SRU board should resign over Reivers decision

Published on Friday 30 March 2007 01:05

"PUT bluntly," says Allan Munro, chairman of the SRU's executive board, "the professional game in Scotland is in danger of dying."

Well, yes, maybe, we can all see the danger. So what do you do? Kill off one of the three teams. A fine solution.

It's one that makes no sense in rugby terms, and precious little sense of any kind, especially when you consider that the team chosen to be killed off has a ground with good facilities and the one kept hasn't. It makes no sense because anyone can see that a successful future for Scotland requires that there should be more players playing what Mr Munro calls "high-performance rugby", and competing for places in the national side.

The announcement of the decision to scrap the Borders was sudden, but I know nobody connected with Borders rugby who doesn't believe that the intention has been there for some time. One player told me the decision would have been taken last summer if the Borders hadn't upset plans by qualifying for the Heineken Cup. Paranoia? I don't think so. The sad truth is that few of us believe anything that is said by Murrayfield now. Trust has been destroyed.

Last September the SRU's chief executive Gordon McKie told me that the Union was committed to making a success of the Borders pro team. That was in a private conversation, and normally I would feel obliged not to repeat what was said. Tuesday's announcement has removed that sense of obligation. I ask myself: was I being told lies? If not, what has happened since to change things? It can't simply be the poor crowds.

If, on account of the poor crowds, the decision had been taken to move the team elsewhere, we in the Borders would have been angry and disappointed, while admitting that we had to some extent brought it on ourselves. But it would at least have been defensible in rugby terms. The decision to scrap one team, and reduce the number of professional players in Scotland by a third, is, in rugby terms, indefensible.

Admittedly, Borders have enjoyed little success on the field. Nevertheless, while there were only three Borders players in the 30-man 2003 World Cup squad four have been regular members of the Scotland 22-man international squad this season. A couple of others may be included in the World Cup squad.The contribution made by the club to the international side is undeniable. And that, after all, is one reason why it was revived. Would promising backs like Bryan Rennie and Nick De Luca have had the chance to play professional rugby yet without it?

Everyone recognises that the SRU is in financial difficulty. It has been for years. But now there is light at the end of the tunnel, following the approval of the flood prevention scheme which opens the way to developing some of the ground around the ice rink and on the back pitches. This makes Tuesday's decision all the more difficult to understand, for time is now on the SRU's side.

It is made more puzzling too by a glance at the Union's annual report for the year 2005-6. This reveals that International and Professional Rugby cost 10,951,000, of which 5,936,000 went on players' salaries and social security costs. But income from ticket sales and broadcasting came to 14 million - a clear profit, even before sponsorship and sales of kit etc, all attributable to the pro game - are taken into account. This season salary costs must have dropped, since Edinburgh has been part-privatised and certain financial responsibilities have been taken over by the Carruthers brothers and their associates.

The conclusion must be that it is the cost of running Murrayfield and all that this entails that is responsible for the Union's financial plight. This impression is reinforced by the figures relating to employment. In 2005-6 the SRU employed 122 players, up eight from the previous year. It also employed 179 "administrators", 44 more than in 2004-5. Where is the fat that might have been cut?

The same annual report declared that "the introduction of a full-time academy, based at Netherdale, promises to be a huge boost to the game in the Borders. Young, local players will be developed at the academy, whilst still being able to participate in local club rugby when the opportunity arises. The competition this will create should benefit the game at club, pro-team and national levels."

Fine words. The academy is now to be moved to Glasgow and incorporated with the one there. There was talk too of the Reivers "increasing our positive contribution to the Borders community". Where does that promise stand today?

I know nobody in the Borders who doesn't believe that the fortunes of the pro team, on and off the field, couldn't be turned round if Murrayfield relaxed control, granting the Reivers board a greater degree of autonomy, and if certain changes showing an awareness of the region's diversity were made. One of these might be to play some home matches on other grounds to help build up support.

