Next article
Previous article
Got an opinion?
Discuss this article in the comments section or register with the glasgowwarriors.com forum.

Search this site

August 16, 2005

Wrangle over new contracts

Posted by Editor on August 16, 2005 01:19 AM | 6 comments | Print | E-mail author
With less than three weeks before the Celtic League season, around half of Scotland's professional players have not yet signed new contracts with their Rugby Union employers.

Today's Telegraph reports that problems with terms and conditions offered to players at Scotland's three professional teams - Glasgow, Edinburgh and the Borders - were yesterday highlighted as stumbling blocks by Jim Hay, chief executive of the Scottish Professional Rugby Players' Association, after he had met with senior figures from the equivalent organisations of England, Ireland and Wales in Edinburgh.

It is understood that a major difficulty has arisen over one clause in the new contracts that appears to give the Scottish Rugby Union the power to change any detail of the deal at will.

Hay is to seek urgent talks with Gordon McKie, the recently appointed SRU chief executive, who raised fears among players at the Borders last week when he refused to provide a guarantee that the governing body will continue to fund three professional sides while it battles to reduce an overdraft believed to be around £23 million.

Doubts have surrounded the future of the Borders side, who operate on a shoestring budget in comparison to Scotland's other professional sides, since they were brought back into existence three seasons ago.

While stressing the urgency of resolving the contract issue, Hay expressed confidence that a solution will be found now that McKie's appointment has brought an end to a long period of uncertainty within the Murrayfield administration.

Hay is seeking annual funding of around £50,000 from the SRU for his organisation, a step that would bring it into line with other players' associations.

He may have found it significant that the union yesterday confirmed a sponsorship deal with VisitScotland, the national tourist body, which is expected to net them around £100,000 over the next three years.

Comments
Posted by hugh on August 16, 2005 10:39 AM | Reply to this comment

Should public funding from the likes of Visit Scotland be used for paying pro players.This money comes from the public purse and if we believe what we read there is a requirement that some matches are to be played on Saturdays in direct competition to the community clubs.Is this what the Scottish Executive wants when sponsoring pro rugby through one of its quangos

Posted by Highlandbrave75 on August 16, 2005 11:54 PM | Reply to this comment

The contract scenarios are ongoing from months and months ago. It's the same problems which the SRU said they would iron out in May.

Players still don't know whether they will be appearing for their teams this season, then the entire Borders squad, reps and coaches don't know whether they will be in existence come the end of the season.

Seems the SRU sat back on their hands and did nothing about the contracts situation. Yet more bumbling from the SRU amid their latest "good news spin" press releases.

Scottish Rugby's dying a death here at all levels, from top to bottom and the SRU clowns simply couldn't care less.

Posted by hugh on August 17, 2005 08:23 AM | Reply to this comment

Surely the bottom line is that there is simply not enough money in the coffers of the SRU to sustain 3 profesional teams irrespective of what conrtracts are in place or not

Posted by McDruid on August 19, 2005 02:05 PM | Reply to this comment

In this case McKie's appointment seems appropriate. He has experience of corporate ventures going belly-up under his supervision.

Posted by hugh on August 19, 2005 11:46 PM | Reply to this comment

Explain Mcdruid--does this mean surgery on the SRU and all who sail with them or is it just the usual budgeting by mirrors

Posted by McDruid on August 20, 2005 01:32 PM | Reply to this comment

The SRU's public relations "spin" was that Mckie's application was late because he only became free of his previous assignment - Semple Cochrane (plc, bust) - after the closing date for applications had passed and that the four short-listed candidates did not quite measure up.

That may be the truth. But look at another possibility. We have not seen the SRU accounts yet, two months after they should have been presented to the AGM. Moreover, there are rumours that the SRU's debt now exceeds £25 million. Certainly the "Bath Chronicle" had information in the spring that the figure then exceeded £23 million.

Is too far-fetched to surmise that the bank that is owed much of this money (Bank of Scotland?) stepped in, told the SRU that no-one on the short list measured up to the bank's requirements, that the bank's preferred candidate was about to be freed of his previous involvement and that the SRU would please wait a polite interval of a few days or a week or so before announcing the appointment of the only chief executive acceptable to the bank, namely Gordon McKie?

Credence is added to that interpretation of events by the first public utterance of Allan Munro, simultaneously in the "Hootsmon" and the "Weegie" this morning. In it his emphasis was on saving money - "the freebie culture has to end". McKie is the shop-keeper and writes the scripts. Munro delivers the messages. And there is more to come.

Add a comment to this article

If you're replying to an existing comment, please use the 'Reply to this comment' link above the entry. This will display the comments in a way which is far easier for other readers to follow.