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

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.

As Promised - Aristotle Reads Gammell/Murray: Part One

COURTESY of a daughter on early shift, and her three Irish Setters deciding they wanted to invade Papa's bed – I was up early this morning and able to enjoy a peaceful perusal, line-by-line, of the Gammell/Murray Report on the SRU's corporate governance.

Part One: The executive summary, is mainly a combination of corporate bullshit and statements of the bleeding obvious. However, section 1.5 does read like a Tory election pledge. It finishes:

“The domestic game must be promoted and supported, to ensure a healthy playing population for years and decades to come.”

OK – obvious question: Why hasn't it been up till now, since I get a lot of btl comments from clubmen who believe their interests have been being ignored for years by the Murrayfield Junta, while healthy playing numbers simply do not currently exist within the game in Scotland.

Item 1.6 finishes:

“Throughout our review and in preparing this report we have recognised the equal importance of the domestic and the professional game in Scotland.”

Again, the answer to that out there in Clubland would be a resounding: “Aye Right!!!”

Mind you, that's probably a better response than you might get to the introductory sentence to Item 1.7, which reads:

“It is important to all stakeholders in Scottish Rugby that the sport has a clear vision, purpose and strategy that is transparent to all.”

To which the response from clubhouses and committee-rooms the length and breadth of Scotland would be:

“SRU – transparency – you're 'avin' a larf!!!” The Junta would give Paul Daniels and Penn & Teller a run for their money when it comes to illusions and the use of smoke and mirrors to hide things.

However, it is when we get to Item 1.8, that alarm bells really start to go off. This section promotes the notion of a new corporate body to run the SRU – calling it: 'New SRU.'

Now, I have understood, post Tony Blair, and 'New Labour,' it is written on tablets of stone: “If advocating serious change in any British institution, under no circumstances do you use the word 'New' as this will frighten the natives.”

You might have thought Gammell, being, like Blair a Fettesian, would be aware of this dictum. However, when it comes to Item 1.8, my beef is not with the notion of a “New SRU,” it is with the final sentence of the item:

“The New SRU Board will be directly accountable to member clubs and committed to greater transparency.”

“Accountability,” “Transparency,” - I fear one or two of the leading members of The Junta have hitherto shown no association whatsoever with these two words.

Item 1.9 I quote in full:

“The New SRU Board will have a governance structure reflecting modern practice and guidance, with a majority of independent non-executive directors intended to oversee executive management on behalf of all members. The New SRU Board would comprise:

• an independent chair;
• three independent non-executive directors from a commercial, industry or other professional background;
• three further independent non-executive directors with a background in rugby; and
• up to three executive directors,

with all appointments to the Board, irrespective of background, based on an appropriate proficiency, skill-set and relevant knowledge and experience. The Board will also have the power to appoint up to two further independent members, subject to those appointees meeting the appropriate selection criteria. “

Now, it might not be the stuff of The Ten Commandments, but, it is written on tablets of stone: “The Clubs are the SRU.” The existing SRU, which has been in place, running the game of Rugby Union Football for over 140 years is the property of the member clubs.

The clubs might have been badly let-down in recent years by one or two of the elected officials they have entrusted with safe-guarding their interests, but, today, the management model is that final oversight and approval of all actions of the SRU Executive lies in the hands of Those club representatives ELECTED to serve on the Board and Council.

Gammell/Murray's recommendations for membership of the all-powerful Board of New SRU is that these board members be APPOINTED.

That model of corporate governance might word in commerce and industry, but, the SRU, whether “Old” or “New” is a co-operative sports organisation, owned by the 200 or so clubs, big and small.

I might be guilty here of something I have long railed against - “Aye Beenism,” but, I honestly believe the interests of the clubs can best be guaranteed by their ability to ELECT representatives to the main decision-making body – the Board of Directors.

Gammell/Murray suggest a ten-person board: three paid Executive Directors, and seven Independent members. They suggest three of these Independents should have: “A background in rugby.”

So, the main governing body of Scottish Rugby, its board of directors should only have 30% of its membership with: “A background in rugby.”

