I HAVE, over my decades in the trenches of sports-writing, covered 54 different sports, but mainly Football and Rugby Union. Right now, in three-quarters retirement, I mainly make observations on the handling game, but find it particularly interesting to note the differences in governance between the two football codes.
I would, at this juncture, immediately pay tribute to my old mate Bill Lothian, the now retired former Rugby Union correspondent of the Edinburgh Evening News. Bill recently made a telling contribution with a statement of what was not the obvious, to a BTL (below the lines) comments thread on The Offside Line.
Bill simply pointed-out: it is not the job of the governing body to run the club game.
That simple statement points out one of the major weaknesses of The Scottish Rugby Union – the centralisation, what Murrayfield says goes.
I can accept the SRU controlling the full and age group international teams – the Union does after all own Edinburgh and Glasgow. But, in Football, each league is self-governing, the various levels of clubs are all self-governing; yes, the clubs get some degree of financial support from the Scottish Football Association, but, by and large, each league, or each minor association, raises their own finances.
Queen's Park, in the days when they were truly Amateur, perhaps came closest to mirroring a Rugby Union club – having players within the organisation aged from schoolboys up to adults playing in the top leagues. OK, today many Football clubs, even in Scotland, have their Academies, but, these are elitist entities, quite unlike the everyone welcome ethos of your local Rugby Union club.
In football, you have truly grass-roots boys and girls clubs, mostly playing in public parks, run entirely by volunteers, including a good number of parents – covering youngsters up to the end of their teen-aged years, and in a few cases up to the age of 21.
Then you have the adult amateur clubs. Some of the longer-established and better run have their own grounds, but mostly, again, they play on public parks. The next level up is the old Junior Football tier; semi-professional clubs, their players a mixture of youngsters on the way up, and old-stagers on the way down.
Above them, you have the two regional leagues – The Highland League and The Lowland League, sitting just below the four Senior Leagues of The Scottish Professional Football League – SPFL.
Even here, there is a huge gulf between East Kilbride, the new boys in League Two and Rangers and Celtic, the perennial serial winners in the top division.
Whether it is the elected officials in the Club Rugby Board, or the paid administrators who apparently work mainly for Scottish rugby Limited, I feel we are asking the SRU's “Civil Service/Government” to do too much and cover too-many bases. Yes, there is a case for giving the fewest number of people management oversight, as against having too-many specialists, but, I feel the problem with the SRU remains over-centralisation.
Just supposing Murrayfield devolved management of our game, how might it look?
Tier One: The international sides, the full Scotland sides – Men and Women; A or B teams – which we should think of bringing back and Age Group sides – plus the two full-time Professional sides and a third professional side, either a full-time Sevens squad or a third URC team – fully under the control of Murrayfield
Tier Two: A two-division truly National League, limited to 20 clubs: managed by the clubs but subjected to financial and infrastructure constraints agreed between the clubs and the SRU
Tier Three: Five Regional Leagues – Edinburgh, Midlands, North, South and West. Again, management of each Regional League would be devolved to the clubs within each Region, but, as a general rule, each division of each league would be a ten-club one
Tier Four – Age group Rugby.
Here, I feel there is something to be said for the way Rugby Union does things. In football, while – as I said further up this piece - the SPFL clubs all have Academies, looking after the elite boys they have recruited, even your lowest-ranked Rugby Union club has progression from the youngest Mini-Rugby players through to adult level. In Rugby Union you don't have the stand-alone boys clubs you find in Football – this I think is a good thing.
I honestly feel, central funding from the SRU to clubs should be restricted to two areas, insurance coverage for players and youth development and coaching; other than these two areas, the clubs should do their own fund-raising. The various leagues as outlined above, should also do their own fund-raising and have their own management teams – either voluntary, or in the case of the top club tier (Tier Two) – involving a small secretariat.
The Player Pathway must, of course, come under the SRU bailiewick. Get talking to England, Ireland and Wales, at least, and perhaps some of the European countries; then reinstate the Club XV, but, make it generally an Under-23 team, insisting at least seven or eight players on the field at any one time should be U-23.
That team would by and large be drawn from the National League clubs, although stand-out Regional League players should not be discriminated against. The best Regional League players should be playing in a re-established Inter-Regional Championship, again with the sides selected along the lines of Under-23s first.
These suggestions are “Broad Brush” ones – we really need to work a lot harder and a lot cleverer to keep Scottish Rugby in the forefront of our sport.

