With the possibility of a vast sum of money coming into the game here and in Britain through the proposed Lions Bond scheme, inevitably there has been speculation that the IRFU would use their share of the money to redevelop Lansdowne Road or build a new stadium, thus ending support for and a commitment to, the proposed new national stadium. Such speculation can be discounted.

Whether or not the bond scheme comes to fruition, Tom Kiernan, chairman of the IRFU grounds committee, has made the IRFU's position very clear. "Our support for and commitment to, the building of a new national stadium remains unchanged," he said. "We fully support the concept of a new national stadium and believe it would a major asset for this country. Any money we would get from the bond proposal would be used for game development and, among other things, to upgrade still further the provincial grounds." Those sentiments have been reiterated by IRFU chief executive Philip Browne. The merits, consequences and all elements of the proposal are being examined by the four rugby unions, there is caution and that is exactly as it should be at this stage.

But there is also cautious optimism.

Should the bond proposal be adopted and successful, it could bring between £250 and £500 million into the game, but it is very early to be specific as to the sum of money that will be involved. What seems apparent is that the scheme could raise a lot of money and each of the unions will be enriched.

There has been some misunderstanding in relation to the securitisation attached to the project. The securitisation involves future revenue raised through such elements as broadcasting, advertising revenue and sponsorship.

Suggestions that the unions' grounds, would be part of the securitisation, are incorrect. Those grounds will not be pledged or in any way mortgaged as part of the project.

During the week the chief executives of four unions of Ireland, England, Scotland and Wales met to get a full explanation on the Lions Bond. They will now return to their respective unions and report on that meeting. Then it is up to the respective unions to act on the best advice available to them. So we must now wait a while before we know where they stand.

As the unions give the matter due consideration, one fact is inescapable, the game in Britain is currently in the grip of crippling debt. That is the by-product of the rush into professionalism and some dreadful mismanagement and unrealistic expectation. That assuredly will concentrate minds.

How sad it is that four players had to go to the court in England to have their contracts honoured. But that is an illustration of rugby at club level in England at the moment.

The IRFU, alone of the home unions, is financially sound. The union has been able to contract its players at national level and provide the finance for the four provincial squads. The union has managed to bring back most of those players who initially went to England and found that things were not quite what they had anticipated. Funding has been provided here for vast improvements at the provincial grounds, and the installation of floodlights. Connacht is next on the schedule in this respect with the Corinthians ground due for major redevelopment.

In contrast to that, the English Rugby Union (RFU) had to sack 30 employees last year to help cut their losses. There is still a sum of over £30 million outstanding on the redevelopment of Twickenham. The first division clubs lost well in excess of £20 million between them last season and still chase their tails with new proposals to establish leagues as clubs go to the wall and others face bankruptcy.

THE Welsh Rugby Union (WRU) has to service loans of nearly £50 million outstanding on the new millennium stadium and the Scottish Rugby Union (SRU) has a debt of around £15 million.

That is not a happy picture and it is against that background that the unions will be looking at the Lions Bond issue.

We are talking not alone about the future of many old established and very distinguished clubs but an attempt to bring financial stability to a game in Britain with a cash crisis of major dimension.

If the sum of money envisaged in the bond scheme materialises, of course it must be paid back, but it is in essence a mortgage against future income. It would, among other things, enable the British unions to establish the proper level of control over the game that has been far too frequently challenged with disastrous results.

Of course it is absolutely right, indeed a necessity, that the most acute study be made of every aspect embraced in the scheme. But it must be borne in mind that those men who have been centre stage in the proposal and who have worked so hard to present it, are all men whose motivation cannot be doubted for a second and who share a common bond, their love for and concern for the future of rugby football. There is nothing in it for them personally but the satisfaction of seeing the game prosper.

I am referring to men such as Tony O'Reilly, Alan Hosie, the chairman of the Six Nations Committee, and Tom Kiernan, the honorary treasurer of the International Board. There is a fair share of financial expertise in that combination. All three are men who have given a great deal to the game on the field.

At rugby administrative levels, no one can doubt the pedigree of either Kiernan or Hosie. Therefore as the proposal is examined the credibility of the men involved must be a huge factor in its favour.

In conclusion, the death last week of Des Scaife removes from our midst a man who made a very considerable contribution to rugby. He was a former honorary secretary of the Leinster Branch, and visionary in the area of organised coaching when such a concept was by no means the norm. His interest and industry were paramount in establishing the courses at Mosney and it was on his initiative that annual matches were established between Leinster and French opposition. He was a man of unfailing courtesy and kindness who deserves to be remembered as one who served the game splendidly.