By BatQuin
February 16 2005

At 7.30pm on the dot Mark Evans introduced himself to the assembled crowd:  ‘Hello, my name is Mark Evans and I work here.’   He said he’d wander around a bit with the mike and people were welcome to ask what they liked.  He wouldn’t answer everything, but he would be honest.

This is long because I don’t want people to think it’s been too ‘edited’ but it’s not a verbatim report.  To be clear: text within speech marks is Mark’s.  Other stuff is mine, or paraphrasing, so please don’t quote me thinking you’re quoting ME!   Also, if I didn’t get down the name of everyone who asked a question, then I apologise, but not everyone clearly announced who they were . . .  as you’ll see later!

OK, first question was from John Parks (aka JTD)  and I think this was the one question we were all sure would be asked: Will you be appointing a new Director of Rugby at the end of the season?

“I’m not going to answer that; [well, he did say he wouldn’t answer everything] I’m not going to announce that here.  I know what I’m going to do, but I won’t be announcing anything before the end of the season and I’ll tell the players first.’  Mark emphasised his point with an analogy from the world of US politics: ‘If you’re at the end of your second term as President [is Dubya finished yet? Oh, no just wishful thinking!] everyone knows that you’re a lame-duck president and when others know it’s your last month/week/couple of days, it changes the relationship. It’s similar for rugby.’

 

Do you think we’ve taken a step backwards from last season?

‘The season’s not finished yet and I’ve taken the view that you judge a season at the end.  For example, 3 games ago, Saracens were on 23 points and in the relegation battle.  Then they went to Bath and won.  Then they beat Newcastle and then Saints [ooooh, contentious victory, that one!].  Suddenly Sarries are looking for a top 4 finish and possible Heineken Cup qualification.  We have 7 games to go so who knows where we’ll finish [8^th is my prediction].  You also have to judge that against a reasonable expectation.’ 

Now, expectation’s a tricky thing isn’t it?  Obviously we’d all like to win the ZP, the HC the PG Cup, the FA Cup – ah, no that’s my other team and they’re not likely to do that either.  But what’s reasonable? 

Mark’s analogy this time comes from the world of football: ‘If Crystal Palace finish the season in 16^th place, then, in my opinion, Ian Dowie should get Manager of the Year.  Now, let’s say Arsenal end up 4^th.  Who’ll be judged to have had the better season?  I’d say Crystal Palace.’ 

There was some discussion at this point about the teams in the ZP having different numbers of international players and that it was unrealistic to assume that a team with 15 or so internationals would be operating on the same playing field [excuse pun] as those with none at all.  In Mark’s opinion, the coaches shouldn’t be judged by the same criteria. 

‘With our squad coming 11^th or 12^th would be a step backwards from 6^th (where we finished last year) and 12^th would be a disaster.  To finish 8^th or 7^th would be a marginal step backwards from last year.  Did we think we would get to 3^rd or 4^th place?  We hoped so, but we don’t have the third best squad in the ZP.’

‘Off the field we haven’t gone backwards.  We needed to build.  Eventually the teams who come out at the top are the teams who have spent the most money.  That may not be true in any one single season . . .  at the beginning of this season everyone thought it could be Northampton’s year – and not to be relegated.  Look at their squad [oh, OK, if I have to ;o)].  They are a really strong club and they will come back from this and not finish 12^th.  They’ll probably run top 3 next year.  What won’t happen is that a less strong club who have one good year [no names, no pack drill] will continue to finish at the top of the division.’ 

‘We have to go from a club with a great history but with a small ground to a club with a good ground.  To build you have to borrow, and to borrow you have to show that you are financially viable and living within your means.’

 

Question [actually 2] from Jane Thornton: Is John Kingston going to Bath?  It’s a bit disappointing to be losing our youngsters (Bell, Bemand etc) – why is this? 

‘First of all, I can’t comment on John Kingston.  He’s a colleague and a friend.  You have to understand that I have responsibilities to lots of disparate groups of people: players, staff, supporters, board & investors and also the game of rugby and its ethos.  Sometimes those responsibilities are not mutually compatible.’