Again, there is only one answer to this: “Not on your Nellie.” I will again repeat the wise words of the great Ian McLauchlan:

“We need rugby people running the rugby side of things.”

Therefore, the clubs MUST have elected representatives on the main board of New SRU. And I would suggest, Rugby People should ideally be in the majority.

OK, I've been a tad negative this far, but, now we get to the parts of the report with which I can broadly agree. Item 1.10 suggests the setting-up of:

“A new Business and Strategic Planning Committee to focus on the long term sustainability of Scottish Rugby with responsibility for advising the Board on the high level allocation of capital and resources within the organisation.”

Again, provided the Clubs are represented on that body, I have no objections to setting it up.

Similarly, I can find little to argue against in Item 1.11:

“To address the divergence between the demands of the domestic and the professional game, it is recommended that two new bodies are established within the new governance structure, each having appropriate delegated authority and autonomy:

• A Rugby Development Board, with responsibility for the domestic game in Scotland, accountable to member clubs and tasked with creating local solutions for domestic rugby, overseeing community game structures, domestic competitions, the Player Pathway, schools rugby, disciplinary rules and process, players, coaches, domestic officials and volunteers; and integrating the Scottish Rugby Development team with the domestic and community club structures.
• The Rugby Development Board would have up to 10 standing members with backgrounds across all aspects of the domestic game: an independent chair, the SRU Director of Rugby Development, up to two SRU appointees and six independent members nominated from the domestic game, with the Rugby Development Board having the ability to appoint up to two further independent members. The six independent members of the Rugby Development Board will not be representatives of individual regions within Scottish Rugby, but rather shall be appointed on the basis of know-how, experience and capability to act in the interests of the domestic sport and member clubs generally.
• A Professional Performance Board, to manage the sporting elements of the professional game in Scotland, including responsibility for the professional teams, the international teams, the Super Six, SRU Academies and Professional Referees and Match Officials. The Professional Performance Board would have up to seven standing members with backgrounds across all aspects of the professional game: the CEO as chair, the SRU Chief Operating Officer, the Performance Director, the National Coach, the Women's National Coach, the Super 6 Director and the Technical Director, with the Professional Performance Board having the ability to appoint up to two further independent members on the recommendation of the New SRU Nomination Committee.

The introduction of these bodies within the new governance structure should dramatically increase the efficiency, accountability and skillset within Scottish Rugby. We also suggest an organisational link or bridge between the Rugby Development Board and the Professional Performance Board, in the interests of consistency of approach, collaborative thinking and avoiding "silo" mentality.”

Again, I have no quibble with the intent behind these suggestions, but, would suggest, certainly in the case of the Rugby Development Board, the nominated representatives of the clubs ought to be subjected to some form of elective process.

And, in the case of the Professional Performance Board, the six Super6 franchise ought to be properly represented by a nominee whom they would elect.

That seems to me to be a good point at which to break. But, there's more, a lot more, to discuss in the report. So, I will be returning to my line-by-line examination of the document, and, believe me, there are a lot more very interesting issues still to be discussed.

Could They Do It? Yes They Could

ONE OF the great clichés of English football is: “Yes, but can he do it on a wet Tuesday night at Stoke?” This question is usually asked about the latest 'Fancy Dan' foreigner to arrive in this sceptred isle. Usually, the answer is: “Yes, and without breaking sweat too.”

It was a dog day afternoon at Bridgehaugh

Well, yesterday, Ayrshire Bulls Coach Peter Murchie discovered, his new recruits from outwith Ayrshire and the West of Scotland could indeed do it on a miserable Sunday in Stirling. Peter will be a happy bunny this morning.

Bulls' won an arm wrestle – or was it a mud wrestle? These sorts of wins are often, in the final analysis, more uplifting than a six-try thrashing, handed-out on a perfect day for champagne rugby.

Watching the game from the comfort of my armchair – I realised, after Bulls had survived Pete McCallum's yellow card – County were not going to score, unless the Bulls gave away a stupid penalty in a silly place.

