LET’S forget about the Six Nations for five minutes because this coming week, on the same day as Gregor Townsend names his training squad for the championship (which kicks off in just under three weeks’ time), another meeting at Murrayfield will deal with an issue which will have far deeper and longer lasting significance to the game in this country as a whole.

Club delegates from across Scotland have been invited to a "town hall" meeting at HQ on Wednesday where they will hear from – and be able to ask questions of – Sir Bill Gammell and Norman Murray, the two businessmen who have conducted a wide-ranging "Independent Corporate Governance and Business Review" of the SRU.

The dynamic duo have come up with a radical new governance structure which would see the SRU Council – which is supposed to oversee and provide rugby guidance to the Board –disbanded, with no meaningful elected representation for clubs in the new set-up.

A new unitary Board will oversee all of the game, with two sub-Boards operating underneath to run the domestic and performance games as (almost) separate entities, reflecting Gammell and Murray’s perception that the two strands of the game are diverging.

However, the make-up of the domestic Board will be dictated by the main Board meaning that it will have no real autonomy, and there are no assurances as to what level of year-on-year funding this sub-Board will be granted by the main Board to invest in the grassroots game.

The new structure will also disband the SRU Trust, which holds the assets [Murrayfield Stadium] on behalf of the clubs. The assets will be transferred to the Board and available to be used to leverage cash from third-party investors.

The Edinburgh regional forum met last Wednesday and unanimously instructed their Council representative to let SRU President Dee Bradbury know that they [collectively] will not support the proposal. The feedback from other forum meetings across the country and through various other informal club communication lines has been along similar lines, meaning there appears to be very little chance of the proposal getting the two-thirds support required from a Special General Meeting of member clubs for it to become reality.

In the circumstances, it seems likely that the SGM, which has been provisionally scheduled for February or March, will not go ahead. However, that is unlikely to be the end of the matter.

If nothing else, the Gammell/Murray report has highlighted that the existing governance structure which was put in place in 2005 is not working effectively under the current SRU regime, who pick and choose which parts of it they want to follow. While it is robust enough to sustain the sport in the short-term, the tension between the "professionals" with a voracious appetite for control against the "amateurs" who must ensure that they retain a meaningful voice so that they can be involved in protecting the long-term sustainability of their game, means that something needs to change soon.

Then we can all get back to worrying about the Six Nations.