Scotland on Sunday
Sun 10 Apr 2005

It's time for vital decisions on future of Scottish game

Iain Morrison

DECISIONS, decisions, decisions. Scottish rugby clubs will forgo their second Sunday lie-in this year to reach several crucial conclusions at today’s special general meeting in an attempt to lance the festering boil that is the issue of governance.

Thankfully they have the shrewd guidance of Sheriff Bill Dunlop’s working party, who have given the game an excellent platform upon which to make a fresh start. Their spokesman, Charles Shaw, was at pains to point out that the group saw a new role altogether for the Scottish Rugby Council compared to the old general committee. "We’re trying to get away from a situation where the council is filled with various and competing vested interests. Instead we want it to represent Scottish rugby as a whole."

This novel idea turns decades of horse-trading upon its head, and at its heart is the simple truth that Scottish rugby is too small to succeed unless it is united in purpose.

Naturally, a rearguard action will be mounted because, for a group of men who always claimed that it was not about privilege or power, several members of the old general committee are surprisingly reluctant to accept Sheriff Dunlop’s recommendations; not that the chairman is claiming that his advice is infallible.

"Given the limited time allowed, we were unable to address all the problems inherent in the governance of Scottish rugby," said Dunlop. "There are one or two anachronisms left over in Scottish rugby, and we advised that the whole district set-up should be looked at by another working party in due course.

"If the Boroughmuir/Dundee amendment [increasing club representatives at the expense of districts] is supposed to address this problem and take things forward now, then the working party certainly didn’t mean to criticise it."

Dunlop was referring to a press release issued last week by the working party that warned clubs against supporting revisionist amendments, and the sheriff was happy to explain exactly what they had in mind when his colleagues penned the article.

"I don’t understand the argument from the Borders in favour of keeping two representatives," said Dunlop. "We have just tried to be equitable. I knew it might be thrown at me today, so I have done some research, but I have been unable to find any basis for their claim that the Borders hosts one third of all Scottish rugby players.

"The same situation is true of the attempt to keep the position of vice-president, because it will be far too easy, even subconsciously, to slip back into the old habit of Buggins’ turn, if the post of VP is retained."

Dunlop is hoping to address the meeting today in order to make these points, and he had one final warning against the amendment from his friend and flatmate of 30 years ago, the Exiles’ representative Colin Fisher.

"I don’t need to say any more about this amendment, except to refer you to the approach taken by London Scottish," said Dunlop, drawing attention to the fact that the one and only club who fall under the Exiles umbrella have backed his working party’s plans rather than Fisher’s bid for a seat on the new council.

"Fisher says that we are disenfranchising people, but we are not disenfranchising anyone," Dunlop observed. "The players will still be represented by the players’ rep and the clubs, I think there is only one, will still be affiliated to the SRU.

"The Exiles are a very important part of Scottish rugby, and they are better represented on the performance division because their whole purpose is to groom elite players for the top end of the game. Their many youth teams will be run by the new London Scottish academy, all that will be attended to."

Fisher has been spreading apocalyptic tales of Exiles meltdown, but these are strongly denied by director of rugby Ian McGeechan who insists that any changes will only "enhance what is already there". There is sure to be some heated debate, but then the real crisis comes when people stop caring.

The clubs will have to decide whether the new Exiles Association, instigated by Fisher as an alternative power base after London Scottish and the Friends of Scottish Rugby dropped him, is worthy of a seat on the new council, though no-one has explained why a seat on a quarterly reviewing board will help the Exiles’ cause. At the root of the issue is whether Fisher is viewed as a saviour of Exiles rugby, or simply as more interested in saving his own seat in the committee box.

Meanwhile, Dunlop’s point about the players’ representative is also well timed, since former Scotland hooker Jim Hay has had a proposal sitting on Freddie MacLeod’s desk for several weeks now concerning just such a players’ union. It is not yet clear whether Hay will be co-opted on to the council as the boss, but in three separate meetings held last week he received the full support of all pro-team players in Scotland for the new venture.

Now he is waiting to hear whether his organisation will be part-funded by the SRU who, some have suggested, wanted their own candidate to run the union, which would surely defeat the whole point of the exercise. The other home nations fully fund their players’ organisations, so the SRU are likely to do what they can by way of financial support. Whatever the eventual outcome, the players’ organisation is a long overdue and welcome addition to the political landscape of Scottish rugby.

More immediately, there are several other crucial amendments from Hawick/Kelso and Hawick/Gala plus the Boroughmuir/Dundee one previously mentioned, with clubs requesting that the latter is heard first because it asks for five, rather than three, club reps on the council at the expense of two from the districts. If it is passed, then Hawick/Kelso will forego their request for two Border reps, since all the districts will be reduced to one by the prior Meggetland amendment.

The Hawick/Gala amendment asks that the three club representatives on the council be automatically co-opted on to the all-important Scottish Rugby Board, who will actually run the game. There may be some confusion if the Boroughmuir/Dundee amendment is passed, because that would increase club reps to five, and so two would necessarily be overlooked for promotion to the board.

Still, this Hawick/Gala amendment will appeal hugely to the clubs who, if it is passed, would be just one transparent election away from the decision-making process, and would no longer require to have their wishes "interpreted" by district representatives.

It will not appeal to the district reps on the council, who will see the decision-making posts on the board, part-time but paid, filled by the club appointees.


HAWKS WILL BE REPRESENTED AT THE MEETING BY BRIAN SIMMERS CHAIRMAN AND KENNY HAMILTON SEC PREMIER 1 FORUM

This article was originally posted on 10-Apr-2005, 08:37 by Hugh Barrow.
Last updated by Hugh Barrow on 10-Apr-2005, 08:38.