The Rugby Football Union’s interim chairman Bill Beaumont has come out fighting on behalf of the embattled chief executive, Bill Sweeney, writing a letter to urge the governing body’s members to vote against a resolution to remove Sweeney and taking aim at the “personal attack on one individual”.
Beaumont, who was appointed on a temporary basis following the resignation of Tom Ilube, has warned – in a letter on behalf of the RFU’s board and seen by the Guardian – of the risk of “sending the union into paralysis and creating a leadership vacuum”.
Sweeney will face a vote of no confidence on 27 March after more than 150 members – led by the Rugby Football Referees Union and the Championship clubs – triggered a special general meeting, calling for the removal of the chief executive. Sweeney insisted last week that it was his intention to stay in the role until at least 2027 and he refused to apologise for accepting the £358,000 bonus that has sparked the grassroots revolution.
Beaumont and Sweeney are taking part in a “roadshow” before the SGM, visiting clubs across the country in an effort to unify the game which has been so obviously fractured in recent months. The rebellion was sparked after it emerged in November that Sweeney was paid £1.1m, including a £358,000 long-term incentive plan bonus, while five other executive directors shared close to £1m amid 42 redundancies and the RFU’s record loss to reserves of £42m.
When calling for the SGM, the rebels cited a number of reasons including the “negative reaction across stakeholders throughout the game” to the pay scandal, “significant concerns around good governance and effective checks and balances, the attempts of the RFU president Rob Udwin to brush off negative coverage as “media spinning” and “clickbait” and losses of around £130m over the past two World Cup cycles.
They also reference the “tackle height debacle”, the demises of Worcester, Wasps, London Irish and Jersey Reds, a failure to deal with promotion and relegation and the “wasted money spent on sacking England coaching staff”. Beaumont’s letter seeks to counter a number of those points, going through them one by one.
Beaumont writes: “It is clear that many within the game want change. I agree with this wholeheartedly. The RFU and its governance structure needs to continue to modernise to meet the needs of its members, players, parents and all those involved in the game now and in the future. However, a personalised attack on one individual [the CEO] is not the way to achieve that change.”
The letter adds: “Rugby is a broad church, and we don’t always agree on how best to grow and manage the sport, and sometimes we lose sight of the fact that the overwhelming majority of those in the game only want what is best. On behalf of the board, I ask you to vote against the proposed resolution.
“This sort of personal attack does nothing to bring us the unity we need or enhance the reputation of the Union and will only serve to distract the union from delivering on its long-term transformational plan for its members. Far from ushering in real change, the resolution, if approved, risks sending the union into paralysis and creating a leadership vacuum.”
