THE SCOTSMAN REPORTS
IAIN MORRISON
THE fallout from the closure of the Borders is spreading a poisonous cloud of claim and counter-claim that threatens to engulf the very highest echelons of the Murrayfield hierarchy.

In a move that is sure to engender a few "I told you so" comments around the breakfast table this morning Edinburgh owner Bob Carruthers stated yesterday that the SRU boss Gordon McKie had told him that the Borders were doomed as far back as last September, almost seven months before the decision was officially announced last Tuesday.

"I was told categorically by Gordon McKie back in September, not that the Borders or Glasgow might be closed, but that the Borders would almost certainly be closed. There was no question that Glasgow was under any threat. I was told in confidence but I feel no obligation to honour that confidence in light of what has happened."

The decision to close the Borders might still be the right one but if his recollection of McKie's words are correct (and there is no love lost between the two men), then Carruthers' claims bring into serious question the timing of the final decision, and whether that decision was as close a call between the two teams as McKie indicated this week. For many in the Borders, it will only serve to stregthen their own belief that the outcome of the Strategic Review was predetermined.

It is not the first time that McKie has fallen out with an investor, or potential investor, in Scottish rugby. Graham Burgess, the Aberdonian businessman who tried to buy Edinburgh or Glasgow is still smarting from his treatment at the hand of the Union boss who, he believes, was less than honest in his dealings. Burgess uses the word "disingenuous" to describe McKie and feels that he was, at best, misled.

The reason for his mistrust centres on his bid for a pro-team. Burgess wanted to invest first and foremost in Edinburgh Rugby as a priority only to be informed that the capital side was absolutely and definitely not for sale. Three days later the Carruthers deal was announced.

In an effort to diffuse the situation McKie told Scotland on Sunday that, under the terms of Burgess' bid, the Union would have been at risk of an unlimited downside since the investors had capped their contribution while the Union's was open-ended. This explains, McKie claimed, why the bid was rejected. Already saddled with around £23m of debt the Union could not possibly contemplate a deal that might have added to, rather than eased, that burden.

However, Burgess remembers things differently, insisting that his bid requested a fixed contribution of £1.2m per annum from the Union - a figure not unadjacent to that which Carruthers receives from the Union each year towards the running costs of Edinburgh - with the consortium of investors responsible for finding whatever it took to top up the funding to the required level. Both men cannot be right.

These sorts of discrepancies have dogged the career of McKie since he took over at Murrayfield eighteen months ago. The SRU boss flew off on a pre-planned family holiday at the weekend but he might not get much chance to relax on the ski slopes. McKie denies deliberately misleading Burgess, but if a potential investor has been turned away on spurious grounds, it will be difficult for McKie to retain his position as head of the game in Scotland.

Harking back to the original bombshell regarding the Borders' demise that McKie let slip back in September, Carruthers claims that he acted immediately upon receipt of this information.

"We produced a proposal called: 'When The Going Gets Tough' back in September in response to the news of the Borders closure," said Carruthers. "Graham Garvie has resigned from the board of Edinburgh Rugby to concentrate on this Borders package. We are now working closely with the Borders Council and a number of other public bodies to try and save the team from closure. They have provided Graham with resources and staff to help him in the project.

"Andy Irvine has said that the door is still open and we are taking him at his word because Graham is going to go public with the document on Thursday. We wanted to put things like a Supporters Trust around it but there was no real time. When we originally sent the document to the SRU back in October we expected it to be given proper consideration but instead we got a one-line e-mail response quoting IRB law 14.1 [which restricts the ability to have interests in more than one club] at us. That is why Graham has resigned his post with Edinburgh Rugby to work on saving the Borders.

"When we came on board Andy Irvine was talking about his vision for the future which included four pro-teams based in the old districts including a North and Midlands side and the old district championship. That was the vision that we bought into but instead we get the Borders axed.

"It's easily doable to set up a Borders team on a small budget and it is better to have four Scottish teams even if two of them are development sides like Connacht in Ireland. There is no pot of gold but we could pay genuine development salaries of £20,000 a year and throw in a few experienced heads on top."

