There Are Parallels Between Attacks On The Governance Of Athletics And How We Run Rugby

I RECEIVED last week, while reflecting on the current situation around Murrayfield, a wee nudge towards the athletics website: JOHN DOWNES VLOG:

(Downes is a well-known figure in Irish athletics. A long-term member of London Irish AC, he still competes in Masters Athletics, in the V50 classification.)

He was commenting on something said by double Olympian John Bicourt, a long-term thorn in the flesh of the men who run UK Athletics.

John Bicourt: his attacks on the governance of UK Athletics have some relevance towards rugby

(John Bicourt was an English record holder and represented Britain in the 3,000m steeplechase at the 1972 and 1976 Olympics. He has coached, advised and managed a number of Olympic and World Championship athletes from Britain, Australia, South African, Kenya and the United States, including medallists and world record holders. He is an elected officer of the Association of British Athletics Clubs.)

Davies, in his blog said:

“John is absolutely right to bring more attention to the way funded athletics administration is actually ruining the sport. But the real problem is not just the administration itself but the body that funds them.

Funding bodies expect to see a "professional" set up with a "professional" structure to justify paying out money and this is why the first priority for an athletics administration is to employ lots of people given lots of job titles plus all the related assistants and dogsbodies to make it look good: CEO, Deputy CEO, Heads of Departments, Directors of events, Coaching Directors, Managers, Coordinators, Facilitators, Medical Officers, Physiotherapists, Head of Media, Media Dept, Researchers, Website management ..... and the list goes on and on. Looks great, of course but what they actually achieve is very little compared with the cost.

I read that and thought: “That might also apply to the SRU. So, I had a wee dig around in the annual reports, and, you know what – and this may surprise one or two readers, but – Mark Dodson, my pal The Fat Controller, is actually doing a good job in running the organisation.

I looked at his management record and found:

On Mark Dodson's watch

• Turnover has risen from £35,086,000 to £57,241,000: a rise of 63%
  
  
• Costs of professional and performance rugby in this period has risen from £16,691,000 to £28,894,000: a rise of 73%
  
  
• When Dodson took over the SRU employed 94 professional players and staff
  
  
• Today they employ 134 professional players and staff: a rise of 43%
  
  
• When Dodson took over professional and performance rugby, took-up, as a percentage of turnover 48%
  
  
• Today, professional and performance rugby, takes-up, as a percentage of SRU turnover: 50%

Thus, in his seven years at the top, Dodson has seen the numbers of professional players and the staff associated with the two professional teams rise by 43% - (good or bad, the jury is out on that one) and, while the cost of running the professional and performance arm of the game has risen by 73%, he has managed to keep overall costs down to roughly in line with the rise in turnover.

In difficult times, we have to cut the guy some slack in terms of his overall management of affairs. Of course, there may well be issues over his management style – the allegation of Dodson rule meaning: 'My way or the highway,' but, that's quite another matter.

In his original piece, John Bircourt suggested the guys running UK Athletics (UKA) had:

“no accountability, to the sport. They are only accountable to the funding body. ("He who pays the piper calls the tune") so you will never get anywhere challenging the NGB (National Governing Body) directly.”

We are lucky in that, while the SRU, like UKA is an NGB, there is still a degree of accountability to the stakeholders – the clubs – via the annual general meeting. Also, the SRU, although it receives some support from the government funding body for sport – sportscotland, the SRU is not as-dependant on government funding for its survival as athletics is.

Now, I am prepared to accept, when planning their agm each year, the 'suits' in the professional executive plan for dissenting voices and how to manage/sideline them, and we see this in wee ploys such as getting pro-establishment voices like Fin Calder, Toony or The Bear to stand up and waffle during a contentious debate.

But, Dodson is still accountable, and can be held to account, as is happening right now with the Lesley Thomson review. When the results of Ms Thomson's review are published, and I would suggest to the SRU they should be published, in full, then it will be up to the stakeholders as to what happens next.

Results may make criticism of the Fat Controller's management difficult to sustain, but, his management culture is another matter entirely 

They (the stakeholders), may feel change is necessary. However, as John Davies points out regarding Athletics:

“To change things you need group action to bring attention to the failings, lack of accountability and criticisms of the funding structure (detailing how little has been achieved) to the government itself, through your MPs. (or MSPs).

“Doing stuff on your own will achieve next to nothing because you're just one voice. At best you'll be fobbed off. But If even ten former known names athletes and coaches got together and produced a detailed summary of failings, waste of money and how badly the sport is being run, you have a good chance to get the press interested to write about it and then a better chance to have government take notice.”

In the end its the press and media that effects change because those in charge (at the top end) do not want their responsibility being publicly questioned and criticised.

Trouble is, sport is not war or economics and as long as the quangos can falsely report masses more doing sport (by counting anyone with a pulse and able to put one foot in front of the other) ) and medal targets being achieved (by lowering medal targets or not increasing them since before funding) then government will say all is well.

I appreciate the guys running National Governing Bodies can never please everyone, all the time and that taking criticism is par for the course. However, I would suggest, the “empire-building,” the fancy titles and the way the executive seems to grow annually, these are not factors which only apply to athletics. Rugby suffers from it too, but, thankfully in the case of the SRU, perhaps not as much as we might at first have thought.

So, while prepared to accept, Mark Dodson is not doing too badly – the whole bourach of Super-6 and Agenda-3 still, I believe, needs a good bit of fine-tuning and debate.

Tha Fat Controller and the Executive could start, and maybe earn themselves some Brownie points, by dropping their attempts to force Super-6 through as being part of “Domestic Rugby.”

• This whole idea was started by someone inside the Performance Department
  
  
• It has been their baby from inception
  
  
• The SRU has a presence on the board of each of the franchises
  
  
• Therefore – the franchises are not “normal” clubs and should not be lumped-in alongside normal clubs in “Domestic Rugby.”
  
  
• Accept this, and we can maybe move on to properly discussing and implementing Agenda-3 and then, just maybe, a lot of the sound and fury will dissipate and we can get back to playing rugby.

The next big battle, and we are already into the preliminary skirmishes, will be between the other clubs, particularly the National League ones – although, I caution the other clubs, this is not simply their battle – and the Stupid-6 and the Executive, over where the six franchise owners' “amateur” clubs will play.

IF the franchise clubs and the Executive get their way, and the franchises are classified as “Domestic” rather than “Performance” rugby – the the “Glasgow Hawks Protocol” has to apply, and 'Ayr', 'Boroughmuir', 'Heriot's', 'Melrose', 'Stirling' and 'Watsonians' MUST go back to basics, accept placement in their lowest Regional league and fight their way back to the top from there.

Precedent must apply without fear or favour.