THE SCOTSMAN REPORTS


DAVID FERGUSON ([email protected])
THREE professional teams are vital to the future of Scottish rugby according to Andy Irvine, the SRU President.

With the £23million overdraft still hanging around Murrayfield and the Scottish game like a pungent smell, and the efforts of Gordon McKie, the union chief executive, and his board to reduce it so far being defeated, few are prepared to guarantee the future of anything in the sport that costs money.

But Irvine admitted to The Scotsman that the uncertainty that hung over the Borders, Glasgow and Edinburgh in the summer of 2006 was a valid reason for under-performance.

Edinburgh were finally shifted into private ownership, which the president admitted was a major relief as he fought to keep all three teams, but he now believes that despite Glasgow and the Borders failing to hit McKie's average crowd targets - only 1,542 souls turned out to watch the two teams play each other at Netherdale last Friday -they should both begin looking long-term again.

"There is now a very strong belief in Murrayfield that three teams are the minimum we can see to supply our international side," said Irvine.

"That [lack of security] is a valid point and it's fair to say one of the board's major priorities for 2007 is the pro teams. Because of the financial situation, it's not possible to say that anything is guaranteed, but I feel very strongly about this and I think we've learned a lot in the last 12 months about the importance of the supply route to the international side.

"If we had just two pro teams below the national side, I don't think it would be inconceivable for us to have to call up an amateur player to cover a position, and to put a prop or hooker, particularly, from a Scottish premiership club into an international is nothing short of dangerous.

"One of the reasons for cutting from three to two teams is that you can give the remaining teams more support, financially and with personnel, and there is an argument there.

"But, my view is that, on balance, it would be better to have three poorer-funded teams than two better-funded ones, and there is general consensus among the rest of the board that that is the way forward for us.

"The problem we have is a lack of money, quite simply, to do what we'd like to do. It was good to see a decent crowd at Netherdale on Friday on what was a dreadful night, but we need it to keep going up.

"It really is vital that we improve crowds and sponsorship, to generate more revenue to keep the pro teams going. I feel sorry for the Borders because in a relative sense, per head of population, they are the best-supported Scottish team, but we all know there is more potential down there. I don't think it's unrealistic for the Borders to get crowds of 4-5,000 week in week out when things have settled down; Glasgow to reach 8-10,000 and Edinburgh to be attracting over 10,000 inside the next three to four seasons."

Another major controversy of 2006 was the SRU's decision to switch the bid for an IRB World Sevens tournament from Melrose to Murrayfield at the 11th hour. The SRU turned down promises of support from several agencies and forged ahead with hosting the event at Murrayfield despite fears all atmosphere will be lost in the cavernous national stadium.

However, Irvine is adamant that his board had no choice.

"We instructed Gordon to seek to win the bid because we felt it would be good for the Scottish game," he said.

"It was obvious the place to host it would be Melrose, because of the tradition and history and so on, but it was very expensive to convert Melrose into an IRB venue.

"We couldn't afford to do that and were extremely nervous. Scottish Borders Council, Scottish Enterprise Borders and EventScotland came in and said they would under-write it, but at the end of the day that support was not concrete enough to give Gordon the confidence to say to the board: 'Yes, let's do this'.

"There were conditions attached, which, in our opinion, were unacceptable because they gave a level of risk we could not live with, but it would be wrong of me to go into detail on what they were."

He added: "We have got people running our business who have a duty to all our clubs in Scotland and Gordon has been told in no uncertain terms that he cannot be seen to take undue financial risks.

"One of the problems with the Melrose deal was that there was not a great amount of time to finalise terms, but now that there is more time available, and we have secured this event for five years in Scotland, we can revisit it with the Borders bodies and take it to Melrose at some point in the future."

This article was posted on 1-Jan-2007, 10:01 by Hugh Barrow.