Crisis is focusing minds on AIL format

If the current AIB League first division remains unfinished by the season's end it whereby next season's top flight could be expanded to 18 clubs on the premise that the second division promotion race will be concluded but the first division relegation issue won't be.

Falling short of a reduced first division (to eight or 10 clubs), Shannon and Cork Constitution proposed and seconded a call for two conferences of eight - which, ironically, was an IRFU proposal a year ago. However, the details of the Munster pair's proposal at a meeting of the first division clubs' representatives in Dublin last Wednesday apparently angered some of the other delegates and has caused a divide in the top flight.

According to a number of sources, the proposal for a two-tiered top flight would comprise one group of eight clubs, where most of the contracted players are concentrated, with a weaker section made up of those clubs with fewer contracted players.

It is claimed the prime movers held a caucus meeting beforehand, their proposal coming with a rider that the relegated clubs come only from the weaker section. Wally Morrissey (treasurer), the Cork Constitution representative and one of the first division association's three nominated spokespersons, would not confirm nor deny whether such a meeting had occurred or whether this relegation idea was part of the Shannon-Con proposal. The Shannon president and representative last Monday, Thady Coughlan, said he was "disgusted" by leakage of the night's events and declined to comment further.

A first division clubs' working party will meet union officials before the clubs come together again on March 29th. However, it seems unlikely the "weaker eight" will agree to their new status in life, as suggested by a self-appointed elite.

The English clubs, meanwhile, are a good deal more powerful and militant, as evidenced by their muscle flexing over any attempt to reschedule postponed Six Nations games for May which is already earmarked for their Premiership play-offs.

Late last week, BBC Radio 5 conducted a three-way round of interviews in light of the Ireland-England game being postponed. To begin with, Keith Wood expressed a player's perspective in which he stated if the Ireland-England game was rearranged for April then his priority was to play for his country and he expected full co-operation from Harlequins. End of story.

Roger Pickering then put forth the Six Nations Committee viewpoint, whereby the championship and Test rugby had to be given primacy, not least because of its financial importance. And so, contingency plans had been put in place for postponed games to be played in April.

In their lack of dialogue, the Six Nations committee displayed little respect for the English club owners. Even so, the committee probably reckoned they wouldn't receive much co-operation from the English clubs, and by extension, a fearful RFU. And sure enough Terry Burwell, the English RFU's director of operations, maintained these contingency plans were "unreasonable" in that Zurich Premiership play-offs were fixed for those dates.

With unmitigated arrogance he suggested the Ireland-England game could be put back to the last weekend in May, a week before the Lions' scheduled departure to Australia. The English clubs, furthermore, have persistently said they are inflexible on the matter of bringing forward a full round of Premiership matches to this coming weekend to create a free Saturday later in the season. Apparently, the English Premiership play-off dates are cast in stone.

The English clubs have the nerve to say players should not be placed in a tug-of-war situation. Yet this is exactly what the English clubs' stance will achieve, as was the case when they boycotted the European Cup.

The bottom line, as ever, is power and money. Most likely the escalating foot-and-mouth outbreak will prevent a resumption of the championship this side of the Lions tour, so forestalling a major stand-off until the autumn. But one senses another seismic battle is inevitable, with the onus on both Twickenham and the other European unions to stand firm in underlining the primacy of international rugby over the club game.

Through it all, in latter years, the IRFU are smelling of roses, with a structure the envy of the other unions. Yet last Saturday night's fourth instalment of The Evolution of Irish Rugby on RTE beggared belief in reminding us that here is a union that never makes mistakes, even if they've since been rectified.

A sequence of union taking heads, Bobby Deasy, Eddie Coleman and Philip Browne, with a pat on the back from Nick Popplewell, revealed the union's master-stroke was to keep control of all its players through the difficult, fledgling years of professionalism.

Even the temporary exodus in the "first year" of professionalism was somehow portrayed as part of the IRFU master-plan. Lest it be forgotten, the union had to be dragged kicking and screaming into professionalism, stood idly by during a two-year drain on playing resources, and displayed a singular reluctance to pay its players which has since, thankfully, abated.

This official "history" smacks of overt union influence. Certainly this episode in Irish rugby's history lacked a two-sided debate, though that won't bother leading union figures.

That's the way they like their media coverage, supplicant and giving purely their side of the story, even if it's dull.