Sharks take aim at Mapoe
4 Nov 2010
The Sharks plan to take legal action against Lionel Mapoe for his defection to the Lions.
The Mapoe tug-of-war was initially a battle between the Cheetahs and Sharks, with the latter expected to win, but it emerged this week that Mapoe has signed with the Lions and will play for them in the 2011 Super Rugby competition.
Mapoe has defected to the Lions despite the Sharks paying for his injury rehabilitation as well as his accommodation in Durban. Sharks boss Brian van Zyl questioned Mapoe’s integrity and ethics, telling The Times that the Durban union plans to sue the player for damages.
‘We have spent months rehabilitating him here in Durban, paying him substantially more than he was being [paid] by Free State and ensuring that he would be fit and well by the time he was able to play for us when we finally had a clearance certificate,’ Van Zyl said.
‘Last week I heard rumours that Lionel was talking to another union. We sent him home to Queenstown at the weekend to see his partner and their baby, but it later emerged he’d met with Lions shareholders Robert Gumede and Ivor Ichikowitz at his flat in Durban.
‘We are going to sue Lionel for his wages, costs and damages. I don’t know who will pay, whether it will be the Lions, the shareholders or the player, but someone is going to have to pay up.
‘John [Plumtree - Sharks coach] is very upset after all the hard work we put in. Lionel has used us and there is a lot of animosity towards him.’
The Lions claim that Mapoe never had a contract with the Sharks. They secured his services by negotiating with the Cheetahs, and feel there are no grounds to take the matter to court.
155 Comments
4 Nov 2010, 10:35 am
This is shocking
4 Nov 2010, 10:38 am
Dragon with no binding contract with the Shark suckers who as humanitarians decided to rescue Mapoe from farm boy wages, pay for his medical bills and rehab, then pay him to practice with them … so why sue him for Shark mistakes?
4 Nov 2010, 10:39 am
Lionel is going to end up ruining his career in SA if he carries on like this. Seems pretty bigheaded to me. He´s burning bridges left right and centre and he´d better turn inot a stupendously gifted wing if he´s going to stay in the game. There are many decent wings on the up and up and if he´s average I think most unions will avoid him just based on his integrity.
I think what he´s done to both the Cheetahas and the Sharks is pretty out of line.
And to hell with the stupid Dragon business.
4 Nov 2010, 10:40 am
LOL poetic justice in my book…
4 Nov 2010, 10:42 am
Slim vang sy baas as they say in the Mother tounge.
They both deserve what they get. Sharks and Lionel
4 Nov 2010, 10:46 am
Lions must be pretty desperate for wingers if they’ll have anything to do with such a conniving mercenary…
4 Nov 2010, 10:46 am
@Redlion is doing pre-season conditioning(RL) :
Why not, he has a contract of some sort (written or verbal) with the Sharks.
The appeal was coming up next week and Mapoe will now withdraw it.
We will now never know what would have happened at the appeal.
FS were obviously not confident that they would win the appeal so they sold him making the appeal moot. That’s fair enough by FS and probably good business.
No idea how much money this is but why shouldn’t the Sharks try and recover it? They can’t win Mapoe now but they can try and recover costs.
4 Nov 2010, 10:47 am
Eish.
Icky and Bob are going to have to get their chequebooks out again.
Lionel is busy making his name Mapoo.
4 Nov 2010, 10:50 am
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : I think that Lionel may argue, with good reason, that any contract he did or didn’t have at the Sharks is null and void as he was under contract to another Union at the time, as found by the courts, and therefore was not legally empowered to enter into another contract of a similar nature with another Union without the consent of the Cheetahs.
The Sharks knew about his contract and therefore were at their own risk.
4 Nov 2010, 10:50 am
Mapoe gooi naam en sy toekoms weg … weet hy wie en wat die Lions is en hoe k@k hulle in rugby is … vra die Pumas!
4 Nov 2010, 10:51 am
You see Brian van Zyl, by LAW, you had jackshit. You tried to lure him away from the Cheetahs with money, but got beat at your own game by the Lions, who forked out more, and showed you right way to do player acquisitions.
4 Nov 2010, 10:53 am
@Frankly speaking(Frankly speaking) : Ed Zachery Frank, Ed Zachery.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy BTW……
4 Nov 2010, 10:56 am
This boy is taking advice from the wrong ppl.He’s doesn’t know his arse from his elbow when it comes to contracts, but he should have had a sence of moral abligation towards the sharks for taking care of him.
4 Nov 2010, 10:56 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
No problem then, hand back the money.
If there is no contract then payments must be refunded.
You cant argue invalid contract and keep the money
4 Nov 2010, 10:57 am
Van Zyl’s rant seems a bit rich.
That being said, Mapoe is not covering himself in glory either.
Both of you take off your shirts. Lift your elbows to your foreheads. Press your noses into your armpits. Take a deep sniff. Don’t you two both smell like roses?
4 Nov 2010, 10:57 am
“Sharks boss Brian van Zyl questioned Mapoe’s integrity and ethics”
And it didn’t occur to you when he abandoned the union he was contracted to and joined up with yours, even training in and posing in Sharks gear for his web profile??
4 Nov 2010, 11:00 am
SA Rugby has to get rid of rogue agents who are ******* up player’s careers.
JC, why not ask SA Rugby what measures they have in place to regulate agents in this country?
4 Nov 2010, 11:00 am
sharks
have proved
themselves
to be
underhanded
in player
acquisitions
more than
once
it now
came back
to bite them
in the form
of a player
who thinks
he is
entitled
4 Nov 2010, 11:02 am
lions
bought
themselves
a sheetload
of
problems
4 Nov 2010, 11:04 am
And yet de Villiers is still willing to invite this idiot to tour with the Boks. Nice going.
4 Nov 2010, 11:05 am
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : It depends on the nature of the payments. If they were to be considered an advance on his salary, then they may well claim “unjust enrichment” and require that he hand back the cash for his wages. Rehab and stuff is a little more tricky. Lionel may argue that a great deal of this was more in the nature of a gift, as inducement to sign or something like that.
I’m not a Lionel fan at all after this, personally if he never plays again I won;t miss him. I just think that Brian’s behaviour was in bad faith, Male Fides as they say, and that he cannot now approach the courts for restitution. The doctrine of “unclean hands” might well apply here.
4 Nov 2010, 11:06 am
He has ruined his reputation with 3 Super 15 teams in South Africa. The Sharks and Cheetahs won’t touch him, and the Bulls will also not ever consider signing him.
It will be interesting to see what happens to him during his first game for the Lions versus the Sharks.
