I Have Been Thinking Again

I MUST ADMIT, in my capacity as The Voice of Reason in Scottish Rugby, I am rather enjoying sitting back and reading the gallons of pish being spouted in the main supporters' forum in Scottish Rugby – the BTL (below the line) comments on THE OFFSIDE LINE.

With the mainstream media now treating Scottish sport comment as virtually Old Firm gossip, Big David Barnes is truly a hero, for providing this platform for discussion, where we can air views which bring out reactions going from: “that makes sense” to: “what the fuck has he been drinking”, and all stops between.

The ongoing: what do we do post-Super Rugby debate is the current hot ticket on TOL, and the BTL comments offer the expected panoramic vista of often clashing opinions.

Mind you, this is Scottish Rugby we are discussing, and, after some reflection on what has already posted, I fear, our leaders may once again get it wrong. What replaces Super Rugby is just one small part of the overall picture; it's an important part, but, it doesn't answer the main question – where are we going with the game in Scotland, and what is the best route there.

I have long said, we are now in a two stream game – the professional and the amateur. They are different games, requiring a different approach; the problem is, when it comes to management of these two different games, there has to be some sort of joint approach, and that's where we have problems.

As that auld Burns' quote Scots says: “Facts are chiels that wanna ding and downa be disputed” . But, in the modern game, there are a lot of commentators who like nothing better than disputing facts. For instance, The only area of the game of Rugby Union which makes real money is the international one; so why the fuck did the Six Nations' committee give away a considcerable, if minority share, of the proceeds to CVC?

The management model as far as the SRU is concerned is: the money which the international team generates is re-invested for the good of the game. Hell, they even got it written into the statutes that the Club Game – the amateur part – would be subsidised by a set per centage of the income each season, with the rest going to running the overall Union.

The fact it is a two stream game is confirmed by the SRU's management structure:

1. Scottish Rugby Union Board – the nine members (The Custodians) of which have on behalf of the SRU and its members, oversight of how Scottish Rugby Union Limited undertakes their responsibilities.

2. The Scottish Rugby Limited Board – also having nine members - is responsible for the ongoing management and operations of the Scottish Rugby Union Group. It reports quarterly, through the SRL Chair, to the SRU Custodians on the main aspects of its operating role, including strategy and financial and various other significant topics.

3. The Club Rugby Board – which has 16 members – is the voice of the member clubs. Now, whereas in the “About Scottish Rugby” section of their website, the SRU lays out the duties and responsibilities of the other two boards, it doesn't tell us what the Club Rugby Board is supposed to do, and where it fits into the overall management model.

We have been told for generations: “The clubs are the Union”. That one is apparently set in stone, except, these days, Scottish Rugby Limited is tasked with running things, and while the Club Rugby Board is indeed the voice of the clubs – each of its 16 members representing the clubs in a particular division of the leagues, part of a region, or special interest group (schools, referees, women's rugby etc).

While two of these 16 Club Rugby Board members, The President and the Vice President (currently Colin Rigby and Keith Wallace) are Custodians – members of the main SRU Board, they are NOT members of the Board of SRU Limited. So, the Clubs, who are supposedly the main stakeholders in the Union only have one voice on the Board of the main money-making arm of Scottish Rugby, through the happenstance that Club Board member Hazel Swankie is an “independent” member of the SRL Board.

• There are, as listed above, three boards in Scottish Rugby

• These boards have a total of 30 Directors

• No Director is a member of all three boards

• Four Directors are members of two boards

• The other 26 Directors are only members of one particular board

• The only SRU EMPLOYEE to be on more than one board is the Company Secretary, who sits on both the SRU Board and the SRL Board

• The Chief Exectuive only sits on the SRL Board, on which the Personnel and Finance Directors also sit

• The Director of (Performance) Rugby does not sit on any board

• The National Head Coach does not sit on any board

• Only 15 of the 30 Directors are directly elected by the Clubs (the stakeholders)

I am no expert on company organisation or management, but, I would suggest, that the stakeholders only have half of the total board places is a weakness in the management structure, as is, not-withstanding the SRU Board's oversight responsibilities, the lack of cross-fertalisation across all three boards. This is a matter we should perhaps address.

Half of the overall body of Directors are “appointed”. Who by? What are the qualities we are looking for in Directors? How are these appointees recruited? Should not the stakeholders – the clubs, have more of a say in who gets appointed to the two boards – the Custodians of the Board of the SRU and the independent or non-executive Directors of SRL?