Onto the question of our younger players and whether we’ve lost them.  ‘First, Chris Bell.  I brought him from Plymouth and didn’t want him to go.  We made him a good offer but he thought that he’d get more first team opportunities at Leeds.  I didn’t agree.  We were sad to see him go.  As for Scott Bemand.  Scott wasn’t that young; he was 25 when he left us.  I didn’t think he was a starter at no. 9 and Leicester don’t seem to think so either.  Sometimes if a player isn’t a starter it’s better to go somewhere else.  I’m pleased he went to Leicester.  It was a very late offer from them, but he’s done well and I’m delighted for him.  Last season we had 7 players in the England U21s but that doesn’t mean those players will be Premiership starters.’ 

‘Look at the U21s now – you would expect a number to be regular Premiership starters but if you look down the team there’s not a single one (Matthew Tait excepted).  Perhaps Mark Lambert would have made it if he hadn’t been injured (earlier this season).  This year we have more in the U19s.’ 

‘I would dispute we lose young players.  Tom Williams, Gavin Duffy, Ugo Monye, Simon Keogh are all young.  You do worry that if you lose a young player they’ll come back to haunt you.  Matt Powell is doing well for Worcester [no haunting on Saturday, if you don’t mind, Matt!] and sometimes you have to go somewhere else to be good.  Ceri Jones is doing much better here than he did at Newport.’

 

Question [eventually]  from Kevin: I’m disappointed that you equated us with Crystal Palace rather than with Arsenal or Chelsea.  Surely we’re the most famous club in the world.  You wrote an article in the Jester about the structure and balance of the squad.  It seems we haven’t met those criteria and have just brought in players.  Whose judgement went wrong?  What’s the plan for next season?  [Apologies if I didn’t get the question down completely accurately, but some of the question-asking was a bit woolly] 

Mark dismissed Kevin’s first comment and pointed out that the Crystal Palace/Chelsea analogy was used to illustrate a general point.  ‘However hard it may be for supporters to come to terms with . . . you have to recognise that success, in the long run, is driven by the resources you can bring to bear.  In some cases, the more resources you have, the more mistakes you can make.  Even Arsenal can buy a dud, and at the moment they only have a 35,000 seater stadium which is why they’re moving to a new one down the road.  They know it’s the only way to compete in the long run.’

‘Are we the most famous club?  Being well known doesn’t count for anything because it doesn’t bring in any resources.’ 

‘I didn’t write the article in the Jester; it was an interview.  And did we get the balance wrong?  Who did we bring in? 

‘First there was Opeta Palepoi.  He was brought in when Jim Evans broke his shoulder.  You can’t plan for things like that.  You’re a second row light and need cover.  There were no world-class locks available in the summer but we were always looking to buy one in November.  We got Simon Maling and that was always the plan.’

‘Geo Cronje was out of the blue.  He approached us; he was 24 years old which was a good age.  He wanted to come here and he wasn’t expensive.  The Blue Bulls (with whom we have a good relationship) did a medical and we did a medical.  Both agreed that he’d be out for 2 weeks, so we signed the contract.  Sadly the knee got worse and the scan showed it to be a worse injury.  Cronje came to us and offered to terminate his contract and for that I have a lot of admiration.  It happens.  Trevor Woodman went to Sale, having passed his medical, and he’s played a few times and probably won’t play again.  You look an idiot, but you take the advice and you make the call and it can go wrong.  It was too good an opportunity to miss but it didn’t work out.’

‘There was Matt Henjak.  We’d got two SHs but Simon K is always on the wing.  You must have a starter, a shadow and a youngster. [Now, Mark explained all the Henjak stuff at the Meet the Players evening so to save my fingers – go and read that.  The bottom line is that Matt could have played for us for 13 games but, as we all know, Whittaker got injured so he was called up to join the touring Australian squad. Again, a calculated risk that sadly didn’t work out.] 

‘We were a bit thin on SHs and we’ve been lucky that we didn’t get any injuries.  In January the odds on that luck holding out were too low, so we bought von Hoesslin who’s a very tidy player.  Yes, we would have loved to have George Gregan [Boo! Hiss!] but he wasn’t available.’