4 Nov 2010, 11:07 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy) : Basically, every-one is a b@stard in this situation, and is not a good look for South African rugby.
4 Nov 2010, 11:10 am
Los nou net vir Mapoe uit. Die Lions gaan powerful wees next jaar.
4 Nov 2010, 11:10 am
All this talk of ethics is amusing.
As an avid and die hard shark fan, it is slightly dissapointing. In all honesty I was all smiles when it was announced he came to the sharks albeit through the un proffesional manner that he did. However the tables are now turned and mapoe is clearly just after more and more money. I would blame ignorance and a bad manager, because no matter how much you are going to earn, it will not be good for your career if you go around burning bridges. If we compare apples with apples the Lions beat us at our own game. More dissapointed in the way this is happening rather than actually losing mapoe. But good riddens as im sure his talent wont outwiegh his liability as an untrustworthy teamate. He is a prospect though.
But now we have JP and Mvovo to start with ndungane and luzuko vulindlu as back up. good for sa rugby to spread the wealth.
Advice to lionel- get a better agent, stick to your word, stand for something or else you fall for everything. Good luck though you are still young.
4 Nov 2010, 11:11 am
lions will in all likelyhood pay on lionel’s behalf, so gets another gift. I cant stand the sharks but agree that someone wil have to reimberse them.
4 Nov 2010, 11:13 am
@WOLFMAN21(WOLFMAN21) : Totally.
4 Nov 2010, 11:14 am
Oh dear, definitely someone Frikked up.
Surely we can get a TV mini-series off this.
Call it,
Don’t come the Raw Prawn.
4 Nov 2010, 11:14 am
@Zinto(Zinto) : I personally dont think the lions will be competitive in S15 next year. you can buy players but it doesnt guarantee a team. maybe build on 2010 currie cup next year but realistically challenge from latter part of 2012. They wont even make semis off currie cup next year. but good things await in future im sure
4 Nov 2010, 11:15 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt) :
I have been saying this for years.
too many hackers.
every two bit shyster lawyer is suddenly a sports agent.
4 Nov 2010, 11:16 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
If he was that sure of the unclean hands then why not let the appeal process complete next week?
The Sharks were confident of winning the appeal.
If Mapoe had lost his appeal then FS would have had a cause of action against Mapoe but we will never know.
Again, if FS were that confident of winning they would not have sold him. Mapoe would be worth more next week.
Its a commercial contractual dispute and not about an illegal action of behalf of anyone.
He got a salary, there were medical costs etc.
You guys are mixing dislike of the Sharks with the truth.
4 Nov 2010, 11:17 am
@chucky
agree that super rugby 2011 wont see the lions in top 8. however I do predict a cc semi next year.
4 Nov 2010, 11:17 am
@RugbyRulz(RugbyRulz) : true
why not get deborah patta onto this or maybe derick watts?? should serve up an interesting dish with Reyneke/Van zyl/Verster… Why leave currie cup champs and serious S15 contenders to currie cup pretenders for a few extra thousands maybe 30 to 40 % more sharks were gonna pay
4 Nov 2010, 11:19 am
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
the clincher is that he met the Lions representatives in the flat THAT THE SHARKS WERE PAYING FOR.
class.
4 Nov 2010, 11:21 am
@gunther(gunther) : Wonder who his agent is… Obviously a Gordon Gecko fan.
4 Nov 2010, 11:23 am
even
the dumbest
agent
would’ve acted
differently
by now
i think
the problem is
mapoe
fancies himself
as a bit
of a
businessman
4 Nov 2010, 11:27 am
@RugbyRulz(RugbyRulz) :
more like Alan Stanford..
4 Nov 2010, 11:30 am
Go on Sharks take the greedy ******* down!
4 Nov 2010, 11:32 am
Chances are Porra, he isn’t contractually liable and if Mapoe hasn’t given notice of intent, they are Frikked.
4 Nov 2010, 11:32 am
Wow, this makes you think.
Maybe the player has been the shark (pardon the pun) this whole time.
4 Nov 2010, 11:33 am
Keo banning the word b@stard now???
Beware!!!
Julius will take you down as well!
4 Nov 2010, 11:36 am
This is all so funny. Each and everyone of you bloggers slamming and foul mouthing him now would have sung another tune if he was signing with your province. Double standards and hypocrisy is a trademark of this site.
4 Nov 2010, 11:37 am
@Two Eyed(Two Eyed) :
and
your point
is
what
?
4 Nov 2010, 11:41 am
@Two Eyed(Two Eyed) : You again moaning about double standards!
Go cry somewhere else!
4 Nov 2010, 11:41 am
@BISCUIT
You appear to like the truth the way you see it.
The Sharks negotiated with a player under contract without the Cheetahs consent – that is already an illegal action.
They then signed the player while he was under contract.
They disputed this and lost,it went to arbritation and they lost.
Therefore if they kept paying and rehabilitating Lionel,they were doing it without a valid contract.
How can they now sue a player for not having a valid contract?
The Lions went about the transfer in the correct manner and now the Sharks are up in arms? – how about when the Lions have lost players in the past to the Sharks even though they had a contract,admittedly it wasn’t a standard SARPA contract.
The Sharks are exactly as their name suggest….sharks!
Always looking to sign players in an underhand fashion and not willing to obey the laws that govern player transfers.
I don’t even understand why they want Mapoe if they already have Mvovo,Ndungane and Pietersen.
Live by the sword,die by the sword – it’s justice for a change!
4 Nov 2010, 11:44 am
@Two Eyed(Two Eyed) :
so you would let somebody pay your bills for 6 months, put a roof over your head and then talk to a third party, behind their back?
I’m a not a sharks fan or a cheaters fan.
But if you think that’s ethical behaviour then you should open both of your two eyes before you fall off that donkey you are riding around on.
4 Nov 2010, 11:46 am
@Porra the Fat and Clever Speedster(Porra) : My point is stop winging a whining like a bunch of old women with wet underwear who have run out of gossip news.
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Good post!!!
4 Nov 2010, 11:48 am
@gunther(gunther) : The sharks should have known better. There is a saying in afrikaans: As jy dom is moet jy kuk!
4 Nov 2010, 11:48 am
@gunther(gunther) : That basically sums it up!
4 Nov 2010, 11:50 am
@Two Eyed(Two Eyed) :
it is
actually
called
commenting
on some
unsavoury
dealings
between
provinces
and a
specific
player
who is
starting to
make a
habbit
of it
4 Nov 2010, 11:52 am
@Porra the Fat and Clever Speedster(Porra) :
skip the
starting
bit
he is
going at it
full throttle
by now
4 Nov 2010, 11:52 am
@Porra the Fat and Clever Speedster(Porra) : Can’t you type properly?
