Players challenge Bok ban
5 Aug 2007
The SA Rugby Players Association will contest the President’s Council’s decision that forbids overseas-based players to represent the Boks.
Sarpa claims the players were never informed about the decision nor consulted about it.
Chairman Hennie le Roux on Sunday called the decision “ridiculous” adding that the message being sent out to the Boks, just weeks before the World Cup was: “You can no longer play for the Boks if you’ve got a contract outside South Africa’s borders, but for now please win us the World Cup.”
Gary Botha, one of several Boks to have signed contracts with overseas clubs, said he was left with no choice but to seek employment elsewhere.
“Nothing means more to me than the Bok jersey, but as a father I need to put food on the table,” he said. “I had a Bok contract in 2005, but subsequently lost it, and since then I’ve been promised each year they would look at my form to justify getting a new contract. I’ve received nothing.”
33 Comments
5 Aug 2007, 19:28 pm
Free the world … no borders
5 Aug 2007, 19:30 pm
And the administrators and businessmen that take these ludicrous decisions will continue to draw fat salary cheques.
You have to hand it to them though, they are masters of making announcements whose timing and content could damage the morale of any team.
Who knows, maybe that’s what they’re paid for.
5 Aug 2007, 19:35 pm
Its a President’s Council decision…
Who expected it to be logical?
No honestly…
Is there anyone who actually did?
5 Aug 2007, 19:38 pm
So screw the SA franchises and let all the youngsters buy Harlequins and Stade Francaise jerseys. We have to maintain rugby in the country and stop allowing players to have the best of both worlds.
I mean I want to be the CEO of Kulula because they pay better, but I must still be allowed to fly on SAA for free because the flight schedules suit me better.
5 Aug 2007, 19:41 pm
Yeah right Simon, what bad spin this is.
Tell me who of the players that have signed for European teams have Bok contracts?
Is it not true that the players with Bok contracts today will only have these contracts until the end of the RWC … so how can they contest the PC’s decision to ban them?
5 Aug 2007, 20:09 pm
I agree with this challenge. Why shouldn’t the Springboks play in the best club competition in the world and earn good money to do so?
Why should they be penalised? If Brazil did that in Soccer they’d have no team.
5 Aug 2007, 20:34 pm
5? its restraint of trade.
its a stuid descion and one this country will dearly regret.
if oyu honestly think we will be competative in the super14 next season or in the Natonal setup you are kidding yourself
5 Aug 2007, 20:41 pm
I disagree about the bok contracts.
Look at Marius Joubert – he has a bok contract, so does De Wet Barr and a whole host of other players who are not even playing for their provinces.
If I am employed and I lose form and cannot do my job I will get fired, yet the players want security but they cannot guarantee their form, so then their Springbok contracts still have to be honoured even though they are not playing, so then the union has to fork out more money to players who are in form and are playing.
Gary Botha saying he has been forced to go overseas to put food on the table is a lot of rubbish. He can make more money overseas so he is going. As a hooker at the Bulls he is getting paid a hell of a lot more than your average South African. Perhaps if these professionals had a back up plan (i.e. further education) they wouldn’t have to worry so much about making as much money in such a short period of time.
5 Aug 2007, 21:04 pm
Perhaps if they had a back up plan, they would not be able to train as hard and might not play as well.
It is a difficult one.
The biggest co&k up is that they made this announcemnt with less than 6 weeks to go.
To be fair, if they wanted to change their mind, they should have consulted the Boks.
These guys are behaving like they are enemies, not a joined up organisation with a single goal in mind.
5 Aug 2007, 21:08 pm
We need a few loyal people in SA if everyone leave it will be easier for SA to become a 2nd Zimbabwe. If we dont stand together we will become less influentual in the new SA.
“Eendrag maak mag” is still so true, we cant run for money alone and then become another Tackler
5 Aug 2007, 21:11 pm
Fish,
You are employed professionally by your company.
They pay you a salary.
That salary is based on a couple of things and so is your employment or continued employment at said company.
Your job entails certain things you need to do, a standard as such.
You have good days and bad days – you reach deadlines you miss some deadlines.
Bonusses and increases and promotions are done based on all this, so is being fired.
How is your life or conditions of employment different from professional rugby players?
Why should your professional life be any different than that of these guys?
The biggest difference in my view is your performance is measured by your boss only, in a KPA or something similar.
Rugby players come under scrutiny from everyone especially the public and media and everyone and anyone knows better than the next guy.
We expect players to be professionals in rugby – yet the public and supporters have amateur views and motives when we comment and judge them.
Hardly fair.
5 Aug 2007, 21:24 pm
PissAnt,
My whole point about the Bok contract is that everyone wants a bok contract and some do not deserve them. Can you really justify Marius Joubert, De Wet Barry, Solly Tybilika, Joe van Niekerk etc. being paid Bok salaries until this world cup.
I probably should have said that there needs to be a performance clause in their contract.
Just like you said good days and bad days, if my bad days outnumbered my good days I would be history, there wouldn’t be a “go and play for your province and find some form scenario”
I think my biggest point is that a player has to deserve a contract, but the union deserves a player who is going to fulfil that contract.
My life is different from a rugby player that if I “lose form” I get fired and there is no Bok contract to hold me over until it expires.
That is what is hardly fair, the union being drained paying player who are not even playing for their provinces, some don’t even turn up to practise.
I agree the players deserve some kind of security, but like I previously stated there should be a performance clause in the contract – you are not performing, you don’t get paid.
Injury is a different story.
5 Aug 2007, 21:33 pm
The Bill,
I work full time and I still find the time to further my education.
It might take them a few years longer but they can do it. Studying part time requires dedication and commitment and you can do it at a pace that suits you.
What about Jannie du Plessis, Bismark du Plessis, I can’t think of anymore at the moment.