 

Back to Kevin: What about the resident No. 9? 

Bit of a delay here while Mark asked Kevin to be polite, show a bit of respect and call the guy by his name.  There’s some comment about him coming from a lower division club. 

‘Steve?  What about him? Is he a better player than Scott?  I think so, although you may disagree.  And it doesn’t matter what club he came from.  Mark Cueto came from a Division 4 club and Nick Easter isn’t doing too badly [there was also an example of a Div. 6 Romanian player who’s wowing the crowds in France, but can’t recall his name].  Not many players in the lower leagues can play in the ZP but there are some.  I don’t care where they come from.  If you think they’ll fit in and they are within your budget, you go for them.’

Question from David Coldrey: At the start of the season, were our aspirations to reach mid-table and the HC play-offs or to cut back because of the redevelopment and then ‘fudge’ our way through? 

‘The situation from club to club varies.  There are some clubs in the ZP and at lower levels where someone else is paying the wages and there are some clubs where the budget bears no relation to the income.  To use Chelsea as an example: they made an £86m loss but the fans don’t care because they have a guy who can put money into the club and not look for a return [Oh, to be that wealthy!!!].  Other clubs are simply not in a position to sustain losses year on year.  We were losing £millions annually and that situation was not sustainable.  My first aim was to get the club to viability – which we’ve done.  You have to show that if you want to invest.  You’ve got to be viable to borrow and that sets your budget.  We know what our revenue is and what’s left you have to spend on the team.    We’d be doing the same thing if we hadn’t laid a brick [or pulled lots down which I think is where the redevelopment is at – forgot to ask!]

‘We cannot run at £500k loss.  We’re spending about what we were spending last year.  We are paying what we can afford to pay, but we couldn’t generate any more revenue without the West Stand redevelopment.  We are pretty tight on costs and the staff are always complaining that they’re not paid enough [must ask Mr Copsey about that later . . . ]

‘We hoped to do a lot better than we have done in lots of games but we’re not finished yet.  The development of the ground doesn’t guarantee anything (on the field) but we will have the chance to be competitive.   Remember that Leicester are going to the Walker Stadium next season (32k seats), Saints are spending another £3m on development at FG and Gloucester have permission to take Kingsholm to a capacity of 17,000 people.   The new West Stand will give us a chance.  There has been a suggestion that it will still be too small, but I think we can punch above our weight because we have a good location and can use that to generate revenue.’

‘It wasn’t “cut/cut” – it was “have got to be viable within the parameters” and people can’t really comment on whether someone was a “good buy” or not because they don’t know how much they cost.  Paul Sackey’s gone to Wasps and I really rate him, so my initial reaction was “that’s a good buy – what are London Irish doing?” but I don’t know any of the background.’

 

A question from Chris: How does the salary cap fit into the picture?

‘I was a big supporter of it in 1998 because I was at a place where costs had spiralled out of control.  When the game went professional, people were paying too much and clubs are still paying the price.  There was an agreement in August 1996 to do nothing for a year, but then John Hall put a lot of money into Newcastle and everyone panicked as some clubs had players playing for nothing . . . Harlequins had players with good jobs.   Everyone spent money they didn’t have.  In 1998 the wage cap was £1.8m and next year it will go up to £2.3m (approx) 

[I’m not going to get into the debate of who might or might not be finding ways round the salary cap and neither was ME] 

‘The wage cap is a good thing or you will get more Richmonds or Wakefields, and clubs trying to stay in Division 1 with no resources.  Moseley’s old ground is now flats.  Lots of damage was done but now things are more stable with half the league’s clubs being viable.  There might be one or two more casualties but I’m a fan of the wage cap.’

 

A question on the dual role, but I’m not sure who asked it : You’re doing a good job as CEO – convince us you’re not in conflict. 

‘I don’t think there’s a conflict.  I think the ‘conflict’ implied is that I’m bartering off the team’s strengths against the redevelopment.  Anyone who was coach would be under the same constraints as I am, although they may coach the team better . . . .

