The Scotsman speaks out
COMMENT
THERE are faults on both sides in the damaging dispute between Edinburgh Rugby and the Scottish Rugby Union, but none as misguided as the governing body's decision to reject mediation.

The daily brickbats launched in both directions have caused frustration and anger in the wider rugby community, with players, supporters and sponsors all praying for resolution so that the game can move forward.

It has been clear for some time now that a third party is required to take the sting out of the situation. There is no guarantee that a third party would succeed in reaching resolution, but at least it would not be for want of trying. Where there's a will there is usually a way. Not for the first time at Murrayfield this season, there isn't a will.

The SRU states that it is not prepared to enter mediation because of leaks to the media of confidential information, presumably pointing the finger at Edinburgh. That's rich, following the off-the-record briefings that have appeared in the press from "senior sources" at Murrayfield. You know who you are.

The union also points to its confidence in its robust contractual position. But clearly that confidence is not strong enough to risk exposure to the scrutiny of a process of mediation or arbitration.

Rejection of mediation is a negative response to a positive suggestion. It is an untenable position for a body that is supposed to represent and nurture a game now in crisis.

This article was posted on 18-Jul-2007, 13:24 by Hugh Barrow.