Telling fortnight for Lions
10 Oct 2012
Lions president Kevin de Klerk says Elton Jantjies and Jaco Taute’s loan deals, the team’s 2013 schedule and the John Mitchell hearing should be finalised over the next two weeks.
The major talking point is which franchises Springbok duo Jantjies and Taute will represent during Super Rugby next season.
Both players have received offers from all the major unions. It’s likely that Jantjies will make a move to Cape Town and join the Stormers, while Taute has confirmed to this site that he’s still overlooking all his options and stressed that there’s no possibility of joining the Kings. Taute has been in talks with the Stormers, Sharks and Bulls.
‘We are currently holding meetings this week to discuss these deals,’ De Klerk told keo.co.za. ‘Right now, the players are focused on their Currie Cup duties. We hope to get everything confirmed as soon as possible.’
The deals are likely to be confirmed over the next fortnight.
De Klerk also confirmed that the Johannesburg union is close to settling on a fixed schedule for 2013.
The Lions have already agreed to host several clubs from Europe and will face two American teams during a tour to the USA. They are also set to face Fiji, Samoa or Tonga in June. These matches will be televised.
‘These plans are very exciting,’ said De Klerk. ‘We just need to get clearance from Saru and settle these fixtures with a broadcaster. The major thing is that all these games will be televised.’
Meanwhile, the disciplinary hearing with suspended head coach Mitchell is still ongoing. The matter has been postponed several times since June.
However, De Klerk said a settlement should be made by early next week.
‘Both parties have voiced their arguments to the chairman in charge. We should get a final decision on Friday or early next week.’
It’s believed that interim coach Johan Ackermann is set for a permanent post once Mitchell makes an exit.
By Gareth Duncan
80 Comments
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
11 Oct 2012, 11:56 am
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-46:
Plus their Franchise partners.
11 Oct 2012, 11:58 am
@umkhonto, 23k average attendance at smellis park? Misguided figures because 10 percent are lions fans, the majority are fans of the opposing teams! So the kings would be better supported at NM…
11 Oct 2012, 11:59 am
@Transformation-47:
ok sure but its not exactly saying he smacked them with balls in the faces though.
granted, they did deserve to be smacked with balls in thier faces all things considered but that still does not mean you can actually do it.
11 Oct 2012, 12:02 pm
Mitch did what with his balls? Smacked them in their faces…erm cough… The lions are a bunch of crybabymoffies
11 Oct 2012, 12:03 pm
@David-51:
of course they would but my question was in regards the big 5
but i get your point
11 Oct 2012, 12:09 pm
@David so 23 unions voted against them yet they blame cheeky? Wtf
11 Oct 2012, 12:10 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-50: you’re makind SPURIOUS claims of things that were said! Rubbish man!
provide evidence, statements! don’t just say “hoskins said blah blah blah” otherwise pipedown with your midguided prejudices!
January 27
* The franchises requested that a decision on the mechanism of qualification was postponed to allow them time to make alternative proposals.
* The General Meeting accepted the request. Jurie Roux, SARU CEO, asked for it to be recorded that the delay in a decision was at the franchises’ request, therefore precluding them (Exco) from criticism of delays in any decisions.
after this they wrote a letter to SARU as quoted above!
11 Oct 2012, 12:14 pm
@Slappes-56: EXACTLY!!!!
22 votes – Other unions other than than Bulls, Lions, Sharks.
1 vote = Hoskins as President of SARU
vs
6 votes = bulls, sharks & lions
and they STILL want to blame CHEEKY FFS!
11 Oct 2012, 12:18 pm
@Transformation-58:
What is interesting is that the Lions and Bulls partners must also have voted against the Lions.
11 Oct 2012, 12:22 pm
@Slappes-56:
i understand you but just ot be clear
14 unions = 2 votes each
saru prez (hoskins) = 1 vote
3 unions voted for (lions, bulls & sharks) = 6
11 unions voted against 22 + 1 (hoskins) = 23
11 Oct 2012, 12:24 pm
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-60:
I think Hoskens only has the deciding vote if there’s a tie.
11 Oct 2012, 12:26 pm
@Transformation-57: Don’t you try tell me what to do.
I am not going to go scratch around for “evidence” for you. Don’t you read newspaper and other media reports?
Now go back and read #33 again.
11 Oct 2012, 12:30 pm
PersonallyI am thrilled at the new promo relegation format for SA Teams….in both CC and Super rugby.
There has to be ramifications for poor results….this relegation threat will ensure no dead rubbers, etc….SA Teams will go hell for leather , the way it should be….
Heard that by end of WC 2015 SARU will introduce a central contracting scenario….similar to the kiwi blueprint.
11 Oct 2012, 12:39 pm
@David-59: yes they did. the Valke said “fok hom”… the Pumas & Leopards said “waar is onse geld? FJ!”
11 Oct 2012, 12:44 pm
@David-61:
that can’t be possible because the media reported it widely at the time as having gone 23 votes against and 6 for.
11 Oct 2012, 12:47 pm
@David-59:
@Transformation-64:
just to be clear that would be the falcons for the bulls, as franchise partners
and the pumas and leopards for the lions, as franchise partners
11 Oct 2012, 12:50 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-62: stop talking rubbish then!
the only time i can recall SARU using that phrase was in front of the Parliamentary Committee on Sport & it was Jurie Roux talking not Regan!
http://www.springboksupporter.co.za/News/SARU/SARU-explains-Kings’-status-to-Parliament.aspx
11 Oct 2012, 12:56 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-62: “SARU president Oregan Hoskins stated on numerous occasions that: “The Kings’ inclusion in Super Rugby will not be at the expense of any existing franchises.”
