Relations between the grass-roots clubs nationwide and the Rugby Football Union had become increasingly strained, even before the governing body’s executive bonus scandal erupted last week.

It was on the eve of England’s opening World Cup match against Argentina in Marseille that the last real threat of a challenge to the leadership took place, when 30 members of the RFU’s 65-strong council signed a letter outlining a series of fears, claiming the board was “providing insufficient leadership, controls, and scrutiny over the performance of the RFU executive”.

This had come amid a backdrop of mounting tensions, the controversy over the handling of the tackle-height change in the community game, fears about RFU finances, funding for the grass roots and the board’s scrutiny of the executive’s decisions.

Though the revolt collapsed after criticisms that its timing would disrupt England’s World Cup campaign, the resentment lingered through the summer, when Tom Ilube stood to be re-elected as chairman of the RFU at June’s annual general meeting. He was re-elected for a second three-year term, but a minority of around 20 per cent of those who voted did not support him.

What happened next shines a light on the fragility of the governing body’s relationship with its member clubs. The union is made up of 30 geographic constituent bodies (CBs), including Oxford and Cambridge universities, and seven national CBs, including the Army, the Navy, the Royal Air Force, Schools, Colleges, Students and Referees.

Clubs upset by president’s indiscreet letter

Two CBs had contained significant opposition to Ilube’s re-election, but the decision by incoming president Rob Udwin to write to them to determine the root of their voting decisions served only to aggravate the situation.

The correspondence to the CBs asked why and named the clubs and the individual who cast the vote. In one correspondence, seen by Telegraph Sport, Udwin, who names 18 clubs, states: “We noticed that several clubs from [the CB] registered a vote or proxy vote against the resolution, as did the county union and your chair.

“We didn’t hear any concerns from the clubs about Tom [Ilube] prior to the AGM, so it was quite striking and surprising that so many clubs registered a negative proxy vote at the AGM itself.

“I wonder if you and I could have a conversation about this in the next few days to help me to understand what the issues might be. After we have spoken, if necessary, I can engage with those clubs to understand why they voted, or instructed [a council member] to use their proxy vote in the way that they did, and what reassurances we can give to those clubs that Tom is the right person to lead the organisation for these three years.”

One senior source said: “Clubs were really upset that they were being asked to explain their vote. One CB just told them where to go, and told them that we lived in a democracy and did not need to explain how they voted.”

Another CB replied that its clubs met regularly throughout the season and “it was clear that our clubs lacked confidence in the current leadership”.

‘Ilube as chair of the board has been virtually invisible’

“In particular the RFU forecast a loss of £50 million in 2023-24 and substantial further large losses over the next four-year Rugby World Cup cycle,” wrote the CB chair. “The [RFU] board do not appear to be holding the executive to account and our clubs felt that a change was necessary to recover this situation.

“Tom Ilube as chair of the board has been virtually invisible to the community game. He has made no apparent effort to engage with clubs or CBs, he definitely hasn’t reached out [to the CB] during his previous term and he has absolutely no public profile. I personally wouldn’t know him if he stood next to me. As a result, the executive do not appear to have the necessary checks and balances and are not held to account.

“The clubs and board believed that a new chair with rugby knowledge and greater willingness to speak publicly was required to hold the executive – and particularly the CEO – to account. Nothing has changed since the AGM and we still have the same concerns. We understand that over 20 per cent of members who attended the AGM voted against Tom Ilube and we would like to know what his plans are to regain the confidence of clubs and county unions.”

In response the RFU said that Udwin had written to two CBs “to see if we could engage with them to understand if there were any specific concerns that needed to be addressed”.

Council members mobilising to unseat Sweeney and Ilube

Now those tensions have bubbled up again, given the furore over the governing body’s largesse in his salary and bonus payments to the executive team, including the chief executive, Bill Sweeney.

A collective of grass-roots clubs that mobilised in response to the way the tackle-height law was rolled out, called the Community of Clubs Union (CCU) last week reformed with the aim of unseating Sweeney and Ilube.

Now, with the grass-roots clubs voicing their anger at the payments when the governing body suffered record losses of £37.9 million and made 42 redundancies, council members are mobilising once again.

It will take a two-thirds majority for Ilube to lose his position if an emergency meeting is called, which is a big ask. But whether he stays or goes, there is much work to be done to repair the broken trust with the game.