Why White fears a new president
21 Feb 2006
Springbok coach Jake White, accused of backing an extension of Brian van Rooyen’s tenure as SARU president, is wary of Andre Markgraaff’s return should Oregan Hoskins unseat Van Rooyen.
Lobbying for the presidency is reaching a climax this week and the Hoskins camp, led by Cheetahs President Harold Verster and Mike Stofile, have expressed concern that White had attempted to canvass votes (on behalf of Van Rooyen) among the small unions.
White knows what he has in Van Rooyen, who earlier today was reported in the press as saying he would give White whatever he requires to prepare for the 2007 World Cup. Van Rooyen has said he would not interfere with White and allow him to his own devices.
Enter a new president and the Bok coach is again confronted with the possibility of a national director of rugby. Enter Hoskins and the possibility of Andre Markgraaff as the national director of rugby becomes a distinct possibility White does not want to deal with.
Hoskins, a few weeks ago, told Keo.co.za that he and Markgraaff had not been in contact and that Markgraaff was not a part of his election campaign. Hoskins said the only interaction he had with Markgraaff was a phone call in which Markgraaff wished him well for the election.
Keo.co.za’s sources, however, indicate that Markgraaff wants the post of national director of rugby created — and he wants to be it.
At the time of Markgraaff’s resignation from the SARU administration, Hoskins was quoted as saying that he felt Markgraaff would be missed on rugby matters and that he had a high regard for any rugby contribution Markgraaff could make. Hoskins did say that he felt Markgraaff may have struggled as an administrator, but that there were other contributions he could make.
This would have scared White, who did not want to work with Markgraaff. The Bok coach made this clear just days prior to Markgraaff’s resignation. The two had clashed on the eve of the Boks test win against the Wallabies in Pretoria.
It has long been argued that SA Rugby needs a national director of rugby — an individual who can coach other coaches and act as a sounding board to the national coach. Nick Mallett’s name was bandied about long before he took over as WP Director of Rugby.
However, nothing came of that, despite initial approaches to Mallett to establish interest.
Hoskins, should he feel the need for a Director of Rugby, could still look to someone like Mallett, but the most likely introduction would be Markgraaff. And such a scenario could be the start of the end for White. It is why White is backing the one he knows, rather than the one he doesn’t.
83 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
21 Feb 2006, 16:33 pm
Conspiracy theory.
I reckon the sharks were upset with the promotion/relegation deal in the Super 14 and also because of no home tests so they got Orgean to run for president to change these dicisions.
21 Feb 2006, 16:34 pm
Surprised you okes aren’t trying to angle your old bud Solomons into this story.
21 Feb 2006, 16:35 pm
You know, I would not have a problem with Magraff as national director if he had the credentials…….but he does not, not even nearly.He would be an Afrikaaner Quota appointment in everyway and form.
On WHAT possible basis would Hoskins employ the guy knowing,already,beforehand that the current ,relatively successful, popular Bok coach is against it….and to be quite honest about it…probably a better candidate for the job himself?
If this Hoskins wants to waste money, rather just throw it in the garbage and save us all some time and aggravasion.
21 Feb 2006, 16:35 pm
That’s tomorrows story!!
21 Feb 2006, 16:36 pm
bliksem – that’s not so much a conspiracy theory as downright common sense.
21 Feb 2006, 16:37 pm
OK robd thats just the way I sussed it out.same thing different spelling.
21 Feb 2006, 16:37 pm
StP – right now, they are trying to dredge up **** against Hoskins. We all know the keo and the whole of HSM are in BvR’s pocket…
21 Feb 2006, 16:38 pm
As long as White wins, he has nothing to fear. Forget about Markgraaff, there are too many against him.
21 Feb 2006, 16:38 pm
robd I agree with you fully there
21 Feb 2006, 16:38 pm
bliksem – makes sense, no?
21 Feb 2006, 16:39 pm
keo always shy’s away from that one.
21 Feb 2006, 16:39 pm
Sorry Rob Dylan. He’s in Ireland. But do remember Bliksem when we reported that Brian van Zyl was bringing back Straeuli everyone thought that was an April fool’s joke, until they froze the post of national director and introduced Straeuli as commercial manager, whose responsibilities are exactly that of national director.