SARU president Oregan Hoskins lied”
“The Kings will play in the competition in 2013, but not at the expense of one of the other franchises,” Jurie Roux, the CEO of SARU, told the committee.
“Resolving that part of the equation is the issue at hand and we have a number of proposals to take to the Exco (Executive Council) and ultimately to the General Council for a decision in July.”!
stop spewing emo nonsense!
11 Oct 2012, 13:07 pm
@Transformation-68: “…but not at the expense of one of the other franchises.”
What part of that don’t you understand? Is there something wrong with you?
11 Oct 2012, 13:14 pm
@i_love_u_bakkiesbotha-65:
My mistake then. I know that’s the rule when voting for a Bok coach.
11 Oct 2012, 13:42 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-69:
As far as I’m aware, the Franchises come up for renewal at the end of this year. If SARU had conducted a similar independent assessment exercise as they did last time, using the previous bid proposals as the baseline for a scorecard, I wonder how the Lions would fare?
11 Oct 2012, 14:06 pm
@David-71: You mean the bids way back in 2005/2007? (I forget which year.)
If the bids were to be evaluated purely on results then even a fool would obviously see that the Lions would have a lot to answer for; I’m not even entirely sure what they based them on.
To me both the Aussies and South Africans are incapable of fielding five strong teams each nevermind six and how I wish they would cut it back to Super 12 but this time with four teams per country.
And now I’m going to further stir the pot by asking if this were to happen, which NZ team should get the chop???
11 Oct 2012, 14:20 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-69: it’s okay, act DAFT
if you write it on the net, it is there forever!
33.BrumbiesBoy said:
11 Oct 2012, 10:44 am
SARU president Oregan Hoskins stated on numerous occasions that: “The Kings’ inclusion in Super Rugby will not be at the expense of any existing franchises.”
SARU president Oregan Hoskins lied.
Zero trust, zero respect and he will never be believed again.
read the BOLD text BrumbiesBoy
“The Kings will play in the competition in 2013, but not at the expense of one of the other franchises,” Jurie Roux, the CEO of SARU, told the committee.
Oregan Hoskins – one person
Jurie Roux – one person
geddit?
now hate away, plonker!
11 Oct 2012, 14:28 pm
The lions had their destiny in their own hands ie play decent enough to avoid wooden spoon, so theyre to blame as well. Farkin bunch of perennial p@esklap magnets for 10yrs already.
11 Oct 2012, 14:36 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-72:
The original presentations were based on a number of things such as, financial viability, support, region, chance of success, development plans. There were probably others.
SARU caused the problem originally by allowing the Free State and Griquas to pull out of the Cats and EP, Border and SWD to do the same with their existing franchises. They should have taken the responsibilty of ensuring that ALL CC provinces were included in a franchise, as was originally planned.
Unfortunately what was a regional competition has been turned into a super provincial one by the so called major provinces.
It was this provincial interference that caused Morne du Plessis to walk out of SA Rugby (pty) Ltd, which was set up specifically to run the Super competition and Springboks, much like the NZRU does.
11 Oct 2012, 14:43 pm
@Transformation-73: Now listen here brightspark…in my own time..not yours..seeing as you appear to be trying to avoid responsibility & culpability on SARU’s behalf I will find those articles I was referring to. If, as you claim, those words were indeed uttered by Roux and not Hoskins then he is also a liar and never to be believed again. The fact is they were both representing SARU at the time weren’t they?
Knucklehead.
11 Oct 2012, 15:17 pm
@David-75: Yeah, I remember most of those things, thanks David.
Such a pitifull state SARU has dug themselves into, isn’t it?
Got to go now, will be back on this thread around 19:00.
11 Oct 2012, 15:23 pm
@BrumbiesBoy-76: the phrase “but not at the expense of one of the other franchises,” first came up with the FRANCHISES after they met!
Jurie Roux repeated it but added that nothing has been decided and ALL options will be presented at General Council.
SARU (the Exco) could NOT on their own make that kind of decision, it was always going to come to a vote, you are seriously confused or lacking in knowledge of how SARU works if you thought that by Roux repeating what the franchises had said he was in fact telling parliament what SARU had decided!
nobody LIED to you
now get over it
11 Oct 2012, 17:47 pm
@Transformation-78: Transie you old molesterer, you would make a great lawyer! Roux or hoskins, makes no difference who said it, they were both representoing SARU in FRONT OF PARLIAMENT ! he was not quoting the letter from the franchises he was explaining the situation and prgoress as a SARU representative. Hence he gave SARU’s commitment to such an outcome. Hence he lied.
Hoskins will still carry the blame as he is the head honcho of the perniciuous and ever useless organisation that allowed Cheeky to dictate the terms… for who know what tasty back hander!!
Equally I have NO doubt that SARU were able to cajole the smaller unions into a vote against the Lions with a mix of threats and financial inducement. What a convenient smokescreen to hide behind…. all promises and parliamentary undertakings notwithstanding.
So Transie it is time YOU got over it. the Kings are a disease. SARU is a disgrace. The smaller unions will continue to jump for scraps from Hoskins and in so doing prevent SA rugby from real change.
My Lions have certainly been poor but you would be surprised how many supporters there really still are. They may or may not be back in S15 anytime soon, but again, you may be surprised at what transpires generally in SA rugby in the next few years… and who winds up on top.
11 Oct 2012, 19:15 pm
@Rooibaard2000-79: Thank you very much for that, you have taken the words right out of my mouth and I have nothing further to add on this matter right now.
And as “Transie” says: “If you write it on the net it’s there forever,” well excellent…I hope he takes yours as well and files it accordingly.
I recommend he files it under “E” for Excellent.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.