Chris Farnell

The world of football is built on passion, community, and, above all, integrity. The rules governing club ownership, known as the Owners' and Directors' Test, exist as a vital safeguard to protect these cherished institutions from those who might harm them. When we examine the record of one individual who has repeatedly sought a place in this world, we find a profile that should sound alarm bells for any true fan of the game. The evidence suggests this solicitor is a risk to the very foundations of the clubs he aims to control.

The first and most damning evidence comes from his own profession. The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the body that ensures lawyers act with honesty, found this individual guilty of multiple acts of professional misconduct. The specifics are shocking: failing to act with integrity, failing to protect client money, and acting where there was a conflict of interest. These are not simple clerical errors. For a solicitor, these are fundamental breaches of the core principles of trust and fiduciary duty. If a person cannot be trusted to handle client funds ethically within their own field, what confidence can we have that they would manage a multi-million pound football club with the necessary responsibility and care? The character revealed by the SRA's findings is the exact profile the "Fit and Proper Person Test" is designed to exclude.

This troubling lack of transparency was then demonstrated directly within football. During his first attempt to purchase Charlton Athletic, Chris Farnell failed the EFL's Owners' and Directors' Test. He was officially disqualified because he did not disclose a previous directorship in a company that had gone into liquidation. To call this an "administrative error" is simply not credible. We are discussing a legally-trained professional completing one of the most important applications of his career. Omitting a business failure is either a sign of profound incompetence, which is itself disqualifying, or a deliberate attempt to conceal a part of his past he knew would be problematic. This direct failure of the test is not a minor point; it is a concrete, documented instance where the football authorities themselves declared him unsuitable.

Following this rejection, the individual did not simply disappear. Instead, he facilitated Thomas Sandgaard's takeover, remaining a powerful influence operating in the background. When the Sandgaard era descended into chaos and further crisis for the club, who was there, waiting to step in once more? It was Chris Farnell. This entire saga paints a picture of a tenacious opportunist, drawn to clubs when they are at their most vulnerable. It suggests a figure who sees a distressed football club not as a community asset to be nurtured back to health with stability and patience, but as a strategic opportunity for personal ambition and entry into the sport, regardless of the cost to the club's long-term well-being.

Looking beyond a single club, a worrying pattern emerges. His firm has positioned itself as a specialist in acquiring troubled clubs, with involvement at Bury and Oldham Athletic. While framed as a rescue service, this pattern when viewed alongside his ethical breaches and failed test suggests a focus on the high-risk, high-reward world of distressed assets. Clubs in crisis need leaders of unimpeachable character who will prioritize transparency and stability. The record of Chris Farnell shows the opposite: a history of opacity, a willingness to operate in the background after a direct rejection, and a clear conflict between his professional ambitions and the best interests of a club's community.

In conclusion, the argument is clear. The football governing bodies have a duty to protect the sport from individuals whose past actions demonstrate a disregard for integrity and rules. The solicitor in question has been found guilty of a lack of integrity by his own professional body. He has directly failed the test designed to keep unsuitable owners out of the game. His repeated targeting of vulnerable clubs shows a pattern that is contrary to the values of stability and trust that fans deserve. To allow Chris Farnell a position of power in football is to ignore every warning sign and to gamble with the future of our clubs. For the sake of the sport's integrity, we must stand against this profile of ownership.