SARU to declare R6.4 millon profit
21 Feb 2006
Brian van Rooyen will base his re-election campaign on the financial statements of the national governing body, according to the Argus’s Dale Granger.
Granger, in Tuesday’s Argus newspaper, writes that the union will declare a profit of R6.4 million, overturning a R12million loss from the previous year.
Van Rooyen, who is facing charges relating to poor corporate governance, told Granger: “We will declare a profit of R6.4m for the 2005 season which is an R18m turnaround from the previous season. But we could have made almost R13m more, as we decided to host the World under 19 championship without a sponsor, while also funding the national amateur team and the women’s teams.”
Van Rooyen, in his election campaign, will also point to the success of the Springboks and SA under 21 and under 19 teams. When he was elected the Boks were No 6 in the world. They are now number two and Van Rooyen will attribute that to the free hand that Jake White was given in coaching and selecting the side.
“We have put together the strongest commercial programme in the history of the sport and are fully subscribed, guaranteeing rugby an income of R650m from now until 2009. We also concluded the Sanzar agreement, which will bring R1.4bn into our coffers. The deal was made without using any agents, unlike New Zealand and Australia, which saved us having to pay a commission of R140m.
“The British Lions will also be coming to South Africa on a 20-match tour in 2009, which will yield a further R100m for South African rugby,” Van Rooyen told Granger.
Oregan Hoskins, who is opposing Van Rooyen, spoke at length in the country’s Sunday media about the transformation needed in rugby. He said he wanted more transparency and he questioned the financial status of the union.
Hoskins also raised the corporate governance issues around Van Rooyen, among them the leasing of his own company offices to SARU.
Van Rooyen told Granger: “The fact is that the lease for the office was put before the president’s council and was motivated by the finance committee (chaired by Dolf van Huyssteen). These are the same old charges contained in last year’s Brand-Heunis report, but no agreement was ever signed – and I never received a cent from SA Rugby for any office or staff.”
Other allegations against Van Rooyen are that he paid the Springboks a R1m bonus in 2004 for playing an extra Test against Wales without the approval of the president’s council.
“We actually paid them R250 000, not R1m, and they deserved it. The Test brought us an extra R5m and if I had to do it again I would,” he said.
Van Rooyen is also coming under fire for allegedly paying former SA Rugby managing director Rian Oberholzer R120 000 a month for working as a consultant on South Africa’s failed 2011 World Cup bid.
“Rian knew the inner workings of Rugby World Cup, but he was not paid R120 000 a month. He was paid R120 000 in total,” said Van Rooyen, who gave White his unconditional support to ensure a successful World Cup campaign.
“If I am re-elected, my goal will be to ensure that (coach) Jake White has everything he needs to help the Springboks win the World Cup in 2007 and that there is not a major exodus of players to overseas clubs after the event.”
15 Comments
21 Feb 2006, 12:49 pm
Aaaah the joys of politics in sport, I guess it comes with the territory, the presidency is just one big political campaign… will be interesting to see who wins this one.
What was the reason that we did not get a sponsor for the under 19 World Championship…? There must be a valid reason…
A British Lions tour of 20 games in 2009, 20 games !!! Gotta love the old format of touring, as long as they perform better than the recent Lions.. am excited already!!!
21 Feb 2006, 12:51 pm
Roar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
21 Feb 2006, 13:15 pm
might be an exodus before the event by those who don’t get in the squad – again bolt the door after the horse has gone.
21 Feb 2006, 13:43 pm
>>keo
are you gonna throw your bone over the election?
21 Feb 2006, 14:40 pm
20 match Lions tour?
****!!
Who are they not going to play?
Looks like even the SACS 1st 15 will be getting a go at Memorial Field.
21 Feb 2006, 14:40 pm
is the john the bookmaker in Dehli taken bets on this
21 Feb 2006, 15:04 pm
6.4 Miljoen?
Kan julle dink hoeveel daar sou gewees het as ons n eerlike baas gehad het?
21 Feb 2006, 15:24 pm
All I want to hear is:
1. Strength vs Strength CC
2. S14/Tri-Nations to end after this agreement. Great to watch, but bad for SA teams. Time to join competition that suits SA. All we are doing is strengthening Aussie and NZ rugby. Let them spend a few years isolated. Those agreements are successful only because we play, yet we continue to suck hind-***. And it’s too far to go watch the games. 9 hours to London vs 14 to Sydney/20 hours to NZ. Ridiculous!
3. Longer tours; fewer one-offs. And tours, not 2 tests in two weekends. 8 week tours
All hail SA. All hail the mighty Boks
21 Feb 2006, 15:30 pm
seamus European rugby would not suit SA. time to cut out the bullshit excuses for your struggles in the Super 12.
21 Feb 2006, 15:32 pm
n Sirkus met n klomp narre wat n klomp geld maak en gaan maak lyk dit my.Maak die kaartjies goedkoper sodat die fans weer stadion toe kan gaan.
21 Feb 2006, 16:03 pm
Brumby, my phonetically challenged friend, you are talking nonsense. Why would UK/French rugby not suit us? Or you, for that matter?
Without SA you guys would be floundering and you know it. That pissy little Aus club competition that parades as rugby is a joke; and you know that too.
Furthermore, your side (Brumbies) really battled last year when they had an extended tour, so perhaps there is something to it.
21 Feb 2006, 16:23 pm
seasmus if your teams want to lower your standards down to the level of the celtic and italian teams than you have problems not us.
22 Feb 2006, 01:33 am
“S14/Tri-Nations to end after this agreement. Great to watch, but bad for SA teams. Time to join competition that suits SA. All we are doing is strengthening Aussie and NZ rugby.”
Aussie and Kiwi rugby did very well when Bok rugby was in political isolation!
It’s only “bad for SA rugby” because SA rugby teams keep on losing. ZERO wins in the S12 championship as against two by Australia and a massive EIGHT by New Zealand.
Same with the 3N – only two wins in 10 years by SA.
What’s “good” for SA rugby will then have to be taking on the weak old rugby easybeats like Italy and Argentina and Scotland and then hyping up the wins and pretending feebly that SA rugby can probably hack it with the real heavy-hitters of world rugby like NZ.
It won’t work. It’s just bluffing yourself.
22 Feb 2006, 07:47 am
I do not think the Super 12 or Super 14 or Tri-nations is bad for SA rugby, I agree with Tackler on this point we wouldn’t be saying that if we were winning these competitions. NZ are the leader in world rugby at the moment and we must compete with the best to improve, the Bok side is not miles away but our depth in SA Rugby is not there (in terms of the top 120 players), therefore by playing good opposition and getting used to the trials of touring can only be a good thing in my opinion. Yes there is too much rugby but that is for all nations – so lets tour where our rugby and players can develop and improve.
Something I would also like to see is more development of our younger players (white and black) take some selection sides to the UK to get touring experience and used to different conditions.
22 Feb 2006, 09:48 am
If the above (profitability, u19 & u21 )success is true, then how is BvR a bad administrator?
If BvR was able removed Markies, how is he our worst president?
am not the greatest Van Rooyen fan but sa rugga is seemingly in a manageable state. The saru union is not run in the “ideal” manner and the so called “good of sa rugga” is a long way of, if we are to remove this man and replace him with a shark.
A shark, which has ties with Markies and Straeuli is not ideal.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.