Founder Clubs’ stance force SLR to defend
Sri Lanka rugby is going through a period of soul searching amid a financial crisis of pandemic proportions, threatening the survival of the sport exacerbated by a failed provincial union system that has usurped the rights of the founder clubs when it comes to making decisions.
The simmering discontent came to a head when most of the rugby playing ‘A’ Division clubs caused a rebellion by withdrawing from the Western Province Rugby Football Union (WPRFU) seeking a restoration of their voting rights and a seat in the Sri Lanka Rugby (SLR) Council.
Proposals to amend the SLR constitution had been sent in March but it was shelved because of the viral outbreak and a Sports Ministry circular which prevented a Special General Meeting being held on July 20 for this purpose before the Annual General Meeting scheduled for August 29.
It has been a focal point of debate with the WPRFU appointing a three-man committee to review the matter even as SLR deputy president Rizly Illyas declared his intentions of challenging the incumbent president Lasitha Gunaratne for the hot seat.
WPRFU president Nazeem Mohamed, who is in Illyas’ team, said they have called for nominations from their members which is likely to be finalised on Tuesday while Gunaratne remains tight-lipped of his intentions of stepping away after serving a two-year term.
Ironically the battle for power comes at a time when the SLR faces a deficit of Rupees 30 million carried over previously for a variety of reasons. The incoming SLR Council will not only have to find ways and means of bridging this gap but faces a challenge of retaining sponsors with the economy in dire straits because of COVID-19, with clubs being worst hit and barely making ends meet.
However, it is also an opportune moment to address the grievances of the eight Founder Clubs comprising the three Services — Army, Navy and Air Force, Police, CR&FC, CH&FC, Havelocks and Kandy SC who have been sidelined since the introduction of the provincial system of rugby administration in 1992. Although their withdrawal may not impact on the outcome of the upcoming AGM, it is only fair to give an ear to the major stakeholders of rugby in the country before the next season commences, otherwise it would be a case of Hamlet without the Prince.
“We are not against the provincial system. Keep the provincials running for development. Clubs want direct access restored back to them,” said a club official.
“What happens now is if for some reason, you don’t play in a tournament organised by the WPRFU, you are not entitled for a vote although the founder clubs are playing in the league and 7s tournament organised by SLR,” he explained.
He accused the WPRFU and SLR of not representing their interests.
“Any person who sits on that chair becomes very complacent because you have a vote base already. You don’t need to do anything more. Suddenly when we start pulling the legs, then all these proposals are coming. Until somebody shakes the tree nothing happens,” he said.
The official questioned if Sri Lanka has benefited or succeeded by introducing provincial rugby for the last 28 years. He provided the example of not producing a new single ‘A’ division club to continue playing, while recalling the haphazard entry and disappearance of Upcountry Lions and Hambantota Sharks.
“Unfortunately the system has failed,” he said accusing the authorities on riding on their shoulders.
“They (SLR) are selling eight clubs and getting a sponsorship for 90 million. We have been asked to wear the sponsor’s (dialog) strip only but we have not been paid a cent. The Union takes the money. That’s why clubs don’t survive. Why Shark and Lions died because they can’t sustain. There was no support from the main body,” he said unlike Sri Lanka Cricket who gave all clubs relief funds during the Corona period.
“We are not asking for billions and millions. At least from the main sponsors 2 to 5 million each. SLR allowed foreign players and said they will pay for them. How about people who don’t bring foreign players? Those teams are not being given anything. It is unfair. What I say is across the board if you bring a foreign player if you are entitled or not, give Rs. 2 million for each club to support the rugby budget. Then we can support the tournament sponsor. There are issues because there is no link between the main sponsor and the club and there is no link between SLR and the clubs,” he said.
The Founder Clubs are not going to take it lying down and have decided to flex their muscles.
“If you don’t rock that chair, put pressure on the person seated there, he will never look at the clubs because we have no direct link to SLR. It is a fair call by the clubs,” he said.
“If there are concerns at least once a year before the league or halfway through the league, the WPRFU should call all the club presidents and discuss. Ask what they can take up at the council because they are the rep of the clubs. They are the only people who have the mandate to bring a resolution, not the clubs. Clubs can only propose,” he said.
However, an SLR official defended the deficit, attributing it to monies spent on age group tours and women’s rugby.
“Development of rugby starts from age group and has to continue. We can’t expect players to improve standards at club level without exposure. From 18-19 we have to give these young boys exposure in international tournaments. Then when they come to Sri Lanka, they come with experience on their shoulders,” he said shrugging off the deficit.
“The loss is only about two million. We spent on rugby development. We cut down a lot of expenses. Unfortunately, we can’t settle all the liabilities. Bringing down liabilities is going to be a big challenge. Normally in the past the Sports Ministry has been supporting us. Last two-three years we did not get what we expected,” said an SLR official.