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
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 » Show All
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
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.