Garvie is better placed to quote facts and figures, something he will do later this week, but Carruthers' own back-of-an-envelope calculations reckon that without any SRU funding at all, the Borders could still raise about £1.5m on the back of the Magners League, European competition and the usual sponsors, tickets and shirt sales.

These numbers appear on the optimistic, not to say fanciful, end of the spectrum but, if there is a question mark over his arithmetic, there is no doubting Carruthers' enthusiasm for Scottish rugby especially when it comes to his original project.

The elder of the Carruthers brothers revealed that he had already made the SRU a £5m bid for the bus park, on which he wants to build a miniature Murrayfield stadium to house his pro-team. The spare land to the north-west of the ground has always had huge potential for re-development and that potential rose sharply after the SRU's flood defence scheme was recently adopted by the Scottish Executive. One estimate for the commercial value of the land put it as high as £12m.

"We've been rushing around Edinburgh looking for a home for this club that we've bought and there it is," Carruthers continues, "under our very own nose, the SRU is sitting on it. I have already proposed that we build a sub-national stadium in the bus park but that was rejected out of hand because the Union said they had some prior agreement with Miller Homes.

"I would like to know who stands to benefit from this deal? Is there a conflict of interest amongst anyone of the executive board? Edinburgh Rugby is here and it's here for the long term. I think we should have priority over any flats to build our sub-national stadium."

Warming to his theme in an obvious reference to non-executive director Brian Kennedy, who owns England's Sale Sharks, Carruthers then questioned the rights of other club owners to sit in judgment on whether the Borders exists or not. He goes on to suggest that the IRB ruling 14.1 would have more relevance in this situation that in covering his own interest in helping the Borders.

Whatever happens to the Borders in the coming days and weeks, Carruthers makes it clear that his priorities lie with Edinburgh Rugby, insisting that the capital club would not subsidise their Border brethren. But he also bewails a bigger issue, the whole structure of professional rugby in Scotland which seems to change with the wind.

"Until we understand the shape and form of the game in Scotland we simply can't make any crazy signings for Edinburgh. Instead we have to live within our budget and hope that the wage inflation dies down. At the moment one player signs for Stade Francais for £200,000 so his replacement reckons that he must be worth at least £100,000. We don't even know how many teams will be in the Heineken Cup next year or what the qualification criteria will be.

"This just hasn't been thought through. For a governing body to do that [end the Reivers] without thinking it through is beyond stupid. As a rugby man I'm embarrassed by the chief executive."

In a nutshell
Q: When exactly was the decision to close the Borders taken?
A: Nearly two weeks ago at the Board meeting or last September depending upon who you listen to.

Q: Does it matter?
A: It might not have influenced the end result but if Bob Carruthers has his facts right then it is hugely embarrassing for Gordon McKie.

Q: Where does Burgess come into the equation?
A: He had no interest in buying the Borders but his money, for Edinburgh or Glasgow, might have allowed the Union to run three teams.

Q: He didn't want the Borders?
A: Burgess has always stated that he believes professional rugby cannot survive in the Borders.

Q: What is his argument with Gordon McKie?
A: Burgess wanted to buy into Edinburgh but was told the capital side was not for sale. It was subsequently sold to the Carruthers brothers.

Q: That's it?
A: No. Burgess also firmly refutes claims that his bid proposal left the Union with an open-ended liability, something that Gordon McKie stated last week.

Q: What are the implications?
A: It's not immediately clear but if the SRU boss has misled a potential investor it would not look very clever.

Q: What is the story with the bus park?
A: The flood prevention scheme now makes it likely that planning should be granted for re-development. The Union already has an pre-agreement with Miller Homes to build flats. Bob Carruthers says that he wants to build a mini-Murrayfield on the site.

Q: Where do we go from here?
A: Another tricky question. McKie will doubtless defend his position with vigour but his position as head of the game's governing body in Scotland may be questioned by the Scottish Rugby Council or by the clubs at the AGM if, and only if, he is found to have misled Scottish rugby or potential investors.

Q: And for the Border Reivers?
A: Graham Garvie is putting together a rescue plan in conjunction with several public bodies which will be revealed this week.

Q: What about the game itself?
A: It will, hopefully, continue despite the seemingly endless off-field shenanigans.