A few of the provincial guys are studying part time. It should be encouraged because not every player can become a coach, commentator or well paid post rugby professional.
5 Aug 2007, 21:42 pm
Well we are going to miss these players and the sooner the better we realise we must keep our players feeling secure.
We must try and get into pound paying games very soon or else we will only become a feeder nation to England , France and the rest
5 Aug 2007, 21:44 pm
gary botha would probably be earning about $750k p.a., at least, with the blue bulls and he can’t put food on the table for his family with that? either he’s got one heck of a big family or food has become extremely expensive in sa?
5 Aug 2007, 21:46 pm
10
Awaits Tackler’s response with intrigue
Btw, 10 or 20 players to the NH is hardly the entire nation runing.
5 Aug 2007, 21:48 pm
* running
5 Aug 2007, 22:03 pm
Growup, SARU has always had the policy that only players in the domestic comp would be considered. Jakes changed that because idiot coaches before him drove players away i.e. Monty. NZ have the same policy, Flavel and Panadol had to play the npc/s14 when they returned from japan before they were considered for the ABs. Serve your country in the CC, S14 & 3N then you can get a shot at the jersey, that’s fair. After the RWC we may not think these guys are heroes any more, any way!
5 Aug 2007, 22:27 pm
Come play in the Heineken Cup Saffas
We got money! Loadsa money!
5 Aug 2007, 23:15 pm
Let them run
SARU cutting of their noses to spite their faces
5 Aug 2007, 23:50 pm
The point here is not that this decision is good or bad. That is a self-contained debate. The issue here is that the players who have already accepted other contracts have suddenly been blind-sided by this SARU tuling. It is grossly unfair to the players to change the rules when they have acted in line with the previous ones.
These guys are fiercely loyal South Africans, yet they need to use their short carreers optimaly.
I think there should be a change. Only players who sign contracts from now on are bound to this new ruling. The rest are exempt. It is the only fair solution.
6 Aug 2007, 00:02 am
Its wonderful this new ruling just hope they stick to it. The Bok traitors who are leaving are only crying because they budgeted for a Bok salary. Good riddance Smit and the rest.
6 Aug 2007, 00:17 am
SARU President Oregan Hoskins said it was “a really tricky situation”, but that they had to draw the line somewhere.
The fact that South African rugby simply cannot compete with the power of the Pound and Euro also meant SARU had to find an alternative to encourage players not to leave.
“We want to reward the guys who play at home and encourage our best players to stay here,” Hoskins said.
“Also, guys who’re going overseas to make some good, quick money won’t be helping our rugby system and structures in any way. If we allow guys to keep on leaving, we’ll also be robbing the South African public of seeing the best players in action.”
We must either agree with Hoskins or ask Supersport to broadcast Euro rugby instead of a 2nd grade CC
6 Aug 2007, 04:12 am
#15
WTF? Gary Botha saying he needs to put food on the table is simply stating what his priority for him is..and that is looking after his family.
The criticism from people here about that comment is unjust. The reason he is going is more do with the political sh*t.
focus on the issue not the player.
6 Aug 2007, 04:39 am
11 Pissant
If you have an employment contract with someone do you then expect someone else to pay you a salary as well.
That is the way rugby is structured in Europe and currently in South Africa. You have a contract with a club, and then get payed to play internationals on top of that.
If a player signs a contract to play in another country they have a conflict of interest when it comes to international games. Even playing for a club in thier own country there is a conflict of interest between club and national team.
Compare this to New Zealand, Australia and Wales who all have central contracts. The national union can determine the priority of the players.
South Africa could also benefit from this arrangement.
6 Aug 2007, 06:20 am
19. fair deal – you pay our pensions and we let you have the chance to see real talent in action occassionally…of course you could could just tune in to the S14 and watch talent all the time.
I’m sure it would be just as easy and make you equally proud to come up with a foreign team to support as it is supporting a ‘local’ team made up of foreign mercenaries.
6 Aug 2007, 06:58 am
tobe hoenst i dont see how SARU had any other choice given how many players are chasing the big bucks.
6 Aug 2007, 08:03 am
this is a non issue. the decision will not hold water in the courts and the players will be allowed to represent SA. If SA Rugby were an amatuer organisation (constitutionally no literally!) then it might be different but as it is a professional employer it cannot lawfully impose such restrictions.
6 Aug 2007, 08:33 am
Boo hoo SARPA! #28 seems spot on. Does anyone have any idea what SARPA is supposed to do anyway? I don’t see much other than the odd whinge.
6 Aug 2007, 09:39 am
Yes, isn’t the timing just perfect!!!
Presidents council indeed, sounds like the “mad hatters tea party” The mind boggles at the sheer stupidity of these people.
6 Aug 2007, 10:41 am
bla bla bla.
The overseas player rule has always been there and all these players knew about it.
The only guys who got picked for the boks while playing overseas was Percy and Jaco and that was only because Jake begged and pleaded.
They were the exception and the rule was alwasy in place.
These guys have only themselves to blame and greed is the biggest cause.
6 Aug 2007, 10:47 am
Whether GB earns more than the average South African or not is completely irrelevant. GB and every other South African has the right to maximise his earning potential.
To punish players for signing overseas is short sighted at best
6 Aug 2007, 11:20 am
DEE DAH,
Its only protecting the broadcasting rights.
Wiothout the top players SARU get screwed in the boradcasting negotiations and get less money in the door in both gate takings and broadcastign rights, leaving less money for development and player salaries.
Bit of a vicious circle.
This rule has always been here and is anyway in line with what happens in NZ and Oz, arguably along with us the leaders in the game.
SARU are only trying to protect the local game before every decent player leaves and we sit with a worthless domestic copmeptition and s14.
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.