Tuesday 27 September 2016 20:16, UK
What are the key questions the FA must answer as it considers sacking England manager Sam Allardyce?
Meetings are taking place at Wembley after the Daily Telegraph secretly filmed Allardyce discussing the possibility of circumventing FA rules on third-party ownership and mocking predecessor Roy Hodgson.
An FA insider has told Sky Sports News HQ there is "disbelief" at the timing of these allegations, so soon into Allardyce's reign, and he has made "poor judgement".
The FA's top two officials are seeking the facts and deciding whether Allardyce has breached his contract and/or FA rules.
FA chairman Greg Clarke and FA chief executive Martin Glenn are expected to discuss their observations and speak to the rest of the FA Board, possibly by phone, before any decision is communicated.
Clarke and Glenn will want answers to some of the following questions:
Was Allardyce encouraging third-party ownership?
Third-party ownership of footballers has been banned by the FA since the start of the 2008/09 season and FIFA introduced a global ban on third-party ownership in May 2015.
The Daily Telegraph alleges Allardyce described those rules as "ridiculous" and explained to undercover reporters how to circumvent them.
The reporters were posing as businessmen, who were hoping to profit by investing in young players on a third-party arrangement.
One of the most serious charges Allardyce faces is the suggestion that he was endorsing an activity that is strictly banned by his employer.
The FA must decide whether he was endorsing the practice or even advising the "businessmen"?
He could argue he was not endorsing third-party ownership, but was simply answering a question on how it works.
Sky Sports News HQ understands he now accepts his explanation was inaccurate and as England manager, it was wrong to offer an opinion.
Was there any conflict of interest?
The Telegraph's report appears to show Allardyce and his agent discussing a £400,000-a-year deal to speak to investors in Singapore and Hong Kong four times a year.
However, Allardyce repeatedly stressed that he would need the FA's permission before signing a contract with them.
The FA is likely to now consider whether these discussions might constitute a conflict of interests.
FIFA'S code of ethics states managers "shall avoid any situation that could lead to conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest arise if persons bound by this Code have, or appear to have, private or personal interests that detract from their ability to perform their duties with integrity in an independent and purposeful manner".
Such a clause is also placed into most standard employment contracts.
The nature of the fictional organisation is the crux of this question. Will the FA decide he was passing on information about players to a company that hoped to profit by investing in young players, thereby giving them an unfair advantage?
It will discuss whether it is appropriate for the England manager to discuss being an ambassador for an organisation that would potentially benefit from players being picked to play for England.
However, Allardyce was insistent that any agreement would first have to be ratified by his employer - and so could argue a conflict of interest would have been avoided at that stage.
Has he breached his own contract and/or FA rules?
Without seeing the England manager's contract, it is difficult to speculate on whether he has breached it, although that question will inevitably at the heart of the FA's investigation.
However, as discussed above, it is likely to have a clause ensuring he does not take on any secondary work that might conflict with his role as England manager.
The FA may also wish to consider whether he has breached its own rules on respect, particularly in regards to his comments about Roy Hodgson whom he referred to as "Woy", seemingly in reference to his speech impediment.
According to the FA's Code of Conduct, all managers must "show respect to others involved in the game including match officials, opposition players, coaches, managers, officials and spectators" and "use my position to set a positive example for the people I am responsible for".
When The Sun published a headline referring to Hodgson as 'Woy' in 2012, the FA described it as "unacceptable" and "disrespectful".
The FA may now wish to consider whether to pass similar judgement on its own employee.
Can he be trusted?
The issue of trust is thought to be central to this situation.
The FA's 'England DNA Philosophy' discusses its principles and standards of behaviour and includes a section on 'Integrity'.
It states: "We strive for the highest standards on and off the field. Nothing less is acceptable."
The Telegraph's report sees Allardyce discussing his employer in a less-than-favourable way. He describes the decision to redevelop Wembley Stadium as "stupid" and third-party ownership rules as "ridiculous".
That's on top of him apparently trying to negotiate lucrative additional work less than a month after taking a £3million-a-year job as England manager.
But it is not just his employer that may struggle to trust him going forward. Allardyce spoke about England players having a "psychological barrier".
The FA must decide whether such comments - and the wider publicity generated by this story - may damage his relationship with the England players.
An FA insider has told Sky Sports News HQ that Allardyce has exercised "poor judgement" and confirmed that the issue of trust is one of the FA's key considerations now.
Has he brought The FA into disrepute?
The FA is understood to be in "disbelief" at this undercover investigation coming so quickly into Allardyce's England career.
And the generation of so many negative headlines could see him charged with bringing the organisation into disrepute.
His comments about Gary Neville, Prince William and Prince Harry in the Telegraph's report may not contravene specific rules but may be viewed dimly by the FA so early in his tenure.
Apparent criticism of his predecessor Hodgson, his players and the FA itself could also be seen as causing reputational damage.
Allardyce is thought to believe his comments, while ill advised, were not corrupt. The FA must decide just how serious the punishment should be for his error of judgement.
