SRU President Ian Barr clarifies Council’s position on AGM motions

Clubs have a chance to vote on two motions aimed at making Murrayfield more accountable to Scottish Rugby's principal stakeholders

SRU President Ian Barr hosted an emergency Council meeting on Sunday. Image: © Craig Watson -
SRU President Ian Barr hosted an emergency Council meeting on Sunday. Image: © Craig Watson -

THE SRU Council held an emergency meeting on Sunday morning to discuss concerns that the ‘guidance note’ for the motions which will be voted on at this Thursday’s AGM did not properly reflect their views – despite the note purporting to be “the position of the Council and Board of Scottish Rugby”. 

There are two motions. The first, proposed by Currie RFC, seeks to reassert the authority of the elected Council to oversee the management of the Union. The second, proposed by Glasgow Hawks, seeks to increase transparency in Scottish Rugby’s decision-making processes.

While the note, which was issued last Thursday night, does state at the bottom of the fourth paragraph that the position of the Council and Board on both motions is neutral, the remainder of the three-page document does not give that impression.

Jaco van der Walt closes in on first Scotland cap

SRU Accounts will not be issued in time for AGM2

SRU President Ian Barr sets out stall for Standing Committee on Governance

It contains a series of unsubstantiated warnings of bad things which might happen if the motions are successful, like: “splitting/fragmentation of delegated powers could create uncertainty”, member clubs “may be more exposed to potential liabilities than at present if decision-making responsibilities were to alter”, it “may ultimately lead to a deviation in future from the governance principles previously established by the Dunlop Report”, and publication of redacted minutes “could affect the way in which a meeting is conducted or reported”.

There is no analysis in the note of any potential benefits the motions might bring to the running of Scottish Rugby.

As an outcome of Sunday’s emergency meeting, Ian Barr, the SRU President and Chairman of the Council, sent a letter to all member clubs on Monday afternoon to clarify that the Council had not had sight of the guidance note ahead of its release. He explained that the Council had been briefed on the points raised when the motions were first submitted back in May and reiterated that they had decided to take a neutral stance.

It boils down to there being a big difference between getting briefed on something, and that being presented as the agreed position.

If the Council did not see the note before release, and it follows that the Board – which contains four Council members, including the President, plus Vice-President Colin Rigby as an observer – did not see it either, then how could it be said that “the Council and Board considers the following may be helpful for consideration by member clubs prior to casting their votes”?

All of which begs the questions: Who wrote the note and attached it to the motions? On what authority did they do so? And to what end?

Scroll down to continue reading:

The proposers of the motion will hope that the confusion surrounding the guidance note serves to reinforce the points they have raised with regard to remedying Scottish Rugby’s vexed relationship with member clubs.

However, there is concern that the integrity of the vote has been compromised, with many clubs likely to have discussed the motions and mandated attendees over the weekend before Barr’s clarification letter arrived just three days before the meeting.

It is not the first time in recent years that Murrayfield’s handling of Motions at an SGM has raised concern. The March 2019 meeting to deal with the issue of where to place the ‘club XVs’ of Super6 teams was a stormy affair which left many club delegates feeling they had been railroaded by the threat to pull the motion altogether if  any of the amendments which had been proposed were voted through.

SGM update

Barr’s letter on Monday also addressed the SGM motion which has been proposed by Biggar, seeking support for the promotion of clubs which had already achieved unassailable positions in their respective leagues by the time the 2019-20 season was declared null and void, with additional paperwork provided to help explain/rationalise the decision to declare the season null and void.

But Biggar remain frustrated by what they regard as the obstinacy of the Murrayfield legal department in stonewalling their efforts to seek a negotiated solution, which they say has driven them down the SGM route.

After seven months of being told that the results of the club survey on how to resolve the league season were confidential, a partial sample was published as part of the guidance note to their motion last Thursday, detailing the feedback from the clubs in the Premiership and National Leagues but not the regional leagues. This has reinforced long-held concerns about the reliability of the club survey.

“The information is either confidential or it is not,” said Biggar secretary Mike Booth. “Why has some – but not all – of it suddenly become freely available for the Board to use in their recommendation to vote against our motion?”

Error, group does not exist! Check your syntax! (ID: 36)

Biggar were 19 points clear of Heriot’s Blues at the top of the National One table with just three games [worth a maximum of 15 league points] left to play when Covid brought the season to a halt. They had already been presented with the league title and were beginning to plan for life in the Premiership the following season. Dalkeith were in a similar boat in East League Three.

“None of the additional paperwork we now have really changes anything, only reinforces the undue haste and flawed processes which were used to come to this decision,” added Booth. “We did ask many moons ago that the decision be set aside whilst the consultation was done again, and would have abided by any decision properly taken, but it was not taken seriously by those with the power to do that.

“Can I again reiterate that we [Biggar and Dalkeith] have no other agenda than to receive our rightfully won promotions and be able to celebrate the winning of our respective competitions. The war of words and the process which we have engaged in was forced upon us by the legal department of the SRU. I believe they thought we would just go away given enough brick walls to run into.”

The big question here is: why has the Murrayfield establishment chosen to dig their collective heels in over this? Because with all the other challenges they face at the moment, surely the Board, Council and SRU administration could do without this extra aggravation.

The SGM will take place immediately after the AGM. Both meetings will be hosted via video conference, with voting conducted electronically.

Clubs have been invited to submit questions prior to the AGM and delegates will be able to send messages to the Chair during the meeting, with all questions and answers to be posted on Scottish Rugby’s website afterwards.

Jaco van der Walt closes in on first Scotland cap

About David Barnes 3989 Articles
David has worked as a freelance rugby journalist since 2004 covering every level of the game in Scotland for publications including The Herald/Sunday Herald, The Sunday Times, The Telegraph, The Scotsman/Scotland on Sunday/Evening News, The Daily Record, The Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday and The Sun.


  1. Great article David and while I have confidence that Ian Barr will stand up for the real base of Scottish Rugby, the Clubs, the ability of the Suits for obfuscation to protect their own little empires will need very firm handling. (Being polite!)

  2. George – the part 2 meeting is on line. Even asking a question at the meeting is by the q&a function. It won’t be answered at the meeting. All that’s been committed to is that questions will be answered on the SRU website afterwards.

  3. ‘Clubs have been invited to submit questions prior to the AGM’ – I would be wary of that route, asking a question in advance gives the opposition time to think of an answer, that is never a good idea, unless like the HoC you can offer up an open question with a follow ‘stinger’.

  4. So basically the SRU President is saying the SRU don’t know what they are doing.

    Thanks Mr President but that has been painfully obvious for a very long time.

  5. That Howzat (sic) evidently has few scruples! A highwayman from the East End of Glasgow?

    But now he’s been rumbled, and full marks to President Ian Barr.


Comments are closed.