MY
OLD
mate
Bill Lothian posted an interesting thought on his Facebook page on
Thursday, when he said:
“Just
noting that the Croatia team which reached football’s World Cup
final had one home-based player; Argentina had two and Brazil three.
Their domestic leagues go on regardless providing thrills and entertainment; so long as the players return for internationals all is well.
So why on earth are Scottish Rugby shelling out reputed six figure sums on player contracts and operating two essentially Scotland feeder teams that are crippling the domestic game?
Said many times it is not a governing body role to run “clubs”. What good could be done in nurturing the game at all levels if this money was spread around. Is Murrayfield control so essential? Certainly not…”
Bill Lothian
And
there, ladies and gentlemen, you have one reason why the high heid
yins at Murrayfield are happy to see Bill no longer on the Edinburgh
Evening News' rugby beat. Thing is, Bill makes a very-good and
very-valid point, one which is worth considering. He has, to be
honest, been flying this particular kite for a wee while, but, that
doesn't make it the wrong kite to fly.
I
always, in reflecting on such rugby arguments, consider the state of
Scottish football. There, we have two massive clubs: one making a lot
of money from the weakness of the other, the lack of genuine domestic
opposition and the fact it regularly gets access to the huge prize
money available in Europe. The other club, to put it mildly, is a
basket case, with ultimate power lying with an overseas based
convicted criminal, described by his trial judge as: “A glib and
shameless liar.”
The
other top tier clubs all struggle to varying degrees to make ends
meet. It is a case of praying for: good runs in the domestic cups,
hopefully ending in a final against one or other of the big two;
selling a player to England – or both.
Below
the top league, it's a case of fighting for every penny, good
housekeeping and hoping for that cup draw against one of the big
boys, perhaps with live TV coverage, to turn a loss into breaking
even. And, if you can unearth an unpolished diamond and sell him on
to one or other of the Big Two, or to England, so much the better.
Quite
frankly, using football as the benchmark: given the squad sizes they
are carrying and the crowds they attract – there is NO
WAY
Scottish Rugby can afford to carry two full-time professional teams –
Bill Lothian's case is, as far as I am concerned, indisputable.
David Mackay - knew private investment was required
Again,
I saw something else this week, it was a quote attributed to David Mackay, the former SRU Chairman who was convinced – without
private investment, professional rugby in Scotland could not work.
The
SRU's problem is, they are such control freaks, no sensible private
investors will entertain them. Indeed, I have been saying for over a
year, and nobody has ever argued with me, or offered any evidence to
the contrary – the only reason the SRU is so-keen on Stupid-6 is:
since they cannot attract outside investors for their professional
teams, they have turned to their stakeholders – the clubs – to
fund a semi-professional set-up.
And
now – SHOCKEROONY
–
Stupid-6 would not be stupid, and would probably work, if the
proposed semi-professional level of rugby was the top tier of the
domestic game, below internationals. Why not?
In
football, the Scandinavian nations all have mainly semi-professional
leagues. Need I remind you, they have a much-better record than
Scotland in qualifying for the big competition finals.
I
accept, there could well be a case for – as is happening in Welsh
rugby and English cricket, some form of central contracts for the
star players, but, with that and semi-professional players, perhaps
“working” for sympathetic sponsors, maybe in “rugby
development” roles, Scottish clubs could put together a vibrant
domestic league, and do well at least in the second tier European
Challenge Cup.
Such
a system, I am sure, would be viable in the current climate. For
full-time professionalism to work in Scotland, we will need, I feel:
- To be an independent nation, free from the dead hand of London
- Have sorted out the legacy of 300-years of playing second or third fiddle to London
- Have a Norwegian-style “oil fund” to subsidise such things as international-level sport
- A wee bit less “tribalism” inside Scottish Rugby
- Some visionaries inside Murrayfield
- A Scotland in which “sport” meant more than “football”
Well,
an old man can still dream.
Imagine the boost a centrally-contracted Hoggy would give to Hawick if back playing in green
Suppose
Bill's notion was to be put into practise and we had a vibrant eight
or ten-club Premiership. Stuart Hogg, Darcy Graham and Rory
Sutherland back at Hawick, with maybe Alex Dunbar travelling over
from Annan. The likes of the Horne brothers and the others who have
left for higher things playing for say a Premiership Stirling County
which was a genuine Midlands-based central club.
Glasgow
Hawks could have a formidable squad, ditto Ayr. Spread the locals in
Edinburgh around their original clubs. Imagine the boost Watsonians
would get if their team again contained the name Hastings.
Or imagine this Hastings playing for Watsonians
And,
if the big-money English and French clubs came calling: the SRU
should ensure they were screwed tightly for player release for
internationals etc. You know, it might work.
But,
for such a system to be given a chance, I suppose we will have to
wait until, as it surely will, from the way it is currently set-up,
Stupid-6 implodes. Then we can maybe begin again from a new starting
point.
It
would also help, if the SRU's accounts were transparent. We know, the
two professional teams are a money pit, but, thus far, the SRU has
been very good at not telling us, how much of our – the clubs'
money - has been poured into it, and why it is so necessary for this
voracious beast to be centrally-funded.
If
this information ever gets out – I reckon there will be blood and
snotters running down the walls of Murrayfield in the aftermath.




The SRU could stop all this debate by publishing the in-depth analysis they carried out before we embarked in this journey. I mean you just wouldn’t make this up, try throw some cash at it and hold it works would you?
ReplyDeleteThe professionals at the top of the SRU - steeped in the game - wouldn’t want to be associated with a f@&£ up of this magnitude so will have performed rigorous due diligence, considered various options, fully consulted with stakeholders, got collective buy in to these courses of action before beginning to execute these plans
All they need to due is publish it. I will wait....
There is but one answer to the excellent points you make there Clubfan.
ReplyDeleteThat answer is: AYE RIGHT!!!
I remember when a certain former Scotland full back was President of the Union his answer to the question of why we spend so much money retaining pro players in Scotland when they could easily earn a decent living in France or England responding something along the lines of "well, do you want us to end up like Argentina", then fast forward a few years and ask the Executive guys at a Clubs Meeting prior to the SGM why we retain so many highly paid players in Scotland when they could earn a decent living in France or England when realistically we struggle to match that, and you're told, well what do you want, Scotland competing with the likes of Georgia or Romania.
ReplyDeleteSo whether the answer comes from a blazer or a highly paid exec, you'll get a similar response, don't be silly, we'll fall down the pecking order if we don't continue to follow a system that might bankrupt us - but nobody will be any the wiser until it's too late, so as long as it doesn't happen on my watch we'll keep following the path we're on.
Clubs are urged to follow a sustainability mantra, with funding reduced if they don't adopt a top down executive order of what sustainability actually is, but when it comes to Pro rugby we're expected to follow the same executive and their use of stakeholder funds over the rainbow and along the road paved with yellow bricks to the Emerald City (presumably a Rugby World Cup or 6 Nations win).
But in the 12 years since Mr Irvine warned against following the Argentina model, what has Scotland actually achieved with the masses of money that has been invested in Pro rugby?