Graham Kelly: Crozier's successor will need nerves of steel to stop financial rot at the FA

The emperor was revealed to be wearing no clothes last week. At the Uefa-organised anti-racism conference held at Chelsea Football Club, the Football Association was forced to admit that its annual grant of £75,000 to Kick It Out, English football's anti-racism campaign, was being re-considered as part of its current financial review.

Although the FA was at pains to stress its continued commitment to fighting racism, no doubt some considerable embarrassment was felt at jeopardising one important element in that battle in front of delegates, many of whose resources cannot hope to match those of England.

This news came hard on the heels of a staff meeting at the FA's Soho Square headquarters, at which warnings of impending job cuts were given.

Another potential casualty of the current crisis is the Football Foundation, which receives £20m per year from the FA for the development of football at grass-roots level by improving pitches and changing rooms, etc. Around £16m is owing on the current instalment.

The outspoken Chelsea chairman, Ken Bates, is not always the most accurate barometer of football's climate, but when he wrote recently that, once the financial rot had been stopped, the FA could then "resume its investment to the grass roots" the warning signals should have been clear to those charged with the responsibility of caring for the game at the lowest levels.

And all this in the same week that a six-man committee interviewed candidates to replace the ousted chief executive, Adam Crozier. It seems likely that a businessman from outside the game will be appointed.

When the FA appointed me in 1988 the details provided in the headhunters' office indicated likewise. They were seeking someone with "experience as managing director of a commercial organisation with a turnover around £10m and successful experience of man-management, a leader and team builder.

"The terms and conditions place emphasis on the financial and commercial areas and the organisation of tighter controls and the co-ordination and preparation of budgets. Managing one-off projects and investigations into issues (like the development of a national stadium). The emphasis is on maintaining an extremely high standard of reliability and service whilst ensuring that costs do not escalate."

Very apposite now, and the fact that I came through on the rails as an unexpected dark horse when all eyes were on the European Championship finals in Germany owed much to relationships within the FA at the time. Ted Croker, the general secretary as the chief executive was then termed, defended the unwieldy structure of the FA council on the grounds that it provided a necessary democratic safeguard, but he had built up a successful business before joining the FA in 1973, and never exhibited much relish for the minutiae in which Lancaster Gate's affairs were buried.

Though the cynics later unkindly concluded that chairman Bert Millichip wanted more of an administrator to allow him his globe-trotting freebies for another 20 years, the reality of my succession probably owed much more to Croker's free style and personality. Croker was not dissimilar to Crozier, if less calculating in his use of the media.

My move to the FA coincided with football's financial bonanza – the advent of satellite television – and the governing body was the first to take advantage of the new money on offer after the BBC/ITV cartel was shattered. Unfortunately, a dispute soon blew up with Wembley Stadium Ltd who felt entitled to a percentage of the increased television rights fees.

The FA was locked into a long contract with Wembley. As the exciting new commercial horizons beckoned it seemed crazy to be tied to a home which, though rich in heritage, was uncomfortable for supporters and, moreover, always susceptible to ambush marketing.

So it was that the aspiration to develop a new national stadium took clearer shape in the 1990s after the formation of the FA Premier League. But is it the FA's commitment to the new Wembley which has caused the present difficulty? Out of a total project cost of £757m the FA has to find £148m, which is a sizeable chunk of anybody's income.

The acting chief executive, David Davies, explains that the FA has commitments that were not apparent "a short time ago". In order to meet them it is reported to be negotiating a loan secured on the next television contract due in 2004. Because of the declining appeal of the FA Cup, this is unlikely to be as valuable as the current deal.

If these unforeseen commitments are indeed the Wembley payments, which, under the arrangements originally contemplated the FA hoped not to have to incur, the governing body is guilty of the kind of over-ambition that has been plaguing the clubs and their new chief executive will need nerves of steel to see the project through to completion.

grahamkelly@btinternet.com