Sharks running out of time
10 Feb 2010
The Willem Alberts contract saga still hasn’t been resolved and the Sharks hope to take the matter to court on Friday.
The Lions lodged a complaint against the Sharks for fielding Alberts in the Tri-Series (and Louis Ludik for training with the squad), and the Saru judicial hearing was heard on Wednesday. Judicial officer Koos Basson ruled that the wording of the complaint required him to determine the validity of the players’ contracts with the Lions – a responsibility which falls outside the disciplinary regulations of Saru.
‘This is the second time that SA Rugby have failed to give a final ruling as to whether or not Alberts or Ludik can play in the 2010 Super 14,’ said Sharks CEO Brian van Zyl in a statement. ‘On the first occasion the Chairman of the National Judicial Committee of SA Rugby refused to adjudicate what he called a contractual dispute between the Sharks and the Golden Lions Rugby Union.’
Van Zyl said they had no other option but to get an urgent ruling from court – which they hope will take place on Friday – to see when the players could play.
Ludik is currently injured but with these latest developments it is highly unlikely Alberts will start against the Chiefs in Durban on Saturday.
Sharks coach John Plumtree was set to name his side on Thursday, but the court appearance could mean it is delayed until Friday.
98 Comments
10 Feb 2010, 15:34 pm
Slow cooking Dragon
10 Feb 2010, 15:41 pm
hahahahahaha serves them right! With the presidential elections arround the corner, the SARU power-mongers don’t want to upset any of the union presidents by making decisions, they’d rather defer it to a court of law! is this the professional sport called rugby? Pffftt
10 Feb 2010, 15:41 pm
Grant – Are you able to explain why the Sharks believe these players do not have a binding contract with the Lions, and why the Lions suggest they do? It would be interesting to know the exact bases of the two unions’ claims.
10 Feb 2010, 15:43 pm
Good grief is it really that difficult? Why didn’t they get the court involved in the 1st place?
10 Feb 2010, 15:44 pm
@toughnrumble: They won’t comment on the ins and outs while the matter is still in the courts, but basically the Sharks say the Jaque Fourie arbitration set a precedent, but the Lions say these two contracts are different.
10 Feb 2010, 15:49 pm
Which is really difficult to understand. The Lions, or rather that monger of incompetence Manie Reynecke, says their contracts are up until 2011, which Brian Van Zyl says is rubbish, the contracts expire end 2009.
WHY DONT SOMEONE JUST CHECK THE FREAKING DATE!
I have been on record before saying, the Sharks are one of the unions in SA who proabbly dealt with more player transfers than all the other unions combined…seeing as there is no talent grown in Durban.
I cannot see them making an error of judgement this time around…
As far as the Lions record with player contracts goes…omigosh!
10 Feb 2010, 15:51 pm
Damn ridiculous.
10 Feb 2010, 15:52 pm
if its a purely contractual matter then the only way to settle it is in court.
10 Feb 2010, 15:55 pm
@gunther:
Yes, but this should have happened months ago, but no…the Lions just says Alberts and Ludik are absent without leave, Press Puppet Reynecke then waits until 99 before…BANG…let’s lodge a complaint, if our rugby can’t get us in the papers, our incompetence certainly will.
10 Feb 2010, 15:56 pm
Tanks WP, found it…SA Rugby wasted a nice ton of time, selfish wine drinking pigs
10 Feb 2010, 15:58 pm
In the case of Fourie, the key fact was that the contract had an initial period and then an extension period with some kind of nebulous clause about salary along the lines of, “to be agreed by both parties”. It was ruled that any contract or extension of a contract that does not specify remuneration is not valid. If these two contracts are similar in that respect, then the Lions are just employing delaying tactics and are blowing a lot of hot air to cover the embarassing fact that they drew up a bunch of pieceofsh!t contracts with their best players. quite hilarious.
10 Feb 2010, 15:59 pm
@FireStraeuli:
We were played
10 Feb 2010, 15:59 pm
@thesaint: Kotch, so true…effectively ******** SA in the end…honde hoere
10 Feb 2010, 16:00 pm
Its that moron Reynecke, mark my words, if the Lions don’t get rid of him, they will never ever make it.
10 Feb 2010, 16:00 pm
Assuming these 2 cases are the same as the Fourie case, then Lions must know they’re on a hiding to nothing.
What can they possibly gain from all this? That’s of course if they are in the wrong.
