For info - the argument that failed by 99-57 at last week's SRU AGM was

I would like to address both the amendment and the motion in one go - to save time. Can I begin with the amendment: I have said elsewhere that I believe that Scottish Rugby is generally supported and administered by fair- minded people and I think this is true. That is why I am fairly sure that the amendment will be rejected. Simply it cannot be reasonable to change the prize, or the penalty, for a sporting competition retrospectively.

It is unreasonable to expect clubs to alter arrangements a full 2 months after the competition is completed.

Even if there was sympathy for the principle that is being proposed here the amendment is somewhat convoluted and confused in its proposed implementation. The notion, for example that a 12 team league be introduced next season and that one team be relegated from 2005/6 and one team be promoted defies any logic and is seriously open to question. Given that 3 teams were to be relegated at the end of the season – why not 3 up and 3 down? Or at the very least the status quo would have been 2 up and 2 down. And if you want a 14 team league – well there is no relegation at all.

Draw your own conclusions as to why the proposal is framed the way it is – but I would suggest that it cannot be supported by fair minded people.

As to the Motion – Let me begin by saying that I honestly do not know whether a 10 team or a 12 team league is best, nor to be honest does anybody else.

If the decision is to move to a 12 team league I do not think it will be the end of the world and I am pretty sure that we can live with it.

However, even by the standards of our tortured recent past this is a new innovation – we might reverse a decision taken a year ago without ever implementing it.

It does open up some very difficult issues for us – both in terms of our ability, as a corporate body, to make decisions and the implications for the new governance arrangements that are only a year old.

It was just over a year ago that, following one of the most extensive consultation exercises ever undertaken within Scottish Rugby that we made decisions on the implementation of the strategic review process. Remember all those hours spent deliberating a whole range of issues and their link with one another? The whole exercise clearly demonstrated the inter-dependence that exists between the different levels of the game – the general principle of “you don’t get a successful International side if you don’t have kids taking up the game” seemed to be generally acknowledged.

So when we made those decisions last year, amidst pleas for some continuity and the hope that we could have some stability for the 4 year period of the business plan, were we only joking?

There were elements that came out of that review exercise that I did not agree with:-

Personally I believed that Regionalisation did not go far enough and I thought that 2 teams being relegated out of 10 is a bit harsh and I do think that a system of play-offs would be an exciting end to the season. However, the decisions were made by clubs in good faith and in good faith I think we should respect that.

Will we be back next year looking at a further tinkering of structure in light of new circumstance? You can almost guarantee it given the changing environment in which we are functioning:

The current uncertainty around the professional teams, the implementation of the arrangements around apprentice players, the opportunities for pro players playing at club level and the changes around age group International arrangements. None of these issues is clear or, indeed settled at this point. So is it really wise to knee-jerk our way into a new arrangement around league structure at this point?

Let me suggest an alternative. The Scottish Rugby Board has a responsibility to implement the Business plan as set out. It also has a responsibility to review the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Business Plan and the strategy that underpins it. Would it not be wise to allow the Board the opportunity to undertake that review and, if in its opinion there are reasons to alter the strategy then let us do that on the basis of an informed debate?

The reason that we submitted the second motion on the agenda this evening was that some elements of the new structure were not in place to allow the detailed consideration to take place around the issues I mentioned earlier. Fortunately, missing elements like the Performance Forum have now been put in place and, as a result, we were able to withdraw that motion and allow the discussion to take place.

It is an important principle of our Governance arrangements that we ensure that they work. I also think that the Board need to be encouraged to take on that responsibility and report back to member clubs if they believe that there is a need to alter the strategy that has been agreed.

It would allow us to look at the whole picture rather than dealing piecemeal with single issues.

If you agree, I hope you will vote against the motion and most certainly against the amendment.

This article was posted on 6-Jul-2006, 13:33 by Hugh Barrow.