Executives too out of touch to see this coming

WHERE do we start after such an eventful week? With the general committee I think, as they set the ball rolling. But it’s a rugby ball remember, so it doesn’t roll true.

Who would have thought that the committee would have the collective will to force the resignation of the chairman? Not me, even though it was clear from the Genesis Review that the influence of the committee as a group was seriously under threat and that they must therefore do something. But for them to act in such fashion was astounding. It has been clear for months that the committee and their executive were poles apart. Which does not, frankly, reflect well on either group. The executive in particular appear to have been guilty of taking extreme positions and of failing to give and take.

What gave the committee the ammunition however, was the stupidity of much of the Genesis Review which met with almost universal opposition from the clubs. Forty amendments have been proposed to the resolutions issued on Christmas Eve and one wonders how these will be managed at the sgm.

How arrogant it was of the executive to hijack all the money for the professional game, and to propose affiliation fees, a winter shutdown, complete control of age group players etc. How much better it would have been if Genesis, and the executive, had actually listened to those they consulted, rather than following the executive line in deeming it appropriate to plough on ever deeper into the existing furrow to who knows where.

Surely they knew there would be an outcry? Or were they so wrapped up in their own world that they could not see outside? Maybe they really thought that they would get away with all or most of the review recommendations. The weight of amendments shows how out of touch they were with their constituents. Executive board chairman David Mackay was shocked when he found out that the committee had called the bluff and the other resignations followed. The position of a few more must be verging on the untenable.

The clubs’ reaction has been almost as much of a surprise as the committee’s original action. Since the release last month of details of the Genesis Review - which was Mackay’s baby - the clubs have criticised large sections of the review, but some now say that they have no problem with Mackay, implying they have a problem with others.

The review appears to me to be the work of the director of rugby and his staff on the rugby front, and the former chairman/chief executive and their colleagues on governance. Mackay, Ian McGeechan and Phil Anderton were the triumvirate driving the Genesis Review, so why are Mackay and Anderton now the good guys when the review has been roundly slated?

Whilst the executive, through Genesis, were in intent on making Scottish rugby a top-down dictatorial regime, and in with a strong chance of stealing control of governance, the committee who have stopped them are yesterday’s villains.

The committee is vilified for its actions. But the clubs wrote to their representatives on the committee expressing their serious concerns with Genesis. How else could the committee stop Mackay and Co? The clubs can’t complain now. How can the guys who were the villains for promoting much of the content of the unfathomable review suddenly be the heroes when they’re removed from office?

If the general committee was to act it should have done so long before now and probably in a different manner, but given the festive timing of the review’s release and the resolutions, it might have been difficult to act sooner. It should also be remembered that the personnel in this committee is almost totally different from that in the mid-90s. But memories die hard. The brickbats are now being thrown at the committee rather than the departed executive. How fickle we are in Scottish rugby.

The rugby ball rolls on. Anderton appears to want to lead the clubs in a fightback against the committee. What regard has he given the clubs during his tenure and in driving the review process? Not as much as the pro game.

Most clubs agree the current make up of the committee requires change. But few, if any, agree that the board should be all-powerful with the committee or council having no decision-making powers. Which is what Mackay and Anderton propose through Genesis.

What next? To crib a football analogy, we need someone to put a foot on the ball, to allow calm and sensible debate. Amidst all the strife there is a huge opportunity to sort out the mess of the past nine years.