IAIN MORRISON
THE fallout from the closure of the Borders is spreading a poisonous cloud of claim and counter-claim that threatens to engulf the very highest echelons of the Murrayfield hierarchy.

In a move that is sure to engender a few "I told you so" comments around the breakfast table this morning Edinburgh owner Bob Carruthers stated yesterday that the SRU boss Gordon McKie had told him that the Borders were doomed as far back as last September, almost seven months before the decision was officially announced last Tuesday.

"I was told categorically by Gordon McKie back in September, not that the Borders or Glasgow might be closed, but that the Borders would almost certainly be closed. There was no question that Glasgow was under any threat. I was told in confidence but I feel no obligation to honour that confidence in light of what has happened."

The decision to close the Borders might still be the right one but if his recollection of McKie's words are correct (and there is no love lost between the two men), then Carruthers' claims bring into serious question the timing of the final decision, and whether that decision was as close a call between the two teams as McKie indicated this week. For many in the Borders, it will only serve to stregthen their own belief that the outcome of the Strategic Review was predetermined.

It is not the first time that McKie has fallen out with an investor, or potential investor, in Scottish rugby. Graham Burgess, the Aberdonian businessman who tried to buy Edinburgh or Glasgow is still smarting from his treatment at the hand of the Union boss who, he believes, was less than honest in his dealings. Burgess uses the word "disingenuous" to describe McKie and feels that he was, at best, misled.

The reason for his mistrust centres on his bid for a pro-team. Burgess wanted to invest first and foremost in Edinburgh Rugby as a priority only to be informed that the capital side was absolutely and definitely not for sale. Three days later the Carruthers deal was announced.

In an effort to diffuse the situation McKie told Scotland on Sunday that, under the terms of Burgess' bid, the Union would have been at risk of an unlimited downside since the investors had capped their contribution while the Union's was open-ended. This explains, McKie claimed, why the bid was rejected. Already saddled with around £23m of debt the Union could not possibly contemplate a deal that might have added to, rather than eased, that burden.

However, Burgess remembers things differently, insisting that his bid requested a fixed contribution of £1.2m per annum from the Union - a figure not unadjacent to that which Carruthers receives from the Union each year towards the running costs of Edinburgh - with the consortium of investors responsible for finding whatever it took to top up the funding to the required level. Both men cannot be right.

These sorts of discrepancies have dogged the career of McKie since he took over at Murrayfield eighteen months ago. The SRU boss flew off on a pre-planned family holiday at the weekend but he might not get much chance to relax on the ski slopes. McKie denies deliberately misleading Burgess, but if a potential investor has been turned away on spurious grounds, it will be difficult for McKie to retain his position as head of the game in Scotland.

Harking back to the original bombshell regarding the Borders' demise that McKie let slip back in September, Carruthers claims that he acted immediately upon receipt of this information.

"We produced a proposal called: 'When The Going Gets Tough' back in September in response to the news of the Borders closure," said Carruthers. "Graham Garvie has resigned from the board of Edinburgh Rugby to concentrate on this Borders package. We are now working closely with the Borders Council and a number of other public bodies to try and save the team from closure. They have provided Graham with resources and staff to help him in the project.

"Andy Irvine has said that the door is still open and we are taking him at his word because Graham is going to go public with the document on Thursday. We wanted to put things like a Supporters Trust around it but there was no real time. When we originally sent the document to the SRU back in October we expected it to be given proper consideration but instead we got a one-line e-mail response quoting IRB law 14.1 [which restricts the ability to have interests in more than one club] at us. That is why Graham has resigned his post with Edinburgh Rugby to work on saving the Borders.

"When we came on board Andy Irvine was talking about his vision for the future which included four pro-teams based in the old districts including a North and Midlands side and the old district championship. That was the vision that we bought into but instead we get the Borders axed.

"It's easily doable to set up a Borders team on a small budget and it is better to have four Scottish teams even if two of them are development sides like Connacht in Ireland. There is no pot of gold but we could pay genuine development salaries of £20,000 a year and throw in a few experienced heads on top."

Garvie is better placed to quote facts and figures, something he will do later this week, but Carruthers' own back-of-an-envelope calculations reckon that without any SRU funding at all, the Borders could still raise about £1.5m on the back of the Magners League, European competition and the usual sponsors, tickets and shirt sales.