4 Nov 2010, 11:54 am
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
what
do you
think
i’m doing
right
now
?
4 Nov 2010, 11:55 am
@Porra the Fat and Clever Speedster(Porra) : Being a ***
4 Nov 2010, 11:55 am
@Two Eyed(Two Eyed) :
there is a saying in latin
caveat emptor…
4 Nov 2010, 11:56 am
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : No mate. I have equal disdain for both parties in this instance. And the concept of “unclean hands” is a legal one, and most often used in commercial situations. So it’s particularly relevant here.
This has nothing to do with the Cheetahs or even the Lions here, as far as i’m concerned their hands are clean.
Mapoe and Van Rooyen, well that’s another story.
And I certainly don’t dislike the Sharks. They’re a great, championship team, but unfortunately the Sharks buying team, or whatever you want to call them, seem to have made themselves guilty of questionable recruitment tactics before, so if the chickens come home to roost in this case, it’s no less than what they deserve IMO.
I’d say that yes, Mapoe clearly betrayed the Sharks, just like he did the Cheetahs. But when they approached him at the outset, they were hoping to exploit some “loophole” in his contract to get him in the first place, which by my reconing is dishonest, certainly on a moral level, so now why are they so surprised at the consistancy of his behaviour, now that it doesn’t suit him, when they were happy to benefit of it in their favour to begin with?
No mate, I think on the contrary, your support for the Sharks, admirable and valid as it is, is stopping you from seeing the behaviour of both parties for what is is. Wrong. You as a Sharks supporter should be calling for Van Rooyen’s resignation on the basis that he is dragging the name of your beloved Union through the mud here.
4 Nov 2010, 11:56 am
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : or maybe being a ****
4 Nov 2010, 11:57 am
@Porra the Fat and Clever Speedster(Porra) : Mapoe is a 22 year old kid who happens to be a damn fine player. The fingers should be pointed at his agent and the sharks. Simple.
4 Nov 2010, 11:58 am
This would only have been better if it had happened to WP. Haha! Love it
4 Nov 2010, 11:59 am
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
no no
i’m not
being a
kak
or a
****
i’m just
typing
properly
4 Nov 2010, 12:01 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) : Agreed on alot of points but you said “when they approached him at the outset, they were hoping to exploit some “loophole” in his contract to get him in the first place”
So my question to you,as you are a Stormers fan,is when WP\Stormers did the same with Brian Mujati and Jaque Fourie was your opinion the same?
4 Nov 2010, 12:01 pm
@gunther(gunther) : I totally agree that Mapoe is a classless act for how he behaved, not just now, but right from the outset. But the Sharks team that tried to pull this fast one in the first place are equally to blame for the situation that they created in the first place.
4 Nov 2010, 12:01 pm
@Two Eyed(Two Eyed) :
that’s
why i say
i suspect
he’s fancying
himself
as a
negotiator
even the worst
of agents
would have
started
damage control
a few weeks
back
already
4 Nov 2010, 12:01 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Yes.
4 Nov 2010, 12:09 pm
Shame Sharks , I mean Sardines- wow you going to sue, yet for years its all right for you to take other provinces players- what a bunch of babys.
4 Nov 2010, 12:10 pm
@Porra the Fat and Clever Speedster(Porra) :
and i
don’t
disagree
on
the sharks
they are
notorious
as far
as dealings
for players
are
concerned
4 Nov 2010, 12:14 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
Lets look at the truth and leave out the emotion.
* What the Sharks did was not illegal. Their contract may be invalid. Invalid and illegal are two different things.
You cannot sue for illegal actions. For example if I am a hitman I cannot sue someone for non-payment.
* The Sharks did not lose any court action. Mapoe did
The Sharks have no contract with FS. Mapoe did and had another with the Sharks.
* Mapoe and agent approached the Sharks insisting that the contract was invalid. The Sharks agreed. On this issue the Sharks made a mistake. They did not commit an illegal act.The other mistake they made was to trust Mapoe
* The Sharks contracted with Mapoe. Mapoe started receiving a salary and support (including legal fees)
* FS sued Mapoe (Thats their right). FS won their case. Mapoe appealed and it was due to be heard next week. We will never know what would have happened
* Now Mapoe concluded a deal with the Lions new backers (Gumede). Apparently the Lions leadership was not even there.
TO make matters a bit worse apparently Mapoe did the negotiations in the flat that the Sharks were paying for.
* The Lions paid FS a fairly low transfer fee.
The SHarks did make a mistake or 2 and they are paying for it
* They believed van Wyk and Mapoe that the FS contract was invalid
* They trusted Mapoe
WHat doesn’t follow is that Mapoe should keep all the money and handouts. The SHarks have a contract with Mapoe. You don’t know whether it is invalid. Mapoe signed it.
The simple answer is that Mapoe hands back the cash and assistance he received. Maybe the Lions will help.
However the Sharks are getting legal advice.
They may give up and write it up to experience.
But they have a signed contract and they can sue.
4 Nov 2010, 12:15 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
They did not approach Mapoe. Mapoe approached them
4 Nov 2010, 12:18 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
BTW I did not deny that the Sharks made mistakes here and I didn’t like how they handled it.
It does not follow that Mapoe should keep the cash from his unethical actions
Why should he?
4 Nov 2010, 12:40 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
Lets look at the truth and leave out the emotion – yes lets do that
* What the Sharks did was not illegal. Their contract may be invalid. Invalid and illegal are two different things.
You cannot sue for illegal actions. For example if I am a hitman I cannot sue someone for non-payment. – incorrect it is against the rules and regulations to negotiate with a player under contract with another union.If this was football,the Sharks would have been fined long ago.
* The Sharks did not lose any court action. Mapoe did – incorrect,the Sharks were backing Mapoe
* Mapoe and agent approached the Sharks insisting that the contract was invalid. The Sharks agreed. On this issue the Sharks made a mistake. They did not commit an illegal act.The other mistake they made was to trust Mapoe – any Union who trusts a player and agent without doing their homework is clearly run my amateurs.The whole mess of Mapoe’s contract was in the paper long before the Sharks had any contact so they knew what they were getting into.
* The Sharks contracted with Mapoe. Mapoe started receiving a salary and support (including legal fees) – correct but it was an invalid contract
* FS sued Mapoe (Thats their right). FS won their case. Mapoe appealed and it was due to be heard next week. We will never know what would have happened – incorrect,the Cheetahs went to court to hang onto their player,they did not sue Mapoe,if anything their motive was to sue the Sharks for a transfer fee.
