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.

Can’t say I disagree at all!

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

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.

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.

‘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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

I hope he gets his sued down to his underpants the little prick.

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

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.

If there is no contract then Mapoe has gotten unfair enrichment and should return the money.

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..

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.

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!