The follwing is the RFU Disciplinary Statement issued by RFU Disciplinary Officer Jeff Blacklett following the publication of the Arlidge Report in to alleged misconduct by some Zurich Premiership clubs.
RFU Disciplinary Officer's Statement
1. On 16 December 2002, the then RFU Disciplinary Officer Robert Horner asked Anthony Arlidge QC to investigate allegations relating to payments, or promise of payments, by the Board of Premier Rugby (PRL) to Rotherham RUFC on condition that that club would ensure they failed to meet the entry criteria for promotion to the Premiership if they won National Division One.
2. Mr Arlidge has now completed that report which he submitted to me, the new RFU Disciplinary Officer, on 5 June 2003. I have read the report and reviewed the five volumes of supporting documentation. This statement constitutes notification of my conclusions and the actions I intend to take. Mr Arlidge's report (but not the supporting documentation which will remain confidential) is attached to this statement and is hereby published. A draft was issued to those he criticised for comment, and the final report has taken note of their comments. It is issued simultaneously to those parties involved, the RFU Council and professional staff and the press.
3. I would like to thank Mr Arlidge for the thoroughness and detail of his investigation. He was not helped by the fact that he had no power to compel potential witnesses to give evidence, and there has been a certain hesitancy by some to assist the investigation. He has used the civil burden of proof, namely the balance of probabilities, when assessing the evidence. That is the burden of proof required by RFU Regulations[1] and the burden which I have used in reaching my conclusions.
4. There has also been some criticism of the decision to authorise this investigation particularly as it has reputedly cost a significant amount. Given the serious nature of the allegations, the way in which they were brought to public attention through the media and the lack of full co-operation from some of the parties, my predecessor's decision to order an independent enquiry has been shown to be absolutely right. I will address the issue of costs later.
The Allegations
5. Mr Cecil Duckworth, Chairman of Worcester RFC, relying on rumour and hearsay information given to him by Mr Keith Barwell, owner of Northampton RFC, alleged that a number of Premiership clubs agreed to pay Rotherham RUFC to ensure they failed the entry criteria for promotion from National Division One at the end of season 2001/2 and again at the end of season 2002/3. It was also implicitly alleged that £750,000 may actually have been paid to Rotherham RUFC.6. Mr Barwell and Mr Duckworth both spoke to members of the press and articles containing these allegations appeared in the Daily Mail on 10 and 11 December 2002 and in The Times on 11 December 2002. There have been subsequent articles in those and other newspapers during the course of the investigation. Although there is no direct evidence of the source I conclude on the balance of possibilities that Mr Duckworth, among others, was involved in continuing to pass information to the press.
Conduct of the Investigation
7. The investigation included oral interviews, written testimony and a forensic accounting exercise conducted by Deloitte & Touche. Individual members of the Board of PRL did not agree to be interviewed but agreed to provide written answers to questions through their various legal advisers. They took this course on the basis of legal advice, but this approach led Mr Arlidge to conclude that the Board of PRL were not entirely confident that all their members had acted within the bounds of propriety throughout. However, that is insufficient and falls well short of providing proof, particularly in the absence of any corroborating evidence, to enable me to conclude that they intended to make improper payments to Rotherham RUFC.8. Mr Arlidge identified the well known positions that PRL and FDR are diametrically opposed in their views in relation to promotion and relegation. The majority of PRL clubs' owners believe that their investment needs to be protected by ring-fencing the Premiership to ensure professional elite rugby flourishes. FDR - reflecting a more widely held view - believe that automatic promotion and relegation are an essential element of the ethos of the Game. This investigation quite rightly does not assess the merits of the relative arguments. However the antagonism caused by the different views means that both PRL and FDR treat each other with deep suspicion. Clearly Mr Duckworth was prepared to believe malicious rumours about PRL, and in the firm belief that they were true he was willing to make allegations through the press.
Findings
9. Based on the evidence contained in the Arlidge report, together with supporting documentation, I accept the conclusions contained therein and find:There is no cogent evidence to support the allegation that Rotherham RUFC was actually paid any money other than the approved parachute payments. This allegation is therefore dismissed.
