Rugby: At least we had a happy ending

TO THE seasonal foliage has been added an olive branch. It's hugs and kisses all round this Christmas. We have been down this way before, of course, during the past four mainly rancorous years since the game turned professional, when a kiss planted on the cheek one day was the pre-cursor to a knife in the back the next.

But there does seem to be more substance to the present sprit of optimism, which has been rising steadily since the dual announcement last week of Rob Andrew's restructuring proposal and Dr Tony O'Reilly's initiative for securitising the game's assets.

The sport is right to proceed cautiously with both of the ideas. This time there is absolutely no room for error because, if rugby's administrators get this as badly wrong as they did in 1995, there will be little left to salvage. On the other hand if, four years ago, the pioneers had given a bit more thought to the ruinous consequences of their actions, they might have come up with the very proposals which are now being considered.

Caution is one thing, boneheaded rejection is something else, however, and the unions should at least approach the two proposals with open minds. Before the end of next month it is planned that Warburg Dillon Read, the investment bank, will have made detailed presentations on the securitisation to each of the four home unions. For their part, the unions should not sit idly in wait but should be considering how they would best and most prudently use the money.

There have been comments in recent days that the Rugby Football Union do not require an injection of cash on this scale and that they are on a relatively sound financial footing. Whilst it is true that the massive debt of last year has been substantially reduced, the cost of this can be seen all around and at all levels.

The RFU grass-roots programmes have been savaged and the performances of their development teams are already being seriously affected. It is relatively easy to save money if you are not spending it, but England will continue along that path at their peril. Everything flows from the success of the national side and if there is inadequate investment in the future then, quite simply, England won't have one - a future that is.

The RFU's enthusiasm for the Andrew plan rather than the counter proposal of a British league submitted by Tom Walkinshaw is understandable. It would give the governing body far greater control and would lead eventually to the contracting of the top players by the union rather than the clubs.

But this will cost money. To begin with there is more than pounds 20m of debt residing in the Premiership alone. If it is the RFU's intention to square off that debt in return for a controlling share in the 12 franchises then a large chunk of the securitisation would be committed at a stroke.

In addition, the RFU still carries a debt in excess of pounds 30m on the redevelopment of Twickenham. Were they to go down the securitisation route and seek to refinance the debt at the infinitely more appealing rate of 7.7 per cent, which is the expert view of what the rate would be, the annual saving to the RFU would be in the region of pounds 600,000, a tidy enough sum with which to initiate a new training programme or perhaps to launch a development squad on the recently established world sevens circuit.

The numbers of people actually playing the game are plummeting alarmingly. Clubs which 10 years ago were running up to a dozen sides are now struggling to field one. Money is urgently needed to promote the game in all parts of the country in order to reinvigorate alien rugby communities.

After the fiasco over the new Wembley stadium, the idea has been floated that Twickenham could double up as a home for major athletics events or even the Olympics. The plan is being considered by Chris Smith, the secretary of state for culture, media and sport. But for this to become a reality millions would have to be spent not only on a redevelopment programme within the ground but on creating an adequate support structure including transport, accommodation and local community benefits. The cost of all this would comfortably exceed the pounds 60m development fund which is currently available to athletics.

There is therefore no shortage of good causes for the RFU to support. But securitisation is not just about the creation of money. It is, as O'Reilly put it in his statement to the home unions, about the reassertion of the unions' authority and their ability, through increased financial strength, to resist external pressures.

It is also about peaceful and prosperous co-existence between the home unions, whose natural and necessary rivalry on the field should not blind them to their shared interests off it. What is certain is that the year has ended more promisingly than it began. The coming weeks, however, will tell us much about rugby's determination to put its house in order.