10 Feb 2010, 16:03 pm
@toughnrumble: Well i hope that if the Lions are simply trying to delay the inevitable, that the Sharks will sue them so hard, they’ll have to give **** to us on a loan basis, and change the Coke Blik’s name to ‘the unwanted Shark Tank’.
10 Feb 2010, 16:03 pm
@Dantalian:
Press…that’s all they gain…Reynecke wants to look like a no nonsense CEO type…
10 Feb 2010, 16:07 pm
much as I rate Kanko, on this particular weekend I’d love to see Luaki coming up against Alberts and Deysel. Epic stuff. Hope they can sort this in time.
10 Feb 2010, 16:08 pm
@thesaint: If if he loses this case he’s going to have plenty of egg on his face. Really petty imo.
Not that I think the players/agents/WP/Sharks are all innocent.
10 Feb 2010, 16:10 pm
@Dantalian:
Fo shizzle my nizzle…no-one is innocent, but the Lions think if they make a huge noise, something will work.
10 Feb 2010, 16:14 pm
Maybe Reynecke is the fool who made the ****-up with the contracts…now he’s feeling the heat and using the Sharks as his scape goat, especialy after losing Fourie, I’m sure the Lions won’t be happy with another botched contract from his side…either way, someone needs to be braught to book, even if it ends up being the Sharks, this is embarrassing.
10 Feb 2010, 16:17 pm
If Basson ruled that SARU could not rule on the validity of player contracts,how did it then happen Fourie’s contract?
10 Feb 2010, 16:17 pm
@thesaint:
you will find no argument from me there….
10 Feb 2010, 16:20 pm
@thesaint: Ja swaer, baffles me a bit this Reynecke oke.
10 Feb 2010, 16:20 pm
What’s with the Lions and holding on to players who don’t want to play for them? These two (and Jaque Fourie) have served the Lions without reservation for their full tenure at the union. Holding them back from where they want to go is going to leave a bitter taste in their mouth and they are not going to want to ever come back. What happens if you manage to enforce the contract? If I was **** I would not be entirely comfortable putting my faith in a guy who has shown in no uncertain terms that he does not want to be here (unless he went to great lengths to assure me that he does). Now you’ll have two players that you are paying and are not being played. It’s a waste.
The Lions need to forget about these side shows and be about restoring their reputation as one of the country’s major unions. Winning environment invariably fosters a happy environment; a happy, winning environment breeds commitment in the players; happy, winning, committed players speak very highly of their team and union; Happy, winning, committed players who speak highly of their union result in a word-of-mouth string that attracts other quality players and youngsters. Stop whining, start winning.
10 Feb 2010, 16:36 pm
@stolen_nic: Basson’s from WP
10 Feb 2010, 16:38 pm
@Charlie:
ouch…!!
was that really necessary…??
10 Feb 2010, 16:39 pm
@stolen_nic: Don’t think SARU ruled on Fourie’s case. Arbitrator or someone.
10 Feb 2010, 16:59 pm
@Sghibha
Why should unions bother with contracts if players can simply pack up and leave whenever they feel like it? The Lions were obliged to pay those guys salaries “without reservation” whenever they were injured so the obligations/benefits should go both ways.
I feel the Lions have every right to prevent the players from playing for another union if they feel they have valid contracts, even if it is just to prevent other unions from trying to pull the same stunt with their other contracted players.
If the Sharks feel they can get Ludik and Alberts on a technicality in the contract, the good luck to them. But there is no reason for the Lions mgmt to make it easy for the poachers.
10 Feb 2010, 16:59 pm
@Sghibha: hi sghibha ghibha…the lions have been sh+tty union for years now, this is a culmination of all the incompetence that has been going on unchecked at that place. Last year was fiasco after fiasco, the Boshoff racism incident, Loffie’s axing, the Mossie contract and now the Alberts/ Ludik saga…
10 Feb 2010, 17:02 pm
@Dantalian: Thought this was supposed to be an arbitration as well?
10 Feb 2010, 17:08 pm
All the rule changes and inconsistency are killing the game of rugby.If it wasn’t for all those timeouts, American Football would have a great chance of ursurping rugby as my first sport choice
Who dat,who dat say they go beat dem Saints…who dat!!
10 Feb 2010, 17:16 pm
@stolen_nic: Dunno. The oke that ruled on the Fourie case wasn’t a SARU person.
10 Feb 2010, 17:29 pm
If the Sharks folks at the top are really that smart and are using the Fourie case as a precedent – then they’re actually not THAT smart.
