The Mini-Murrayfield Might Magically Materialise

THE SCOTSMAN'S “Splash” on its website this morning is a story about Edinburgh Rugby being set to build a 7000-seater stadium on the back pitches at Murrayfield.

This picture accompanied this morning's Scotsman splash on the proposed Murrayfield development

Let's ignore the obvious fact – Edinburgh Rugby cannot afford to build anything, anywhere – they are a loss-making, wholly-owned subsidiary of the SRU, who also happen to own the land on which the new ground will be built. The SRU certainly can afford to fund and manage this development, indeed, to be fair to the Union, in different circumstances, this new ground would have been built and been up and running years ago. Still, better late than never.

Maybe somebody at The Hootsmon decided it was better to credit this development to Edinburgh, rather than to the SRU, who are having a little local difficulty of their own with Super Six and Agenda 3, at the moment.

I actually welcome this development, which will be similar to the situation in Cardiff, where Cardiff Blues play at Cardiff Arms Park, in the shadow of the Principality Stadium, Wales's international home. As I said above, the SRU has wanted to do this for years, but, financial constraints have prevented this, so, in sanctioning this development and seeking to drive it through, can I give a sincere: “Well done” to Mr Dodson and his gang. Now, make it happen guys.

Just one wee complaint, I think 7000 seats is a wee bit on the small side – go for 10,000 minimum I would say.

But, this development emphasises one of the seemingly-eternal problems around Scottish Rugby and its governance. It cannot be denied, when Rugby Union went open in 1995, it caught Murrayfield on the hop, and, the “suits” have been sprinting to catch-up over the subsequent 20-plus years.

Along the way, they have made several, some might say, many, mistakes, an taken a few wrong turnings. Let's look at it this way, football officially allowed professionalism in 1890, it didn't actually “go open” (by losing the distinction between “amateurism” and “professionalism” until the mid-1970s), so, Rugby Union has a bit of a road still to travel – at least, our game can look at Association Football and decide to do, or not to do, based on how the other code handled things. So, we will almost certainly have a few more stooshies and stair-heid rammies to get through.

The SFA is more-democratic than the SRU

But, there is one area where Rugby Union in Scotland can actually learn from and overtake Football. It took the SFA some 140-years to appreciate their game was a twin track one. The wants and needs of a Celtic, a Hearts, even an Ayr United, were a wee bit different from those of an Auchinleck Talbot, a Tranent, or a Bannockburn Amateurs. So, they set-up two governing boards – the Professional and Non-Professional Game Boards, to oversee their management.

In fact, for all the abuse – much of it justifiable – which the “suits” along the sixth-floor “Corridor of Power” at Hampden Park get, I could make a pretty good argument that the SFA is a more-democratic body than the SRU.

Setting-up, from scratch, and managing Edinburgh and Glasgow, two full-time professional sides, and getting them to be as competitive as they now are, has been a job well done by Murrayfield. They might not be as regularly successful as we would wish, but, they are holding their own in a very competitive league.

I would say, when it comes to the professional side of the game, given the constraints under which they are working – the SRU is doing OK. Sadly, this has been to the detriment of the soul of the game, the largely-amateur club and grass-roots sector.

The professional administrators within Murrayfield are, it might be argued, at least the equal of their contemporaries at Twickenham, Cardiff and across Ireland – but, in reaching this level of competence, they have allowed their grass roots to suffer the sort of problems which affected the Murrayfield pitch a few years back.

They must address this as a matter of urgency, and, I have to say, since they have come at the problem from a professional perspective, their suggestions for Super Six and Agenda 3 do not fill me with confidence for the future.

As I have said, I have no problem with the concept of a bridging of the gap between the club game and the professional one – but, I feel this Super Six franchise idea is a nonsense and a recipe for disaster. Six clubs are too-few, a mixed message has gone out. Stop it and have a re-think, say I.

I do have a problem with this intention to enforce a “strict amateurism” policy on the general club game – this is slamming the stable door with the horse three counties away. Ignore it, if a club wants to pay someone, let them, it's their funeral if it goes wrong.

What I would do, and I have said this before, is:

• Follow football's lead – set-up a Professional Game Board, to look after the “Performance” side of the game (the pro and semi-proteams, the Academy and the age group sides.
• Have a separate Community Game Board overseeing everything else, rather as the SJFA, SAFA, SWFA and the SYFA look after their forms of football.
• Do not be such control freaks, devolve authority to the Districts etc as happened in the amateur days. Murrayfield does not always know best.
• Work harder at spreading the gospel. There is a perception in Scotland that the SRU favours certain “posh” schools, get out into the state school sector and get the kids playing.
• And while you are at it – get out to the clubs, speak to the guys at the sharp end, find-out their concerns and dreams. Maybe if the Lesser-Spotted Johnson was spotted out and about on days other than international ones, he might get a better press.

That will do for starters, but, I am sure between us, the blog readers and I can come up with a few more things Murrayfield might want to address.