* Now Mapoe concluded a deal with the Lions new backers (Gumede). Apparently the Lions leadership was not even there.
TO make matters a bit worse apparently Mapoe did the negotiations in the flat that the Sharks were paying for. – no comment on this as it’s not confirmed by anyone but Brian van Zyl
* The Lions paid FS a fairly low transfer fee. – incorrect,the Lions paid out the remainder of Mapoe’s contract with FS which is what the Sharks could have done.
The SHarks did make a mistake or 2 and they are paying for it
* They believed van Wyk and Mapoe that the FS contract was invalid – stupidity
* They trusted Mapoe – stupidity
WHat doesn’t follow is that Mapoe should keep all the money and handouts. The SHarks have a contract with Mapoe. You don’t know whether it is invalid. Mapoe signed it. – of course it is invalid,if I sign another contract with a company without seeing out my notice period or coming to an amicable termintaion then my contract with the new company should not stand.
But they have a signed contract and they can sue – doubt it would hold any water in a court of law.
Simple conclusion is that this is justice for the man in the street as opposed to the man at the beach and you okes can’t let it go.
4 Nov 2010, 12:47 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : hardly sounds like you’ve left out the emotion – comments like “stupidity” are quite emotive in the context. By the way do any of you profess to contain all the facts in order to make a “reasonably” ogjective judgement?
4 Nov 2010, 12:52 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) :
* They believed van Wyk and Mapoe that the FS contract was invalid – stupidity
* They trusted Mapoe – stupidity
Stupidity on the Sharks behalf,I’m not saying that Biscuit is showing stupidity.
Don’t be grumpy Bananarama
4 Nov 2010, 12:55 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : good post, those Shark bsatards are sore losers … they gambled and lost (a fortune close to million)
Now Sharks will be the first to come out and say that rugby is a business, well they are not the only and that can do business dirty and Lions have dirty businessmen with deep pockets who will think nothing about srcewing the Sharks or anyone else for that matter.
Sharks you are no longer the biggest fish in the sea so what goes around will come around, the war has just begun.
4 Nov 2010, 13:05 pm
dirty business … approach star players as their contracts near an end. Make a ridiculous offer, force the employer, lets say the Sharks to counter or make an offer close to what is on the table … before you know it the employer is suddenly paying more for said star players than what he budgeted for … next the employer is forced to make cuts and so the dirty war games continue until the big fish wins.
This is exactly what the Lions did to the Sharks (JPP, Kanko, Smiy) and will continue to do.
4 Nov 2010, 13:14 pm
Love the way the Sharks are the only bad guys here … the FS Pres saying how professional the Lions had been. Ummmm secretly meeting with him in a flat paid for by the Sharks????? Thats integrity if ever there was.
FS feels the Sharks did a dirty on them, so they jumped into bed with the Lions. Sounds like a Guy Ritchie script – Snatch / Pussies same thing.
4 Nov 2010, 13:23 pm
@kevin w(kevin w) :
Lets draw a line in the sand here…….did the Sharks attempt to lure a player to Durban who was under contract with another union? – YES
Is this the first time they have done this? – NO
So forget about all the dealings that have happened since initial contact from the Sharks with Mapoe,the bottom line is that the Sharks contracting ethics (or lack thereof) are questionable at best.
That is why they are the bad guys!
4 Nov 2010, 13:30 pm
Ok so I’m glad we’ve cleared that up then
4 Nov 2010, 13:34 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
hahahahaha if we don’t spell it out they won’t get it.
I can understand arguing a point when you’re a passionate supporter but when your team uses questionable tactics and loses let it go!
4 Nov 2010, 13:40 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
Nonsense.
The only thing I concede is that the Sharks made some mistakes wrt Mapoe.
The previous times they were found to be correct so hwo they are relevant is beyond me.
* And for the umpteenth time the Sharks did NOT approach Mapoe. It was the other way around
* THe ethics post the incident are relevant. We will see if the Sharks have a cause of action.
You guys clearly have zero idea whether they do or dont
4 Nov 2010, 13:40 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Yip. They’re both guilty. As sin.
4 Nov 2010, 13:43 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
Hehehehe.
4 Nov 2010, 13:46 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : Let me draw an analogy for you:
Bob Mugabe runs this company called Zimbabwe. He’s not very ethical about how he does it. Everyone knows it’s wrong but some poeple still vote for him. Does it make us all hate Zimbabwe? No. But for as long as Bob’s in power Zim will be a mess.
Now you have to ask yourself: Is Brian Van Zyl = Bob? Of course not. but I think I’ve made my point.
4 Nov 2010, 13:49 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
No wonder your nickname is Biscuit cos you’re clearly picking up crumbs now.
“The previous times they were found to be correct so hwo they are relevant is beyond me.” – they were not found to be correct,they found a loophole in the contracts which reflected badly on the Lions for not following standard SARPA recommended contracts.It was still questionable to go after players under contract.I don’t understand how you can defend the Sharks for using these tactics.If SA Rugby had any backbone they would have docked the Sharks points and handed them a hefty fine.
The ethics post or pre incident are not relevent if they are underhand.It’s a black and white case,ther’s no grey area bud.
4 Nov 2010, 13:52 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
So according to you Mapoe should profit from his lack of ethics and behaviour
I dont argue that the Sharks will lose financially (and probably deserve to)
As for your rant at the Sharks about going after players well
* WP did it for Jacque Fourie
Lets not make up rules.
Be consistent
4 Nov 2010, 13:56 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
I think you will find that I mentioned that in post 61 and Stormersboy responded in 64.
Mapoe shouldn’t profit but the bottom line is that the Sharks should have left him alone……whether they approached him or the other way around.
He was under contract which made him unavailable unless a transfer fee was paid.
If you want to be consistent then read all posts again and be consistent with your argument.
4 Nov 2010, 14:01 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : If the WP had brought Jaques down, put him up at the Cape Grace, paid for his rehab, paid him sums of money and then found out his contract was still valid with the Lions I would be echoing my sentiment that I posted earlier. Toughies Rassie. You tried to pull a fast one and it didn’t work.
PS on the Jaques Fourie issue, the contract was found to be invallid, which makes Jaques’ transfer valid and legal. Same as when the Sharks signed Alberts et al. But that isn’t the case with Lionel, now is it?
4 Nov 2010, 14:03 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
Exactly bud – no matter how hard we drum this point it’s not going to resonate with the Sharks supporters cos they feel they’ve been cheated…..or should that be Cheatahed!
