Graham Kelly: Maximum fine is peanuts to the game's 'royalty'

I was serious when I suggested that players should, in effect, take the pledge when they accept the riches that the ordinary lad in the pub resents after a few drinks. That was my reason for likening the top footballer to the pop star or the young royal who cannot socialise freely. It is not to imply that they do not know how to behave, but for their own sakes they must be removed from the Saturday night fever of resentment of those who may want to have a go. It is a small price to pay and, as Gérard Houllier said, of Steven Gerrard, "He can buy his own nightclub."

Whereas too many clubs have paid only lip service to the concept of education, allowing the boys to play fast and loose once they get a sniff of the first team toiletries, Manchester United have tried to inculcate in their players the fact that they represent the club every minute of every day. But I beg to differ with Gary Neville, an excellent professional, when he complains about the team being harassed by intrusive press photographers at their Christmas party.

As an industry, football should now take the extra step and accept that its stars are front page news and that the photographers who are sent to reflect that reality are entitled to the same respect as anyone else trying to do a job in a public place. A smile costs no more than a scowl and, after all, the club has plenty of public relations staff to keep things within reasonable bounds. Let's have a fresh start and teach our players to respect not only their opponents and the game but also those outside the game with whom their profession brings them into contact.

It is good that discipline is being reviewed. The maximum fine of two weeks' wages is clearly peanuts to the big earners. There needs to be provision for a bigger fine that would really mean something.

Just as it is right to raise the ceiling for appropriate cases of gross misconduct, so it is time to institute a graded system of club discipline and make it clear that the maximum fine is a blunt sledgehammer that should not automatically be slammed down on every piddling little rule breach. Cast your mind back a few weeks to some of the noises the chairmen were making at the time of the threatened players' strike and imagine the power to fine a player a couple or three months' wages in the hands of one or two of those characters! The responsible managers should be given the flexibility to manage effectively.

It wasn't clear to me why the spokesmen for the Premier League and the Football League apparently failed to understand the need for the deduction of championship points to at least be considered as a weapon against onfield indiscipline by players. It has been shown to work. When Arsenal and Wimbledon met Norwich and West Ham in 1989 their fights resulted in fines ranging from £20,000 to £50,000, but, after a scuffle between Manchester United and Arsenal players the next year, the resultant deduction of points, one for United and two for Arsenal, eradicated these stupid free-for-alls for a good few years.

One power the FA most definitely holds over players, managers and even directors is so instant in its effect, it is difficult to imagine a football case so heinous it would need to be utilised even in these sometimes troubled days, unless, say, a hot-headed player punches a referee. This is the "interim suspension order" which can be imposed only with the agreement of the Professional Footballers' Association (in the case of a player) and either the Premier League or the Football League in serious instances of misconduct where a football or criminal charge is pending. It pre-supposes that speedy justice, either in football, or in the courts, will follow.

The interim suspension order was introduced in 1995 after Eric Cantona's assault on a spectator at Selhurst Park. The fact the FA felt impotent in the wake of the incident, having to go cap in hand to the United board to persuade them to suspend the player in order to take him out of the firing line, was sufficient to demonstrate the need for summary action.

This week football's officers will discuss bans and fines but the sooner, untrammelled by the selfish interests of sectional agenda, they lay down fresh principles as to what is expected of top performers, the quicker the game will earn the respect which will obviate the need for such measures in the long term. But, in order to show the young how to honour their profession, those who direct the monied clubs must first acquire some humility themselves.

grahamkelly@btinternet.com