Ross Whiteside of Hamilton Rugby Club gives his reaction to the SGM (video)

Interview by Stuart Cameron of StuMedia shines a light on concerns within the game of inintended consequeces of the SRU's controversial Super 6 project

Ross Whiteside
Ross Whiteside. Image courtesy: StuMedia

STUART CAMERON of StuMedia caught up with Hamilton Rugby Club President Ross Whiteside ahead of yesterday’s National League Division One clash against Marr to get his take on Friday night’s Special General Meeting of the Scottish Rugby Union, which voted through a motion to place the ‘Club XVs’ of Super 6 teams into the second tier of the Scottish club game.

On the face of it, this was a win for the SRU and Super 6 clubs, but the handling of the whole affair has raised some deeply troubling questions about the current governance of the game in this country.

Whiteside spoke eloquently at the meeting about why his club were voting for the motion despite a lack of clarity from the SRU about key issues which will have a significant bearing on how the new structure impacts other clubs.

Watch the full interview below [and remember to turn the volume up!] –

  • NOTE: The Offside Line reported on the SGM on Friday night [CLICK HERE] and will be publishing a more datailed analysis and opinion piece early next week.

SRU SGM: Council motion carries but tone of meeting leaves bitter taste



  1. Ross

    Great piece, well balanced and all correct.
    Dictating, and threatening to take their ball away, is pretty despicable behaviour by a Governing body.

    Dom you are right we have had over 18 months where the impacts could have been identified and mitigated, in the best interests of the game.

    As noted on other threads, for me a second serious failure of process and governance in two years.

  2. Interesting to hear your perspective, Ross, from someone who clearly knows and is passionate about the club game. The sad point is that you re-echo the point I keep hearing that the impacts of the proposals (on those within and without the Super Six) have not yet been explained. It is very poor governance when a body spends “rugby money” on behalf of the game without publicising some sort of impact statement. This is routine practice in business, local and central government when projects and change processes are undertaken.

  3. Brilliant piece.

    Thanks Ross. very well articulated view of the meeting on Friday. That vote was not one that was endorsing the SRU position – it really was the best of two evils. And thank you for standing up at the meeting and doing this video

    We at Grangemouth took exactly the same approach – support amendments 1 & 3 and declined to support amendment 2 as we felt it was a step too far.

    Stumedia – you commented that the “clubs” couldn’t decide what to do so the SRU had to step in. Thats not strictly true. The Premiership clubs couldn’t get consensus on a way forward.

    Its the unintended consequences of the whole thing that I find most disappointing. Any credible change plan (and I dont believe there actually was one) would have mapped all the costs and benefits and tried to work with the clubs to mitigate those and that would be ALL clubs not just this currently in Prem and nat leagues.

    The fact that it’s now over 18 months since the 2017 AGM when Mark Dodson did the we are doing this speech, there was ample time to engage with clubs. But no, the choice was my way or the highway. My belief is this will be a lasting stain on Scottish rugby and the relationship between the SRU Board, Council and Executive.

Comments are closed.