THE HERALD REPORTS

Oval office worker?KEVIN FERRIE, Chief Rugby Writer April 18 2007
CommentTwo years ago, the chief architect of football's Scottish Premier League came close to taking charge of Scottish Rugby.

While there was speculation at the time that Roger Mitchell - the SPL's first chief executive - had been short-listed for the equivalent post at Murrayfield, only now has he publicly confirmed that he applied.

Living what sounds like an idyllic lifestyle on the north shore of Lake Como, he now runs what he describes as a boutique finance consultancy, working with clients including AC Milan, so could be forgiven for thinking himself fortunate not to be involved in a sport that seems hell-bent on tearing itself apart.

advertisement
Yet Mitchell is man enough to admit he would have relished the opportunity presented by another big job. "I don't miss football," he said, elaborating on that point. "I haven't applied for the SFA post but, while rugby is also political, it is a more civilised environment. I noticed that David Taylor the outgoing SFA chief executive was quoted as saying the Scottish football media are the worst in the world and I would agree with that. However, rugby is a huge part of Scottish life and jobs like that are good ones."

Since he attributes the nature of that media coverage to an unusually large number of outlets focused on a small geographic area, perhaps the only difference between the sports in that regard is the scale.

Amid the vitriol that has poured out since the SRU's decision to close the Border Reivers, it has been difficult to sift much reason from the emotion emanating from commentators.

Whether or not rugby administrators do work in any more positive an environment, though, he has also maintained a watching brief on developments and sees real parallels between their problems and those which confronted the SPL when it first locked horns with the Scottish Football Association.

Having, a decade ago, had a mandate to help the leading clubs gain the control they needed over their businesses to run them in a business-like manner, Mitchell would seem likely to argue that those who generate the money should have the biggest say.

That is central to the dispute threatening the credibility of next season's Heineken European Cup, with leading French sides committed to a boycott and their English counterparts still threatening to follow suit while the various unions state their determination to proceed with the tournament regardless.

The SRU have already taken a brave decision in letting the market decide in the Borders. You can’t have professional sport where people don’t want it.


In what has become a battle for control of the sport, what differs significantly from foot-ball is that with all engaged in the professional tier - including clubs in England and France - dependent on subsidies from unions to pay their way, international rugby remains the main revenue generator.

Consequently, the finance-based argument could be turned around in the governing bodies' favour when it comes to rugby, but Mitchell reasons that the issue is much more complicated than simply who is investing most money.

"A lot of club owners in football take that view and it was something that, for example, Fergus McCann Celtic's former chairman espoused, but it is more sophisticated than that," he reckoned.

"Really it is about sorting out the different responsibilities. National associations have a duty to foster a sport and where I think it is legitimate for club owners to complain is when they see the national association squandering the money."

In that regard, Mitchell differentiates between giving funds to clubs genuinely engaged in development work and those he describes as recreational organisations. He still sees problems in Scottish football, largely because clubs with gates numbering in the hundreds have the same voting rights as the Old Firm.

That contrasts with how the new SRU regime under Gordon McKie - who got the CEO job in 2005 - distributes cash.

Under the previous system, clubs submitted often fictitious descriptions of their activities to earn accreditation money. Now funding is allocated for specific development projects or, as just last week, to reward those clubs that have developed players who have gone on to the professional ranks.

"I would endorse that," said Mitchell. "If I'm at Celtic or Rangers or Hibs or Hearts and see the national body putting the money back into player development, that's the quid pro quo for providing international players."

Where he has a message Murrayfield's top brass may find less palatable, however, is when addressing their approach to subsidising the professional game to the extent of fully funding teams.

"They've already taken a brave decision in letting the market decide in the Borders," he said. "You can't have professional sport where people don't want it.

"The question is whether the governing body should run professional teams as part of the development process? You have to ask what serves the national game better, subsidising pro teams or developing players at the lower levels? For me, it would be the latter every time."

He notes that playing numbers being what they are - with Frank Hadden, Scot-land's coach, recently pointing out that Madagascar has more rugby players - indications are that over the next 20 years Scotland will do well to avoid consistently finishing in the bottom two places in the Six Nations Championship.

Consequently, the key to the longer term is deciding how best to invest the money raised by the national side over that period. In that sense he sees much to commend what has been described as the Argentinian model, where the national side remains competitive at the highest level in spite of leading players being with foreign clubs.

"There seems to be a much stronger cultural bond with names like Jed-Forest and Heriot's than with the pro teams, and maybe reverting to the old names would attract TV coverage and reignite interest," Mitchell observed.

"There could also be a rarity value that would make the international team even more attractive when players came back."

That analysis lends itself to the conclusion that the entire professional tier should be scrapped immediately.

"I would not be as drastic as that, but it is about market forces and two to three years of proper investment in Glasgow and Edinburgh would seem a sensible timeframe to give the pro teams a chance to prove themselves," he said.

With the SRU indefinitely committed to funding Glasgow Warriors, while private investors are giving some support to Edinburgh, that view is not quite in line with current policy.

More generally, though, it seems that had Scottish rugby's governing body chosen to learn from football's experience two years ago, the route taken would have been similar to that being pursued right now.

This article was posted on 18-Apr-2007, 07:10 by Hugh Barrow.