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
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
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
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.