Haddington and GHA Bite Back At The "Suits"

I RECEIVED the following last night, from a friend of this blog, who had been on the mailing list from Haddington and GHA:

"SCOTTISH RUGBY UNION’S ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING at BT Murrayfield on Saturday 4 August 2018.

NOTE on Motion 2 tabled by Haddington RFC and Glasgow Hutchesons’ Aloysians (GHA) RFC.

Haddington RFC and GHA RFC wish to clarify that they have a single, simple reason for tabling their motion for the Scottish Rugby Union’s annual general meeting at Murrayfield on Saturday 4 August. That motion has no agenda other than to ensure that the clubs have the right to determine the format of the national competitions that they play in.

The reason behind drafting that motion was that at last year’s SRU annual general meeting an attempt was made to slot in a new bye-law which, if approved, would have meant that the Scottish Rugby Board alone would have the right to determine the format of these club competitions. That proposed new bye-law did not seem to come from the Scottish Rugby Union’s Governance Working Party: it was certainly not in that working party’s report which was submitted for the 2017 annual general meeting. Nor was it included in the summary of bye-law changes which was appended to that report.

At that annual general meeting Haddington and GHA representatives spoke against the addition of that proposed new bye-law. Our voices of opposition gained enough support for the revamped bye-laws to be narrowly defeated. Nowhere in the current bye-laws is it defined who has the right to determine the format of these competitions. However, the clubs have had that right – albeit unwritten – since the national competition was introduced in 1973. The clubs wanted the competition: not only did they get it but they were also closely involved in developing the format.

The composition of the initial four national divisions (each of 12 clubs) was based on the previous three seasons’ results in the previous unofficial championship as well as friendly matches. (That unofficial competition was drawn up by Scottish newspapers’ rugby writers, who also defined which clubs could be admitted. It was so disliked by one club office-bearer that he voiced his support for an official championship by stating he did not want his club’s status to be “at the whim of newspaper editors!”)

Since then, changes in the competitions’ format have been with the clubs’ approval. Following on from last year’s SRU agm it seemed to Haddington and GHA personnel that it was essential clubs’ right to define their national competition should be clearly enshrined in the bye-laws. Hence the motion tabled by Haddington and GHA and officially supported by 10 other clubs, as required by the Scottish Rugby Union’s bye-law 18.

We are aware of suggestions that we may have had other agendas for tabling the motion. One of these was that the motion was an attempt to undermine Agenda 3 and Super 6. However, we wish to assure all clubs that the intention, as stated, is simple, with only one agenda – our wish to write into the bye-laws a clear statement that the clubs have the right to define and determine the format of their national competition. We hope that all clubs will welcome this motion as being beneficial to themselves and will support it at the annual general meeting.

Portobello RFC and Lismore RFC have tabled an amendment to Motion 2. Haddington and GHA accept that amendment and will vote in favour it at the meeting.

Also, we have to address a “note from Council and Board on agm motions”, a paper which claims not to recognise what the phrase “national club competitions” refers to in the Haddington/GHA motion. However, the National Competition Rules’ first page refers more than once to “National Competitions”. The motion’s proposers included the adjective “club” within title “National Competitions” simply for clarity. We are sure the clubs will be fully aware of what competitions we are referring to.

Finally, we reiterate our hope that all club representatives attending the annual general meeting will vote in favour of the Haddington and GHA motion so that you can continue to have the right to determine the format of your competitions.

Signed: Keith Wallace, President, Haddington RFC

Bill McMurtrie, Secretary, GHA RFC"

I HAVE known Bill McMurtrie for the best part of 50 years. As rugby correspondent of the (Glasgow) Herald he was very-supportive of this callow youth when I first began reporting on this game. He was a superb rugby writer and, he has forgotten more about Scottish Rugby than the Fat Controller and some of the minions could ever hope to learn.

Bill McMurtrie (right) - "the best President the SRU never had"

As a “poacher turned gamekeeper”, after leaving The Herald, he has given and continues to give superb service to the game and the SRU. He was an excellent Council representative and, in my opinion, is “the best President the SRU never had.”

I have only recently got to know Keith Wallace, but, I have been very-impressed by his commitment to ensuring that the CLUBS, through their elected officials in Council, and their own democratically-arrived-at decisions made at the Annual General meeting, continue to run the Union, rather than the employed officials.

The elected officials MUST always have the final say and sign decisions off.

It is a fairly open secret around the game, the hired help was not best pleased when,at last year's agm, the Haddington/GHA-led revolt prevented an attempt to sneak through a new bye law which would have overturned a protocol which had lasted 45-years, and given the final decision on the format of club competitions to the largely-unelected SRU board.

That proposed bye law seemed to appear out of thin air, no sign of it having been seen via the SRU's Governance Working Party's deliberations.

The above note from Haddington and GHA also refers to that ridiculous “note from Council and Board on agm motions” which surfaced last week. The representatives of Haddington and GHA are too polite to say this, but, politeness has never been one of my virtues, so, I will say it.

That note was a blatant attempt by “the suits” inside Murrayfield to muddy the waters. This new Haddington/GHA note offers much-needed clarity.

It is to be sincerely hoped, that the Haddington/GHA motion, amended as it seemingly will be by the Portobello/Lismore amendment, which has the support of Haddington and GHA, will pass, if not unanimously, at least by a massive majority.