THE SCOTSMAN REPORTS

DAVID FERGUSON CHIEF RUGBY WRITER
BY THIS time next week Scotland should either be confirmed as a host of the 2007 Rugby World Cup or very definitely ruled out, and one hopes it will be the latter.

Gordon McKie, the Scottish Rugby Union's chief executive, is still in talks with the RWC organisers and has yet to agree a deal whereby Scotland could set their own ticket prices and acquire some kind of chance to attract supporters. The rules back RWC and hosts France to set the ticket prices for all venues (the top brief currently costs £160) and the French rightly assert that it was Scotland, along with Wales, who insisted on having games before agreeing to vote for France, over England, to host the tournament.


They have already announced the match venues, dates and ticket deals, and could do without the hassles of reorganising Scotland's two games, but St Etienne and Lyon - who host Scotland and New Zealand and will play no part in the latter stages - would be delighted at receiving extra games. McKie expects to be able to make an announcement some time next week, if not before, but is still fighting to win the SRU some laxity in pricing to reflect the fact that we are not a rugby-centric nation.

He said yesterday: "I am still in discussion with RWC and making progress in the respect that we are moving positively towards a critical stage. But it is a commercially sensitive matter so I can make no further comment."

That adds up to very little, "progress" and "positive" being by-words simply for getting to the hand-shake and 'au revoir' point. It is right, however, that McKie fights every corner to try and find a way for the SRU to bring World Cup games here in a successful format.

As a supporter of Scottish sport first and foremost, one could imagine no better way to shift our youngsters away from computer screens, X-Boxes and Gameboys, and into parks and teams, than for a world tournament to be staged here and the current stars of that sport to parade their talents close at hand.

However, Scottish rugby does not occupy an idyllic world, but one in which it is struggling to stay afloat, and concern over another embarrassment must weigh against dreamy ideals. While better spirit among players and new harmony among coaches is wholly welcomed, can you imagine a rosy picture of rugby joy permeating the country to the extent that supporters will queue in their tens of thousands to watch Scotland take on a qualifier like Romania, Namibia, Tonga or even Italy on 18 September, 2007? That happened in Australia two years ago, but I'd be interested to hear from those who can see it in Scotland.

The pool match with New Zealand five days later, which, hopefully, will decide the top two positions in the group, should draw a capacity 68,000 crowd to Murrayfield, but concern is fuelled by the 20,000 empty seats a few weeks ago when Tana Umaga's All Blacks made history in finishing an incredibly successful year with a home nations Grand Slam.

It is still 21 months away and sporting trends change quickly, but we have the 'benefit' of the humiliating lesson of 1999. Crowds of under 5,000 watched the reigning world champions South Africa in their two games against tournament qualifiers, while Murrayfield remained many thousands short of capacity for the pool's 'big one' - Scotland v South Africa.

And that was not a struggling Scotland team. Scoring tries galore, Gary Armstrong, Gregor Townsend, Alan Tait, Scott Murray et al had won the final Five Nations Championship. Over 10,000 supporters turned up at Murrayfield on a Monday night to acclaim the championship winners and see the trophy being presented. Yet, fewer were in the ground four months later for the World Cup warm-up with Argentina. So, national team success is not the best indicator.

The World Cup's attraction spreads further afield than the Six Nations and autumn Test populations, and so taps into bigger audiences. However, when only a thousand South Africans were reckoned to have followed their world champions to Scotland six years ago it would be stretching the point wider than a Frank Hadden attack to suggest that supporters of the qualifiers named above could match the enthusiastic Scots.

There is one other important factor - money. Scottish rugby has very little, and is glad of the agreement at IRB level to ensure competing nations are compensated for taking part. It cost Scotland, for instance, around £2million to compete in the 2003 tournament in Australia - expenses a union struggling under a £23million debt can ill afford.

The new agreement could see as much as £3million being dished out to each of the leading nations by way of compensation, but the 'hosts' will receive none of that. They will, supposedly, benefit from ticket sales. Phil Anderton, McKie's predecessor, was of a mind to opt out of hosting games and take the guaranteed £3million to help improve the game here. McKie might yet follow suit as inevitable ticket income of less than £3million would, in pure financial terms, mean a loss on the World Cup deal.

That highlights one other major difference between now and 1999: the qualities of the personnel running rugby in Scotland. Whether the new regime will turn the game around and have the world lauding Scots again or not, there is evidence to suggest that should McKie and his new management board take on World Cup matches it would be a better-marketed, and more efficient and profitable operation.

Still, even if Scotland's involvement in the 2007 World Cup did not plummet to the depths of the unmitigated disaster of 1999, no undertaking could be given at this trying time in Scottish rugby with real confidence. To avoid another embarrassment, it may be better to let those who have grasped professional rugby in the last decade help take it forward and wait to play our part when we have shown real signs of doing the same.

This article: http://sport.scotsman.com/rugby.cfm?id=2446072005

This article was posted on 22-Dec-2005, 08:43 by Hugh Barrow.