Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 17th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Fans want pro rugby teams out of SRU control



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 March 2008
A NEWLY-CONCLUDED poll by the independent Scotland rugby supporters group has shown five out of six want the professional teams taken out of central control.
The survey operating on the Forum of Scottish Rugby Supporters (FOSRS) gave a clear indication that fans think many problems within the game could at least be eased if private investors were allowed scope to run teams without what is being described
as "the dead hand of Murrayfield".

The poll ran from March 3-20 and is today replaced with one requesting feedback on a draft letter to SRU chief executive Gordon McKie on the format of a review of the recent Six Nations where Scotland won a single match and lost four.

On the pro teams, the survey asked whether Edinburgh and Glasgow should be sold now to private investors in order to bring in cash which would allow them to develop – or whether a sell-off should take place "in a year or two".

Other options included a joint venture between investors and fans, an autonomous board under SRU control or have the teams run exclusively from Murrayfield.

The outcome is that 81.7 per cent want the teams franchised in some format. Only two per cent wanted centrally-run outfits.

An FOSRS editorial states: "The SRU has created so-called autonomous boards at both clubs and appointed energetic managing directors.

"However, budgets, finance, aspects of the marketing – and who knows how much of the decision-making? – remain in Murrayfield's hands.

"What prevents this being the ideal long-term model is the absence of the finance the clubs need to grow, whether in squad strength, international signings, marketing or venues."





The full article contains 287 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 March 2008 1:34 PM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Edinburgh rugby , SRU
 
1

RodB,

London 21/03/2008 14:14:51
Sell the teams - lets get real, both Glasgow and Edinburgh, are losing money hand over fist - you sell something that is profitable...
Having said that outside commercial interesys should be brought into the game, but after the Edinburgh fiasco which commercial interest would ever be able to raise money if it meant dealing with the SRU?
2

Stu,

Edinburgh 21/03/2008 14:38:03
I have thought for a long time that the fans should attempt to buy one of the clubs.

Dont think edinburgh is losing money, very few big name players left and attendances over 4000 should be keeping them from making that much of a loss
3

Saltireblue,

West of North Berwick, East of West Lothian: 21/03/2008 14:40:34
Talk about a flight of fancy!

Wonderful...a great idea! Did the pointy-heads at FOSRS conduct any research regarding finding sources of financing for the privatization of the pro-teams? I think not!

Anybody buying a Scottish pro-team must have two things: the first, deep, deep pockets and the second, the ability to withstand huge losses each year!

Roll up, roll up you mega-millionaires! Wait...where are you?
4

,

21/03/2008 14:42:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
5

Royc,

London 21/03/2008 15:40:48
Interesting Saltireblue. There will never be busloads of potential investors for a minority sport, but here's actually been at least 5 groups sniffed it over so far, a couple with some considerable cash. I doubt any businessman is going to get involved though while the SRU insists on having a 50% stake in each club, which means Murrayfield calls the shots and the business owns zilch. If the SRU was prepared to sell on commercial terms, well we'd maybe see a wee change.

It's all fine doing our normally hopelessly pessimistic, nothing-can-be-done Scottish approach, but 13 years after the game went open, the Pro teams are no further forward, don't even have their own stadiums and the game is falling behind. So I'll go with the 81% who want to see some action and get the teams into the hands of people who actually know how to run and develop a business.

6

Edinburgh Pete ,

21/03/2008 15:53:22
Roy, be interesting to see just how many businessman are that are out there willing to invest in pro rugby in Scotland seeing as so far we have only had Fat Bob attempt and that was more driven by concerts than anyhting to do with pro rugby.

However if the SRU does sell full ownership what then if any guarenetee do we have thAt the new teams will then play Scottish professionals.

Businessmen will always want a return, therefore will always seek to produce the best team. If the GP and indeed the Irish provinces experience is anything to go by what is then to stop these business groups buying up a team then bringing in a load of foreign players which will ultimately do nothing for our national team.

Whilst there are still issues at pro team level, it does still at least provide us with a base for Scots players under SRU control. Lose that guarentee and Scottish rugby moves further to the abyss.
7

Royc,

London 21/03/2008 16:22:42
EP, the Burgess/Carver group for one was prepared to put quite a lot of cash in but they wanted to own it and fund it themselves for 5 years, so that was a deal-breaker for the SRU. How many more I wonder have been rebuffed in the same way? I doubt there will be any takers for a 50% stake.

They could as easily float it on AIM, sell shares to the public and corporates, etc., if anyone was awake.

