Scottish rugby has a mountain of paperwork to climb

KEVIN FERRIE, Chief Rugby Writer March 30 2005

The scale of the task facing clubs seeking to reform how Scottish rugby is run, has been demonstrated in the extent of the vested interest exposed by the proposals to be put to next month's special general meeting.
Amendments lodged for the April 10 meeting, the latest to be held during a period of crisis for the sport, offer opportunities for committee members representing the Borders and the Exiles, as well as the current vice presidents, to preserve their positions as power-brokers.
Put forward by Hawick and seconded by Kelso, the bid to maintain two Borders representatives on the new SRU Council (formerly Committee) – as opposed to being reduced to one as the working party on governance recommended – shows staggering ignorance of the sport's history.
In an explanatory note, they say they're doing this to ensure that: "All four Scottish districts, Caledonia, Edinburgh & District, Glasgow & District and Scottish Borders, should have the same representation on the Council."
For the past 80 years, there have actually been five Scottish districts, the name Caledonia only being introduced in the nineties to describe combined sides fielded by the North & Midlands, two separate districts which each contain many more SRU member clubs than the Borders.
Further claims that the Borders merit extra representation because of the club's current status and size of membership smacks of an elitist mentality, while it is hard to know what comparative membership numbers are based on.
The SRU recently acknowledged that their assessment of playing numbers has been discredited by doubts over claims made by clubs in pursuing funding from Murrayfield under the old accreditation system.
That proposal would, however, preserve places at the top table for two of the men – Norman Douglas and Bob Hogarth – who voted for the removal of David Mackay, the SRU chairman, in January, throwing the sport into turmoil.
Two other proposals could protect the involvement of three more of that group.
One proposal aims to alter the plan to remove the Exiles representative from the Council. That London Scottish are not supporting a motion which also calls for the creation of a "Scottish Exiles Association" is significant, since they have made clear their dissatisfaction with the behaviour of Colin Fisher, the current Exiles rep.
Even more dubious is that the proposal to save the office of vice president has been supported by Hillhead-Jordanhill – where George Blackie, the current senior vice president, is a member.
Add to that, Alloa and Hillfoots (Tillicoultry) – Jim Gracie the junior vice president, is a member of Alloa, living in Tillicoultry – and Selkirk, home town of George Jack, the Edinburgh rep who is next in line for the vice presidency.
If nothing else these proposals at last live up to the repeated claims of those committee men who ousted Mackay that they were seeking more openness and transparency, since the motives behind these amendments seem glaringly obvious.
Another of that group, Ray Megson, the referees' rep, recently survived a recommendation by Gordon Dixon, the SRU president, that he be thrown off the committee for a breach of confidentiality.

This article was posted on 30-Mar-2005, 07:48 by Hugh Barrow.