepted by the Regulatory Commission.
Summary of the charges and outcome
| Summary | Status | Penalty | |
| 1 | Standing had a prohibited interest in STFC, by holding a beneficial interest of more than 5%, and/ or providing funding to the club, and being in a position that may enable the exercise of material influence over the affairs of the STFC | Admitted by Standing | 6-month suspension from all football activity, but this has already been served because he agreed not to participate in football activity whilst the case was ongoing |
| 2 | FTPM held a prohibited interest in STFC, by providing funding to the club, and so being in a position that may enable the exercise of influence over the affairs of STFC | Admitted by FTPM | £40,000 payable within 35 days |
| 3 | Barry had a prohibited interest in the business or affairs of FTPM, an Intermediary, by providing funding and so being in a position that may enable the exercise of a material influence over the affairs of FTPM | Denied by Barry, but proved | Warning |
| 4 | Barry had a prohibited interest in the business or affairs of Standing, an Intermediary, by providing funding on his behalf to STFC, and so being in a position that may enable the exercise of a material influence over the affairs of Michael Standing | Denied by Barry, but prove | No additional penalty was given warning concerning Charge 3 |
| 5 | Power, an official of STFC, failed to disclose to the FA any arrangement with FTPM whereby FTPM paid money to Power within ten days of the arrangement having been entered into. | Denied by Power, and dismissed | Not applicable, charge dismissed |
| 6 | STFC failed to disclose to the FA the agreement that FTPM would pay funds to STFC, within ten days of the arrangement having been entered into. | Admitted by STFC | £25,000, with £12,500 payable within 35 days and £12,500 suspended and likely payable for any further breach within the next two years |
| 7 | Standing, FTPM, Barry, Power and STFC were parties to an agreement by which FTPM and/ or Standing provided funding to STFC, and so placed FTPM and/ or Standing in a position that may enable the exercise of a material influence over the affairs of STFC | Charge dismissed against all defendants (STFC was granted permission to withdraw its initial admission). | Not applicable, acquitted |
Read the full written decision from the FA Regulatory Commission
Final Words
The outcome does not mean that the High Court will reach the same conclusion in the ongoing litigation between Mr Power and Mr Standing. However, it appears that this litigation may be settled, most likely on a confidential basis, as the decision of the Regulatory Commission records an “agreement in principle” to settle.
Whatever its outcome, that litigation cannot affect Mr Morfuni’s ownership of STFC nor lead to Mr Power or Mr Standing having any interest in STFC.
This was another sorry episode in the history of the club’s ownership. Nonetheless, TrustSTFC remains committed to pressing current and future owners for full transparency and engagement with the fans in line with the Memorandum of Understanding that TrustSTFC has agreed with the club.
#COYR #STFC
TrustSTFC Board