Nothing, it seems, is certain except death, taxes, and an RFU revolt.

The guns may still be only cooling from the last confrontation, the special general meeting held at the end of March with the aim of forcing out the governing body’s chief executive, Bill Sweeney.

Sweeney prevailed, yet it seems that hopes of a permanent peace remain faint, judging by the reaction to the Rugby Football Union’s revelation on Wednesday of radical proposals to overhaul the organisation’s governance, including axing of its 63-strong council.

The RFU was quick to insist that the review had been led by an independent group set up by the council, and the board and executive, including Sweeney, had not been involved “apart from being part of general consultation so far in some cases”.

It is also true that the “Governance and Representation Review” was not a result of the SGM but had been ongoing since September 2023.

Yet the perception of a land grab to dismantle the body that has harboured fierce critics of both Sweeney and the board – a revolt before Christmas culminated in the resignation of former chairman Tom Ilube over the bonus scandal – did not take long to take root.

The fact that the RFU only released the papers to the council via a Zoom call at noon was interpreted as an indication of the lack of trust and an alarming sign of dysfunctionality between the executive and the council.

“These proposals are a blatant attempt to reduce the influence of members and scrutiny of the board and executive,” said one source. “It is like the government trying to abolish parliament.”

Within hours, the Whole Game Union, the organisation representing around 250 clubs that led the call for the SGM in March, had been sparked back to life, issuing a statement that while the role and composition of the council was “sorely in need of reform ... the proposals would reduce the scrutiny of the Board and executive, two bodies that have brought the RFU to its knees”.

The phoney peace looks to be over, at least for another few months until the RFU’s annual general meeting on June 30.

A counter proposal to the RFU’s plan, which has been signed by Chichester RFC and Nottingham RFC, has already been lodged and calls for 11 rule changes to make council members more accountable but also calling for key decisions, such as the RFU’s strategic plan, to be approved by the council, not just the board.

“The objective is to ensure that members regain a meaningful role in shaping the union’s strategic direction and provides a platform that enables the RFU to be restructured into a well-led, well-governed, and high-performing National Governing Body (NGB) that serves the needs of all its members,” the letter states.

The RFU proposal in contrast wants to replace the council with “a smaller national advisory group” or replacing those members with game representatives who would be embedded within all the decision-making bodies, “including in suggested regional growth boards”. It has now begun a nationwide consultation “seeking views from across the rugby community”.

Proposals also include “accelerating ideas to develop a genuinely devolved regional system so those in the game can feel closer to and can influence the decisions which impact them directly”.

Emboldened by the feedback from the roadshows held in the run-up to the SGM, and by winning a second vote promising a governance review, including devolution of powers to the regions, by an 80 per cent majority, the RFU clearly see this as a moment to press ahead with a new structure. But the concern is that by being too radical, it has merely poked the bear.

The WGU, in reaction to the vote at the SGM, said that it would hold off calling another one only if the RFU delivered reform.

With two governance proposals now set to go to a vote of the clubs in June, the concern for the RFU is that it will not meet the 66 per cent threshold needed for its proposal to be accepted.

And that is before the issue is addressed of council members voting like turkeys for Christmas.

Those with long memories will know that we have been here before, several times. The last major revolt at the top of the RFU in 2011 resulted in a review, carried out by Slaughter and May, that proposed reducing the council to just 25 members. That even had the support of the then sports minister, Hugh Robertson, but was ultimately kicked into the long grass.

The hope must be that a way forward can be settled upon, for what is certain is that the status quo cannot remain, something at least the two parties agree on.

The game is still hurting from the traumatic months that followed the disclosure of the RFU’s annual report last November revealing the extent of the largesse of salaries and bonuses. It cannot afford another public squabble.

What is also clear is that those who see the dismantling of the council as a move that will strengthen Sweeney’s hand are misplaced. The wounds from the last battle revolt are still too fresh