The parachute payment to Rotherham RUFC for season 2002/03 was divided into two parts. The first (one third) was unconditional and payable in twelve monthly instalments by PRL. Payment of these sums was accelerated[2], but that was stopped when the RFU became aware of this fact. The second (two thirds) was conditional on Rotherham showing evidence to the RFU of improved facilities. Some conditional payments were also made direct by PRL without the requisite approval. Once the RFU Management Board became aware of the early payments they convened to consider them. The payments were validated as correct, and there is no evidence that Rotherham RUFC received monies to which they were not eventually entitled. However, the early payment may well have fuelled suspicion that Rotherham RUFC was paid additional sums to which they were not entitled. The RFU must maintain control of these payments and CEO RFU and CE PRL should ensure that there are regular checks to prevent this happening in the future.
There is prima facie evidence that some members of the Board of PRL did discuss the possibility of making payments additional to the parachute payments to Rotherham RUFC to induce the club to fail to meet entry criteria for promotion having won National Division One. Mr Tom Walkinshaw and Mr Charles Jillings, successive Chairmen of PRL, encouraged and allowed these discussions, although there is no clear evidence that the discussions developed into serious proposals to pay the money. There was some confusion in the minds of some members as to whether these discussions related to approved parachute payments or additional money. There is a prima facie case against both Chairmen of PRL for considering action that they have breached Regulation 3.2(f) of the Zurich Premiership Regulations and thereby prejudice the interests of the RFU and the Game.
Rotherham RUFC and particularly Mr Yarlett made inadequate efforts to prepare to meet the Entry Criteria for the Premiership at the end of 2001/02. His action demonstrated an initial casualness of approach and later, in relation to acquiring a lease to play at Millmoor, a willingness to manipulate the facts to fit a required situation. This casualness, leading to the decision that Rotherham would not be promoted at the end of 2001/02 season, no doubt fuelled suspicions that he had acted improperly. There is a prima facie case of conduct to the prejudice of the interests of the Game against Mr Yarlett in that he pre-dated the lease which enabled Rotherham RUFC to play at Millmoor.
The investigation was hampered by a lack of co-operation from Mr Barwell, who would not give evidence to Mr Arlidge even though he had initiated the original allegations. PRL's decision to respond to questions by letter rather than by oral testimony caused significant delay to the process.
The engagement of the national press by Mr Barwell and Mr Duckworth had an adverse effect on the conduct of the enquiry. Making public allegations of misconduct based on speculation is conduct which is likely to prejudice the interests of the RFU and the Game.
Disciplinary Action
10. I have considered whether I should take any disciplinary action in relation to these findings where there is sufficient evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that individuals are guilty of conduct which was prejudicial to the interests of the Union or the Game.[3] I have kept in mind Mr Arlidge's sage advice that: "Wrongdoing should be marked, but it is also in the long-term interests of the game that these antagonisms cease."11. Payment of money to Rotherham RUFC to fail to meet entry criteria for promotion, if proved, would have been so serious that those responsible would have faced expulsion from any association with the Game. Discussions about improper payments did take place, but there were enough honourable members of the Board of PRL to ensure that actual payment was never a real possibility. Indeed, the Arlidge report contains a clear statement from Leicester FC that they have always tried to abide by its legal obligations and wish others to do the same. There is no credible evidence to gainsay that statement. Nevertheless, those who did allow consideration of the possibility of improper payments should be warned as to their future conduct so they are in no doubt that any similar improper behaviour will be punished severely in the future.
12. I have also considered the damage done to the Game by placing unfounded allegations, and counter claims, in the public domain through contact with the national press before the RFU had an opportunity to investigate them. This showed a distinct lack of judgement in that it hampered the subsequent investigation, and a lack of trust that the RFU would have reacted appropriately. Mr Duckworth's actions in this respect, and specifically his attempts to act as amateur sleuth by recording telephone conversations with Mr Barwell surreptitiously, were particularly unattractive. Subsequent press articles championing either side have been potentially prejudicial to this investigation and to the wider interests of the Game. It is these press reports which have caused public speculation about the integrity of the RFU, PRL and Rotherham RUFC.
