While The SRU Puts Up Diversionary "Squirrels" - The Guys At The Clubs Are Seriously Worried

I'VE BEEN a naughty boy again, and the SRU's Media department “forgot” to send me a copy of their weekly media schedule; thus, I missed yesterday's “squirrel show,” when they put Head of Women's Rugby Gemma Fay up to talk to the nodding dogs of the mainstream media – the guys who jump when told to “sit” and “stay,” and who are too well-trained to mention Stupid 6 or Agenda 3.

 Gemma Fay - a genuinely great lady, but, yesterday "A Squirrel"

Picture SNS

Lovely lassie Gemma, a real role model to girls in Scotland. Ah kent her faither tae. I am sure, within the constraints which will be placed on her by the misogynists among the Murrayfield Ayatollahs, she will do a good job. But, when you see a hack, who will complain privately about newspapers and journalists being bullied to toe the party line by Murrayfield, toeing that party line and writing-up his puff piece on Gemma and women's rugby – while singularly failing to ever mention Stupid 6 or Agenda 3 – well: shakes head silently.

Meanwhile, here on the front line, I got some interesting feed-back on yesterday's post. As always, the readership can see the flaws in Stupid 6, and aint afraid to list them.

One of the first btl (below the line) comments we received yesterday said:

“The sell around "even stupider" & "fewer but stronger" has already begun even without any recent official announcements.

Talk to a Council rep and you might hear the suggestion for Clubs withdrawing from league competitions as perhaps some form of recreational rugby would be more appropriate.

Fewer leagues Clubs = fewer Clubs to distribute participation monies to.
Fewer Clubs getting participation monies = more Clubs struggling to survive.
More Clubs struggling to survive = more Clubs folding.

The Agenda 3 documentation includes "Every club in Scotland will benefit from this increased and sustained investment" - guessing the bit they missed out was that there just won't be as many Clubs.

The more our discussions progress, the more I begin to ponder the question, "how few, is few".”

Next up an official with a club asks this pertinent question:

“Whither National 3?

Imagine a scenario - too many clubs playing national rugby (especially given how super 6 will suck in players to that level) that we need to reconsider the number of national leagues.

Given the real hurdles getting out of the Regional 1 leagues - there is only one promotion place for each of the three regional league winners, that places inordinate barriers to ambitious clubs.”

I must admit, I have long felt, a Premiership plus three National Leagues is probably one division too-many.

I can almost see Murrayfield trying to impose a football-style "apartheid", with certain clubs being labelled as "Senior" clubs, while the rest are "Junior", except, these junior clubs will not have the support of a Junior Rugby Union. And, never the twain shall meet. So, no more Ayrs, Curries, Marrs or Stirling Counties emerging from the ranks.

The next commenter came-up with:

“Thinking about the super 6 squads. Will all of the Melrose 1st team move over to the franchise? I think not.

The big unknown is how many academy players will pop up in the franchises - and are they actually good enough to play at that level.

So let’s be generous and say 15 of a current clubs squad can make the grade. They still need to fill another 20 slots.

We could have the amateur arm of the franchise (or is it the part time arm of the amateur club?) playing in National 1. So this franchised club will need 70 players to put out a “part-time professional” side and an amateur one. Never mind any other teams they have.

Can’t see any flaws in this approach at all.”

A commenter, describing himself as: “A Cynical Second-row” asks:

“Interestingly the Super 6 documents says: 'Stage 3 players not already with a pro side will be available to a franchise and some stage 2, but not all, will be.'

Looking at: http://www.scottishrugby.org/bt-sport-scottish-rugby-academy-0

gives us 27 stage 3 players and some number of the 48 stage 2 players (by my reckoning) to fit into 210 slots in the 6 squads.

If we take 12 of the stage 2 players, the franchises have to find 171 players, that's the first XV of every premiership club plus 21 further players.

• Will all of them want to do it?
• Will all of them be able to do it?
• Will they want to do it if it means trekking to Aberdeen or Dundee?”

Another reader asks a different question:

“If Dundee win a franchise, which league will their amateur arm play in - they're currently in National 1.

For a part-time professional squad of 35, how many of their current squad will be good enough and how many will need to be imported on an average of around £90 a week?”

