By kwin
May 13 2002

Read every message board and every newspaper you can about the Roth promotion-that-wasn't and you won't find the real truth. I don't know it either. But one thing I can see - this wasn't about meeting any criteria, or any fair test, This was a fix. But by who, and why? Normally to find the fixer, just ask the question: Who Benefits? But in this sorry saga, the answer to even that question isn't completely clear. Certainly not as clear as the answer to the opposite question- who loses? That's easier: we all do. The fans, the players the sport.

So what really happened?

Did Roth really want to go up?
You've probably all heard the rumours now - Roth didn't really want to go up: it is too expensive, too risky, better to take the 20 pieces of silver now and try and go up next year. That way they get promoted into a ring-fenced ZP in which the place is secure. (15UP was on the rivals board predicting this months ago)

Plausible? Well it goes a long way to explain what is otherwise incomprehensible - that Rotherham have (still) not arranged a ground in which to play next season. They have no deal. Without that how could they play in ZP? But even so I find it hard to believe - the players certainly thought they could go up (don't tell me they could have won a hard league like that if they'd suspected otherwise) and Kilfolye is quoted in the press denying the rumour. So could Yarlett really have formed this plan and kept the rest of the club in the dark? It stretches belief - what's the point of owning a club if you don't want to win? And I don't buy the wait-till-next-year strategy - if Roth players come to believe they were completely, totally, duped this season, would Yarlett really think they will play well for him next?

So did the senior clubs force them out?
Were the criteria simply so tough, so unreasonable that they were impossible to meet? Did someone have a word in Yarletts ear and tell him that whatever he did they'd find a way to fail him? ("Seriously, old boy, you're done for...best not to even bother, waste of your time and your money - remember the court case? On the other hand, of course, if you just accept it - don't make too much of a fuss- we'll see you right. Half a million for club....what? oh all right 750 Just keep mum. No it's not fair, but think of the best interests of the club, old man. Fight this - you could destroy the club")

This theory also, in a way, might help to explain the curious absence of contract - it's a hint, a protest from Roth. They hope we will work out why - it was because they knew it was a waste of effort. What other reason could there be? It might also explain why the ERL dithered, the fatuous audit. They were wrong-footed. The lack of application from Roth made it clear it's a farce. The farce-production team panicked, and covered up.

Overall all this feels more likely to me. But either way stinks.

The Spirit of Rugby
Earlier this season (long. long ago, when JK was in charge, Tofty was full-back, the scrum were on roller-skates, and we all believed we were on for a top-four finish) Euroquin, Melvin and I stood in a corner of a field in Castres debating relegation with Mark Evans. On this question, Mark has an opinion (he wrote about it in a programme) and he's eloquent on the topic. One phrase he used that evening stuck in my mind 'I understand the Spirit of Rugby argument, but...."

Well, I don't think there IS a 'but'.

The essence of sport is that teams compete to win, and that it's unpredictable. This means that winning has to be worth something, and it means the competition has to be genuine. Without that it wouldn't be a sport (it would be scripted, it would be theatre) This applies to an individual match, to a season, to a whole league. That's the Spirit of Rugby - it's also the Spirit of Sport. In a league, it means promotion. Promotion means relegation.

And here's the rub: without the Spirit of Sport, who's going to bother to watch it? Now, I understand the economic arguments about relegation put forward by the clubs (protection of investment and so on) but I think they are self-serving and short-termist. And in the long term very wrong: lose promotion and you lose (eventually) the Spirit of Rugby. Lose that and no-one will want to come anymore to sit our shiny new ring-fenced stands; clean urinals and spacious dugouts notwithstanding.

Earlier this season Agen were fined and banned for entering a competition and trying not to win. Bringing the Sport into Disrepute it was, and rightly so, because sport without competition isn't sport. The Roth saga isn't that different. ND1 without promotion, is ND1 without winning and losing. It isn't sport. Whoever fixed this deal should get the same punishment...if we just knew who it was....