Markies is hovering. Jake knows it and that’s why he is backing Van Rooyen.
St Petersburgbok … this election will be won on deals done and not ethical goodwill. The guys controlling SA Rugby are the one who put the one guy into power. The one guy there does not control the 14 unions.
21 Feb 2006, 16:40 pm
Only for Keo’s sake, i would vote for markgraaff!
21 Feb 2006, 16:42 pm
robdylan I read a article,well researched one as well on ruggaworld a while ago explaining the connections you were pointing towards.
21 Feb 2006, 16:42 pm
Can somone please tell me what this massive ‘rugby’ contribution is that Markies supposedly makes?
and these Rugby matters that supposedly only ‘rugby ou’s’ can handle …..????
21 Feb 2006, 16:43 pm
Stan,is Markgraaf rerig so sleg?Het ons albei kante van die saak gehoor?Almal maak foute,dalk het die ou nog n kans nodig.
21 Feb 2006, 16:45 pm
bongani,markgraaf is involved in a rugby academy.I am purely taLKING RUGBY.yOU ARE JUST HERE TO STIR.Hamba
21 Feb 2006, 16:46 pm
Markies gets my vote as well. It always makes for entertaining theatre having him around.
Whoever is president of SARU should have no influence in the operational side of the game. But because of the current system, this person has an influence, based on the 14 provinces who this president serves.
Regardless of whether Hoskins is ***** or the devil, he will face the same obstacle any of his predecessors have because of how the powerbase is structured.
It is a system devoid of logic. Look at the voters, who must make the call. It is the same guys who put Luyt there, then got him out and put Silas there and then got him out and put Van Rooyen there. Surely they are the problem and not whoever they put up there to be their puppet?
And for all Oregan’s good intentions, who will control him and his decision-making … 14 provincial presidents and their deputies.
21 Feb 2006, 16:47 pm
so keo,how to change things?
21 Feb 2006, 16:49 pm
robdylan
your hardly neutral sharks man and all.
21 Feb 2006, 16:51 pm
Yes Bliksem, let’s bring back Markies. Jake White has had it way too easy not having to fight internal obstacles.
He needs to be kept on his toes by a guy who wants to coach the team, pick the team, but take no responsibility when the heat is on.
Markgraaff’s rugby knowledge is the greatest myth in SA Rugby. What has this guy ever done? Where has his success been.
11th in the Super 12 with the Cats
four defeats out of five to the All Blacks, including a first ever series loss in SAfrica to the All Blacks.
He did a runner when appointed assistant coach to Harry Viljoen …
Please could someone explain why this guy is a rugby guru?
21 Feb 2006, 16:51 pm
no keo at the moment Van Rooyen is the devil
21 Feb 2006, 16:51 pm
JW is better concntrate on the task in hand and curbs his PRs stunt and his never ending thrive on a media exposure, that one doesn’t win test matches.
Former Boks coaches, all of whom guys of a higher education such as Mallett, Christie and Dr Ceccil Moss all maintained a reasonable low key presence outside the Boks camp and JW is advised to follow suit.
21 Feb 2006, 16:51 pm
Redox – one thing I have never tried to hide is my Sharks bias! I’m quite proud of it.
Look – giving an AB test to Rustenburg really is the last straw. The oke is an idiot. I would even support Doos Basson against him.
21 Feb 2006, 16:52 pm
I must add though that Jake White should not be reporting directly to the president.In what other similar sized organization is the “operational manager” reporting directly to the board.
He is taking huge liberties withregards to this.
Likewise, Jake (and I’m going to contradict myself here) should have no say in who would be appointed in this role.
Nobody gets to choose who their boss is.
21 Feb 2006, 16:53 pm
Mallett? Onlooker – remember why Mallett was fired?
