Desperate Friends Losing Argument?

By Glen Leat
June 24 2007

Judging by the recent letters to the Bath Chronicle, the (so called) Friends of the Rec can see their fight to keep Bath Rugby from developing its spiritual home moving towards failure. I make this judgement, not with any insider knowledge on the final outcome, but by the desperation in their recent correspondence.

As always seems to be the case, the leader of this very small group of activists, Worthy Gilson, is keeping his powder dry and has recently been leaving the campaigning work to his trusted lieutenants, Phil Inman and Dan Drew. 

In very recent letters Mr Inman has challenged the validity of the official Strategic Review: "Could it be that they are wise to the fact that the contents of the Strategic Review is a complete fabrication comprising 100 per cent wool, specially designed to pull over the eyes of the Charity Commission and the unsounded majority of Bath citizens?".

He also announced his personal dislike of Bath Rugby: "Over the last decade this privately owned club has been the cause of widespread embitterment and discord within our city." without supporting evidence for this pronouncement. Other than the half dozen FOTR, who are the embittered and discordant within Bath and why aren't they making their collective voices heard?

In turn Mr Drew made the ludicrous assertion: "I conclude that the possible threat to our World Heritage status - which would be caused if we redevelop the Rec - proves that rugby is not an asset to our prestigious World Heritage title." again without any supporting facts. This prompted me to write my (factual) piece on Bath's World Heritage status.

I have no doubt that these men are fully committed to their cause and I admire their persistence, however their determination to take the moral high ground is somewhat shaky when one trawls back through letters sent to the Bath Chronicle this time last year by Mr Drew. The following extracts clearly show his anti-rugby club credentials as opposed to safeguarding the status of Bath as a World Heritage site.

"I would suggest that Churchill House be demolished if it is obstructing progress of the new development. The situation is hardly similar to the Rec. The intentions there are to eventually increase the profitability of a professional rugby club, in the centre of a World Heritage City, on charitable land which has already been bequeathed to its citizens." 

No mention here about the profitability of the developers of Southgate or that many other Bath residents saw the retention of this building as being important to their City. 

"I agree that an aerial view of the Rec substantiates the view that the club now occupies about one third of the ground, but can Mr Smith guarantee it remaining so, even if planning permission was allowed?"

Interesting that he has to rely on scare-mongering when the facts don't fit his argument.

"As for his suggestion of venturing to the Rec during the winter, I would remind Mr Wiley that my preference is for games where the ball runs true."

So here we have it, Mr Drew is a Bath City fan: many of whom have cast an envious eye towards the success of the "egg chasers" for the past twenty years whilst their club (until last season) has slipped down the leagues.

"Worthy Gilson's Friends of the Rec should identify themselves? This endless witchhunt about who they are is irrelevant. Their title again indicates that Mr Gilson is not alone. We now await some enlightened comments, instead of the same tiresome "Bath has played rugby on the Rec for 100 years and the club's presence is indirectly adding to the local economy" etc. Let's give them a final "kick into touch"."

Interesting that he is happy to accept a self styled minority campaigning group purely because they have the word "friends" in their title yet is happy to dismiss a heritage stretching beyond 100 years with a flick of his pen.

Everyone with an interest in the future of The Rec has to trust the judgement of the Charity Commission however it is my hope that these officials base their decision on what is best for the City of Bath and not a few people with personal axes to grind. 

I hope the Commission take full account of the outcome of the Official Strategic Report which clearly recognised the impact on the Rec if Bath Rugby is forced to move away, the strength of feeling demonstrated by the "Keep Bath Rugby at the Rec" petition containing over 20,000 signatures and the fact that Bath's World Heritage status is more likely to be compromised if the club is forced out of the City.