Moreover, in recent months progress has been made in exploring means of assisting the Reivers, such as the Border Supporters Trust which Alastair Cranston has been instrumental in starting.

Then Bob Carruthers tells us he approached the SRU with an offer to buy the Borders for 2.5 million. This was rejected on the ground that IRB regulations forbid any individual or group to have influence over more than one professional team. But might not the offer have been explored to see if there was some way of satisfying the IRB requirements?

Again, since we are told that it was a close thing whether Glasgow, rather than the Borders, should be shut down, might we now have an explanation why last summer the SRU rejected the offer from the consortium fronted by Graham Burgess and Kenny Logan to take over Glasgow?

However, even if such an explanation is now produced, distrust of the SRU is now so deeply felt that few will believe it. That is the consequence of the diet of misinformation, falling little short of mendacity, with which we have been fed.

What is sadly clear is that those now in power at Murrayfield are reconciled to the decline of Scottish rugby. If this lamentable decision is not reversed then Scotland, already a second-class rugby power, will sink to a level with the likes of Fiji. Murrayfield has spoken, and this is what it has said: we can't compete with Ireland or Wales, or even Italy, let alone with France or England.

The way in which the Reivers have been run down to make them ripe for killing off has been shabby. In rugby terms it is worse than shabby; it is stupid. Those responsible should be ashamed of themselves and should have the good grace to resign their positions, and allow others with some vision and an understanding of what is needed to take over. In the words that Oliver Cromwell addressed to the Rump Parliament, we may say to them: "It is not fit that you should sit here any long! You shall now give place to better men."

Borders Council emergency motion in full

SCOTTISH Borders councillors yesterday released the following emergency motion:

"Rugby is integral to the identity and culture of the Scottish Borders. It gives much to the distinctiveness of our region. It is woven into the social fabric of the Borders.

"It is a generator of trade and income, attracts tourists and visitors to the Borders from across the world, is part of what creates the world wide affinity with the Scottish Borders and, through rugby, the Borders has contributed hugely to Scottish life.

"The future of rugby both in the Borders and in Scotland depends on a successful and developing professional game, and a flourishing, dynamic network of local clubs.

"The future of rugby in the Borders and in Scotland also depends on good, effective partnership working between the SRU and all the institutions of civic life. This Council believes that failure to achieve and create the right operating environment for the game in Scotland is prejudicing its health and survival.

"This Council deplores the decision taken by the Scottish Rugby Union to close down the Borders Reivers professional rugby team at the end of the current season.

"This Council expresses its profound disappointment that the SRU failed to consult, engage or seek alternative solutions with local stakeholder organisations before it made its decision for closure

[and] that the SRU took its decision outwith any coherent, broadly supported strategy for the operation and development of professional rugby in Scotland.

"This Council regrets that the SRU has failed to engage with the institutions of civic life and other stakeholders to build a consensus around action required to promote and develop the game in the 21st century.

"[We have] no confidence in the ability of the SRU to protect and nurture the game of rugby in Scotland, nor in its capacity to realise the full potential of one of the world's most exciting sports for the benefit of men, women, children and communities in our country.

"Accordingly, this council instructs the chief executive, in consultation with the council leader, to take the following immediate action:

• communicate the terms of this motion to the SRU

• seek a meeting between the SRU and representatives of local New Ways partners and other stakeholder groups to address directly the concerns expressed in this motion

• communicate the terms of this motion to the Scottish Minister for Culture and Sport

• seek a meeting with the Scottish Minister for Culture and Sport at the earliest opportunity to address [these] concerns

• convene a meeting of New Ways Partners and other local stakeholders to explore and identify options to continue professional rugby in the Borders

• communicate the terms of this motion to all local authorities in Scotland

• seek discussions with other interested local authorities and public bodies about the future of rugby in Scotland

• communicate the terms of this motion to the International Rugby Board."