FA publishes written reasons for bans handed to Blackpool CEO and secretary

Ben Mansford and Nick Horne accepted an FA charge of misconduct relating to comments made to the officials following the 4-1 defeat to Coventry City in March.

Mick McCarthy, who was Blackpool boss at the time, was critical of referee Geoff Eltringham’s performance at Bloomfield Road after a number of decisions went against his side.

The Seasiders were denied a second penalty when, with the game locked at 1-1, Gustavo Hamer appeared to trip forward Jerry Yates inside the box. It was a decision that Sky Blues manager Mark Robins even struggled to defend.

Coventry striker Viktor Gyokeres was also fortunate to escape a straight red card for what appeared to be an elbow/forearm smash on Callum Connolly.

But both Mansford and Horne landed themselves in hot water with the FA after making their feelings known in the vicinity of the officials’ changing room after the game. As well as the ban, they were also fined £3,500 and £700 respectively.

The FA has now published its written reasons after an independent panel, composed of chairperson Ifeanyi Odogwu, Faye White and Ken Brown, met to discuss the matter on March 30.

Report’s findings

The report stated that at the end of the game BM accompanied Blackpool FC manager Mick McCarthy into the match officials’ changing room where a discussion took place about Mr Eltringham’s decisions.

Mr Mansford said: “I hope you realise that you have just lost some of our staff there jobs” (sic) in an aggressive manner.

He continued to state that it was the match officials’ fault people would lose their jobs and called them ‘hopeless’. He was asked to leave the dressing room.

Mr Eltringham went on to report that after Mr McCarthy and BM left the changing room, NH then entered and stated that the match officials had ‘f****d them over’ with a decision before half time.

Reports from assistant referees George Byrne, Adam Crysell and Tom Parsons provided reports with similar observations.

BM is described by Mr Byrne to have re-entered the changing room in a calm manner approximately 20 minutes later to apologise.

Charged

BM and NH were charged with a breach of FA Rule E3.1. It was alleged that in or around the referees changing room, their language was improper and/or abusive and/or insulting.

The FA designated charges as a non-standard case due to their roles within football, and in addition for BM, the unusual nature of the reported incidents of misconduct. On March 27, 2023, BM and NH both admitted the charges.

The rule states: “A participant shall at all times act in the best interest of the game and shall not act in any manner which is improper or brings the game into disrepute or use any one, or a combination of, violent conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.”

Mansford’s mitigation

• He was “triggered by my immense sense of injustice and frustration surrounding specific decisions made by the officials on the day, and their apparent refusal to accept clear errors of judgement post-match.”
• There had been a previous concern raised regarding Mr Eltringham’s performance in their fixture only four weeks prior (the 2-1 defeat to Swansea City, where Charlie Patino was sent off).
• He had no prior disciplinary history.
• Blackpool are in a precarious position in the league.
• It was a “momentary lapse of professionalism”.
• He made a swift apology.
• He also had assured Howard Webb and Kevin Friend along with Andy Ambler of the FA that this will never happen again, and that the club have taken steps to ensure club officials remain away from areas connected to the officials.

Horne’s mitigation

• On a matchday I am the designated point of contact for match officials and will therefore liaise with them on any matters throughout the day whether this be pre-match, during or post-match.
• It was also common that following a fixture NH would speak to the officials both generally and to discuss the game to ensure there are no issues before they depart.
• Key decisions were queried, with the club feedback report from the match official administration system (MOAS) provided for reference.
• He calmly entered the dressing room with good intentions and with the consent of the officials.
• After discussing the decision, as he turned to leave, he made the remark of “just so you know, that has absolutely f****d us today’. The remark was made without any aggression, it was in a calm manner and without a raised voice.
• He immediately and calmly apologised to the officials.
• This was his first charge in over 10 years of working professional football, and his first charge of improper and/or abusive and/or insulting language in over 30 years of participation in football in any role.
• Blackpool FC have taken steps to recruit a liaison officer for match officials to assist on matchdays. They have engaged with their local referees’ association and will look to recruit an appropriate person to support the club and match officials when they visit Bloomfield Road

FA’s conclusions

The facts and circumstances of this case were unusual. We were concerned that a chief executive would be in the match officials’ dressing room at the conclusion of a match querying on the field decisions.

BM is a senior officer of the club, and as such is a role model for staff and players. His actions will inform the culture of the club with respect to conduct towards march officials.

The remarks were made in the presence of, or towards, other match officials, as well as being witnessed by the Blackpool FC manager.

As regards aggravating features for NH, whilst we acknowledge his role as point of contact for match officials, it was unusual for a club secretary to be challenging the referee’s on the field decisions in the dressing room in the aftermath of a match. He also occupies a position of responsibility within the club.

As regards sporting sanction, clearly a touchline ban would have had limited impact given that BM and NH were both non-technical area occupants. It was therefore

considered proportionate to impose a ground ban.

We addressed our minds to the impact on the club of not having their chief executive and club secretary present on match day during the period of the suspension and, similarly, considered this to be appropriate and proportionate to take into account the seriousness of the charges.