I like to think that most people involved in ownership of rugby started out with good intentions. Perhaps with hindsight the team would have faired better if they had gone down to the championship before the Ricoh move and rebuilt from there. But where and how would still have been touch and go by the sounds of it.
The whole Ricoh saga from start to finish, and absence of comments from Derek (understand he can't due to legal proceedings) leaves me pretty convinced he only got involved with the incentive of acquiring the stadium and building potential around it. I don't blame him because he's obviously a businessman, and if you were going to pour ?millions into a rugby club you'd want to get a return on that rather then pouring money down a black hole. I have no doubt that he would have kept the rugby side operating in the premiership but on a tighter budget and was keen to make the whole set up work. It's just a shame that our club wasn't in a better place years ago and could have had a longer term plan then.
As far as the RFU and PRL go, it beggars belief that Sweeney and the PRL CEO (whose name escapers me for now) have the arrogance to remain in post whilst overseeing the darkest days of professional rugby union in England. Not only have three big clubs gone down the drain on Sweeney's watch but he's overseen a pretty poor run by the England team and headed an organisation that has 'bluffed' support for clubs like us to the media, rejected potential rescue packages and muddled directionless throughout the debacle. The PRL have shown little strategy or ability to value one of the biggest names in the history of its pro game and operated in the interests of a powerful few.
Which brings me to my main point. With the recent news regarding the processed food time bomb and the FSA, who have not been fulfilling their remit to the public in favour of the interests of powerful food companies; a lot of reading about what goes on in the City and how the FCA are similarly a token body who protect the interests of the powerful financial institutions; and on top of this the number of 'scientific' research programmes that get published favouring certain negligible products that turn out to have been funded by those who manufacture them, are the RFU and PRL any different?
By the start of this season, following the EA's short exile to the Championship and return despite refusing to fully open their books, the 'governing' bodies favoured a 14 team competition. Within months this changed to a 10 man closed shop
after Baxter was gobbing this off in the media. Financial mismanagement lies squarely in the hands of the clubs who have gone under so far, but the playing field doesn't seem to have been very level in dealing out punishment and sanctions in an equitable way during a disaster for the English game, from the cheating scandal to now. Some clubs get short shrift whilst others who are favoured with lenience are woven deeply within the international and league set up. Baxter is losing many of his star players so wants to cut down the competition and chances of getting relegated whilst they rebuild. The league is now set up for the EAs to win every year, and you have to wonder how you get games where England request Smith is rested for Quins against a full strength cheats side with Farrell, or Dickson (worst ref in the prem) officiates the EAs play off in which Maitland's high tackle and likely red in the first few minutes is completely ignored, with even the radio commentators flabbergasted.
Sorry for the long witterings, but I think until the game changes significantly at the top and the governing bodies are restructured properly it's finished. It feels like they are only operating in the interests of the most powerful member(s), over the rest of the clubs, players, fans and game in England. I've no idea how this influence has been exerted, or am I tackling above the waist..?
Topic: Grim outlook? (Read 3843 times)
Always a Wasp