21 Feb 2006, 16:55 pm
keo in my eyes SA doesnt have any rugby gurus.Go and see how NZ runs their training courses and also look at the Murray Mexted School of Rugby.He is a ******** but he has great coaches in place there.Do SA coaches have a quarterly coming out with new coaching drills etc?In NZ its simple.To patent a new coaching drill/idea you make up a manuscript which you post to the NZRU.You make antother copy which you post to your own adress.This gives you the copyright to the idea/drill.In the quartly all these new drills are explained and credit given to its orginator.Do we have such a system?We are sadly far behind.
21 Feb 2006, 16:55 pm
There should not be any friction between the Bok coach and national director anyway as long as the Director understands that his job is to coach the coaches and not coach the side.And the coaches understand that the Director is Boss and accountable to the board for their poor performance.
Everyone knows where they stand and pressure is on everyone to succeed.
21 Feb 2006, 16:57 pm
well “Doc Cravens’s dog” a start would be to dig out that expensive Accenture report & perhaps implement some of its suggestions.
But an excellent question – how can any meaningfull change ever be affected under the current setup? And how can that setup itself be changed?
21 Feb 2006, 16:57 pm
Bliksem, in an ideal world the solution would be logical. There would be a board that was responsible for the well-being of the professional game and the governing body would be accountable for sustaining the amateur game.
The president of SARU would be but one board member in a board of no more than eight. There would be three independents (with no links to SA Rugby, so there can be no backhanders and no provincial bias), three co-opted members from the existing president’s council, which includes the SARU president and one player’s representative and the MD of SA Rugby Union.
One of the independents would be chairman and this board, with a strong MD, would make the bloody decisions, based on what is good for SA Rugby and not one of 14 provinces.
21 Feb 2006, 17:00 pm
Easy Bongani.Follow the NZ structure.They dont care if you are a maori or a islander or a pakeha.best player to play.Also they dont pussyfoot around players like we do.Reuben Thoren as Black captain got dropped from the side.See that happening with Smit?
21 Feb 2006, 17:02 pm
I’ve no problem with there being a test match in Rustenburg so long as it was for the correct reasons…….better chance of winning.
If it is a personel problem with the Sharks well then Van Rooyen has a lot of answering to do and would be enough to get anyone else in a sinilar position fired.
For the record,personally, I’d be happier if test matches against top 5 opposition never ever went anywhere near the coast.I still have nightmares of that 2nd 40minutes vs Lions at Kingspark. Just imagine if we’d played the 2nd test at Ellis?
21 Feb 2006, 17:02 pm
This article is nothing more and nothing less than a Hoskins smear campaign.
“Enter Hoskins and the possibility of Andre markgraaf as the national director of rugby becomes a distinct possibility”
Keo please tell us how you arrived at this conclusion. What facts do you base this on, or has this simply been sucked out of your thumb?
“Keo’s sources indicate that markgraaf wants the post of director of rugby to be created and Markgraaf wants that post. Hoskins, should he feel the need for a director of rugby, the most likely would be Markgraaf”
What a load of unadulterated garbage. Why on earth would Hoskins appoint Markgraaf with the baggage he brings with him. You have not a single fact to back up this pathetic story, you rely simply on innuendo and vague statements such as “keo.co.za’s sources”
Keo why don’t you do us a favour by showing us the connection between Hoskins and Markgraaf and tell us who these so called sources of yours are. But you will not coz there is not one, but we all know that it is in your financial best interest that Van Rooyen is re-elected.
21 Feb 2006, 17:03 pm
good point jonnow.keo,name your sources.
21 Feb 2006, 17:09 pm
Keo
How accurate is this opinion?
Also, can you catergorically state who you support?
21 Feb 2006, 17:09 pm
Oops, Jonno beat me to it.
21 Feb 2006, 17:11 pm
Jonno
Pray tell…how is it in Keo’s best interests financially?
Are you just sucking this out of your finger as well?
21 Feb 2006, 17:13 pm
jonnow … can you tell me your address? Obviously I don’t give my sources away. there is no smear campaign against Oregan because there is nothing to smear.
We have given his views on the presidency and given his response to things as much as we have reported Van Rooyen’s.
