THE SCOTSMAN REPORTS
ALLAN MASSIE
AT THE end of our best international season since 1999, the outlook for Scottish rugby is gloomy. We ought to be feeling fairly chirpy; instead we are down in the dumps.

Friday's announcement from the SRU's chief executive Gordon McKie was equivalent to raising the white flag of surrender. It seems that the men who run our game have abandoned any ambition to see Scotland among the top six or seven rugby nations. Some will say, in their defence, that they are merely, and at long last, facing up to reality.


One's second reaction is that the businessmen have proved no better than the old much-abused "blazers." It may be that we have a clearer view of how things stand financially, and I suppose Gordon McKie is to be commended for this. But the fact is that businessmen have been in charge now for three seasons, ever since Bill Watson (chartered accountant and former Scotland player) was unceremoniously ejected from the office of chief executive.

There was first the David Mackay-Phil Anderton regime, unseated in the blazers' coup in January 2005; and now the Allan Munro-Gordon McKie team; and in these three seasons the SRU's indebtedness has got worse, not better.

McKie says the Union cannot trade its way out of debt, and that cuts have to be made to prevent the situation from deteriorating further. The first proposition is undeniable. It has been clear for a long time now that only the sale of some of the land around Murrayfield for development can bring in the sort of capital sum that would considerably reduce the debt.

Ideally, the SRU would retain an interest in any development, and so secure additional future income from this source. As I say, this has been evidence for some time, even to outsiders. There has been much talk, but little sign of action. One understands that any negotiations that may be in progress demand a degree of confidentiality, but are there such negotiations? All we are told is that the Board is assessing which land could be sold off. Surely they were doing this some time ago?

Now, suddenly, once again, we have the threat to scrap one of the pro teams to save money, unless some private investor comes forward offering to put in at least a £1 million. Again the idea of franchising the pro teams has been about for years. Now it seems that the SRU is prepared to relinquish control of any team that attracts significant investment. But Phil Anderton, as chief executive, was saying the same thing two years ago, subject only to an agreement being made about the release of international players - a condition that still, one assumes, applies.

In addition, money is to be saved by getting rid of the under-21 and under-19 international squads, and also of the Sevens squad in its present form, whose results McKie terms "dismal." In compensation there is to be new investment by the Union in the academy structure and the promise of an extra £500,000 for the "community game" (though, rather meanly, less for women's rugby).

This looks more like a shift in allocation of money rather than a financial saving. McKie also talks of a commitment to look at a new under-20 squad, but since there is at present no international rugby played at under-20 level, this commitment is, for the moment, meaningless.

If no private investor comes forward, one pro team will go before next season, and it will be either Glasgow or the Borders. Given that it is only a few weeks since Sean Lineen was appointed head coach of Glasgow, and given that both clubs have been permitted to sign new players during April, Friday's decision comes as a surprise. It looks like a panic-stricken response to the discovery that this year's financial loss is bigger than had been anticipated. It certainly doesn't smack of long-term strategic planning.

Anyone engaged in that might have taken note of the formation of the Edinburgh Rugby Foundation and of discussions going on about a Borders' Supporters Trust. Following models that have been successfully used by football clubs, these aim to bring an additional source of finance into the game.

The SRU is spending too much and not earning enough. It is not earning enough because Murrayfield was full for only one of five internationals this season. Poor results since the 2003 World Cup were the principal reason for poor crowds; one heard even of debenture holders who chose not to buy the tickets to which they were entitled.

Now that Frank Hadden and his team have turned things round on the field (beating France and England for the first time in the same season since 1990) it's reasonable to suppose that crowds will be bigger and receipts higher in Scotland's six matches at Murrayfield in 2006-7. But it's understandable that this is not a proposition that would necessarily impress the SRU's bankers.

The cuts announced last Friday will damage the development of the game on the field. Scrapping one pro team will narrow the already narrow base of the professional game here. There will be fewer professional players in Scotland than in Wales, Ireland or even Italy. Getting rid of the age-group sides will mean that players who came through to the professional game are even less well-prepared for it than they are now. We are in danger of entering a vicious circle. It will be still more difficult than it is now to field an international side capable of winning matches, and, if this is the case, then attendances at Murrayfield will fall further, and revenue decline accordingly. This is what I mean by saying that these cuts indicate the surrender of any ambition to be among the top six or seven rugby-playing nations.

Of course the SRU must seek to reduce, and eventually clear, its debt. The interest charges alone must be horrendous. I have seen the figure of £1.3 million per year quoted, but if the debt is between £23-£25 million, they must surely be higher than that -unless the SRU has negotiated Labour Party-style soft loans, which seems unlikely. I would guess that interest charges cost more than running one of our three pro teams. And the only way of dealing with the debt is by selling land for development (preferably, as I say, retaining some share in the development). That is the priority.

If it isn't - if no sale is made - then it is probable that this season's wins will represent a mere blip, an interruption in an inexorable decline, and that the day will come when there is almost no professional rugby in Scotland, with the national XV made up of players from clubs in England, France and Wales.

Unless, of course, sugar-daddies come forward to rescue the threatened pro-team - and even, one hopes, to make a bid for the other two. That said, the SRU is inviting bids in what is now a buyer's market. Well, we must hope there are buyers. Otherwise the outlook is bleak.

This article was posted on 2-May-2006, 07:11 by Hugh Barrow.