Aristotle Armstrong

Aristotle Armstrong
The thrawn, alternative voice of Scottish Rugby

Tuesday, 13 March 2018

Midlands Clubs Meet, But Are Not Sold On Super 6

I BEGIN today's post with a quote:

  • “They (the SRU) seem to be making this up as they go along.”

    Mark Dodson - is he busking, or, is there a plan?

That, in 11 words, is how and why we have come to be in such a moger, in trying to figure-out where Scottish Rugby is going. I accept, plans do not always work-out, occasionally they fail totally, often they require tweaking as events unfold differently to what was first envisaged, but, on any journey, it does help to have a road map, and a definite destination.

The (English) RFU is currently working on 'The Game of our Lives' a strategic plan for up to 2021, unveiled in November last year. In January 2017, the Welsh Rugby Union unveiled their ten-year: 'Strategy for Welsh Rugby', while, having seen through their last strategic plan, which ran from 2013-2017, the Irish RFU are now finalising what they have called their: “2020 Vision for Irish Rugby”, which will presumably take them through to that date, and perhaps beyond.

Murrayfield meanwhile, has not updated their strategic plan since “the Journey to 2016” ended that year. There was the 2014 Club Working Party Report: “a Strategy for Working With Clubs”, but some of the ideas in that document have been dumped, while others, such as the notion of an eight-club “Scottish Super League” have been amended.

I cannot help thinking, maybe if Murrayfield had consulted more-widely, informed the clubs of what they were thinking, and been a bit more transparent, they would have avoided much of the uncertainty around Super 6 and Agenda 3.

Rob Flockhart - would you buy a franchise from this man?

The quote at the top of this post comes from a Midlands club official, who attended Monday night's meeting at Howe of Fife, at which SRU President Rob Flockhart, past-president and now co-opted Council member Ian Rankin, Graham Kerr – the Caledonia Midlands Regional League representative on the Council, John Halliday – Rector of Dundee High School and the Schools representative on the Council, and Charlie Simpson from Heriot's, who is, apparently: “Mark Dodson's bag carrier”. Mr Dodson was otherwise engaged, while Stevie Gemmell, who was billed to appear, was a no-show.

My contact was somewhat disappointed at the attendance, with only some 20 clubs represented, but, since he felt the object of the meeting was to garner support for the Dundee HSFP-led joint Dundee bid for a Super 6 franchise – apparently one of 13 being considered – the small turn-out was hardly surprising.

There appears to be a lack of interest in Super 6 in the Aberdeen area, while, the Dundee bid does have the laudable aim of trying to ensure the Midlands is involved in Super 6, which might indicate some cold feet around the Stirling area.

What, if anything new did the clubs learn. Well, according to President Flockhart, Super 6 will be: “part-time rather than semi-professional, there is a difference???” He also expects, seemingly, there to be some players in each franchise who are playing purely for expenses, while others are on-salary – now that could be interesting.

Gerry Tosh of Dundee HSFP outlined the club's plans, as the drivers of the Dundee bid, but, clearly, from the numbers they have crunched, the numbers do not add-up from the initial SRU documents. These numbers are Dundee's business, but, the estimated shortfall is well into six figures.

Gerry and the Mayfield guys are keen to get other clubs from the City of Discovery on-board with the franchise plans, but, one or two Dundee clubs at the meeting said, they had either not been approached, or did not wish to be involved. Clearly, Gerry and his mates have some serious selling to do.

One of the reasons given for Murrayfield springing Super 6 on the game was touched-on by Rob Flockhart. This is the continuing failure of the Premiership clubs to find common ground in their dealings with the Union. This internal squabbling, which has also involved the National League 1 clubs, is cited as the reason why the SRU has acted. As more than one commenter has said to me: as the governing body, they have a duty to act when the clubs cannot, which seems fair.

However, as Rob Flockhart said on Monday: “We have the bye-law to act.” Now, that could be a point of conflict.

Charlie Simpson, carrying a ball rather than Mr Dodson's bag
(Picture courtesy of Offside Line) 

Charlie Simpson, who is, of course, currently playing in the Premiership, suggested the franchises may be expected to do a fair bit of self-regulating and policing! I don't really see this from the Murrayfield control freaks, but, we can take it at face value.

Finally, here is what my contact took away from the meeting:

“Still a compete lack of information and the franchises and the SRU are making things up as they go along. To be fair that is perhaps to be expected given they are in dialogue with the potential franchises.

“Good luck to Dundee - I do believe they are trying to make this work and have the best interests of Midlands rugby at heart. However lets not kid ourselves - this is about Dundee HSFPRFC. They are keen to involve others but can't really articulate how or why.

“Everyone is big on vision and possibilities but the real devil will be in the details and realising these possibilities. Just saying it will be so is not a plan!

“I'm left quite frustrated. In the drive to make this happen the SRU are trampling over any criticism. They have convinced themselves that they are responding to the requests of the clubs - which clubs and what did they ask for?

“Lets hope the franchises have good professional and legal advice - they are really going to need it.”

I have a feeling this particular story has some way still to run. Hopefully things will become a bit clearer, after the final bids go in at the end of the month, and more-so once the final six bidders are named in May.

But, to me, this is still a huge mess.




14 comments:

  1. Thanks for the update SMcS.

    Wouldn’t it be helpful if Melrose and Ayr published their thoughts on things given they’ve had club meetings?

    One of the things that strikes me is that this is a large scale change project with many elements. You referenced this in your Brexit piece.