Fourie’s case was initially taken to court, but the Judge decided that he coudln’t adjudicate and the case was referred to an independant arbitration hearing.
If precedent is in play, then the court won’t decide and will again refer it to arbitration.
Final squads must be submitted tomorrow. Eish. That’ll teach players, if you sign a contract four months prior to moving and committing for another 2 years, just bloody do it.
They both resigned and committed to 2011. Maybe the Sharks have the wrong contracts? Man, that’ll be funny…..
10 Feb 2010, 17:31 pm
get it straight fellas, Basson was heading a disciplinary hearing brought on by the Lions’ complaint about Alberts playing for the Sharks…
10 Feb 2010, 17:39 pm
@thesaint: 6 – Saint, Spot on mate.
Though we do buy our players before they become boks hey!!
Except for JdP.
10 Feb 2010, 17:45 pm
Now that Koos Basson – for an on behalf of SA Rugby – has ruled that “the wording of the complaint” – read here as, “authored by Mani Reyneke” means that requires him to determine the validity of the players’ contracts with the Lions.
**** up #1 – Alberts & Ludik had identical (as in to the comma) agreements to Jaque Fourie and he is free as a bird and will run on to the field Saturday – throwing more mustard onto the faces of the Lions
**** up #2 – The Lions stopped paying the salaries of Ludik & Alberts from November 2009 – hardly recognition of a mutual agreement
**** up #3 – The Lions CEO – failed to author the correct complaint for a SA Rugby disciplinary hearing, missing the mark by a country mile – a responsibility which now falls outside the disciplinary regulations of Saru.
**** up #4 – If the Sharks head to court Friday – as they will do – and win with a cost order, it will make the Lions choke financially even further
**** up #5 – This is effecting the Lions preparation for Saturday, along with **** Muir’s first S14 game as coach and is a massive distraction in the locker room. Three of the their mates are out the door for good reason and the chatter amongst the Lions players is not good.
The buck stops where…………………..?
10 Feb 2010, 17:46 pm
I have said this before and i’ll say it again…
Saru are the idiots here, irrespective if we blame the Lions or the Sharks
It took more then a month to know that couldnt handle the case???
This is something that could have been solved without all this stupidity
This is typically fat asses on couches earning huge money they do not deserve
10 Feb 2010, 17:50 pm
@Knersus:
I hear you. I am not for one second suggesting that contracts should be allowed to become meaningless. I just think that there MUST be some basis for the two players and the Sharks thinking that the move would be acceptable. They saw how Jacque Fourie’s exit was fought so they could not have expected that the Lions would lie down. The Sharks management aren’t idiots. They would never have taken on two players who were clearly still under contract. There must be a loophole/technicality/expiry. The Lions just look like they are holding players back without real reason.
@Pearl Rose:
Watsho ingathi uyandazi. Uchan’ ucwethe: the Lions have brought this upon themselves and it is going to be a long hard slog back for them.
10 Feb 2010, 17:53 pm
@TonyM: hi Tony this is true , problem is , it is afecting the Sharks too.
I now doubt Alberts will be chosen for this comming weekends match
I also think in future if the Lions want to buy a player from the Sharks for example , they will be treated the same way
The Lions bought 3 players from the sharks ealier and even though they not high profile players , the Sharks released 2 of them that were still contracted
I know one of these players were on loan to EP rugby and from there went to the Lions , even though still contracted to the sharks
i think his name was Warren Whitley
10 Feb 2010, 17:53 pm
@TonyM:
basically its a litany of cockups!
bring on the sp…uhm…kings!
10 Feb 2010, 18:09 pm
@sharks_lover:
The Sharks have the upper hand here and are not as compromised as the Lions.
This should have been sorted with a hand shake and some goodwill cash to save face for the Lions and everyone gets on with their action.
Instead this is costing the Lions a bomb, the Sharks until they get their cost order and a days Judicial Officers fees with catering and flights for the hearing at SA Rugby for today.
Life is short and the players need to play. Like on Saturday!
10 Feb 2010, 18:15 pm
@TonyM: agree with you mate just cant see it happening
i mean it took saru how long to give the judgement they did today, or lack thereof
10 Feb 2010, 18:18 pm
one thing that is a fact and cannot be denied
south african rugby is again the laughing stock of world rugby
10 Feb 2010, 18:23 pm
why are the lions management being difficult about players who don’t want to play for them..ffs.
