Aristotle Reads Gammell/Murray - Part Two

APOLOGIES for the delay in returning to Gammell/Murray, but, occasionally I am press-ganged into Papa mode, as happened since my last post – I had to go and look after my three youngest grand-sons, aka The Monsters.

I survived the ordeal, and, in an effort to take my mind of all those numpties determined to hand the UK over to a posh quarter-wit with neither scruples or morals, and his even-worse American “cousin,” I have therefore returned to my line-by-line examination of The Review.

I have now reached the end of part one – where Bill and Norman look at the existing governance set-up, and make their suggested changes.

They point out that, at present, there are seven sectors within the governance structure of Scottish Rugby:

1. The Members
2. The Scottish Rugby Union
3. The Scottish Rugby Council
4. The Scottish Rugby Trust
5. The Scottish Rugby Trustees
6. Scottish Rugby Limited
7. The Executive

Bill and Norman recommend a new governance structure:

1. The Members
2. New Scottish Rugby Union
3. Scottish Rugby Union Limited
4. The Executive
5. A Rugby Development Board
6. A Professional Performance Board

New Scottish Rugby Union would be responsible for strategic direction and allocation of capital and resources.

Scottish Rugby Union Limited would, as at present, continue to be the principal trading entity, holding the material assets of the SRU.

The Executive, whose current responsibilities and boundaries are not outlined, would, as envisaged by the review: “Would be responsible for execution of strategy and financial management.”

The Rugby Development Board: “Would be responsible for the domestic and community game.”

The Professional Performance Board: “Would be responsible for professional and Super6, the Academies and the International game.”

Bill and Norman suggest the Board of New SRU would consist of three independent non-executive directors with a background in commerce and industry; three non-executive directors with a background in rugby; up to three executive directors and up to two further independent directors, all under an independent chairman.

They make no recommendations as to the composition of the board of Scottish Rugby Union Limited. Currently, this board consists of: four independent NEDs (non-executive directors), four NEDs – nominated by the SRU Council, (one of these four has to be the current President), four executive directors. One of the four independent NEDa is Chairman.

They envisage the composition of the Rugby Development Board to be: an independent Chair, the Director of Rugby Development (currently Sheila Begbie), up to two SRU appointees, six independent appointees from the domestic game and up to two further independent appointees.

The Professional Performance Board, they envisage comprising: The CEO as Chair, (currently TCD); the COO (currently LL-B); the Performance Director (Jim Mallinder when he arrives); National Coach (Gregor Townsend); Women's National Coach (Phil Doyle); Super6 Director (Sean Lineen); Technical Director (Stevie Gemmell), up to two further independent appointees.

Sharp readers will have noted, the two elements of the current governance structure they have chosen to take out are The SRU Trust and the SRU Trustees.

These guys, such as Fred McLeod and Andy Irvine, have been there, done that, got the tee-shirts and are quite properly trusted as the custodians of the family silver. Bill and Norman want them swept away, with the family silver handed into the safe keeping of the likes of TCD and LL-B.

I don't have a problem with setting-up the two board, to oversee what we must surely all recognise is the reality of two streams of rugby. My quibble is, members to these will be APPOINTED. The crucial word ELECTED does not appear once.

Who will do the appointing?

It all comes down to Juvenal's question; (Juvenal by the way was a Roman poet, not a Brazilian central midfielder): Quis custodies ipsos custodes? Or in English: Who guards the guards?

Given the way his “Independent” committee managed to fuck-up the Super6 franchise bidding process, to me, and a lot of people within the Scottish Rugby family, Bill Gammell is seen as a convenient Establishment stooge – who will produce exactly the answer The Junta is seeking to any question they ask him.

Norman Murray may be from Cumnock, but, I don't know him. However, Ah kent his Faither, and that worries me.

So, basically, if we are to have these changes, and, in matters such as the two boards, I am in support, I want to see the interests of the clubs safe-guarded by an elective process rather than an appointments process.

Simply put, I don't trust The Junta as far as I could throw them, to put the interests of the SRU before their own. We currently have too-many of the hired hands having more power than the elected representatives of the membership – Bill's and Norman's suggestions, to my mind, risk making this worse.

We are repeatedly told: “The clubs ARE the SRU.” Well, in that case, the clubs should have the biggest say in who runs the damned things. The Executives – the Hired Hands such as TCD, LL-B, J Cheever Loophole, even the Good Guys on the playing side – they are supposed to be under the direction of the Elected representatives of the clubs.

OK, I accept, in Rugby Politics, as in real-life Politics, there is always the risk that you elect what used to be referred to as: “Low-flying Jimmies,” voting lobby fodder who will do exactly as they are told, but, the risk of this is, to me, no greater than the risk of allowing The Junta to appoint their mates.

If the clubs really are the SRU, then they need to retain as much control as possible.