When the Lions lost Alberts,Fourie,Ludik,Mujati,Mostert etc I was bleak but the Lions were the architect of their own downfall for not having standard contracts.They learnt their lesson then and hopefully the Sharks will have learnt from this episode.
4 Nov 2010, 14:04 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
Yes Fourie was the same as Ludik and Alberts but @benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
used the Ludik/Alberts examples as Sharks misdeeds. If he is going to complain about then he needs to bring Fourie into it
4 Nov 2010, 14:07 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
I have no issue with what the Cheetahs did.
Its Mapoe’s actions I am unhappy about
4 Nov 2010, 14:11 pm
I speak under correction here, but if memory serves me correctly, whenever there is a legal fight over players moving under breach of contract- it seems to involve the sharks cleaning out the lions stars.
AJ Venter – ‘poached’ from lions pre season
Willem alberts + Louis Ludik – same deal this year
(who else?)
If live was fair then this is karma coming around to bite them, and the lions can extend the middle finger imho.
I think the cheetahs can also feel agrieved the way the dbn chequebook cleans out half their squad each year. the worm turns, suck it up boytjies and go for a surf.
4 Nov 2010, 14:13 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
I don’t agree with what happened with any of those players,as I mentioned in my previous post I was grumpy about it.
My feeling is that if a player is under contract they should not be approached unless the union who is currently paying the player has given their blessing.
4 Nov 2010, 14:14 pm
Guys.
I think the horse is dead.
kicking it in the balls won’t help.
What goes around comes around.
4 Nov 2010, 14:14 pm
@shebeen(shebeen) :
Jacque Fourie -> WP
Bakkies Botha -> Toulon (Bulls won that won
There was a scandal around Habana but I forget
Who else?
4 Nov 2010, 14:16 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : Sure, and at the end of the day I have no problem with Ludik and Alberts either, BUT Streuli has on a few occasions previously approached other players with the attitude of “we’ll get him out of the contract, what are they going to do about it?” and so I’m totally unsympathetic in this instance towards Brian’s “we are the victimes here” attitude.
The real losers here are the Cheetahs in my opinion. They should have had the services of their player until the end of his contract. They could have paid him more, but that’s even debatable since Lionel agreed to the salary when he signed.
However, the fact remains, for as long as there is big money being made, there will be big players making big plays for their money makers. Some will come off and some won’t.
4 Nov 2010, 14:16 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
My point is that if the Sharks had got away with the Mapoe saga,what would be the point in having a contract?
Surely every player would then be looking for a better deal than what they are currently on.
Contracts are there to protect the employer and the employee.
4 Nov 2010, 14:19 pm
The Sharks courted Bernie Habana a few years ago and there was talk of them offering Bakkies R1 million per season.
Lions have lost
Mujati – WP
Fourie – WP
Venter – Sharks
Mostert – Sharks
Ludik – Sharks
Alberts – Sharks
Cheetahs also had an issue with JP Joubert earlier this season with regards to his move to the Lions but the Lions won that one.
4 Nov 2010, 14:20 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
Hey I would be happy if no-one gets the money.
Take the money away from Mapoe and give it to the Chris Burger Fund for all I care.
But Mapoe cannot kee the money
4 Nov 2010, 14:25 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
As a Lions supporter,I’m not fazed if the Sharks are out of pocket or if Mapoe keeps the money or whatever…..I’m just stoked that the Lions have finally won one over the Sharks & that they are coming to the party with regards to player recruitment.
An interesting fact was that at the end of the season the Lions re-signed all their players and not one left which has not been the case in previous seasons.
As mentioned earlier,SA Rugby should take a more pro-active role in settling these disputes and fining the guilty parties.
4 Nov 2010, 14:45 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : And how many of those would have not entertained the thought of going to the Sharks before the approach based on the performance of the Lions?. How much did the Lions management have to do with the players seeking greener pastures? Its the same as any employment contract. Are you telling me that if you work for an employee who values, vision and treatment of you doesn’t match up to what you aspire to for yourself that you would not move if approached by another employer especially if you’ve put your CV out there in the market.
Wake up and smell the roses. The Sharks may lose out financially but as a business they have to pursue the legal angles to get whats best for their business/franchise.
4 Nov 2010, 14:48 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) : No-ones asking you to be sympathetic, just consider the facts from a business and legal angle. All Brian is saying is that he is going to pursue the case from a business and legal angle and see if there if the Sharks have any rights. If not then so be it. Its purely business
4 Nov 2010, 14:49 pm
http://www.keo.co.za/2010/11/04/sharks-take-aim-at-mapoe/comment-page-2/#comment-1746047
ok, my point is the sharks seem to have a history of getting the okes into their squad prematurely, training, marketing everything before the legal stuff is sorted out.
alberts and ludik didn’t even know until the day before super14 started this year if they were eligible for the sharks.
http://www.keo.co.za/2010/02/12/alberts-set-to-play/
In Jaqcues Fourie’s case he sorted out the validity of him playing for lions in 2010 first, and then once he was ruled as a free player did he sign with wp.
don’t think there was anything untoward about Habana’s case, except he was dumping the blue bulls.
anyway, seems like sour grapes from the sharks..taken them 25 years but they are actually producing their own players now
4 Nov 2010, 14:53 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) : should read “whose values”
4 Nov 2010, 15:44 pm
good for Mapoe stuffing the scheming scheisters in the same underhand eye game they like to play. Serves Tjarkies right unethical deals beget unethical treatment. While they were trying to steal one more Fs player illegitimately someone else came along and snatched the spoils. While Fs and Sharks busy wrangling over loopholes in questionable contracts Lions came along and did one better.
If Fs would have treated their asset with more appreciation to begin with maybe the player wouldn’t have looked for greener pastures, seeing as they valued their Grey Collage investments way above the lowly paid boy from Queenstown they didn’t really deserve his allegiance, and neither did Sharks because like the scavengers they are they like to operate unscrupulously. Now they got their justice deserts and Mapoe can start playing rugby again for someone who will value his input and commitment.
4 Nov 2010, 16:03 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) :
You have read one of my posts only. I am a Sharks man btw.
Earlier I was arguing that the Sharks should sue Mapoe because Mapoe is just wrong. One can argue that the Sharks made mistakes with Mapoe but Mapoe did absolutely nothing correct. The Sharks may have tried to use a contract loophole but they didn’t lie and cheat line Mapoe did.
If the Mapoe’s contract with the Sharks is valid then he is in breach
If Mapoes contract with the Sharks is invalid then he needs to return any rewards he is not entitled to
THe appeal was due next week – Why not wait until then? If Mapoe won he would play for the Sharks. If he lost then he would return to the FS and the FS could sell him to the Lions.