10 Feb 2010, 18:25 pm
@byoboy: they want cash.
lots of it.
and season tickets at the tank.
10 Feb 2010, 18:25 pm
@sharks_lover: hardly anything can top the pommie bloodgate, having said that , this matter should have been sorted out asap
10 Feb 2010, 18:26 pm
@byoboy: i think tonym explains it quite well
10 Feb 2010, 18:27 pm
@rangerman:
10 Feb 2010, 18:27 pm
@rangerman: SARU might have had a point in saying that they cannot adjudicate upon the validity of the contract however they could have acted as arbitrators and resolved this matter long ago.
“season tickets at the tank.” ..ha ha good one
10 Feb 2010, 18:30 pm
The good news is that the Sharks may still get them through with an urgent high court application.
10 Feb 2010, 18:32 pm
@sharks_lover: hehe, they can watch from the scholars seats the bastardos!
@byoboy: saru wont irritate the lions in case one of the demented lions fans storms their offices.
we all remember jimmy abbot at the awb rally, the lions “biggest” fan.
seriously though, i have heard this whole bs about how they took their pay when injured so should be loyal blah blah blah. its a pro game, they are employees and are clearly not happy at the lions.
and employees worldwide get paid whilst they are on sick leave and are able to subsequently hand in their notice.
10 Feb 2010, 18:36 pm
10 Feb 2010, 18:37 pm
tonym you still around??
10 Feb 2010, 19:25 pm
ok it has also come to light that the Sharks will still play alberts on the weekend unless the court rules against them on friday
10 Feb 2010, 19:26 pm
@sharks_lover:
Here
just sat down to read all these missives……………..what’s up?
10 Feb 2010, 19:29 pm
@sharks_lover: Where you got the light from bru?
Good-ish news, but I wonder if it will be a wise move to play him after what I regard as a stressfull week…he cant realy concentrate on the game at hand with this hanging over his head.
10 Feb 2010, 19:31 pm
good and you mate??
I was just adding to my post re alberts still playing for the sharks unless court ruling prohibits them on friday in R-Talk
And readin you post again from earlier , you were right about alberts playing
As a fellow author from rt whats the chance of you doing a nice article for us there on these legal matters?
Most bloggers truelly dont understand the back ground stuff , thus the crazy posts we see
10 Feb 2010, 19:32 pm
@FireStraeuli: latest info was on sabc news
also the interviewed BVZyl
10 Feb 2010, 19:34 pm
@TonyM: sorry my post 58 was for you
10 Feb 2010, 19:35 pm
@sharks_lover: what was also quite funny was the lawyer for the lions , an unknown against the 3 from the sharks , who are according to the news the top attourneys in the country
10 Feb 2010, 19:36 pm
@sharks_lover:
No problem.
I am not a legal guy – more logical – although others would have you believe otherwise.
All Manie Reyneke has to do is issue a one page release form and game on and the heat goes away and everyone is happy.
10 Feb 2010, 19:37 pm
omg ok i need rest
post 61 was for firestraeuli
10 Feb 2010, 19:38 pm
@TonyM: lol sorry i was under the impression you were but cool…
and agreed , reyneke is going to have more then egg on his face as you said earlier
10 Feb 2010, 19:41 pm
@sharks_lover: Sharky, This must be putting a lot of stress on Alberts mate. Not sure if he must play really. Unless the court rules he can. Wonder how much this has affected his training? No-one can train proper with all that kinda nonsense going on.
10 Feb 2010, 19:45 pm
@Puma: not so sure puma
alberts will be ok , he has been training none stop , and the fact that the lions again mest up means the sharks will win this battle
alberts wont go to court , the lawyers do
10 Feb 2010, 19:48 pm
@sharks_lover: Sharky, Yip the Lawyers go to court but it must be on Alberts mind all this nonsense.
Anyhow hope it is sorted out so he can just concentrate on rugby and not all this rubbish. Ludik has time on his side as he wont be ready to start this week. So probably not too stressed at this stage.
Who would you select then for the Chiefs game if Alberts can start? Kanko or Alberts?
10 Feb 2010, 19:50 pm
What on earth has happened to the Sharks Academy? Why are youngsters not progressing through the ranks better?
10 Feb 2010, 19:50 pm
@Puma: boet id play deysel at 6
kanko
deysel
alberts loose trio is powerful , and they need lots of game time together
on the bench dotes and daniel
10 Feb 2010, 19:53 pm
@Puma: puma trust me the best way for alberts to get this **** off his mind?? is play
10 Feb 2010, 19:57 pm
This is really not such a big deal.
