The explosive comments are contained in a four-page letter sent to NSW chief Anter Isaac and distributed to the other seven state federation presidents.
The letter is in response to NSW and Victoria demanding further transparency as the deafening uproar over Stajcic’s puzzling departure shows no sign of abating.
Both NSW and Victoria have the voting power in Congress to trigger an extraordinary general meeting seeking the removal of the board, should they see fit.
The letter, which has been seen in its entirety by The World Game, reveals far more over Stajcic’s sacking 26 days ago than has hitherto been disclosed in the public domain.
Amid widespread calls for an independent enquiry to uncover the specific reasons for his removal and the disastrous way it has been handed by the FFA, the letter includes a 10-paragraph power-point timeline of the events leading up to his bombshell termination.
The culminating paragraph reads, in part: “The FFA CEO (David Gallop) met with Alen Stajcic on 18 January, at which meeting the head coach stated that the Matildas environment was ‘dysfunctional’ and ‘cancerous’ and ‘was always going to be that way’.
“The Board then met via teleconference to discuss the issue and made its unanimous decision on the information before it.”
A day later Stajcic was informed he was out the door after a four-year odyssey in which he had turned the Matildas into a world force beloved by the nation.
He has since revealed how the axeing has left him devastated and his family distraught, and has demanded answers from the peak body. There is also the possibility of legal action.
Nikou states that rumblings of discontent at management level were first felt back in August during the Tournament of Nations.
The FFA identified “potential issues within the Matildas team environment” which were “formally raised” with Stajcic by head of national performance Luke Casserly, now himself under the spotlight of a probe into the conduct of senior FFA figures including women’s chief Emma Highwood and Gallop himself.
Nikou says in the letter that soon after the tournament the PFA approached FFA with a view to conducting “wellbeing” audits of all national teams to improve the “performance environment”.
The proposal was for 2019 but FFA decided to “fast-track” it in the light of the sudden concerns over the Matidas set-up, with Stajcic in agreement.
The survey was conducted within a week in November, with Nikou explaining that Stajcic invited the PFA to be present when the Matidas players completed the paperwork.
According to Nikou, issues within the Matidas ranks were also raised at a meeting of the FFA Women’s Committee back in August, with the recommendation to find a “suitable organisation to undertake a culture/gender equality survey”.
Our Watch were eventually enlisted and the survey was distributed to all FFA staff, including the Matildas, also in November.
Nikou states that FFA received the PFA audit outcome in early December with a “number of issues warranting further investigation”.
A leadership and culture program was scheduled, including a two-day workshop which ironically took place just two days after Stajcic’s dismissal.
Gallop had the findings of the Our Watch survey on his desk in early January, and the they were evaluated in talks with “players, staff and other stakeholders”.
There followed the fateful meeting between Gallop and Stajcic.
Nikou goes on to flag the development of a strategy to “avoid such issues in the future” and seeks to address the frustrations of NSW and Victoria over the entire unseemly saga by adding: “The board understands your desire that further information be released to the media. “However, it is important to note that disclosure of further information is likely to adversely impact on the individuals who provided information on a confidential basis.
“Further, where a board decision relates to a potentially contested matter where public reputations are involved and there is a risk of legal proceedings, which could seriously prejudice the company, transparency for decisions must yield to the protection of the company.
“The board may decide to make a further public statement about the termination ... but only if we are confident that doing so will not generate legal claims or otherwise prejudice the interests of FFA.”