Having said that I don’t think the Sharks handled the Mapoe thing well.
@shebeen(shebeen) :
Alberts/Ludik was no hassle. It was the same as the Fourie one. The comment above that Alberts and Ludik were troublesome well
* Their contracts were identical to Fouries
* Fourie went to a dispute and won
* THe Lions were miffed about Fourie and then refused to sign the clearance certificate and SARU refused to intervene.
* But it was identical to Fourie so the Lions had no chance of prevailing
BUT … having said that I just want this to be over. But they cannot allow Mapoe to get away with this
4 Nov 2010, 16:07 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) : Sorry it was meant for the other bugger, benno. Only relaized after I had posted. A lot of people here are naive to say the least. Wonder what Skoppie would do for instance if he heard of a labourer being badly paid and treated and the guy approached him for work – maybe he too would become the conniving scheming shyster that he accuses the Sharks of being.
4 Nov 2010, 16:15 pm
This oke seems to be causing problems everywhere he goes
4 Nov 2010, 16:16 pm
“You must never try to make all the money that’s in a deal.
Let the other fellow make some money too,
because if you have a reputation for always making all the money,
you won’t have many deals.”
John Paul Getty
4 Nov 2010, 16:17 pm
@skopskiet(yliad) : not good for mapoe, as a rugby player if you decide to leave its best you leave on good terms with your employers, you never know if you might need them later on in your career
4 Nov 2010, 16:19 pm
I suspect Mapoe may be running out of deals in South Africa. If he ever decides to leave the Lions, most likely only Western Province have sufficiently low ethical standards to offer him a contract.
4 Nov 2010, 16:25 pm
Scuzzy and ungratefull, sharks prepared to pay him a lot more moola and then he still has the audacity to go behind their backs and use the sharks flat for a meeting with the Lions honcho’s, i hope he doesn’t doodly the Lions as well cause i am really hopeing for them to do well next year.
4 Nov 2010, 16:25 pm
@Tacitus(Tacitus) : ya it looks that way but very much doubt province will bother with mapoe as hes starting to build a bad reputation. Well there’s always a career for him in Sevens, or move overseas….sad thing is, his still quite young and has his whole future ahead of him. I just cant understand how things got so much out of hand with Mapoe…look at the whole Ludick and Alberts thing…its over..done, Alberts just concentrated on rugby and now his almost a Bok.
4 Nov 2010, 16:25 pm
Scuzzy and ungratefull, sharks prepared to pay him a lot more moola and then he still has the audacity to go behind their backs and use the sharks flat for a meeting with the Lions honcho’s, i hope he doesn’t doodle the Lions as well cause i am really hopeing for them to do well next year.
4 Nov 2010, 16:26 pm
eish double trouble lol, sorry double post.
4 Nov 2010, 16:27 pm
If you leave the one you love for the one you like, the one you like will leave you for the one they love.
ROFL
4 Nov 2010, 16:27 pm
Bananaboy I think you’re missing the point and I guess I’m tired of writing the same thing over and over without the penny actually dropping.
No-ne is being naive,we are just giving our opinions regarding this subject.To claim the highground based on intelligence actually requires you to show intelligence.
4 Nov 2010, 16:29 pm
Anyone know what tome is the Bok team announcement? Eish our midfield gona be problems there. O Driscol licking his lips. Will be k@k if we lose against the oirish, esp after the way they went on after the BI&L tour
4 Nov 2010, 16:54 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Benno show me your intelligence by telling me how you can form an opinon based on facts that you have at your disposal. All I am saying is that the premise is that we are talking about an employment contract and the right for someone to take his services wherever he likes , now how does that construe to make the Sharks conniving shysters in your eyes. If a player approaches a union because he is unhappy where he is or if a union enquires of a player as to his availability I assume that if he is happy at his union then nothing will arise out of that enquiry. However on the other hand if the player is not happy he has every right to pursue his career elsewhere. How the hell are the Sharks in the wrong then. Poaching of executives and managers is done all the time in business as you would be aware of if you have held a position of that nature. Tell me where is the difference then.
4 Nov 2010, 17:02 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) :
*yawn*
Read through the thread for my opinion based on facts,I’ve stated them more than once today.
Here’s a little bit of advice for free pal…..the Sharks aren’t always right!
4 Nov 2010, 17:06 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) : Dude. In most employment contracts with executives there is a 30 day notice period for resignation. So all he has to do is give the notice and go. And yes, one way of getting around the poaching is the share incentive schemes that most executives are tied into. rights only vest over time, and in the event of resignation there is always some form of financial consequence in the form of opportunity cost to the employee.
Lionel isn’t on that sort of deal. As is the case with most professional sportsmen/women. He’s contracted for a period, and the club has rights to the player during that time. He may not legally move without the clubs permission. Which they do not have to give.
That, my fruity friend, is the difference. And it’s a big one.
4 Nov 2010, 17:10 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Benno agreed they aren’t always right and from my point of view the facts are too few to form an opinion as conclusive as the one you have arrived at. Were they stupid in paying him until they had clearance? in my opinion not if they had a watertight contract to hold him to. I guess we will have to wait and see what unfolds as far as this case and his career is concerned.
4 Nov 2010, 17:17 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) :
If you want a fact here it is -> Lionel Mapoe was LEGALLY contracted to the Cheetahs when the Sharks offered him a contract.
It does not matter whether he approached them or the Sharks approached him,fact is that the Sharks should not have even entertained the idea of signing up without speaking to the Cheetahs first.
Read Stormerboy’s post cos that makes sense.
4 Nov 2010, 17:19 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) : MOst execs don’t get 30 days notice for obvious reasons my fellow fruity friend. And as you quite rightly point out they are more than adequately compensated in order to lock them in, a situation I’m used to. Whatever deal Lionel is on as you may know in terms of employment law restrictive practices such as restraint of trade clauses are sometimes not enforceable if they are considered onerous and impact the employee negatively.
4 Nov 2010, 17:26 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Benno agreed completely he was legally contracted but what sayest thou about the fact that he was paid as a Sharks player and the Sharks right of recourse to Lionel for the costs.
4 Nov 2010, 17:26 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) :
Dude the sports world and the business world are very different.
With your reasoning,there’s no point of having a contract cos you don’t have to abide by it?
So Patrick Lambie is on a 2 year deal with the Sharks…..are the Lions allowed to negotiate with him without the Sharks permission?
4 Nov 2010, 17:33 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Dude happens all the time in football it only means that the contract holder has to be compensated.