Two relatively minor players are the cause of a dispute between a relatively minor franchise and another franchise which is teetering on the brink of becoming a minor franchise.
Whatever happens, it ain’t gonna affect the outcome of the 2010 S14, other than the fact that the Stormers are getting an easier first game due to the turmoil in the Lions camp.
But in the bigger scheme of things, who really cares?
Now Jaco vd Westhuizen having to stick around for another 2 weeks in Japan, THAT is relevant news…
10 Feb 2010, 19:58 pm
@Tacitus: aaww tacitus and his insulting self
maturity escapes you my friend
10 Feb 2010, 20:03 pm
@sharks_lover: Ja might actualy be true, do some Chiefs bashing, I know I’ve also been worried that this might have him stressed, but lets see his character, it might actualy have made him stronger and more determined…Hope so.
10 Feb 2010, 20:05 pm
@Tacitus: Ja, Bulls will probably go down without Jaco…shame, poor Bulls, having their dreams shattered in the first two weeks.
10 Feb 2010, 20:08 pm
@sharks_lover:
Yeah look, I just couldn’t resist.
OK, I was exaggerating about the Sharks teetering on the brink. They’re just going through a bit of uncertainty at the moment, but they could still have a good season.
But as for the rest, I was being pretty honest. We’re not talking about Jacque Fourie, Bryan Habana or Bakkies Botha here. The two players in question are promising, but certainly not world class stars like the others that have been the subject of contractual disputes or high profile moves.
And as for the Lions, well, is anyone really taken aback at what goes on there? I am kind of surprised, however, that the Sharks are being portrayed as so utterly blameless in this whole deal. Why do we never hear about the Bulls buying guys under clouds of uncertainty, doubt and contractual controversy?
The Sharks should either have bought the players out of their contracts, or waited for the issue to be resolved before including them in their squad.
If the Lions are guilty of incompetence, then the Sharks are guilty of almost feverish opportunism, a lack of proper succession planning in their own ranks, and of having an up yours kind of attitude.
Really, both unions deserve the negative effects that this saga is having on their preparations. In fact, long may the dispute continue.
10 Feb 2010, 20:08 pm
@FireStraeuli: this is true boet
i saw an article this morning where plum says all are fit except ludick
10 Feb 2010, 20:09 pm
fires come chat on rugby-talk with us
we have an insult thread where we can all bite each other ****
10 Feb 2010, 20:10 pm
@Tacitus: just biting you tac lol
but good luck to your team friday , yhink itll be a great game
10 Feb 2010, 20:13 pm
@Tacitus: tacitus i have always maintained that both parties are guilty
the fact stays that had saru had a backbone this issue could have been solved long ago
instead it against shows the incompetence of our rugby board
10 Feb 2010, 20:26 pm
@Tacitus: JvdW – ek wonder hoe goed is hy nog. Dink jy nie die Bulls is hier besig met ietwat van ‘n groot waagstuk nie. Ek meen as jy twee jaar terug goed was, wie sê jy is steeds vandag nog goed?
10 Feb 2010, 20:30 pm
@sharks_lover: Damn they’re taking their sweet time to send me my confirmation e-mail…eish
10 Feb 2010, 20:34 pm
ill tell rudi to hurry up , he is in the room
10 Feb 2010, 20:37 pm
@sharks_lover: Ag giftig man, much apreciated.
10 Feb 2010, 20:45 pm
@FireStraeuli: ok check in 5 min , rudi was offline for a few
10 Feb 2010, 21:02 pm
@sharks_lover: Dude, tell Rudi he’s killing me with anticipation, my hunger for some Blou Nulle is growing ever stronger, yet to my dismay the man seems to enjoy my suffering…LOL
10 Feb 2010, 21:21 pm
@sharks_lover: Damn, no luck, got his message on the thread, but as fot logging in…error.
Sorry to make you the middle man, but please tel rudi to reset my password or send it via e-mail….I know i’m gonna get a ton of grief for this little episode.
10 Feb 2010, 21:27 pm
@FireStraeuli: lol kk will do
10 Feb 2010, 21:37 pm
@FireStraeuli: heres a post he just put up lol in the insult thread
Is FireStraueli a freegin Tjarks supporter or a freegin Stormers supporter…. how the hell can one struggle with a simple thing like registration…. oi.
