This Premier farce ridicules the game

Welcome to the silly season. Mike Yarlett, the owner of Rotherham, is "mentally and physically exhausted''. Getting caught up in rugby politics tends to have this effect. It is the time of year when the great and the good get their heads together and produce a two-faced monster.

Twelve months ago Rotherham won promotion to the Zurich Premiership, but failed to meet the entry criteria. They accepted a parachute payment of more than £700,000, duly won the league again and submitted their new credentials, which include sharing Millmoor, the home of Rotherham FC, at the end of March.

Early last week England Rugby Limited (the joint body of the Premier clubs and the RFU) said they required further information. According to Jim Kilfoyle, the Rotherham chief executive, "they needed a letter from the auditors showing that our wages are inside the salary cap. We have done everything they have asked".

By last Thursday evening the issue had switched to primacy of tenure, a more complex requirement for a club sharing a football ground. Rotherham have to prove they can fulfil the fixture list, and any changes, without playing second fiddle to the town's First Division football club.

The five RFU members of England Rugby thought there was no problem but the five Premier men disagreed, splitting the partnership down the middle. It's like a reversion to the Cold War. There will be another meeting tomorrow; Rotherham will probably get the nod, undermining yesterday's events. "We think we are the principal tenant at Millmoor,'' Kilfoyle said.

He might well ask about the status of London Irish, Bristol, Wasps and Saracens, all of whom ground-share with soccer clubs. Sale will do so next season, while Leeds co-exist with rugby league.

Graeme Cattermole, chairman of the RFU, said: "Unlike last year Rotherham clearly met the criteria. We are very disappointed that the Premier representatives felt unable to support Rotherham's unconditional entry.''

Howard Thomas, chief executive of the Premier clubs, responded by accusing the RFU of a "PR stunt to court popularity''. He added: "We are very upset at being put into the position of the devil with the RFU as Saints. We didn't get the auditor's report until Tuesday and clearly there is still work to be done.''

Enter the Office of Fair Trading, who have been looking at primacy of tenure and have come up with a compromise. If the club at the bottom of the Premiership and the club at the top of National League One both fail the test the matter would be resolved with a play-off. What has yet to be resolved is the allegation of a Premiership slush fund established to buy off Rotherham last season. A five-month enquiry has yet to report.

In isolation, the annual rumpus over Rotherham, who clearly need to change their mouthwash, leaves administrators open to ridicule; in tandem with the proposed merger between Bath and Bristol it should leave them open to a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.

On the face of it the issue is simple ­ one club up, one down. But nothing in professional rugby union is straightforward. And the timing of the latest pronouncements reeks to high heaven. To the majority of the Premiership clubs, relegation is anathema. Tough. They agreed to it for two years, during which time nobody has gone down or up, and the matter is supposed to be reviewed by next season. Yet if the Bristol-Bath match at Ashton Gate last week, which attracted a record league crowd, proved anything it is that the public like nothing better than a basement scrap. Whether the result of that, or yesterday's climax to the Premiership programme, will amount to anything more than a phoney war is still not clear.

If Bath and Bristol become one and Rotherham are promoted, the Premiership would still consist of 12 clubs. How convenient. The parachute payment was designed to soften the landing of the club relegated from the elite. If nobody falls, who will claim the money?

Andrew Brownsword, the owner of Bath, who is more elusive than the Scarlet Pimpernel, made no reference to the merger in his programme notes for the Bath-Newcastle match yesterday. This is about the only form of communication from Brownsword, who is also the club's chief executive. It is an extraordinary way to run a business.

The players and supporters of both cities are against a merger, but the only vote they have is with their feet. "A decision will have to be made soon,'' Peter Thorburn, the Bristol coach said, "otherwise we won't have any players left.'' Many have already made contingency plans. "It might be a different asylum but the same lunatics will be running it,'' was one player's verdict.

The so-called merger ­ a bemused Oxford thought they had a deal with Bristol just as they had with Rotherham last year ­ would sit fine with the Premiership. "We have had no formal application,'' Thomas said, "but mergers are allowed.'' But it would set an alarming precedent.

The deal is being proposed by Malcolm Pearce of Bristol, whose argument is that rugby in the city is unsustainable. But that was before the success at Ashton Gate, the home of Bristol City. If that was to become a regular venue, what price primacy of tenure?

Pearce and Brownsword do not exchange greetings cards, so it is difficult to envisage them working together. If the latter wants out, the cost would be high. Not everybody is in favour of the West Country amalgamation. Keith Barwell, the Northampton owner, said he would vote against it. This is the same man who told Richmond, when the London club were being sold down the Thames, that there was "only so much room in the lifeboat'', as he helped bash them over the head with an oar.

Coming next: I'm a Rugby Player, Get Me Out of Here!