    So where is the change plan? What are the success criteria? What is the contingency?

    It’s the working across the multiple features that concerns me.
    * create a new tier of “part time “ rugby in scotland
    * reshape the rest of the men’s club game
    * build sustainable clubs
    * increase playing numbers, volunteers, referees

    All through telling the clubs how it will happen and how fantastic the future is going to be.

    On top of that what change leadership do the people tasked with delivering this project have?

    Without getting too melodramatic it feels like they are fighting on multiple fronts with stakeholders that have very different needs, requirements and goals. Effective change leaders would be pointing this out and have plans in place to manage these undoubted dependencies and conflicts. Not just bashing on with great hope and promise.

    What can possibly go wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Would be grateful if you could clarify - Was this an SRU led meeting or a Dundee HSFP led meeting?

    If it was SRU led, are these Meetings being rolled out across other Regions?

    It's suggested in your article that the purpose of the meeting appeared to be to "garner support" for a Dundee bid for a Super 6 franchise, so it's maybe that it was a Dundee HSFP led meeting, but then, why the top table with various Council Members?

    ReplyDelete
  3. 13 bids? That is a remarkably large number.

    If, as mentioned in comments to an earlier piece, there is a joint Borders bid along with Ayr and Dundee who are the other ten? I've heard no whispers about Edinburgh sides being interested so very curious as to who's being dragged along .

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clubs I’ve heard mentioned

    Melrose
    a combined borders bid (which seemingly includes Hawick).
    Stirling County
    Ayr
    Dundee
    Highland

    I take it the current positions are expressions of interest rather than formal bids at this stage

    ReplyDelete
  5. I read with interest, yet another Club considering stupid six but convinced the financials don't stack up! I thought these people were business men with their Clubs sustainability at heart. I have heard the arguments about top Clubs having to be seen to show an interest but if it doesn't add up don't touch it with a barge pole.
    If six turkeys are found they should be prepared to move their whole Club including their reserve teams into SRU control. When the dust has settled and the venture has failed they could always apply to join the league system again.
    The governance issue around (a bye-law to act) is intriguing. I'm sure the Executive has the power to form a new entity such as a semi,part time, non professional well a wee bit professional or whatever they try to describe it as league but they do not have the power to force the reserve teams into the league's below. On to the legal aspects and Clubs better have the best lawyers prepared to read the small print as they could fine themselves with rather frightening levels of debt around their necks and those of their members. Synthetic pitches? Unless I had a watertight legal agreement from SRU I don't believe they will be built. Lots more to add but hopefully more people will come on board with their comments and views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly they do have the power. Byelaw 15.1 and 15.1.2 specifically gives the Board the power to do so

      15.1 The Union may perform the following matters acting directly or through Scottish Rugby Union plc, namely:-



      15.1.1. The achievement of the objects of the Union.

      15.1.2 The management of the whole affairs of the Union and/or of the game of rugby football.

      15.1.3 The exercise of any power granted to the Union in terms of the Bye-Laws.


      Delete
    2. Just a wee reminder of a comment in The Scotsman from Jan 2018
      Rudy Dentler
      2 months ago
      Having done some work with SportScotland I can promise you that they will not be able to provide significant funding towards these pitches, their budgets have been cut drastically and projects of this ilk are no longer a priority. My interpretation of what was said by Dodson was that they would help get funding partners on board but that was a very loose and non-committal promise. There's no way that clubs will get the pitches fully funded, you're talking half a million each not including peripherals such as fencing and floodlighting etc.

      Delete
  6. Clubfan I do accept that is the current bye-law although there is another bit! Later discussion probably.

    The fact is that the precedents have been set. In recent years any changes to the league structure whether proposed by the Board or the Clubs has been by formal motions proposed for approval at the AGM I think any lawyer would find that difficult to argue with. Oh the joys of the vaguerisms of the law. !!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. If the meeting at Howe was held by the Union would President Flockhart, Past President Rankin and Rector John Holliday not be highly conflicted as they all have direct connections with DHSFP. If it were a DHSFP meeting how could they offer an objective overview of stupid six.! Just saying like!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The reply I've had on Facebook to my earlier question, is that it was a Dundee HSFP led meeting, put together with the assistance of Graham Kerr, Caledonia Midlands Regional League rep.

    I would be interested in knowing in what capacity Ian Rankin and John Holliday were speaking - Scottish Rugby Council Members or part of a proposed franchise bidding group.

    ReplyDelete
  9. pegj - I think that would be an ecumenical matter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The church !!! A religious matter ! Not sure I follow that one unless you are suggesting that it comes down to personal interpretation of universally accepted views irrespective of their role in the meeting I consider their appearance to be seriously conflicted and any outcome should be considered incompetent.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "part-time rather than semi-professional, there is a difference"

    I wonder what those differences may be. I mean you wouldn't want to get this wrong as the rights of your employees could be affected, things like maternity/paternity leave, sick pay, Jobseeker’s Allowance or access to a pension scheme.

    Perhaps it's to do with the number of hours worked - is one a fixed hours contract and the other a zero-hours contract.

    Reviewing the HMRC website, whilst they do make a distinction between full-time & part-time contracts, there isn't anything I can see on the difference between part-time and semi-professional contracts - https://www.gov.uk/contract-types-and-employer-responsibilities .

    Whatever the difference, I'm sure the employee status of players will be one of the things that's explained in detail in the official franchise document released by the Board.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Spot on pegj. Look forward to an open transparent interpretation by the board .

    ReplyDelete