Just eating dinner quickly…. Bobotie and also some Briani… then I will schlep my weary body off to the office to go mail FireStruaeli his login Particulars and help the dude get in….
Hang in there “Vuurtjie” jou dom etter!
10 Feb 2010, 21:47 pm
@sharks_lover: Hehehe, thanks I saw it…LOL
11 Feb 2010, 00:14 am
@Tacitus:
#72
“Two relatively minor players are the cause of a dispute between a relatively minor franchise and another franchise which is teetering on the brink of becoming a minor franchise.”
I like it Tacitus,,,,
repeated 3 more times, you’ll start believing it.
FYI:
Both players when fit are the best at their positions in SA currently, Ludik under prpper coaching has immense potential, Albert’s already the best No8 in SA, beats Spies, Kanko and Vermulen to the ground with one hand tied behind his back
Cheers!
11 Feb 2010, 00:32 am
@toughnrumble: Its all Smit’s fault!!
11 Feb 2010, 00:35 am
Arrrrggghhh!!!! *Pulls hair out* can we for more than 24 hours not have a negative thread about the Sharks? Jeeez! Grant step away from the keyboard!!
Do you think Grant has Sharks toilet paper? I reckon he has the John Smit special edition.
11 Feb 2010, 00:59 am
KZN King Shark
11 Feb 2010, 10:41 am
I agree HONDO. Ludik is a safe fullback, but nothin/nobody will beat francois steyn on 15!!!!
And Tacitus, I realy think you should visit some rugby sites more often, and gain some needed knowledge, because dude I realy don’t think you know what is going on.
I will back Willem Alberts with my pants on the ground, and my savings in my hand. He lost 7kg at the Sharks (critical for his game to improve) in a matter of 3 months. ( Couldn’t have done this at the Lions conditioning program for over 2 years)
Besides Piere Spies, he is the only 8 that is able to pick up behind the scrum and gain some yards, (witht hte new rules, this will be crucial) make the tackles (in fact better than Spies statisticcs), and compete at the breakdowns. seriously, If you prefer some panzy 8, that can twinckle around on his toes, and stand on wing when things get tough, you don’t deserve to be a blogger for a rugby site, because then you don’t now **** about this game!!
and for the whole Sharks/Lions saga. The contract of Jaque Fourie and these two players was exactly the same, the Sharks saw the loop hole, and put strenght to their team, as the province did, as the Bulls will. Mismanagement from Manie’s side. point. Kevin de klerk and John Plumtree already said bye to both of them, it is just manie who is trying to cover his own ***, to the dismay of players, GREAT CEO!!
11 Feb 2010, 10:44 am
The court may arrive at a different conclusion, because
it may also explore the true intent of the contract and
rule that the clause, if it does exist,’to be agreed by
both parties’ does show the true intend by both contracting
parties that this is a matter they have agreed upon should
be resolved at a future date as in the case of Fourie he
returns to form or perhaps an old injury prevents him from
playing.
Has anyone ever considered what would have happened to Fourie
if his injury had not responded to treatment as it has.
Would the WP still have been as keen to contract him.
Perhaps the Lions should put in a clause stipulating that
an injured player should bear the full cost of the medical
treatment should he default from his contract for whatsoever
reason.
11 Feb 2010, 10:44 am
o yes.
and for your info. the bulls was hot on Willem’s track,they wanted him bad!!!! he just decided to go to the Sharks,because he believes he can wear the green and gold if his playing there.
11 Feb 2010, 11:14 am
@johnny10:
Yes ur right,Bulls did enquire about Willem’s services as well so Tac adopting this hollier that thou attitude is rich.Willem was contracted as a junior at the Bulls before moving in his u20 to the Lions.
With Ludik,he has wanted to leave the Lions for a while now.Rumour is that when Lions heard he wanted to leave,when he got injured they left him in the changeroom when he did his knee in and never got doctors/physio’s to attend to him.He had to ask his varsity mates(Oppierif Koshuis) to help him to his car and drive him to physio.He was also told to cover his own rehab costs.He felt mistreated and has been talking to the Sharks since during CC last yr.Never intended ever going back there.(dont know if there’s much substance to rumour but this was what was going around amongst the koshuises-my younger bro is in one of the koshuises there)
11 Feb 2010, 13:14 pm
SA rugby say the Lions complaint is not valid.
I dont see why the Sharks have to seek an urgent decision from the court or anyone else.
Let Alberts play – and if the Lions want to – let them go to court.
Why is Van Zyl taking this further from his side ?
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.