DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 153580--------------------------------------------------
English rugby is booming – so why are its leaders holding it
back?
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: April 29, 2026, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster talent and match-ups have attracted large-scale
investment but the game’s governance structures are not fit for
purpose
Brian Moore
Published 27 April 2026 6:02am BST
Two faces of English rugby were on display last week. Prem Rugby
showed the sort of excitement and headline-grabbing power that
rugby can gain, despite being a long way second to football as
England’s leading team sport. The other concerned the less
thrilling issue of corporate governance and what Will Carling
once termed the “57 old farts”. Though most rugby fans will not
see the connection between these two things, they are linked –
but one is doing considerably better than the other.
Another barnstorming performance by the young talent Noah
Caluori helped Saracens edge out Leicester Tigers and keep the
north London side’s slim hopes of reaching the play-offs alive.
There was a 13-try contest between Harlequins and Sale Sharks,
and the Northampton Saints and Bath game produced 12 tries in a
desperately close 41-38 Saints win at Franklin’s Gardens. This
sort of sporting entertainment is what rugby at its highest
level desperately needs. The recent involvement of wealthy
individuals and multi-sport investment companies is set to put
the Prem on another level. So much so that Barry Hearn’s
Matchroom Sport is said to be looking to sign another four
players to its stable, alongside Henry Pollock and Finn Russell.
For rugby traditionalists this could be dismissed as frippery
and a departure that has an unproven upside – there is
uncertainty that this marketing-focused, entertainment-based
promotion can carry English rugby to a level where it is a
genuine business and can sustain large-scale investment. I know
from speaking to a wide spectrum of rugby fans that both Eddie
and Barrie Hearn’s brash style of promotion is viewed with a
great degree of scepticism, but that view also contains a degree
of snobbery against what might be seen as the addition of an
“Essex wide boy” element to rugby. The very fact that a company
such as Matchroom is now interested in English club rugby shows
that it is now reaching places that other approaches could not
reach. At least focusing on these positives might keep attention
on the good side of English rugby.
Governance model not fit for purpose
The other facet of the English game, one which is decidedly less
good, is the corporate governance issue. This has resurfaced
because of last week’s vote by the English clubs, who as members
own English rugby, to reject the new governance proposals. Those
proposals had already been accepted by the clubs’ own council
(the said “old farts”) which, in February, voted to relinquish
many of its day-to-day decision-making powers. The proverbial
turkeys had indeed voted for Christmas, but they were then
stopped by the very clubs they represent, who refused to back
their previous decision. Just when the professional game in
England appeared to be getting settled and reaching for more
exciting opportunities, the grass roots appear to have simply,
and illogically, said “no” when it comes to their side of the
game.
If you are confused, I cannot offer you a cogent explanation
because there isn’t one; this is all messed up. Last year the
member clubs voted down a motion of no confidence in Bill
Sweeney, the Rugby Football Union’s chief executive. That left
him free to push on with the RFU’s governance review, which
involved wide consultation and thousands of hours of work and
even more thousands of pounds. Having effectively endorsed
Sweeney to lead this process it makes no sense to me to then
reject its recommendations, particularly when your elected
representatives, your own council members, supported the
proposed changes.
As a general rule, I dislike opposition that does not specify
its objections and particularly so when it offers no alternative
to a proposal. This type of stance is hardly logical or helpful.
I have always tried to highlight the interdependency of the
professional game, the RFU and the grass roots of English rugby,
but decisions like this make me think that the possibility of
separately running the pro and amateur game should be at least
explored.
This decision means that the running of English rugby will
effectively be in stasis, until 2031. As recent Prem
developments have shown, rugby is changing more quickly than
ever. The English game needs to be run accordingly, and its
present governance structures are sclerotic, and not fit for
purpose. I accept that the club members own the game, but they,
in turn, must accept the responsibility of acting sensibly and
consistently, offering solutions; not just saying no, as they
have done with their incongruous 2026 votes. At least we can now
focus on more exciting things – for the time being.
#Post#: 153582--------------------------------------------------
Re: English rugby is booming – so why are its leaders holding it
back?
DIR By: deadlyfrom5yardsout
Date: April 29, 2026, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Mairs
Move to sideline ‘old farts’ blocked – this is humiliating for
RFU
Member clubs’ rejection of proposals to strip council of
decision-making powers shows there is work to do to restore
trust in governing body
Published 25 April 2026 12:29pm BST
The grim look on the faces of Bill Sweeney, Deborah Griffin and
Sir James Wates said it all. The Rugby Football Union chief
executive, president and chairman had hoped that the votes of
the governing body’s special general meeting (SGM) at Twickenham
on Friday would pass the governance reforms that just two months
ago had been voted for by its own council – a body once
described by Will Carling as “57 old farts”.
