Appointing Bill Is A Big Gammell By The Junta

HOW INDEPENDENT is an independent reporter? I ask after the announcement that Sir Bill Gammell is to conduct “an independent review” of Scottish Rugby's governance structures.

Certainly, how the SRU's High Heid Yins and their Murrayfield Minions run things is a situation long past requiring review. The common response to the question: “How are they doing?” might well be: “Hands up anyone who doesn't think they're making it up as they go along?”

Much of the change debate in recent years has been around the make-up of the various leagues and which clubs compete in which cups. The overall governance of the Scottish Rugby Union has been virtually unchanged since the recommendations of Sheriff Bill Dunlop's Governance Working Party were implemented back in 2005.

This did away with the old SRU General Committee, and, while SRU insiders like to claim the response to the good Sheriff's report – which saw the General Committee replaced by the SRU Board and Council – is: “the envy of the rest of Scottish sport,” you don't have to look too hard around Scottish Rugby to find dissenting voices.

The Dunlop Report was absolutely clear. The Executive’s discretion to run the SRU’s business on behalf of its stakeholders is subject to four critical constraints:

• Accountability
  
  
• Responsiveness
  
  
• Participation
  
  
• Transparency

The charge is that these constraints have been seriously eroded during the Dodson reign – a circumstance which any review will need to tackle aggressively before fundamental change is forced upon the structure of the game.

CEO Mark Dodson, or TCD as this blog has dubbed him, and his side-kick MH33, aka Dominic McKay, the Chief Operating Officer, or COO, can be said to have done a good job on the professional and commercial side of things, but TCD and the Union's General Counsel and Company Secretary Robert Howat, or J Cheever Loophole, as he is known to this blog, were seriously skewered for their handling of the removal of Keith Russell last year.

The way it is supposed to work is, according to past Scotland captain and past SRU president Ian McLauchlan, in a Scotsman interview back in 2011:

"We have a lot of very good people at Murrayfield doing a very good job but you have to let the rugby people get on with running the rugby side of things."

There is a case for suggesting, under TCD, who was newly-arrived at Murrayfield back then, this hasn't happened. There is widespread belief in the body of the Scottish Rugby kirk, that Mighty Mouse's ideal management model is not being followed.

Keeping the hired help in-line and following those four critical constraints outline above, is supposed to be the reason d'etre of the SRU Council. Now, having seen the work-load regarding rugby that some of our Council members undertake, I can vouch for their enthusiasm, work ethic and concern for the good of the game; not every Council member, however, gets pass marks.

There is a belief abroad in the game that, while TCD, MH33, J Cheever Loophole, as paid servants of the SRU, ought to be under the control of the Council, acting on behalf of the clubs, in reality, TCD says: “Jump,” and the Council doesn't even enquire as to how high they are expected to leap.

Some of the older hands in rugby administration both in elected office at Murrayfield and out in the clubs, still hanker for the breadth of the old Districts. As one very-experienced club official said to me:

“Under the current system of Council members being elected to represent a particular interest group – the 10 or 12 clubs in a league division, the regional league clubs; I don't think the Union is as well-managed as it was.

“I miss the old District-wide meetings, when you were able to get a cross-section of opinion from every level of club. We all had a broader perspective on what was happening. We are missing this.”

So, rather than looking (again) at contentious issues such as Super-6, Agenda 3, and divisional sizes, Gammell perhaps will be looking at those wider issues:

• The powers and make-up of the Board and Council
  
  
• Is there perhaps a case for larger constituencies than the current Council members represent?
  
  
• We have the four Regions: Caledonia, East, South and West, is there a case for greater autonomy for the Regions?

It would also, perhaps, be helpful if we knew more about Sir Bill's terms of reference, how long he will take over his researches, and, what might happen once he hands-in his report to Gavin McColl QC's Governance Working Party.

He – Gammell – doesn't have a lot of time to get round the clubs, report back, get it discussed then his findings refined.

I doubt if he can do a decent job before the Annual Meeting in August.

This could mean, between the Rugby World Cup and the start of the season, his findings might well be kicked into the long grass – more-so if the High Heid Yins don't like what he comes up with.

But, of more concern to this old trouble-maker is my concern: How Independent is Sir Bill Gammell?

Let's look at his biographic profile:

• Knight of the realm
  
  
• A Fettesian
  
  
• Friend of former Prime Ministers and Presidents
  
  
• Rugby internationalist
  
  
• Played for Heriot's

Being perhaps rugby's ultimate outside, I can safely say:

He's “Establishment.”

And, it is an old tactic of Establishment organisations such as the SRU to find an Establishment figure, on the face of it, “Independent”, who can be trusted to come back with the sort of report the Establishment wants to read.

And Sir Bill has “form” in this respect, from his chairmanship of the review body which decided:

“To Hell with no more than two Super-6 clubs situated within any one Region, we're going to have three in the City of Edinburgh.”

The smell of that decision still lingers.

Ah hae ma doots - serious ones - aboot Bill Gammell's “Independence.”