At this point an anonymous person started shouting at Mark.  Mark had said he’d take questions in order and had pointed out the next two people who he would take questions from.  The gentleman didn’t care about this and shouted that he had been a STH for 5 years [And?] and that ME was wearing two hats and taking two salaries [The look on ME’s face suggested that might not be the case ;o)] and then he got up and started to move towards the door. 

Mark asked him to stay and that he’d be given his chance to ask a question when it was his turn.  That didn’t pacify the ranter who carried on shouting at both Mark and the assembled crowd, telling him and us that it was all ‘crap’ and that we were bottom of the ZP [Er hello?  No we’re not!  At least get your facts right if you’re going to rant] and that we (the crowd) were ‘bowing down at his (Mark’s) feet.  A strop was well and truly thrown and the gentleman proceeded to the door, amid much laughter from the assembled crowd.  It wasn’t pleasant to witness a grown man behaving in such a manner.

‘. . .  OK Tony, I think that’s a non-renewal . .. right, whether it’s 1 person or 2 people, the framework would be identical.  You could say the role’s too big.  It’s a fair argument but I don’t agree. I’ve got good coaching staff around me and a good management team.   I would fully accept that it’s not great at the moment, but what I would say is that with the dual role (3.5 years out of 5), the record on the coaching side isn’t bad.  This year is the poorest so far, but we won’t finish bottom.’

 

Are you over-stretched?

‘I’d say no.  What would you say?  Do I look overstretched?  I know I’m not very big . . .’

 

A question from Steve Burnhope about players being brought in as back-ups and that seeming to be against ME’s strategy.  Were you comfortable that we weren’t going to have a good season?

‘Henjak wasn’t back-up and Maling was brought in to start.  I couldn’t get a world class lock in the summer so I waited for the Southern Hemisphere season to finish.  We looked exposed because of Jim.  Henjak was opportunistic (like Cronje).  It’s no secret that we were in the market for Pichot in the summer but that fell apart at the 11^th hour.  These things skew your plans, but I’m not going to criticise players in a public forum.’

‘Maurice Fitz Gerald is a good player who’s picked up 4 injuries.  There’s nothing wrong with him – apart from the injuries of course – and he’s a good tight-head prop.  I think Steve So’oialo is a good player.  People can disagree with me but I think he’s playing well at the moment.   Dafydd James missed the first 5 games through injury and we’ve not seen the best of him, but he’s a good player.’

 

Did we do it on the cheap?

‘Well I could play fantasy rugby but . . .  you have to work within your parameters.  There have been times where we might have been thin, hoping for no injuries or a certain player might not be as good as you’d like, but it’s a jigsaw.  3 top class players in 3 positions will cost you £500,000 at the moment.  Obviously it’s not just about money; it’s about coaching and tactics and team spirit, but that’s the reality.

Talking about Steve, you didn’t mention ‘speed of pass’.

Laughs!  ‘If you want a player who can’t pass we should have got Pichot.  Who’s the best passer of the ball?  I’d say Martin Wood’s the quickest and Andy Gomarsall has the longest pass.  Pichot’s pass is woeful but he’s a great scrum half.  Steve’s pass is OK but the other elements of his game are very good.  The closest to the best all-round scrum half is Kyran Bracken when I was at Saracens.’

 

Next question:  What are you views on refereeing decisions, discipline etc?

‘The standard in the ZP is the highest in the world.  They’re onto a loser though because we all slag them off.  When we go into Europe sometimes, it’s a different story.  Our discipline this season is not what we would have liked.  Last year our penalty count was much better [there are stats, but I can’t remember what they were].  We all have our favourite referees.  Some clubs like a particular referee because he suits their style of play. ‘

 

Referees are great therapy because I get to shout – do you think 50/50 decisions go against us?

‘No, you only think that because you’re a Quins fan, and that’s quite right.  It’s like I have no idea how the opposition played because I’m wrapped up in our game.  Against Gloucester the penalty count was 13-8 in our favour.  8/9/10 is a good return but we’ve played too many games recently when we have conceded 15/16, but it’s got better.  Territory is very important and the things you can control are the lineouts and penalty count.  If you win both you will spend most of your time in the opposition’s half.’

