Gerry Thornley/ON RUGBY: There is an argument for axing Connacht. Strictly on a financial basis, if €7 million of cuts have to be made, then some things have to give, and if one of the limbs has to be severed then it could be argued that Connacht is the weakest. But then, of course, isn't that why they're picked on yet again?
The most compelling argument in favour of dissolving Connacht is undoubtedly the financial one. Philip Browne, on both RTÉ television and radio, and in the Sunday Independent, repeatedly highlighted that Connacht are indeed the weakest limb, and pointed out that relative to population and playing base (seven per cent in the adult game, though 11 per cent in the under-18 game) the Connacht professional scene and grass roots have received more in grant aid from the IRFU than any other province in real terms.
Browne also said that since 1997, €39.5 million has been spent on the professional game at provincial level, with Connacht receiving 18 per cent. As an argument for getting rid of Connacht - though, of course, it wasn't put forward in that light per se - it seems slightly selective.
But given that Browne also revealed that the running of the professional game will cost just under €20 million this year, then Connacht scarcely account for 10 per cent of that outlay if their projected overall budget is indeed €2 million.
All of this IRFU public hand-wringing over their ever-increasing costs would be easier to swallow if there hadn't been so much financial wastage seemingly everywhere bar Connacht these last two years, starting at the very top.
The then president of the IRFU and the treasurer travelling first-class to Rome to check out the designated facilities at the team/committee hotel base? For that same Six Nations trip to Rome two seasons ago there were two coachloads for the committee members, ex-presidents of the union, and provincial branch presidents and partners, and one for the actual squad.
Then there are the indulgent expenses incurred in the Berkeley Court Hotel, with even Leinster committee members staying overnight after meetings, or from Thursday to Monday on international weekends, complete with president's free bar. Can't committee meetings be held during the day, or at weekends, to save on overnight costs? Is there are a need for a 22-man committee anyway? Why not trim that by a quarter before you start trimming the playing pool by a quarter?
Even now we find there are 88 rooms booked in the Westin Excelsior in Rome, and unspecified numbers in the Balmoral Hotel in Edinburgh and the Hilton in Cardiff. I've heard of other spendthrift examples that would make your hair stand on end.
Besides, in any business or company, impending losses are not compensated for by cutting off one of the operating limbs. You start by trimming the fat, the unnecessary expenses, and amid the very selective figures we're being drip-fed there needs to be much more evidence that the union are willing to do that.
Quite why Connacht are being asked to make a presentation regarding cost-cutting and the other provinces aren't is another moot point. Do Connacht suddenly have a monopoly on ideas? Nor does it seem remotely equitable that they might have to carry the costs for the excessive spending of others and, just as pertinently, the failure to maximise resources and develop further sources of income.
Browne makes the point - and being pushed out as the soul spokesperson for this unpopular measure while the other inhabitants of the ivory tower keep the curtains closed makes him an easy target for Connacht's embattled rugby folk - that Australia and Scotland have only three professional teams. But Australia are desperately seeking a fourth, because a three-team base isn't keeping their players at home, while the Scots, who have set back rugby in the border region by at least four years, are also looking to revive Caldedonian rugby.
NO MATTER which way one looks at this proposal, it still smacks of an institutionalised prejudice against Connacht within the IRFU hierarchy which has been handed down by generations.
This has manifested itself throughout the union's 129-year history, in which time Connacht have had only nine presidents, and regularly only two delegates on the IRFU committee. At the same time the delegates from the other three branches and the union officers would, it seems, conspire to vote for moving statues rather than any nominations west of the Shannon. It's probably long since got to the point where they don't even realise they're doing it.
And for all the current talk of cost-cutting and financial imperatives being the primary reason behind this move, it's hard not to forget that moves were afoot among leading IRFU powerbrokers to axe Connacht two years ago. Even in the financial good times, when Connacht threatened to break into the top three and so, theoretically, qualify for the European Cup, the province's then coach, Warren Gatland, was warned that the goalposts would be shifted to ensure Connacht didn't qualify ahead of one of the other provinces.
It is clear, at least to this column, that key figures in the union have had an agenda to axe Connacht for a few years now.
Granted, the union deserve credit in recent years for presiding over the most productive era in Connacht's history at grass roots level. So why blow it all now at the first sign of a financial problem? As one of their own committee members put it, you don't cut off one of your limbs.
In fact, the union could go a great deal further. If establishing Connacht as the development province is truly the aim - and there are to be more examples such as Des Dillon, Mark McHugh, James Norton, John O'Sullivan and Paul Neville - then why not base the IRFU academy in NUIG? It could be a brilliant set-up, designed to make Connacht more attractive for young aspiring players, and would dove-tail neatly with their developmental status.
It is time for them to show some vision now, and not make a knee-jerk, quick-fix decision that would, in part, be born out of prejudice.
gthornley@irish-times.ie