These numbers appear on the optimistic, not to say fanciful, end of the spectrum but, if there is a question mark over his arithmetic, there is no doubting Carruthers' enthusiasm for Scottish rugby especially when it comes to his original project.

The elder of the Carruthers brothers revealed that he had already made the SRU a £5m bid for the bus park, on which he wants to build a miniature Murrayfield stadium to house his pro-team. The spare land to the north-west of the ground has always had huge potential for re-development and that potential rose sharply after the SRU's flood defence scheme was recently adopted by the Scottish Executive. One estimate for the commercial value of the land put it as high as £12m.

"We've been rushing around Edinburgh looking for a home for this club that we've bought and there it is," Carruthers continues, "under our very own nose, the SRU is sitting on it. I have already proposed that we build a sub-national stadium in the bus park but that was rejected out of hand because the Union said they had some prior agreement with Miller Homes.

"I would like to know who stands to benefit from this deal? Is there a conflict of interest amongst anyone of the executive board? Edinburgh Rugby is here and it's here for the long term. I think we should have priority over any flats to build our sub-national stadium."

Warming to his theme in an obvious reference to non-executive director Brian Kennedy, who owns England's Sale Sharks, Carruthers then questioned the rights of other club owners to sit in judgment on whether the Borders exists or not. He goes on to suggest that the IRB ruling 14.1 would have more relevance in this situation that in covering his own interest in helping the Borders.

Whatever happens to the Borders in the coming days and weeks, Carruthers makes it clear that his priorities lie with Edinburgh Rugby, insisting that the capital club would not subsidise their Border brethren. But he also bewails a bigger issue, the whole structure of professional rugby in Scotland which seems to change with the wind.

"Until we understand the shape and form of the game in Scotland we simply can't make any crazy signings for Edinburgh. Instead we have to live within our budget and hope that the wage inflation dies down. At the moment one player signs for Stade Francais for £200,000 so his replacement reckons that he must be worth at least £100,000. We don't even know how many teams will be in the Heineken Cup next year or what the qualification criteria will be.

"This just hasn't been thought through. For a governing body to do that [end the Reivers] without thinking it through is beyond stupid. As a rugby man I'm embarrassed by the chief executive."

In a nutshell
Q: When exactly was the decision to close the Borders taken?
A: Nearly two weeks ago at the Board meeting or last September depending upon who you listen to.

Q: Does it matter?
A: It might not have influenced the end result but if Bob Carruthers has his facts right then it is hugely embarrassing for Gordon McKie.

Q: Where does Burgess come into the equation?
A: He had no interest in buying the Borders but his money, for Edinburgh or Glasgow, might have allowed the Union to run three teams.

Q: He didn't want the Borders?
A: Burgess has always stated that he believes professional rugby cannot survive in the Borders.

Q: What is his argument with Gordon McKie?
A: Burgess wanted to buy into Edinburgh but was told the capital side was not for sale. It was subsequently sold to the Carruthers brothers.

Q: That's it?
A: No. Burgess also firmly refutes claims that his bid proposal left the Union with an open-ended liability, something that Gordon McKie stated last week.

Q: What are the implications?
A: It's not immediately clear but if the SRU boss has misled a potential investor it would not look very clever.

Q: What is the story with the bus park?
A: The flood prevention scheme now makes it likely that planning should be granted for re-development. The Union already has an pre-agreement with Miller Homes to build flats. Bob Carruthers says that he wants to build a mini-Murrayfield on the site.

Q: Where do we go from here?
A: Another tricky question. McKie will doubtless defend his position with vigour but his position as head of the game's governing body in Scotland may be questioned by the Scottish Rugby Council or by the clubs at the AGM if, and only if, he is found to have misled Scottish rugby or potential investors.

Q: And for the Border Reivers?
A: Graham Garvie is putting together a rescue plan in conjunction with several public bodies which will be revealed this week.

Q: What about the game itself?
A: It will, hopefully, continue despite the seemingly endless off-field shenanigans.

This article was posted on 1-Apr-2007, 10:42 by Hugh Barrow.