Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
Rugby Football Union chief executive Bill Sweeney is to face demands for his removal after a community game revolt submitted its request for a special general meeting on a night of acrimony between the warring parties.
A total of 141 signatories are included on the letter that was sent to the RFU on Thursday, easily exceeding the 100 member clubs needed to trigger a SGM under the governing body’s rules.
A statement released by the Rugby Football Referees Union (RFRU), which is leading the grass roots uprising, revealed that the initial resolution under debate at the SGM will include a call for the board to terminate Sweeney’s employment “as soon as practicably possible”.
RFU chairman Tom Ilube had been the main target for the rebellion but he stepped down from his post last month in response to the outcry over the executives pay and bonus scandal that has gripped Twickenham.
Upon receiving the letter, however, the RFU claimed that it contained “a number of inaccuracies” and that “it does not comply with the relevant requirements and is therefore invalid as a requisition for an SGM”.
It also said that the nine professional referees it employs have distanced themselves from the RFRU, with the officials declaring that “we have not endorsed any statements or meetings proposed by them.”
A spokesperson for the 141 clubs seeking the vote of no confidence in Sweeney hit back by insisting the RFU are using technicalities to avoid being held to account.
“The RFU can play for time all it likes, but this is a mass movement by a stronger, united team,” the spokesperson said.
“Splitting hairs about the rules of what is or isn’t a valid complaint form is merely postponing the inevitable.”
It was revealed in the RFU’s accounts published in November that Sweeney received pay of £1.1million for the 2023-24 financial year, which comprised of an increased salary of £742,000 and a bonus of £358,000.
Bonuses totalling almost £1million were paid to a further five executives even though the RFU reported an operating loss of £37.9m for 2023-24, the highest it has ever recorded.
In addition, 42 staff were made redundant in September, the England men’s team won just five of their 12 matches in 2024 and grass roots participation is in decline.
Other areas of contention mentioned in the letter sent to the RFU are its excessive bureaucracy and poor governance, the cutting of development officers, the “debacle” over the introduction of the new tackle-height in the community game and the cost of sacking former England head coach Eddie Jones.
“What you are seeing is the result of years of frustration that have affected every level of our game,” Chichester RFC chairman Paddy McAlpine said.
“Now that has erupted as a result of the anger clubs felt when the executive were paid their bonuses. Every club I know wants to see change at the top.”
At an emergency RFU council meeting last month, it was declared that the organisation had suffered “reputational damage” because of the pay scandal.
Ilube oversaw its remuneration committee, which was responsible for introducing the long-term incentive plan (LTIP) bonus scheme designed to retain executives during the pandemic that caused uproar.
An independent review of the LTIP scheme is being conducted by a law firm.