4 Nov 2010, 17:34 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) : By that I mean the player making the approach and not the club approaching him because as you quite rightly point out it is illegal.
4 Nov 2010, 17:37 pm
@bananaboy(bananaboy) :
Maybe it does but there are also penalties for this behaviour in football.Chelsea fell foul of this a while ago and were banned from purchasing players if I remember correctly.
You’re contradicting yourself now bud,if you agree that he was legally a Cheetahs player then any contract with the Sharks is null and void – if they paid him anything it was a gamble as they are the party in the wrong.
With regards to your comment about compensation,if the Sharks had paid the transfer fee (compensation) they would not have found themselves in this mess.
I’m not saying that Mapoe is right but I don’t feel that the Sharks were the victims here either.
4 Nov 2010, 17:45 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : Not saying the Sharks had a legally binding agreement with him. Of course it was a gamble which might not pay off but they have every right to pursue it in a court of law.
By the way would you have him in your team after this display as a matter of interest. For my part the Lions are welcome to have him and good luck to him and them (genuinely).
By the way I thought the Sharks offered to pay a transfer fee which was refused by FS.
4 Nov 2010, 17:58 pm
For my money,both the Sharks & Free State have done the player a dis-service by the fact that he has not been able to play since March.
No doubt Mapoe was wrong too but I think he was being guided by agents and the Sharks promise that it would all work out as it had with Alberts & Ludik.
I’m quite happy to have him in the Lions team,he has signed a 3 year contract so he’s going nowhere,his only choice is to graft hard to make the Boks.
The Sharks refused to pay the R1,5m transfer fee the Cheetahs requested,they felt it was too much.
4 Nov 2010, 21:02 pm
A lot of BS talking here.
Free State payed for his development since high school. He had more opportunities than most players in this country.
And you guys are missing the point. The Lions bought Mapoe from the Free State. Sharks will like the biggest idiots in court! How can you sue someone if he didn’t have a legal contract with you! Sharks will always be the laughing stock of this country!
4 Nov 2010, 21:04 pm
SARU should be giving the Sharks franchise to EP.
One of the goals of the Super-series was to allow for development of players. The Sharks haven’t developed a single player since the competition started.
4 Nov 2010, 21:15 pm
@Bouts(Bouts) : blah blah blah typically talking **** whilst knowing sweet F’all
4 Nov 2010, 21:17 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) : again rubbish , the lions offered less then the sharks and got the player
you all **** here shouting ur mouths off whilst not having a damn clue about the facts
4 Nov 2010, 21:26 pm
@sharks_lover(sharks_lover) :
I’m afraid it’s you who does not know the facts,if the Lions paid the FS less then why wouldn’t the Sharks just stump up right in the beginning?
The issue was that they felt the transfer fee was too high and FS were not willing to release their player who had a valid,legally binding contract!
Wash my balls!
4 Nov 2010, 21:31 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
Read it and weep clown:
“More recently, reports have it that the Sharks and Cheetahs were trying to come to an agreement over a transfer fee that would allow Mapoe to be released from the Cheetahs and join the Sharks legally. But the Cheetahs have been uncooperative to a point where it leaves one thinking this isn’t about money at all, rather about proving a point! the Cheetahs demanded a transfer fee of R1.5-million for Mapoe, the Sharks offered R750 000 but it was refused. The Cheetahs played further hardball by refusing Springbok sevens coach Paul True’s request to use Mapoe for next month’s Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, India”
4 Nov 2010, 21:40 pm
After a strong start to his Super 14 career in 2010, a hand injury curtailed his tournament. But a contractual dispute with the Cheetahs led to a stand-off after Mapoe moved to Durban where the newly crowned Currie Cup champions threw their considerable resources behind him.
From Times Live
They spent hundreds of thousands of rands fighting a legal case to clear a path for Mapoe to play for the Sharks despite strong legal opinion against them.
“I find it strange that the Cheetahs have released Lionel to the Lions,” Van Zyl said. “[Cheetahs president] Harold Verster argued in court that Mapoe was an integral part of the Cheetahs team and they needed him. He turned down our transfer fee offer, yet he’s allowed the player to sign for the Lions?”
The Sharks have been aggressive recruiters of players in the past and have “stolen” contracted players from both the Cheetahs and the Lions in recent years. Van Zyl has no doubt there is an element of revenge in the deal.
Revenge is a dish best served cold!
4 Nov 2010, 21:52 pm
Thats right benno Sharkies got their own conniving MO served up to them fresh on the same plate they usually like to do the serving from. Thats why Cheetahs let Mapoe go to Lions but fought tooth and nail to keep him away from Sharks.
Because they knew they’d already lost Mapoe in principle and would never get his best out of him if they forced him to stay, but as long as he didn’t go to the thieving unscrupulous connivers they let him go to the highest bidder which in this case was Lions who came along and picked up the pieces from the scrap between the jackal and the hyena at the appropriate time, and they get to keep the spoils from the fallout.
5 Nov 2010, 07:45 am
Just goes to show that he had no intention of playing for The Sharks for the team dynamic and the professional set-up down in Dirtbin.
He’s nothing more than a cheap soldier for hire with no integrity. Thanks for not choosing The Sharks.
If he was a smart cookie he’d have given thought to choosing a franchise that could further his ambitions to eventually play for the Boks…oh wait he doesn’t need to worry about that owing to his skin colour..
5 Nov 2010, 08:00 am
@Bouts(Bouts) :
If there is no contract then Mapoe has gotten unfair enrichment and should return the money.
5 Nov 2010, 08:02 am
@Bouts(Bouts) :
Really and I suppose you are the real Julius as well?
Little extract
Over the past decade The Sharks Academy has produced 45 Sharks and 10 Springboks in 10 years. From the Starting 22 of the Absa Currie Cup Final, the following players have all attended The Sharks Academy:
Lwazi Mvovo, Patrick Lambie, Ryan Kankowski, Keegan Daniel, Alistair Hargreaves, Steven Sykes, Tendai Mtawarira, Craig Burden, Anton Bresler, Riaan Swanepoel.
5 Nov 2010, 08:05 am
@skopskiet(yliad) :
Again the appeal was scheduled for next week.
The Sharks were confident that Mapoe would win the court case (that they were funding)
If the FS were so confident why jump the gun and sell to the Lions?
Again I am the 1st to admit that the Sharks made some mistakes in the process. Anyone painting them as the only villains are as sensible as others that try and close down Twitter
5 Nov 2010, 08:53 am
Eastern cape and dodgy dealings go hand in hand. Mapoe doing what comes naturally.
