SOME of what is happening in rugby now represents too much of what rugby should not be about. But day follows day and contentious issue follows contentious issue. Threats of strikes, boycotts and the severing of long standing relationships are the by products of the transition from the amateur to the professional game.

While there was criticism, much of it well founded, that the clamour for pay came from international players, the activities of some administrators in recent months has scarcely enhanced rugby's image. People with vested interest, from outside the game, sought and continue to seek to exert influence. Agents, television companies and commercial concerns want a slice of the action.

As more money comes into the game, we have the ugly spectacle of people with dubious motives' engaged in open warfare. The extremes are remarkable and reconciliation is a necessity.

The English Rugby Union (RFU) is engaged in major disputes on two fronts, both internally and externally. Broadcasting agreements on the one hand with their long standing partners in the home unions and an unedifying wrangle with their first and second division clubs on the share, out of money, the structure of the game and demands for a greater say by the clubs in administration.

Gone, I believe are some of rugby's most endearing elements. The old loyalties are becoming a thing of the past and we are seeing the consequences. The monuments built on the efforts of countless players, administrators and loyal club members are now shaking at their foundations. The game is now a juggernaut, fuelled on greed and avarice, that is running out control.

No sooner is one difficulty apparently overcome than another arises. When the word ethos is mentioned there are people who throw up their hands in horror and raise their voices in scornful disdain. Yet is it not true that certain and defined elements fashioned rugby's ethos. Not least was a commendable spirit, a common bond and respect. The desire to take advantage of every opportunity now seems to be the currency of the day and it cannot all be attributed to greedy players.

There are people who have given a lifetime to rugby who now have grave concern for its future. Scorn has been poured on these people from certain quarters. Those who underestimate the moral tenor at the grass roots might do so at their peril.

The danger to the Five Nations championship is something that must be averted. That competition has been on the calendar for over 100 years first as a four nations entity and then five when the French joined the fold. That competition has always had a unique appeal, both to players and to spectators. It is the lifeblood of the international game in these islands.

The pairings in the championship are the oldest in the history of the game. England and Scotland started it all in 1871 when they met in the first rugby international and then Ireland entered the fray when they met England in 1875. Ireland Scotland rivalry goes back to 1877 and then Wales entered in 1881. All four home countries first met each other in the same season in 1884. And, while Ireland and Wales did not meet in 1883, that was the first year of the championship when England captured the Triple Crown and were declared Four Nations champions.

The concept of overseas tours to the Southern Hemisphere came from those liaisons and thus the game became international in a true sense. Representative teams from these islands went on tour to Australia and New Zealand as early as 1888. Then in 1899 another team went to Australia and in 1904 visited both countries again. South Africa were hosts to a team in 1891 and then again in 1896 and 1903.

The first fully representative side from all four countries went to South Africa in 1910 and became known as the Lions. Ever since, Lions tours' have travelled to the Southern Hemisphere and selection is a greatly prized honour.

So for a century it has always bean a four nations exercise, equal partners with equal presentation on the four home unions committee. Unity of purpose and a common bond has been the core value. And it is important to remember that in relation to current activities in which officials of the RFU are engaged, the Five Nations championship has been enjoyed by all on and off the field.

THAT is what is at stake now as the RFU, in the pursuit of money, do their negotiations with Sky Television and seek to cast their long standing partners aside. The attempts by officials in Twickenham to defend their actions have revealed an unappealing arrogance towards their partners.

The secretary of the RFU Tony Hallett talks of the Five Nations championship as being "inviolate". One of the RFU's Five Nations International Board representatives John Jeavons, Fellows says: "I cannot contemplate any circumstances in which England will not participate in the championship." Jeavons Fellows must note have been listening last week. He seems to treat with the contempt his union has already revealed for his partners, their expressed refusal to accept England's stated intentions.

But it is not only the Five Nations championship that is at stake here. There is talk that England will turn to the Southern Hemisphere for their opposition. But what about the matches at schools, under 21 and A levels? Implicit in the statement issued by the Five Nations Committee was consideration of whether to play England at any level. They might ask too if an annual series against the big powers in the Southern Hemisphere would have equal attraction with the public. One of the appealing aspects of matches between Five Nations teams and Southern Hemisphere countries is that they take place not on an annual basis.

There are many routes open to England to get more money for the televising of matches under their control. They should be explored rather than what they see as the easy option of sacrificing their long standing partners and by so doing endangering a marvellous international series. Rugby officials in the other four countries do not want to end the Five Nations championship. But neither are they prepared to allow England to ride roughshod over them. It is apparent that there is a lack of leadership at Twickenham. Never was it more urgently required. Things have changed in the RFU from the days when the kind of honour, integrity and deep respect for their partners was revealed by the late Dick Kingswell in 1973 when England came to Dublin after Wales and Scotland had refused to travel the previous year.

And in conclusion the court ruling in England last week which found a referee culpable for the grave injury suffered by Ben Smoldon could have repercussions, not alone for rugby but all contact sports. It represents another challenge to legislators. Let us hope, that like too many other challenges, it does not evolve into another crisis.