Sam Allardyce is pursuing damages from the FA

Sam Allardyce is pursuing damages from the FA for the way they handled the fallout from his removal as England manager.A 5,000-word letter has been sent to the FA high command of chairman Greg Clarke and chief executive Martin Glenn from Allardyce’s lawyers.The 62-year-old was essentially sacked in September 2016 after one game following a sting by undercover reporters posing as businessmen. He is said to be furious with subsequent comments from the FA and believes they did not wait until they had the full facts before firing him. Allardyce is taking action over opinions later expressed by Clarke to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport at a parliamentary hearing about football governance, and by Glenn when speaking to the BBC.Central to the FA’s decision was the accusation by the Daily Telegraph that he had advised the journalists, who were claiming to represent a fictitious company called Meiran, on how to circumvent FA rules on third-party ownership Now, however, Allardyce and his legal team have obtained a transcript of the recordings, taken over the course of two meetings, and insist he did nothing of the kind. They argue that he did not breach the terms of his employment and although they are currently unable to pass the evidence to the FA they have made their feelings known in recent correspondence. Sportsmail has obtained a copy of the letter, which calls into question the process by which Clarke and Glenn terminated Allardyce’s tenure after only 67 days in charge. More crucially, the FA ditched him within 24 hours of the publication of the Telegraph story and before waiting to see if a series of articles on alleged corruption in football would further implicate him.

 As it turned out, they did not.This newspaper understands that, as yet, there has been no substantive response from the FA to the letter from Allardyce’s lawyers at a time when the events surrounding their recent dismissal of England women’s coach Mark Sampson are under intense scrutiny. Clarke and Glenn are also at the centre of that storm. It is clear from the letter that the FA had initially said they would need to see transcripts of recordings of the meetings with Allardyce before reaching a decision, only to rush into forcing him out. Allardyce is said to be furious that the FA did not wait until they were in possession of the full facts. A source who has known Allardyce for many years said: ‘The FA bottled it. They saw the negative coverage and seemed to panic, being more concerned about appearing decisive than the truth.‘Look how the clubs dealt with the Telegraph’s claims — they did not pre-judge — and the accusations (from a series of articles entitled Football For Sale) amounted to one investigation into a Barnsley assistant coach.’ At the time, Allardyce accepted he made ‘an error of judgment’ in attending the meetings and regretted comments about his predecessor, Roy Hodgson. However, he maintained he was a victim of entrapment. Allardyce and his legal team insist the allegation that he advised the fake business executives how to circumvent FA rules was false.But it is the FA’s comments about the allegations that seem to have particularly incensed him, including remarks made to MPs when Clarke and communications chief Robert Sullivan gave evidence at a parliamentary hearing about football governance. The FA chiefs may feel these comments are protected by parliamentary privilege. The lawyers representing Allardyce focus on a claim in the Telegraph report that Allardyce had proposed a scheme that would see a third-party owner receive a share of a player’s transfer fee via an agent, which would breach FA rules that prevent third parties sharing in a transfer fee.In the letter to the FA, Allardyce’s team refer to a fundamental discrepancy between what the Telegraph claimed Allardyce said and what he actually said, evidenced by the video the Telegraph published alongside their articles.In that video Allardyce is seen telling the undercover reporters that third parties could not share in transfer fees, saying: ‘You’re not getting a part of the transfer fee any more, you can’t do that.’ As the letter states: ‘The video then shows Mr Allardyce telling the reporters they would be better having a company which employs agents because they can then receive a share of the commission. This does not break or even engage rules relating to third party ownership and is entirely legitimate.’There is no doubt it was Allardyce’s reported comments on the issue that led to his departure from Wembley. Speaking to the BBC on October 26 last year, Glenn said: ‘The issue we had with Sam was that in implying he could help people circumvent the rules, we felt in every other situation in the next few years we would have that thrown back in our face. We have to apply the rules consistently. This would have impaired our ability to do that.’