Yet just two months after what was hailed as a landmark day for
the RFU in their bid to update their governance structure, which
a 14-month review had concluded was “19th century”,
“dysfunctional”, “overly complex” and “unfit for the modern
era”, the member clubs delivered a humiliating response.
A two-thirds majority was required for the changes – which
included stripping the RFU council of its right to pass
regulations and hold the RFU board to account as well as
reducing it from 62 to 44 members – to be implemented. But when
the results were displayed on a big screen behind Sweeney,
Griffin and Wates sitting at the top table in one of the
conference rooms at the Allianz Stadium, the two parts of the
resolution failed to even win a simple majority, receiving just
45 per cent and 44 per cent respectively. The size of the
turnover would have been alarming too, with almost 900 clubs
voting.
A slap in the face
This was a grass-roots slap in the face for reform that had been
backed and endorsed from the governing body’s top brass,
including Sweeney and Wayne Barnes, the RFU board member who had
backed the plans in a recent podcast, while Wates had written an
open letter urging clubs to back the changes.
Yet it seems a group of council members who had been opposed to
the proposed changes were able to mount a much more effective
campaign, just a year after Sweeney had survived a vote of no
confidence at an SGM over the salary and bonus scandal, leaving
the status quo intact.
In the run-up to last year’s SGM, the RFU executive had gone on
the road throughout the country to listen to grass-roots
concerns. Yet calls for the game to be united had not yet
landed. It seems that much more work needs to be done for trust
to be restored.
Council sidesteps change
Understandably bruised by the result, the push for reform will
be paused. But it is far from over. As I wrote in February,
council reform has been on the agenda since 1997, when Cliff
Brittle, then chairman of the RFU management board, put forward
a document entitled “Rugby Restructure 2000”. Yet at each and
every time the council has sidestepped change.
Although RFU rules state that the council should conduct a
review of governance at least every five years, claims that no
change is now possible until 2031 were seen as a move to
persuade members to vote yes. There is nothing to stop a review
happening again before 2031. And it is understood there is a
strong desire from those who organised the no vote to press
ahead immediately with reform that includes a review of the
board and executive.
In sounding out why the vote was lost, however, it seems that
those who objected to the reforms accept that change is needed,
but that it must not only be limited to the council. They think
it also needs to include a review of the RFU board and
executive. There is a feeling that the executive has become too
big and staff costs too high – a concern that was underscored by
the salary scandal last year. While there is also a feeling that
there is not enough rugby expertise on the board. It was also
suggested that if the council is to be reduced in size, it
should at least retain the right to approve the governing body’s
strategic plan and budget.
If the game’s governance really is to leave the 19th century
behind, it seems that everyone is going to have to find a way to
move on from the toxic legacy of last year’s turmoil.
What was the reaction to the vote?
The Rugby Football Union’s defeat in a vote that had been
presented as a key staging post in the governing body’s desire
to modernise was described as “depressing and disappointing” by
one source. Another added: “It is a huge opportunity lost.”
The council is to review its own governance every five years,
so, realistically, would have to wait until 2031 for further
reform.
“Today a majority of members have chosen not to support the
proposed changes, and that is an outcome that is fully
respected,” said RFU chair Sir James Wates.
“It tells us there is not sufficient confidence at this time in
the proposed direction, or that there is not enough
understanding of how these changes would benefit the game.
“We must listen carefully and learn from this and look at the
processes that are in place to deliver reform of this nature.
While I firmly believe we cannot stand still indefinitely, any
reform must be understood, trusted and supported by members. The
responsibility now lies with the board to reflect, engage more
deeply and work with the game to consider a clearer, more widely
supported path forward.”
An RFU statement added: “While change has not been approved
today, the need to ensure the RFU’s governance structures are
fit for the future remains. We will work collaboratively with
members and stakeholders to consider next steps in a way that
reflects the views expressed.”
#Post#: 153598--------------------------------------------------
Re: English rugby is booming – so why are its leaders holding it
back?
DIR By: Camquin
Date: April 29, 2026, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian seems to think that because the Vote of No Confidence
failed, it means that the clubs back the current leadership.
In fact, it represented a lot of apathy. The Dog and Duck RUFC,
who play on the council park were essentially unaffected by what
goes on at the cabbage patch. They have never received any
funding from HQ, and never will.
It seems that roughly 250 clubs did not vote
In both votes a number of clubs - especially student and forces
clubs - simply returned a proxy form for the Chairman to vote
as he saw fit.
In the 2025 vote about 250 clubs voted against Sweeney.
In 2026 this had grown to about 470.
And the powers that be knew that they needed a two-thirds
majority, so presumably were lobbying for clubs to vote in
favour.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1