SCOTLAND ON SUNDAY REPORTS

SRU not as stupid as Logan seems to believe
TOM ENGLISH ([email protected])
KENNY Logan is unlikely to win scoop of the year for his revelations last week that the SRU have not got to grips with professional rugby, but you cannot deny the truth of what he said about the state of the game here, even if some of his comments were statements of the blindingly obvious.

"We're still years behind (England, Wales, Ireland and France) because I don't think that people running the game understand professional sport," said Logan, without much fear of contradiction. Even Andy Irvine, president of the SRU, reckons the union have been a dismal failure since the game went open a dozen years ago. Nothing new there.

Logan had other views that were just as populist but more worthy of contention. "It is time the union came clean on why they again refused private investment," he said, referring to the recent breakdown in negotiations between Gordon McKie at Murrayfield and Graham Burgess, the man who wished to take over a professional team and take it to Stirling. "Scottish clubs have to stand up and ask their union: why, when £23m in debt, are you turning away money? Even if it was just a few hundred thousand pounds, why not work with these people, bring them into the game and develop a relationship."

Why not? I suspect Logan knows why not, given he was part of the Burgess consortium, but just in case he doesn't, let us spell out a few reasons.

Firstly, the Burgess offer was pitiful and he pretty much acknowledged it himself.

Secondly, it was delivered and followed-up on through a series of abusive e-mails. Burgess told me that directly. "I'm getting rude with these people now," he said a month or so ago. "I'm actually sending e-mails that are a little abusive."

Thirdly, there was precious little chance of it working. Burgess wanted to move his team to Stirling but had not prepared the ground there. More than one club in the area were not happy with him. At least one wrote to Irvine and expressed grave reservations about his grand plan.

I don't believe that Burgess was serious about his latest offer. I think he was the first time he put a deal to the SRU but not the second. My view, based on chats with him and with Irvine and others, is that Burgess was so brassed-off with the union for the way they messed him around with his original proposal that he came back again on a half-chance of success, but mostly out of a sense of devilment. He barely disguises the fact that he enjoyed messing with them these past few months.

Defending rugby unions is not a natural instinct for me but in this case an exception must be made. I don't do it lightly but I do so with conviction having delved a little deeper into the fact and the fiction than Logan was prepared to do. Bottom line: The sums involved made no sense for the SRU. They are bound by confidentiality but there is a limit to these things as Burgess will know. From what we've seen and heard about the terms of his offer, McKie would have been utterly bonkers to do the deal.

It's not nearly as simple as Logan suggests. Nothing is black and white in the SRU's dealings with potential investors, just shades of grey. McKie is a difficult individual who has made mistakes, some whoppers on the public relations side of things. The jury is out on him as far as I'm concerned, but hanging him for turning Burgess away is a step too far.

As for Logan's questioning why "a young child would want to play rugby in Scotland now, with just two professional teams". For the same reason you did, Kenny. For the love of it.

This article was posted on 27-May-2007, 08:07 by Hugh Barrow.