 

Question from Charles: Of the top 3 clubs in Nat. Div. 1, who do you think meets the criteria for promotion?

 

‘Bristol do, Exeter and Plymouth probably not this year.  Exeter are going to a new stadium next year.  If they won and took the parachute money it would pay for their squad for the next season.  The irony is that it’s not the players who get promoted, it’s the club.  If Bristol come up, none of their players will come with them; they’ll buy in.  Likewise when they went down, their players went elsewhere.’

 

How do you see the club v country debate on a professional level in light of the extended wage cap?

‘I’m cynical.  It will mean some players get paid more money.  For certain clubs it won’t make much difference.  Some pay it already; some can’t afford it.  Do I think it will bring on more English players?  No.  Do I think it will lead to bigger squads?  No.’

 

What do you think of central contracts?  Do you agree that without the stars people will still come to watch club rugby?

‘I don’t think it will happen because of the players.  If you are a player you can play in the ZP, in Wales, Ireland and France, and in Italy.  There are nearly 2000 contracts in club rugby and I can’t see the players agreeing to go into a monopoly.  Contractually, players always chose ‘club’.  Although there is a clash and England always wants more time with the players I can’t see central contracts in England or France.’

 

How do you see rugby as a sport in 10 years’ time?

‘Not as big as it could be.  We should have gone for the franchise (US) model, but rugby’s making a transition from a participatory sport to a spectator sport.  When I played in the first Saracens team that Harlequins deemed fit to give a fixture to in 1985 (Sarries lost as they played against the wind in both halves) there were about 800 people here.  It’s a sea change but it won’t be as quick as it should.  I would like to see it as a very big minority sport.  It touches enough people and it will keep growing but I think we will get into a situation where the big clubs get bigger and the league becomes less competitive.’

Financially can we compete with Wasps/Sale/Leicester?  Does it mean that for the next 4 or 5 years we’ll have to settle for mid table?

‘First, I don’t think Wasps are huge spenders, but no, what we’ve undertaken will enable us to do much better than that.  We are going to be in the position to be able to compete with most clubs in England. We’re a couple of years behind Northampton in terms of building the club.  Don’t be fooled by their current position.  I remember Manchester United being relegated.  It didn’t touch them because the infrastructure was there.  It was just a blip and they came straight back up and did fine.  We are trying to grow the club on and off the pitch without putting it at risk financially.  If Northampton went down, they’d come back up and in 5 years’ time they’d be in the top five each year because they have a strong infrastructure.  If you don’t have that you’ll be in decline.  Obviously a club may get a fabulous coach in the future, but he’ll go.  Coaches come and go.  Rob Andrew is the only professional coach who hasn’t had to move club.’

 

What would relegation mean to Quins?

‘It would be tough.  I think we’d survive but we’d have to make huge cuts off the field  A lot of people would be out of work.  We would come straight back and work hard to make sure we did.  We’ve come a long way from when the club was dying on its feet and we haven’t come this far to jack it all in, but it would be tough.’ 

There was a bit of discussion about the criteria for promotion to the ZP.  Apparently the regulations are laid out in a document about 2 inches thick so thankfully Mark didn’t go through them.  He did say that it was getting increasingly difficult for clubs and in answer to Andy’s question, yes, primacy of tenure was still a factor.  This would be an issue for Leicester if they got relegated and wanted to come back, but, hey, that’s their problem.

 

A lot of player contracts appear to be up this year – would ME like to comment? 

‘On average most player contracts are 2 years long, some aren’t.  Every year, by definition, about 50% of players are out of contract.  I won’t announce any re-signings until the end of the year because you need to keep this year’s squad together for this season.  Announcements fragment the squad.  People go on about them being ‘professionals’ but they’re people all the same.  Some we are negotiating with and it’s not pleasant.  It’s my least favourite part of the job because inevitably you have to let people go who you like.’  [My squad would be about 150 by now!]

 

What are your thoughts on Saturday’s game? 