I hope he gets his sued down to his underpants the little prick.
5 Nov 2010, 12:05 pm
Unfortunately I do not have time to comment on a lot of things mentioned on this article (and sorry if the spelling and grammar is not that great I am writing this in a hurry). What is interesting to me is the specific reference “the Cheetahs were clever in selling Mapoe before the appeal” I assume because the bloggers feel that the Cheetahs thought they are going to lose the appeal. My feeling is that the Cheetahs could not negotiate with the Lions without the consent of Mapoe and his agent, especially if they thought they would lose the appeal, because that would make the contract with the Lions alsoo invalid, I am sure the Chhethas felt that they are still in a good position to win the appeal. If Van Wyk still felt they had a non-valid contract he would not have negotiated with the Cheetahs and simply win the appeal and be in the pond seat, but he and Mapoe negotiated with the Cheetahs to be released. This leaves two things from my perspective, first being an acknowledgement from Van Wyk that they had a legal contract with the Cheetahs and second it is actually Mapoe and agent that was clever realis ing they are going to lose the appeal and him not wanting to play for the Cheetahs find another way out. I am sure the Sharks and Mapoe had seperate cases against the Cheethas, if true it would be interresting to see if the Sharks would continue with thier own appeal.
5 Nov 2010, 12:50 pm
@GKruger(GKruger) :
The Sharks had no case against the Cheetahs.
And btw I have no problem with the Cheetahs actions.
Mapoe had a case against the Cheetahs and the Sharks were assisting them.
Logically Mapoe will drop his case which means that one is dead.
They may just take the view that better to be certain rather than take the risk because if Mapoe won his appeal they would get zero. The other benefit for FS is they get to stick it to the Sharks.
But Cheetahs did what served their interests. No issue.
So now the Sharks have a likely action against Mapoe. If the Sharks win it will be interesting who pays.
5 Nov 2010, 13:05 pm
@Biscuit
Okay, then I was mistaken that there was two separate appeals (was never 100% sure), thanks for clarifying it. I guess it is just a matter of perception, and my argument is exactly the same as yours but just from Van Wyk’s point of view i.e. “Van Wyk/Mapoe may just take the view that better to be certain rather than take the risk because if the Cheetahs won the appeal they would get zero”…….
I guess we will never know…..but I maintain the moment Van Wyk agreed to negotiate between Cheetahs and Lions, he professionally acknowledged that the contract with the Cheetahs was valid, that makes him highly unethical……and to think he played for the Cheetahs…….!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Surely someone must question Van Wyk and his actions and surely there some professional actions that can be taken against him – similar to the medical board?
5 Nov 2010, 13:09 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
If the Sharks win I would be very surprised.
Bottom line is that they didn’t have a legally binding contract with Mapoe,whether this results in further action against Mapoe or not,I think the best decision for all parties involved is to drop it and stop wasting more money on legal fees.
There are kids who can’t afford rugby gear and these Unions are wasting money on trying to prove who was right and who was wrong? – what a pile of pooh!
5 Nov 2010, 18:30 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
Lets accept there is no legal, binding contract. Ok fine.
The so called no contract stipulated money for a service he did not deliver.
So return the money. After all if there is no contract there is no entitlement to money.
Alternatively reach a settlement.
The settlement is the most likely scenario.
That has been my point and you have not responded to that pont yet.
5 Nov 2010, 18:44 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
My opinion on your point is that I agree whol-heartedly with Manie Reyneke when he said the following:
“We do things by the book and Lionel had a binding contract with the Cheetahs,” GLRU chief executive Manie Reyneke told The Times. “We negotiated with the Cheetahs and came to an agreement to sign Lionel.
“I don’t see how the Sharks can sue Lionel as he was never under contract to them. If the Sharks bring a suit against him, we’ll back our player.”
To me that sounds like someone who has looked at the legality of what had happened and appears prepared for what happens next…..but hey,that’s my opinion and you have yours so lets just see what happens.
5 Nov 2010, 19:12 pm
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
‘So return the money. After all if there is no contract there is no entitlement to money.’
I hardly think Mapoe has the morals or integrity to return anything *given* to him by the Sharks. And why should he have to?
He never stole it from them, they gave it to him quickly and easily when they thought there was something in it for them. The fact that the Sharks thought he was worth the gamble and never figured him for a snake is neither here nor there really.
The Sharks played with fire and they got burnt.
6 Nov 2010, 07:47 am
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
@JockBok(JockBok) :
Of course Reynecke is going to say that. Maple is now their man.
The sharks were backing map legally a week ago. Same story.
And there was strong opinion that Mapoe would win his appeal. We will never know of course.
The sharks never gave Mapoe anything. They paid him according to a contract. A contract you guys have declared invalid.
No contract. No payment. Money please.
OR there is a contract. Breach. Money please.
OR something else
You chaps seem focussed on the sharks getting the comeuppance and are ignoring the legal side.
If I sell you a car and it turns out not able to be sold. Say you have made a down payment. Say you have used it for a month or so.
I cannot keep the deposit.
Of course I am biased as well but at least I admit where I believe the sharks went wrong.
Mapoes actions and to a lesser extent the lions have not been great. 2 wrongs do not make a right.
6 Nov 2010, 15:37 pm
@stormersboy(stormersboy) :
boy, ure out of line here, u are one of those that need to get with the fact that rugby is prof sport now. sharks do not deserve this treatment.
6 Nov 2010, 15:53 pm
@BD(BD) :
dont be a dig head here……costs was incurred by him ito salary accom and rehab, if u were ceo of a rugby union u would also demand costs
7 Nov 2010, 13:10 pm
“LIONEL (Mapoe) has used us and there is a lot of animosity towards him,” Sharks chief executive Brian van Zyl wailed into his banana-flavoured porridge this week. Van Zyl was upset because the player whose services they tried to secure while he was still under contract with the Cheetahs, dared take up a contract with the Lions. Mapoe can perhaps be accused of acting in bad faith but in this case, the Sharks can hardly call the kettle black. – Times Live
Can’t say I disagree at all!
7 Nov 2010, 14:49 pm
@benno_on_tow(benno_on_tow) :
When it comes to ethics maybe you should look at the ethics of the Lions new backer. He said he was staying out of rugby but it appears he had a hand in the Mapoe negotiations.
Perhaps read Mail and Guardian Nov 5 to 11
BTW – No-one has said the Sharks were squeaky clean here. I certainly never did.
Whatever wrongs they may have done does not convey rights to Mapoe to hold onto everything.
8 Nov 2010, 11:38 am
@Biscuit(Biscuit) :
This argument is boring now bud
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.