Motion 1 and Amendments
Amendments
Scottish Rugby is generally supported and administered by fair-minded people. And, I believe that no fair-minded person could possibly believe that changing the rules and prize for a competition 2 months after its completion could be considered fair.

You can imagine what would be said if…. “I’m sorry Mr Mickleson, the organisers of the US Masters have decided if you have already won a Green Jacket you cannot get a 2nd one. Could you hand your 2006 jacket back please?”

It is simply not correct to change the rules of a sporting competition retrospectively.

For this reason I do not believe that suggesting any change to league structure for 2006/7 should be supported.

Motion 1
On the main motion, I would have to say that there is always a problem in considering single issues in Scottish Rugby without carefully considering the knock-on or consequences for other elements. Short-term thinking and short-term solutions to issues have bedevilled Scottish Rugby over the past 10 years.

However, we agreed, at the Special General Meeting in the Spring of 2005, a strategic review process that was supposed to set the broad agenda for the period of the SRU’s business plan over a four-year period. The approach was agreed last year and, as part of that we included a 10 team Premier 1 league.

This was part of the attempt to design out conflict within some elements of the game – by reducing the conflicting demands on a number of age group Internationals; and to attempt to raise the standards at the top end of the club game and embark on a process of bringing the it closer to the professional game.


As suggested in the ‘Rationale’ for this motion some of the circumstances have changed – in particular the likely restructuring of age-grade International rugby. The exact detail of this is not yet known but it is for clubs to determine whether they believe a 12 team Premier 1 league is less likely to cut across the efforts of age-group structures than previously thought. However, some of the influencing factors such as the structure if the pro game and the detail of the age-group season are not known at this point.

The other part of the rationale for the motion states, somewhat authoritatively, and incorrectly, that “The SRU has told P1 that it sees P1….. not within the performance arm.”

There has been no policy change at this point and P1 will participate in the Performance Forum as agreed at last year’s AGM, while, clearly, maintaining a role and responsibility in the development of the community game along with all other clubs.

Motion 2
I am pleased to say that Hawks and Heriots Rugby have agreed to withdraw this motion. The reason it was submitted was that a range of possible changes in Academy structure, back-up matches and league structure were presented to the P1 forum in March. The possible implications of all of this could have been far-reaching for the club game in Scotland yet there seemed to be no opportunity to discuss the implications of all of this in any detail. I am delighted to report that very constructive discussion has since followed. And the first meeting of the Performance Forum on 20th June will be another opportunity to maintain that dialogue.

For these reasons we wish to withdraw the motion.

Motion 3
It has to be wondered whether the Competitions Commission and the Championship committee, in consultation with club forums, might be the best means in which to address such issues in future years. But the reason for the suggested amendment is understood with clubs experiencing some difficulty in fielding the appropriate number of replacements and a desire to maximise playing opportunities.

Motion 4 & Amendment
It may be worth considering a range of options around the format of the National Cup competition and take account of matters such as travelling commitment etc.

However, if we exclude certain categories of team from any route through the cup competition we have effectively scrapped the National Cup.

The amendment may prove to be unnecessarily restrictive.

This article was posted on 21-Jun-2006, 09:39 by Hugh Barrow.