And, that is one of the pluses we are already seeing from the much-maligned FOSROC Super6 – there are fewer daft penalties than you see even in the Tennent's Premiership – because the players are having to become more professional on and off the park.

The forking things Lorne Boswell does for County

We saw some other benefits from the new tier of the game yesterday. For instance, I reckon the highly-promising County tight-head Murphy Walker learned more from his 70 or so minutes against Gordy Reid, in match conditions, than he would have in a full month of scrumming against him in training at Scotstoun.

Coylton's Caped Crusader won the head-to-head, but, young Murphy did not disgrace himself. Similarly, when Marshall Sykes came on at half-time, he immediately settled into an engrossing one-on-one with Andy Davidson. Each was winding-up the other, but with smiles on their faces. I dare say the banter will continue at Warriors' training all this week, as they prepare for a potential round two at Millbrae on Saturday.

I have high hopes of S6, but, I agree with Sean Lineen's explanation about the route ahead, delivered at half-time in the broadcast – the real benefits of S6 will not be seen for a year or two.

My own take is, the real benefit will not be felt until we have at least a third full-time professional team set-up. There is no point in bringing-on our best young talent, hot-housing them into S6, if there are only two full-time Scottish teams for them to graduate to. We have to widen the pipe-line up to the full-time professional ranks, or we will end up with a blockage.

And, it is, to me, fairly pointless, encouraging the six franchises to recruit Scottish-qualified players home from beyond Scotland, if the end result will be, we send them back to England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, because we don't have enough vacancies in our pro teams for them to aspire to filling.

Or will New SRU – as per Gammell/Murray solve all our problems?

The TV stream from Bridgehaugh was the first I have watched. It was nowhere near as dire as I had feared it might be. This fear, I should add, was based on viewing the production company's coverage of the Premiership, which has all the production values and gloss of a 1950s 'Go As You Please' down the Church Hall.

The glamour of a job in TV

The actual production was excellent, just a pity Hugh Dan Maclennan skimped on his homework. I know, it's a wee bit unfair that all Scottish rugby commentators have to be judged against “The Voice.”

Bill McLaren wasn't (to use an Americanism) The G.O.A.T on ability alone, he followed Gary Players dictum – the more Bill practiced, the better he got. If Hugh Dan had done his homework on the players, it would have made for a far-better commentary.

Luckiest man at Stirling yesterday was probably Frazier Climo. I thought, facing the worst of the elements in the second half, Bulls would probably bring-on the man from New Plymouth to kick for position and generally manage the game. However, so well was young Ross Thompson doing, on his way to being named Man of the Match, Pete Murchie left him on, an experience which will do wonders for the youngster's confidence.

Unluckiest man was young Ruaridh Sayce, whom Murchie sent on for the final two or three minutes at tight-head. He did ok in the single scrum he was involved in. But, I bet “Sauce” went: “Oh no!” when told he was on. He was probably hoping to avoid exposure to the elements by staying wrapped up in his bench coat.

Rugby Memories Scotland posted this self-explanatory league table on its Facebook page this morning:

There are 28 clubs listed in that 50-year-old 'Unofficial Championship' table. In 2019, only 14 of these clubs are still active at the top-end of the club game, in either Super6, Tennent's Premiership or National League 1 competition; and that includes one or two who are only there via amalgamations.

This means, there has been a 50% drop-out rate in that period. Five of the clubs in the 1969 table are now in Super6, Seven are in the Premiership, and two are in National League One.

A further six clubs are in National Leagues Two and Three, the other eight have dropped into the Regional Leagues. So, change does happen in Scottish Rugby, but, more perhaps by evolution than revolution.

Special Thanks go to County stalwart Bryan Robertson for permission to use his pictures from Sunday's game.

Match reports take precedence over governance ones today

ARISTOTLE'S take on Gammell/Murray will have to wait. There's a lot of words to go through, a lot of meaning to work out, and, in doing my House of Commons-style “Committee Stage” line-by-line dissection of the document is taking longer than I had hoped for – in this case, the devil is most-definitely in the detail. But, I hope to discuss it fully tomorrow. I have not ignored it.