13. In all the circumstances, therefore, I intend to take the following action to mark the wrongdoing in the appropriate manner while drawing a line under the antagonism to allow the process of reconciliation to commence:
a. Mr Tom Walkinshaw and Mr Charles Jillings - I intend to write separate letters to Mr Walkinshaw and Mr Jillings warning them as to their future conduct. The contents of these letters will be private, but they will indicate the RFU's displeasure in the way, as successive Chairmen of PRL, they either encouraged or allowed discussions about improper payments to Rotherham RUFC. I also intend to order that PRL pays a proportion of the cost of this investigation as detailed below.
b. Mr Mike Yarlett - I intend to write a letter to Mr Yarlett warning him as to his future conduct. The contents of this letter will be private, but it will indicate the RFU's displeasure at his willingness to manipulate the facts to fit a required situation in relation to the date of signing a lease in relation to the use of Millmoor (Rotherham United FC Ground).
c. Mr Keith Barwell - He appeared to have genuine concerns about the potentially improper action by other Premiership owners, but he shared those concerns with the national press rather than the proper authorities in the RFU. He also showed a distinct lack of moral courage by refusing to assist Mr Arlidge's investigation. I therefore intend to write a letter warning him as to his future conduct. The contents of this letter will be private, but it will indicate the RFU's displeasure that he made serious allegations by talking to the press and then refused to assist the enquiry into those allegations.
d. Mr Cecil Duckworth - He no doubt believes that he has not done anything wrong and is one of the potential victims of any conspiracy. However, had he (and Mr Barwell) referred his suspicions to the RFU and not to the press, allegations could have been investigated expeditiously and the press briefed with facts rather than speculation. It is the public nature of these allegations (the most serious of which are unfounded) which has brought the game into disrepute. I therefore intend to write a letter warning him as to his future conduct. The contents of this letter will be private, but it will indicate the RFU's displeasure that he made serious allegations in the press based on speculation and hearsay rather than referring them confidentially to the RFU for investigation. I also intend to order that Worcester RFC pays a proportion of the cost of this investigation as detailed below.
14. These reprimands will be noted by the RFU and kept on file for five years. They will be taken into account if there are any further disciplinary proceedings against any of the parties involved. Each party will be asked whether he accepts the reprimand and, where relevant, the order for costs. If any individual does not confirm his acceptance of my action against him his case will be heard before a disciplinary tribunal which will be convened to adjudicate on whether his conduct was/is prejudicial to the interests of the game. In those circumstances, if there is a finding of guilt, the tribunal will be empowered to apply the full range of penalties available under RFU Rule 5.12.
Costs of the Investigation
15. This investigation has cost a significant amount. Those costs are much higher than they might otherwise have been because the investigation has been held under the glare of publicity, caused by a constant drip feeding of information to the media, and with a lack of co-operation from many of the parties involved. It is fair therefore that some of the costs should be borne by those who caused them. In these circumstances I order PRL to pay £90,000 and Worcester RFC to pay £10,000 by way of voluntary contributions towards the cost of this investigation. The RFU will pay the balance. Mr Yarlett and Mr Barwell will no doubt be required by PRL to pay an appropriate share of their overall contribution to the costs. Failure to pay these costs within 28 days will constitute non compliance with my order and lead to proceedings before an RFU tribunal under RFU Rule 5.12.Lessons to be learned
16. This whole affair has been caused because some who are involved are motivated solely by self interest. This has apparently fuelled a willingness to side step regulations, ignore the authority of the RFU and attempt to bring pressure to bear through the media. An essential part of the ethos of rugby is that those involved have trust in and mutual respect for each other, while acknowledging the pre-eminence of the RFU, their Governing Body, to whom disputes and allegations of wrongdoing should be referred for resolution. If that trust and mutual respect are undermined we risk losing part of the strength of the Game. I believe the following lessons are important:· The RFU, through Council and the Management Board, must retain a close interest in the elite game in England to ensure that its high standards of propriety and ethos are maintained.
· Parachute payments must be administered, and checked monthly[4], by the CEO RFU or other officer as delegated by him.
· Allegations of impropriety must be made to the Disciplinary Officer of the RFU in confidence and not to the media (until they have been properly investigated).
Jeff Blackett
RFU Disciplinary
Officer 9 June 2003