Gammell/Murray 3 - The Verdict

IN THIS, part three of my in-depth look at Gammell/Murray, I get to the heart of the review – Part 6, their recommendations.

Gammell and Murray waste no time with a preamble in Part 6. They dive straight in, suggesting the current Unincorporated status of the Union, as an association, acting through the Council and with the SRU Trust managed for the benefit of the Union, should change to a modern Limited Company – New SRU.

The Clubs would continue to OWN the SRU, however, the Executive of the new company would RUN it – without, as currently happens, the overview of The Council, who are elected by the members. Yes, the members would still have the opportunity to challenge decisions of the Executive at the AGM, however, if an egotistical CEO, with the backing of a compliant Board of Directors, decided to bet the farm (Murrayfield), on some daft notion – the damage could well be done before the membership had a chance to stop him, or get rid of him.

It's a power grab, pure and simple.

Where the power grab becomes really evident is in Part 6 1.5, where they outline their views on what should happen if the Council vanishes.

The current Council, is 17-strong. Fifteen of these members are directly elected by the clubs, with Ian Rankin and John Jeffrey co-opted to fill specific roles. These 17 members cover all aspects of the club game, from Premiership giants down to Schools, Women's and Referees.

Gammell/Murray want these 15 ELECTED Councillors to be replaced by three Independent Non-Executive Directors – APPOINTED to the Board of New SRU.

Indeed, in the whole document, the word ELECTED appears just once, in Part 6.1.13. This, they suggest, would see the roles of President and Vice President combined in a single ELECTED position, of President.

However, the President's role would be purely ambassadorial. He or She would be elected for a one-year term, but, could apply for re-election for up to three years, and would also be allowed to attend meetings of the board of New SRU.

However, the President would NOT have voting rights on the board.

One part of the report which does concern me, indeed which has concerned everyone who has commented openly on the possible effects is Part 7. This recommends that the whole exercise be completed by 31 May, 2020 – less than six months ahead.

WHAT'S THE FUCKING HURRY?

These are far-reaching, massive changes – perhaps we need a bit longer, a lot more in-depth discussion and calmer reflection, freed from the constraints of a tight timetable.

Interestingly, there is no mention in the review of the thoughts of Gavin MacColl's Standing Committee on Governance.

Nowhere does that eminent QC or his committee say something like: “We commend this report to the membership.”

I find this strange, and worrying.

Basically, given all the pauchles and pain of the last couple of years:

• Russellgate
• TCD's sudden pay rise and contract extension
• The Non-Disclosures scandals
• The civil wars at SGMs and AGMs
• The embarrassment of the World Cup legal action threat
• The big fine that moger cost us

CAN WE TRUST TCD AND THE JUNTA TO PUT THE BEST-INTERESTS OF THE SRU ABOVE THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST?

Ah hae ma doots. In fact:

Given his past history, I see Gammell as one of those Establishment 'USEFUL IDIOTS' who those in power believe they can trust to deliver the result they want, to get them to a pre-ordained destination.

If I am right:

THE CLUBS MUST WAKEN UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE – BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE - OR