Limiting the number of foreign players is simple enough.
In their prospectus, the SRU would set various minimal conditions like player release for internationals, maximum number of non-Scottish players, maximum number of games players should play per season, ownership of players photo-rights and so on, all the practical working details Bob Carruthers allegedly seemed to miss. These are all pretty standard things that club owners and unions elsewhere stipulate or argue over all the time. By putting them in the agreement at the outset, an investor knows what he's working with and there's nothing onerous there that a business couldn't live with. All Pro teams have overseas players (Glasgow have 12!), but there's a sensible half-way house there somewhere.
8

Edinburgh Pete ,

21/03/2008 16:28:15
Such limitations whilst easy to put in a document are typically deal breakers. Show me one chariman in the GP who has agreed tow ork under such conditions - ther eisnt one

Nor is their any chairman or owner in football who can do this and indeed nor can you block a chariman from buying a club and bringing in 15 EU nationals, employment law allows this so whilst the SRU may not be the perfect set up, it potentially is the lesser of two evils.
9

Gok,

Gokland 21/03/2008 16:28:17
I dunno. The clubs voted for private ownership a few moons ago and since that vote, they haven't changed their minds. Now it seems that the supporters are pretty well up for it. So it seems clear cut, does it not? And as for all those nay-sayers, I wonder how often Saltireblue goes out to support the pro teams? Yup, the SRU hasn't exactly been doing a sterling job of connecting the pro teams to the grass roots but then they aren't god in all this - we (the posters of comments) have some power and influence too.

Well done, by the way, to the pointy heads in FOSRS, on bringing back this issue into the limelight. I see they've got another one going - Haddock's review. Now I have a few words to say about that but they're not for public consumption...
10

royco,

london 21/03/2008 17:14:06
The GP clubs aren't too relevant here EP, for one simple reason: they were always independent clubs, so naturally they fight against the kind of terms we're talking about here that the RFU has to try to impose to protect the players and the international side. We are the polar opposite and going the other way: 2 union-owned teams that we want to make independent, so the option is there to build in the basic safeguards at the outset, rather than having future wrangles down the road.

I'd think the chances of an influx of European players is about zero, it's not football. We've got not much over half a dozen English, Irish and Welsh at the moment (out of 72) but I don't think one from beyond the Channel. The French and Italians can earn much more playing in France and after them, there's not another major rugby nation in the EU. OK, we might end up with the occasional Romanian front-row or Portuguese back or something, but nothing too grievous.

When you look at Glasgow Warriors, who are under 100% SRU control, they currently have: 1 x Argentinian, 1 x Australian, 1 x Canadian, 3 x English, 5 x Kiwis, 1 x Samoan and 2 x Welsh - 14 out of a 36-man squad!!!

I'd think any businessman who knows anything about rugby would think himself dead lucky to get away with half that number. On that basis, sell the teams off, it will halve the number of foreign imports!
11

Edinburgh Pete ,

21/03/2008 18:09:23
It would be nice if you are right Roy and that safegaurds are built in and accepted by new owners.

Scottish rugby needs money to create a greater number of pro teams, higher standard of player and competition albeit you then need a national coach who will then use that competition effectively.

However please note our only example of private ownership ended up with the owner releasing the Scots players from their contracts and bringing in a signing coup of Larkham, bigs bucks money going not on Scottish talent but overseas.

At the end of the day if you are an owner with finance invested in a club who will want the best return for that money which means you seek the best players. If a new owner say wanted to revamp his front row it is unlikely he would select Scots more likely French / Italian and so it could go on.

Anyway time to head of in the blizzards to Murrayfield, hopefully a good win tonight espcially with a full team out. Cany understand why Glasgow are resting players (Parks maybe but not the rest)
12

THE VERY REV. SIR RASTUS DICKLONG-DONGLER,

Very revved up, hanging out at considerable length 24/03/2008 16:06:52
And so, it was written - the SRU would one day fall from grace.

Blessed be those who believe and live a life of true sanctity, particularly those souls who do not steal from the collection tins and the mouths of hungry widows and orphans in grassroots clubs throughout the whole country.

Indeed, the snarling scribes, the pharisees, the pisspoor president in his ceremonial robes, his nasty naked cronies and horrid hunchbacked henchmen will one day be held to account.

Go forth and look at :
www.savescottishrugby.com
13

blueberry,

exile 26/03/2008 09:52:15
#10 Royco, "I don't think one from beyond the Channel" - which team are you talking about here? Edinburgh? Off the top of my head Augusto Allori (Argentina), Matt Mutschin (NZ), Ben Gissing (NZ), Ben Meyer (NZ) are all from "beyond the Channel."

It's foolish to assume that an investor wouldn't want to bring in overseas players. Fat Bob's last throw of the dice was to entice Larkham to Edinburgh, largely for the marketing value of having an SH superstar in the side. If the deal had gone through, how much game time would Godman and D Blair have had this season? And in previous seasons the likes of Blackadder, Laney and that Argentina winger/ fullback whose name escapes me at the moment were all stalwarts of the side.

Given the choice, I would love to see investors pouring millions into four pro-teams in Scotland, but they aren't. The fact that the two pro sides are skint and under SRU control does mean that they are forced to look to young Scottish talent to make up the depth of their squads rather than padding out with more experienced journeyman players from elsewhere. This is the thinnest of silver linings, but it is something.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.