AT MARR yesterday, the Jamie Lawson song: “I wasn't expecting that,” came to mind, as an inspired GHA broke down the walls of Fortress Fullarton, winning 17-15 to end Marr's run of 27 straight home wins, which went back over 18 months, and take possession of the Bill McLaren Shield.

“It's nae loss whit a freen gets,” is a guid auld Lowland Scots saying, and, while naturally disappointed to lose possession of the “log” so shortly after having their name engraved on it, the Marr lads were pleased for their conquerors.

That's a feeling I could endorse, I am certain old Bill McMurtrie, who shared so many rugby journeys with “The Voice” will be particularly pleased to see the Shield hanging in the Braidholm bar.

On a horrible, dreich afternoon, we were never going to see champagne rugby. The game was an arm wrestle, but, for defensive effort of the Rorke's Drift level of application, nobody can deny GHA's entitlement to take possession of the Shield.

They needed the win too, following some recent near misses, and Coach Trevor Carmichael is hopeful that this success can kick-start a climb up the Tennent's Premiership table.

Marr did get one break yesterday, when Hawick beat closest challengers Currie Chieftains. This kept Marr top of the table, with the Chieftains remaining second – so, Saturday's clash of the top two at Malleny Park will still be a cracker.

What Hawick's win did do, was lift them into third place in the table. The Greens and Selkirk are tied in third and fourth, on 32 points, 14 behind the leading two.

With six fixtures left of the regular season, we might presume that the top two will qualify for the end-of-season play-offs. However, just who the other two teams in the play-off games will be, might well not be settled until the end of the regular season.

Hawick and Selkirk are on 32 points, Aberdeen Grammar are on 30, Glasgow Hawks are on 26 points, with GHA on 24. The two Borders clubs do have a handy advantage, but, they will be taking nothing for granted in the race for the play-offs.

THE GUARDIAN is listed as: “A UK national daily newspaper.” This, of course is pure pish. The only part of the UK which the dear old Guardian takes seriously is that bit within the M25 – although, in its rugby coverage, when Robert Kitson is not conducting his on-going love affair with Saracens, he works on his schoolboy crush on Danny Cipriani.

So, it was no surprise that this: “UK national daily newspaper” and its equally-distinguished “Sunday sister” The Observer should totally ignore Edinburgh's win over Wasps, or Glasgow's victory over La Rochelle. Well, ignoring Wasps losing wasn't that strange – cannot have the Sweaties getting the better of good English yeomen, bad for morale and all that.

And, another bunch of Jocks beating some Frogs, in France – no, that's not news in the Home Counties.

Well, it's news up here, and I sincerely hope both teams can kick on from these successes and hopefully make it to the knock-out stages in Europe. We need a wee confidence boost before the Six Nations.

NAH-NAH-NAH-NAHNAH. Sorry, but, that's my reaction to those who accuse this blog of being so-obsessed with S6 I have taken my eyes off the joys of club rugby. OK guys, read this and weep.

Several important Regional Rugby games took place over the weekend, with no less than five Regional Shield and Bowl Finals being settled on Saturday.

In the Caledonian Shield final, Orkney edged out Dunfermline 17-7 to qualify for the National Shield semi-finals, and are thus, one game away from a Murrayfield appearance.

In the West Shield Final, home advantage was perhaps a factor in East Kilbride edging out Allan Glen's 13-8, to clinch another National semi-final place.

Three of the National Bowl semi-final slots were also clinched on Saturday. In Caledonia (Midlands), Kinross advanced to the last four of the National competition, with a 19-10 win over DUMS , while, in Caledonia (North), Aberdeen University beat Aberdeenshire 22-12.

The third victorious side were Lochaber, who again made home advantage count with a narrow 6-3 win over GUMS.

So much for those who would try to suggest there is little or no rugby talent north of the Forth-Clyde Valley. Well done to all the clubs.