This is no implied criticism of Hilary Swankie, but, should not the SRU President and/or Vice President also be members of the Board of Scottish Rugby Limited? Also, surely the Director of (Performance) Rugby should also be on the board of SRL.

However, I firmly believe the reality of the Amateur game, as governed by the Club Rugby Board, and the Professional/Performance game, as governed by the board of Scottish Rugby Limited should be recognised.

With the current Chief Executive Officer and the current Director of (Performance) Rugby both leaving, we have perhaps the perfect opportunity to reset things and come up with a management model more-befitting the present day and the days to come. Can we, will we take this opportunity?

WHAT I WOULD DO

1. Ignore the “We cannot afford it” calls and set-up at least a third full-time professional team – NOW.

2. Follow the Irish template, give the professional sides, playing in the URC more freedom from central control and at the same time, allow these sides to be at the apex of rugby in each of their Regions, giving them the opportunity to build a better regional identity.

3. That said, there could, finances allowing, be a case for a limited number of central contracts being offered to the very-best Scottish players (British Lions possibles).

4. The full-time professional sides should be responsible to a greater degree for the development of the best of our young talent, with an improved and enhanced Academy system, offering not only better training and development opportunities, but, as-importantly, tackling the big failing of the present system – the fact our best young players simply are not playing often enough.

5. Super Rugby was supposed to be the tier at which we caught the players who missed-out on advancement along the pathway – the late developers etc. With Super Rugby gone, we have to make the Inter-Regional tier that catchment level.

6. This means, Inter-Regional coaches have to be independent of the clubs, the squads need more games and there may be a case for making Inter-Regional rugby primarily an Under-23 competition.

7. Agenda 3 needs to be looked at again. There were some very-good ideas in there, but, it was, for various reasons, never fully-implemented.

8. There is a case for, in conjunction with implementing an improved Agenda 3, bringing in a club licencing scheme, similar to the Scottish Football Association's one. As I have said before, if we had a strict club licencing scheme, some clubs, currently riding high in the National Leagues, would be back playing Regional Rugby.

9. We really work at getting Rugby Union back into the State School sector.

10. We drastically reduce the number of “National” Leagues. We have too-many clubs claiming “National League Status” who are unworthy of this.

Note: The SFA has 124 Licenced clubs; i.e. clubs which have met minimum standards as to finance, governance and infrastructure. Of these 42 clubs (33.9%) are “National League Clubs) playing in the four-division Scottish Professional Football League.

The SRU lists 138 clubs playing in SRU-recognised Leagues, national and regional. Of these 50 clubs (36.2%) play in national leagues. I would suggest (not for the first time) we have too-many national league clubs.

To a large extent these comparisons are a definite case of apples and pears. The 124 football clubs quoted are “licenced” clubs, who have met a certain standard of governance. They do not include the many amateur clubs, playing in very-local leagues.

For instance, these figures do not count the 50 regional associations and 67 leagues administered by the Scottish Amateur Football Association, which claims to administer over 35,000 amateur players across Scotland.

Take them into consideration and those 124 licenced clubs – far less the top 42 - are a much smaller percentage of the overall number of clubs in Scotland.

Another way in which Football and Rugby Union differ in Scotland is in the area of youth development. Not so-long ago, the enthusiastic and hard-working High Heid Yins in the Scottish Schools Football Association used to claim, with the certainty only an old-school Scottish teacher could muster: “We are not here to provide boys for football, but to provide football for boys.” That may no longer be the case, with closer proximity between the SSFA and the SFA, and with the establishment, over a decade ago, of seven Schools of Performance across Scotland.

Of course, the SRU also has several “Performance Schools” - Merchiston, Fettes, Stewart's-Melville, GeorgeWatson's, Edinburgh Academy, Glenalmond and Dollar Academy, to name but a few. The way these “Establishment” schools have been allowed to scoop-up talent and dominate youth rugby is a stain on the SRU and its absurd #As One claim.

A broadening of the playing field, and more opportunities for other ambitious schools and clubs to test themselves against the current elite might work wonders for youth development in Scotland.

I would like, for instance, to see more co-operation between schools and clubs; teach the fundamentals in schools, where there is a captive audience, but, have the more-enthusiastic and talented young players fast-tracked into better-organised, funded and supported club academies. And, let's do away with that absurd rule (supposedly thought-up as a bit of self-protection by the “Establishment Schools” - whereby boys cannot play for a club and their school over a single weekend).

These are just a few of my observations and thoughts. Let's hope, we may see, sooner rather than later, the necessary changes made to Scottish rugby.