Tim Glover: Game loses its way in a fog of suspicion

When Rotherham earned promotion last season but were denied their rightful place in the Zurich Premiership after failing to meet the criteria, they seemed resigned to their fate. They went quietly into the dark night while the theorists looked for a conspiracy.

Last week they found one, namely that a number of the clubs had been prepared to pay Rotherham not to join them at the top table. Cecil Duckworth, the owner of Worcester in National League One and the Premiership's bête noire (which could make next Saturday's PowerGen Cup meeting between his side and Leicester lively), said: "I've no doubt there was a conspiracy to ensure Rotherham would not go up last season and the clubs have agreed to do it again this season. We've fought for years to get automatic promotion from the First Division and here we have this wheeze to ensure it doesn't happen.''

The Rugby Football Union responded by asking Robert Horner, their disciplinary officer, to see if there was a case to answer under the umbrella charge of bringing the game into disrepute. "If people are breaking the rules they will be punished,'' Graeme Cattermole, chairman of the RFU, said. "Whether it's a fine or expulsion it will be imposed. There will be no fudge.'' Rotherham's compensation for not going up last season was a "parachute'' payment of £720,000, two thirds of which has to be spent on improving facilities, which they have been receiving in instalments. The allegation is that they were offered an extra incentive to stay down, with the Premiership clubs contributing to a kitty.

Mike Yarlett, chairman of Rotherham, described the allegations at his club's annual meeting last Wednesday as "mischief making''. Howard Thomas, chief executive of the Premiership, said there was "no substance behind the grizzly headlines'' but added that he could not comment on what happens at meetings between the owners.

The Yorkshire club are again favourites to finish top of the First Division – they have lost only one match in the last 14 months – and say that this time they would be ready to graduate. "We are much more professional now,'' Jim Kilfoyle, Rotherham's chief executive, said. "We've learnt a lot and we're tougher and more focused. The allegations are designed to divert us from our goal. We've been accused of all sorts and if they said we had Elvis Presley on the left wing and Father Christmas on the right I wouldn't be at all surprised. I was heartbroken at what happened last season.''

Since Rotherham were promoted three years ago – they promptly went down – by the old method of a play-off, they were not only required to win the First Division but also to meet new criteria including the Catch 22 of proving principal tenancy of their venue, which should mean, in the case of ground-sharing with a football club, that rugby gets first call.

Rotherham accepted that their Clifton Lane ground was not suitable and ostensibly made plans to share Rotherham United's Millmoor. However, they failed to meet the criteria at every turn. There was also the revelation that there was no agreement for a move to Millmoor. Rotherham's application amounted to a half-page document containing no commercial, financial or operational terms. The RFU's legal advice was that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

Cock-up or conspiracy? Rotherham had no excuses. "We were fully consulted throughout the process,'' Yarlett said, "and believe the matter was conducted in a thoroughly professional manner.'' Rotherham have since moved to Millmoor where £100,000 has been spent on the pitch. Francis Baron, the chief executive of the RFU, has visited the ground but last week he said he has yet to see the tenancy agreement between the clubs. Even so, with Wasps moving to High Wycombe's football stadium, it is inconceivable that the question of primary tenancy will be asked of Rotherham should they be the club seeking promotion.

What is clear is that the Premiership members, who like to be compared to the Super 12 and credited with the rise of England, are terrified by the prospect of relegation and will go to great lengths to avoid it, but whether that involves paying a club deliberately to funk its criteria exam is another matter. Short of failing the means test Rotherham could have simply chosen not to be promoted.

Richmond and London Scottish were sacrificed because it was felt a 12-club Premier League was better than 14, and Duckworth and his colleagues in the First Division have fought a major campaign to establish the principle of promotion and relegation. One-up, one-down was introduced for three seasons and comes to the end of its unsatisfactory trial in the summer. So far the sum result has been Leeds replacing Rotherham in the Premiership, and those two would have swapped places again last season but for the status quo being retained.

Baron heads a taskforce of the Premiership and First Division in the New Year to decide whether to continue with one-up, one-down or revert to a play-off between the bottom and top clubs.

The view of Nigel Wray, the owner of Saracens, that "relegation means liquidation'' is typical of the hierarchy. His latest proposal is for one-up, none-down. "Your income would be cut by nine-tenths, your business shattered,'' Howard Thomas says of relegation. "There's no professional structure below the Premiership.'' There are other ways of avoiding the trapdoor and an increasingly fashionable idea is an expansion of the Premiership to 14 or 16 clubs split into two conferences.

Duckworth, who has invested heavily in Worcester only to see them narrowly miss promotion on four occasions, will have his conspiracy charge investigated, not only by the RFU and the Office of Fair Trading but by First Division Rugby, whose chairman, David Hammond, said: "There's an awful lot of smoke and we'll have to see if there's a fire underneath. We've had all the arguments about ring fencing and there's not a lot of sympathy for the Premiership owners. They should realise they are not the only people with money to invest in English rugby. They went into this with their eyes wide open.'' Hammond's board meet on 8 January, by which time the credentials of Rotherham, and the other leaders in the First Division, will have undergone a preliminary inspection. A final audit will be carried out at the end of March.

When Rotherham's half-baked submissions were rejected seven months ago, the RFU offered them professional assistance on facility development, future direction, business planning and administration. "We are being guided and it is a constructive process,'' Kilfoyle said. "There was confusion over the criteria issue and we will not be the victim of that again.''