‘It’s a big game.  Both sides won their last game.  It’s not a “winner takes all” game though.  It’s not a Leeds of 2001/02 season [Phew!]  I don’t think us or Worcester will be finishing last.   George Harder, Tani Fuga and Dafydd James are all available for selection [Pick Gavin on Saturday!] and we’ve got the fewest injuries we’ve had for about 2 months.  Will Greenwood should be back for the last 4 games.  We’re exposed at Fly Half with 3 and only 1 able to play.  Adrian Jarvis and Andy Dunne should be fit in a couple of weeks but we’re still looking for cover.  The deadline is 28^th February but the two we are looking at have been stymied at the Home Office.’

 

What about Andy Farrell?  Are we getting him?

‘Andy Farrell’s a great rugby league player.  I can’t see where he’s going to play.  He’s just had a knee operation and he’s never played union.  RFU would have to make it very financially attractive for a club to take him as at the moment he’s a “risk”.’

 

A question from Duncan Franklin: Last year you said ideally the club should have half its players home grown and only a 3 or 4 player turnover every year, will that happen this year?

‘We won’t make it to half home-grown this year, but maybe a third, and there will be more turnover.  We are looking to strengthen and so will generate more ‘churn’ [that’s the technical term for this].  If you get one home-grown into the team every year you’re doing well.  It’s taken Tom Williams 3 years.  People like Chris Bell and Matthew Tait are very unusual, going from school to the first team.’

 

Question from Birthday Boy DOK: Would you like to comment on the reaction to the Natal Sharks game?

‘What’s in it for us?  Money, obviously.  We established it and it was innovative.  It’s not easy from a rugby point of view, but it’s a great arena for young players.  Both Simon Miall and Tom Williams came through from it.  I was disappointed with the game this year.  They were better conditioned than us and we didn’t play well.  Our stand-in Fly Half (Harvey) did us a favour but to face a Super-12 team on 2 training sessions is a hard task.  To counter this we tried to put out a strong pack.’

‘I understand why Quins fans say it’s of no interest and it’s not a first team game, but the majority of fans there were South Africans who use it as an opportunity to meet up with friends and see their team.  Perhaps it’s not ideal from the rugby side and the idea may need refreshing, but it’s been a success and not only in money terms.  If people think it’s too expensive, don’t come.  It’s a free market.

 

Some criticisms were of prices other than tickets being too expensive.  Was this a mistake?

‘Possibly, yes, on reflection.  That needs to be looked at.’

 

Any plans to repeat the Twickenham (Munster) experience?

‘No.  That was a big call: should we? shouldn’t we?  We had to make the decision back in October before any games had been played.  I think it was the right call.  To give 33,000 people the opportunity to see the game was good for rugby, but of course we made a financial gain too.  We also had 4,000 kids on coaching clinics that day.  I can see the argument for home advantage but thought the argument was weighted in favour of Twickenham.’ 

There were comments that HQ was a ‘home’ ground for us, but Mark said he was still having trouble locating the document that stated that Twickenham was ‘ours’ :o)

 

Are there any plans to commemorate Nick Duncombe in the new stand?

‘Yes.  The Nick Duncombe Fund (which has now been closed in agreement with Nick’s family) raised about £55,000. We have commissioned a life-size bronze of Nick which we’ll unveil with the new West Stand.  We’ve given a large donation to Oswestry Orthopaedic Hospital, where Nick was treated after he broke his neck, and the rest will be given to other good causes who apply to the fund.  There will be an article about this in Saturday’s programme.’ 

By now it was about half-past nine so Mark decided that 2 hours’ worth of him talking was enough.  I had definitely had enough of scribbling.

On the whole I think Mark answered the questions as honestly as he could without betraying confidences or being unprofessional.  None of the answers surprised me greatly because I’ve heard him say similar things at Meet the Players evenings.  Also, I wasn’t expecting him to make earth-shattering revelations so I, like some perhaps, wasn’t disappointed.

The ranting episode was a bit unfortunate and the sad thing was that if the person concerned had asked his question properly, he’d have been answered.  Whether or not he’d have liked the answer, of course,  is another issue entirely.