All I say is that Markgraaff’s name is in the mix again, just like Straeuli’s was in Natal. When it happens, you heard it first here.
St Petersburgbok … it is irrelevant about who I support. I don’t support the system that empowers any one president. I have made my views clear in many columns. I thought Rian Oberholzer, as a strong operational MD, was right for the job.
The problem was the compromise in the make-up of the board because it allowed the same provincial presidents control of the board.
I support a system that has a board appointed for professional rugby and not the provinces that make up the SA Rugby Union.
21 Feb 2006, 17:14 pm
The Director of Rugby would ussually be quite a big position to hold.Surely he would be responsible for selecting and recruiting a new Bok coach should the need arise.
21 Feb 2006, 17:15 pm
keo is worried that if rugby ran smoothly and properly in the country then there wouldn’t be enough to write about to fill a website
21 Feb 2006, 17:17 pm
Just like BEE is moving into phase two with BBBEE, rugby transformation is going to be stepped up in the very near future. With us having lost the bid for 2011, my sources tell me that major changes will be effected over the next few years …. this my friends is as a direct result of us, rugby people, not being able to solve our own little management challenge – I can tell you now that gov is getting less enamoured with rugby by the day as we lurch from crisis to crisis …. some thoughts after a long day …
21 Feb 2006, 17:19 pm
Keo and Bliksem, sitting in a tree …………
21 Feb 2006, 17:21 pm
So basically it will make little difference who is president? Regardless of how good the intensions are of the candidates,they will never get the votes at executive level to make the changes needed.
21 Feb 2006, 17:21 pm
gotta run …
chat later boys
21 Feb 2006, 17:23 pm
STP – entirely correct ! Think about it like this – you get voted into a job and then you need to convince the people who voted you in to give up their power or vote themselves out of a job !
21 Feb 2006, 17:24 pm
Bongani
I don’t think anyone has a problem with that senario, as long as it is done to all underperforming sports…..see Cricket and Football.
Can your sources report this…or is this just White Afrikaaner moer time again?
21 Feb 2006, 17:26 pm
Spot on Ig – so the question really is How can that catch 22 ‘structural’ problem be overcome & changed to the benefit of rugby?
21 Feb 2006, 17:29 pm
Well – as keo pointed out earlier – when Olbeholzer changed the structure of rugby – where SA rugby ran the business and cash and Saru – the amateur pasrt of the game – things where looking dandy – then the presidents voted in BvR and he changed the whole thing back again.
21 Feb 2006, 17:30 pm
Im not a huge fan of BVR in fact initially i supported hoskins but now my impression of hoskins is that he will just be the guy who takes the heat for decisions made by the presidents council this allows the presidents council to now make decisions based on bartering rather than on whats best for sa rugby i.e. H Viljoen gets the backing of B Van Zyl for bok coaching job if he did a ,b and c shouldn’t u decide who is coach based on what’s best for the boks not what u can get out of the deal ? It’s really difficult to figure out who to believe at the moment. Ideally I would like to see the power to make decisions taken away from the presidents council and sarfu can be run by a professional arm as happens in all other pro sport national bodies e.g. aru, EnglishFa etc Not Gonna Happen though!
21 Feb 2006, 17:34 pm
I find it incomprehensible that people can say they support having a lying, underhand, cheat in the position as President simply because another person vying for the same post is rumoured to have links with a man who has been blacklisted by many (including this site of course).
Are we being asked to assume that once Hoskins has been elected he will resign and hand over power to his favoured son? Or will he, once elected, create a new position with more power than what the President has today?
Now there also seems to be an attempt to whitewash BVR’s sullied character through a carefully-timed release of financial results. Here we are being told that although BVR might not have the highest principles he’s a sure bet for a strong bottom line.
I don’t know what Markgraff has done in the past and I don’t claim to know what Machiavellian schemes he has up his sleeve. But I do know that having him being an associate of a President who has more integrity than the present incumbent is the preferable situation. Those who say “Better the Devil you know than the one you don’t” are misguided.
And Jake White needs to grow up and focus on rugby, not political campaigns. I can’t believe that he is getting involved in these shenanigans.
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.