Our “Cynical Second-row” then came back with:

“Something that occurs to me is whether we'll be seeing the return of the brown envelope, not in the true club game, but in the franchises.

If payment is limited to £12k including benefits in kind is there not an incentive to offer those players who in the £12k grade a little extra to come to your franchise over another, especially if you're not as geographically attractive.”

Given, the SRU has already admitted, during the initial setting-up phase of Stupid 6, the majority of the players will come from existing Premiership playing rosters – five of the ten clubs are based in Edinburgh – and there will probably only be one Edinburgh-based franchise; it stands to reason, a lot of players will need to be prepared to travel if they wish to continue playing at their current level.

“Another Disgruntled Club Official” raises yet another salient point when he writes:

“The very pertinent point about the "knock on effect" of Super 6 as has been highlighted by many including current Boroughmuir Head Coach Peter Wright.

The rather bizarre answer that we've had from Dodson is that he believes the opposite will be true because Super 6 will only have 210 players playing in it, whereas the current premiership has roughly 300 players playing regularly. Failing to recognise that if, for example, Ayr have a team in Super 6 and National 1, then they are going to need to recruit a whole load of players from somewhere as Ayr 2s certainly wouldn't be up to National 1 standard.

So where are these players going to come from? Either Ayr's 'club' side will plummet down the leagues while the club itself focuses on their Super 6 franchise or else they will need to get players from somewhere else, no doubt arriving from clubs who are already struggling for numbers.

Another question I would be asking if I were Ayr or any other club looking to take up a franchise is what happens if this fails? What is the contingency plan for these clubs? Will they automatically be placed back in the leagues at 'Premiership' level? Would the clubs 'left behind' allow it?”

The original commenter, right at the start of today's piece, came back on that one with:

“No back-up plan required, just "burn the boats":

https://medium.com/@zacharysexton/burn-the-boats-1093e8a4601c

However, I'd argue in a "burn the boats" strategy, you wouldn't have an amateur team parachuted into a league you thought wasn't fit for purpose.”

“Another Disgruntled Club Official” then asked a question which a few others have come up with:

“I just wonder if any clubs bidding have asked. Like, what happens if one or more teams pull out during the 5 year process?

Maybe, because whoever is funding it tells their club that this is a monumental waste of my money. Hardly an unlikely scenario. I just wonder if anyone bidding has asked Dodson what happens in these types of circumstances that may be outwith their control?”

There is a precedent for a "professional" club failing. Remember what became of the "professional" London Irish/Scottish/Richmond side. If memory serves me correctly, London Irish survived as a professional entity, Scottish and Richmond had to rebuild from the lowest level in London Rugby. They have yet to get back to where they were, and, I would say never will.

OK, that was in England, but, the same thing could happen to a failed franchise here.

A reader, calling himself: “Clubfan” made this salient point:

“Dundee are an interesting case study:

 

• They are woefully short of cash to fund the bid.
• They recognise the geographic challenge they have in enticing players to Dundee.
• They estimate only four or five current first team players are at the standard for Super .
• They will need to drop their Seconds if they get the franchise.

On the above they could compete in National 1 as it would be their current team.

I would also contend that Dundee rugby is subject to internecine warfare and there is no love lost between the clubs.

Morgan look terminal as they drop into Midlands 3. Harris only have one team. Carnoustie have picked themselves up since giving up their Caley 1 place. The Uni only have the Medics side playing in Saturday rugby. Panmure mid table in midlands 2. Stobswell regularly losing by 80+ points every week.

If the Dundee HS rejects then go play for the other sides then all well and good but how likely is that?”

“Another Disgruntled Club Official” then returned to the debate with this interesting observation:

“Another question is whether the clubs in National 1 after next season will be content with having 6 clubs in their league who are effectively 2nd XVs?

And does this not encourage the 'warehousing' effect because players will have little reason not to migrate to the clubs who host Super 6 franchises? After all, they will be playing in the second top tier and probably top tier of the amateur game.

With no financial incentive to play for one club over another, the fact that one club is directly connected to a Super 6 Team will be a big draw for ambitious players or indeed any player looking for a new club.”

I have the distinct impression, this debate still has a long way to run.