Grass roots stirring

In the end, there was one shocking figure as the votes were read out regarding Bill Sweeney’s future, but it was not related to the numbers either supporting or looking to oust the chief executive of the Rugby Football Union. The eyebrow-raiser was the level of turnout for one of the most important RFU votes in the past 20 years.

To give the full context, there are more than 2,000 RFU member clubs who are then split into two categories – voting members (clubs or referee societies) and non-voting members (members of their constituent body, casual clubs, work teams and so on), leaving you with 1,300 eligible voters.

Out of those 1,300 there were 672 votes cast during Thursday’s special general meeting for the motion of no confidence in Sweeney, with a further 36 abstaining. Which means a shade over half of those eligible voters participated. This was supposed to be a pivotal moment, the chance for those aggrieved by the management of English rugby at grass-roots level – well, all levels – to force change at the top after years of frustration.

And only about 54 per cent participated? That’s it?

Quite remarkably, the turnout is also understood to be the highest for this kind of event in the past 20 years.

Even if you park the Sweeney motion for a moment, the second motion to expedite the process of the Governance and Representation Review, leading to a greater say for clubs at a local level among other proposals from the recent RFU roadshow events, should surely have generated some enthusiasm, even if you took a cynical view and felt it was merely designed to be a distraction from Sweeney’s future and to prove the RFU were willing to change. Yet even then there were fewer than 700 votes cast.

Sir Bill Beaumont, the RFU’s interim chair, lauded afterwards that members had “voted emphatically to support our CEO”, which works when you look at the actual votes on the night – not that 200-plus votes against you is necessarily a good outcome – but less so when you consider how many potential voters did not participate. So, why didn’t they?

One reason, and this is being generous, could have been access. Tim Cunis, part of Old Pauline Football Club in Thames Ditton, noted while votes were being cast that it had been “hugely difficult” if you were not an honorary secretary of a club to get permission to attend the SGM. He also described the software to vote, for those representatives who had been appointed and who were not honorary secretaries, as not being “user friendly”, boldly comparing it to Horizon from the Post Office scandal. No one else raised these concerns, so they should be taken with a pinch of salt.

There are two other explanations. One is that the members who did not vote simply felt that there was no issue whatsoever with the RFU and Sweeney and how the game is being run, be it whether their concerns were being heard or the size of Sweeney’s salary. Maintain the status quo. And while that sentiment is fine, you would still hope they would at least exercise their right to vote by honouring the process and voting to keep Sweeney in place.

Instead, what if the rage which appeared to be simmering away in November and December when the LTIP scheme – a plan designed to keep high-level employees at companies – came to everyone’s attention, and led to the resignation of the previous RFU chair Tom Ilube, has simply given way to another emotion. Apathy.

Sure, attending the SGM in person comes with its own logistical issues. But to not even vote remotely, to participate with a couple of clicks, in a special general meeting? That lack of action in many ways sends a bigger message than abstaining or voting against Sweeney. It suggests exasperation with the entire process.

Perhaps those who opted not to take part wondered why bother to try to create change when the wait for action has been so long and the prospect of it seems so unlikely. Despite those ‘rebels’ who led the charge against Sweeney – Paddy McAlpine, Alistair Bow – leaving Allianz Stadium on Thursday evening with an apparent sense of optimism that real change was potentially on the way and their message had been heard.

Be frustrated, be disillusioned, absolutely. But to then complain down the road about a lack of action or reform or a broken system, of grass-roots clubs not feeling supported – having passed over the chance to create change within the RFU – would feel enormously hypocritical. If almost half of the eligible voters opt to abstain, then how can change happen?