reaction Unrest at 'lack of openness' in amalgamation talks

The chairman of Scottish Golf Union, Douglas Connon, and Hamish Grey , its chief executive, joined Shona Malcolm, chairperson of the Scottish Ladies’ Golfing Association, last week in expressing confidence that their proposal to amalgamate and create a new body, Scottish Golf Limited, will be put in place later this year.

However, representatives of the Glasgow Golf Union (GGU), claiming to be speaking on behalf of the majority of the area associations that will make the decision at the SGU’s extraordinary meeting on May 26, say their alternative plans have been treated with “disregard and disdain”.

They told Herald Sport that, while fully supportive of amalgamation in principle, they feel a single option is being driven through without proper consideration of alternatives.

According to Gus Lamond, the GGU shareholder on the existing SGU Council, which under its current articles of association has “responsibility for guiding the board on policy matters and strategic issues . . .” the council has not been properly consulted.

“It’s a disregard . . . a disdain almost,” he said. “There isn’t a long-term vision either. We feel that club members need to get the chance to see this [the GGU/areas proposal]. When there is something like amalgamation which is a major issue then naturally the council want to know and be involved at a very early stage. The facts are that generally the council have felt they were being kept in the dark.

“The board came back and said they were working away behind the scenes and when the plan or proposal was ready they would present it. They’ve been doing that for maybe two years and it was really only in early November that they presented them.”

Ronald Jamieson, secretary of the GGU, said: “Lack of information and of transparency has most certainly been damaging. At our meeting we asked Douglas Connon what alternative proposals they had discussed and they said they had examined all proposals. We asked for details and were told it was confidential.”

There was certainly a dismissive tone at last week’s formal amalgamation announ-cement when Malcolm, a central figure in the negotiations, offered her response to the existence of the area associations’ plan. “When one of our board members was told about that her response was that she needed to go and lie down in a darkened room with a bottle of gin,” she said.

The area representatives feel their proposal has been misrepresented and were anxious to point out that they are open to negotiations on the number of women representatives on a new council, with up to 50/50 representation. “We would have been happy to compromise, but we weren’t given the opportunity,” said Jamieson.

He also believes the current SGU board have a secondary motive for seeking to push the new structure through. “In my opinion they are trying to lessen the influence of the areas,” said the 30-year veteran of golf administration. “They are spreading it over a wider membership which makes it much more difficult to offer a challenge to the board should the membership feel strongly enough about what the board are doing.

“The areas are willing to compromise to get an acceptable arrangement going forward. The ladies have refused to compromise, yet the men, who are 85% of the membership, have got to compromise. In our opinion that’s just not right. We feel our proposal gives the ladies a much better deal than the SGU board are giving them.

“The last thing we want to do is to divide Scottish amateur golf. We don’t have our heads in the sand. [With] the system that is being proposed, Scottish golf will be in the hands of a few people who are really not interested in other people’s views.”

Jamieson indicated that he believes scare-mongering tactics are being used in suggesting that all existing financial support will be withdrawn if this new structure is not approved. “We’ve been told that all of the sponsorship would be withdrawn. We think that’s misleading,” he said.

As things stand, the area associations have control of the situation as they can vote the proposal down at the egm in May. A 75% vote in favour is required and Lamond said that as things stand 12 of the 16 areas support the Glasgow proposal. “Under the articles in place at the moment we’ve still got a job to oversee this and try to get them to be as open and transparent as possible,” he said.

“At the same time they are meant to be consulting us and keeping us in the picture. I think they’re a wee bit ahead of themselves,” he said of the way the situation was presented last week. “They’ve got a lot of committees that run with ladies and gents at the moment which is fine, but they’re not Scottish Golf Limited yet. So they have to abide by the rules and they can’t just steam-roller and pretend that the council doesn’t exist.”

Lamond said the areas are keen to avoid the issue turning into a vote of confidence in their chairman and chief executive, but he believes that if there is no further negotiation the current proposal will be rejected. “We’re confident enough that we could win an egm and send them back to think again, then be more involved with the areas to come up with a solution, because we do want a solution,” said Lamond.