The GLRU does very little to cover themselves with glory in recent times, and Manie Reynecke is fast becoming notorious as a moaning myrtle. The GLRU has lodged an official complaint with SARU regarding the Sharks making use of Willem Alberts in the game they so spectacularly lost against the Force on Tuesday evening.
The Sharks might now have to face a disciplinary commitee to explain their situation to Lex Mpati, the Head of SARU’s judicial committee.
Brian van Zyl, chief executive of the Sharks, informed News24 that Alberts, and Louis Ludik, who also faces the same charges, have the same type of contract as Jacque Fourie who now plies his trade at the Stormers. Both Ludik and Alberts has not been paid by the GLRU since November 1st 2009, as the GLRU believes the players are absent without leave. Van Zyl further says that the Sharks are paying the players more than the GLRU had, and as per contract, the GLRU had the opportunity to match these amounts. However, no communication from the GLRU was forthcoming.
One honestly has to ask whether the focus of the GLRU is in the right place at the moment, it is fine and well doing battle in the boardroom, but it is on the field where the Lions have to earn their dough. It is understandable that one cannot allow one’s assets to come and go as freely as they like, it’s a bit like the tail wagging the dog. However, the Lions has only just been in arbitration regarding the services of JP Joubert, this time, it was the GLRU that succeeded in nullifying a contract that Joubert had with the Cheetahs. So, for all practical reasons the pot is now calling the kettle black.
The Sharks is a thoroughly professional side, and given their history with player trading, one would be hard-pressed to imagine that they have problems interpreting player contracts.
I personally believe that off-field circus acts like these, are going to impact negatively on the team’s (Lions) performance in the Super 14. Just like the case was with Fourie, forcing a player to play somewhere against their will might not have exactly the effect they are after. If the Lions succeed, I can just imagine the positive vibe in the Lions camp, sometimes I believe it’s better to just leave sleeping dogs lie…or is it lions?
Het vanoggend oor die nuus gehoor dat Ruben Kruger sy stryd teen kanker verloor het.
There are very few Lions supporters left on this site, but one has to ask why? They are angered by comments against the Lions, they think everyone is against them, and that is not the case. Just like I have to accept negative comments against the Stormers, likewise they have to accept it that people give the Lions a torrid time.
But it is things like this that helps fuel the fire. You cannot keep on defending the GLRU time after time if they keep on buggering everything up. They are seriously becoming a joke, and not a funny one.
#1
Die man was ‘n legende, ten minste is sy lyding nou ten einde, hy sal altyd met respek onthou word in SA Rugby kringe.
Jaque Fourie se kontrak is deur ‘n regsprosees ter syde gestel. Die kontrakte van Alberts en Ludik is nog nooit deur enige proses ter syde gestel nie. Die speler en die Sharks maak besluite op ‘n aanname dat dit die twee kontrakte outomaties ongeldig is na aanleiding van die Jaque Fourie uitspraak,
Die Jacque Fourie sage het ‘n presedent gestel, en dit is ook ‘n geldige regs-argument. Die kwessie hier is nie die kontrakte nie, maar die hantering van die saak deur die GLRU, sedert November is die kwessie al lugtyd gegun, en kon die saak al lankal reeds besleg gewees het, maar die GLRU hou toe net op om die spelers te betaal, en hoop dat hulle sou sou terugkom.
Hulle moes al lankal hof toe gesleep gewees het, maar Reynecke verkies om alles op nommer 99 te probeer regstel, en ‘n media sirkus daarvan te maak.
Well said Saint.
Rugby is a business today, and the Sharks run a good business.
BJ Van Zyl has ticked all the right boxes before going ahead with this.
The total incompetence of GLRU and SARU is exposed once again.
Goeiemore!
Ek stem 100% saam met jou (the Saint). Dit voel vir my asof Manie Reynecke dink hy kan die soort van geskille oplos deur middel van die media. Miskien soek hy ‘n “celebrity” status! Ek het reeds op ‘n vorige insetsel kommentaar gelewer op die meriete van die saak, maar wil net weer die volgende feite beklemtoon:
1. Die kontrakte van Alberts en Ludik is presies dieselfde as die van Fourie;
2. Hulle spelers termyn verjaar NIE 2011 nie;
3. Die Leeus het tot op datum nog geen poging aangewend om aanbiedinge wat die Sharks gemaak het te ewenaar en te verbeter nie.
4. Die Leeus het nog geen poging aangewend om die aangeleentheid op arbitrasie te neem nie;
5. Die Fourie saak is ‘n gestelde saak oor die meriete van die ooreenkoms, en is daar reeds daaroor beslis.
Ek dink Reynecke en sy onderdane keer vir alles wat werd is, want hulle weet as dit op die lappe kom dat die kontrakte OOK verkeerd gesluit was, is dit neusie verby.
Nou ewe skielik kry Reynecke die spelers jammer (beeld: 28 Januarie 2010). HY is die sondebok wat nie die aangeleentheid vroeër wou oplos nie, en soos (the Saint sê) “media sirkus daarvan maak”!
Dit het tyd geword dat Mnr Kevin de Klerk en die res van die topbestuur begin kyk waarom die afgelope jaar ongveer 10 professionele spelers hul goed gevat en geloop het. Ek stel voor hulle begin hulle ondersoek by die CEO!
Gee hom die rooikaart!!
Ek dink dit was slim van die Sharks om vir Alberts te speel, nou het hulle vir SARU gedwing om ‘n beslissing te maak. Die Leeus trek hierdie ding te ver uit, die Sharks het niks om te wen met ‘n uitgerekte storie nie.
Laat ons nou maar sien wat besluit gaan word.
Ek sien op ander Leeu geooreenteerde websites dat hulle bly gaan wees dat die Sharks nou ‘n boete van tot 1 Miljoen rand kan betaal. Wel vir ‘n suksesvolle span soos die haaie is dit kleingeld, so manne die joke is op julle.
Sien jy wat ek bedoel Snoek? Die leeu ondersteuners is almal oorsensitief, hulle neem alles persoonlik op. Hierdie kontrak dispuut goeters is nie goed vir SA Rugby nie, inteendeel, dit laat ons soos ‘n klomp morone lyk.
Hulle probeer nou die blame-game speel, maar ek het van geen kontrak-dispute by ander provinsies ooit gehoor nie, die openbaar making daarvan het begin by die leeus.
Voorheen was kontrak dispute agter geslote deure besleg, en as ons sien, speel Ollie vir die Sharks. Hierdie affere laat ‘n wrang smaak in my mond.
Kan nie glo hierdie gebeur nog in ‘n professionele tyd en era nie…
One day a farmer’s donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do.
Finally, he decided the animal was old, and the well needed to be covered up anyway; it just wasn’t worth it to retrieve the donkey.
He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him. They all grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well.
At first, the donkey realized what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone’s amazement he quieted down.
A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down the well. He was astonished at what he saw. With each shovel of dirt that hit his back, the donkey was doing something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up.
As the farmer’s neighbors continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and happily trotted off!
Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick to getting out of the well is to shake it off and take a step up. Each of our troubles is a steppingstone. We can get out of the deepest wells just by not stopping, never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.
NOW ——–
Enough of that crap . . .
The donkey later came back and bit the shit out of the farmer who had tried to bury him. The gash from the bite got infected, and the farmer eventually died in agony from septic shock.
MORAL FROM TODAY’S LESSON:
When you do something wrong and try to cover your ass, it always comes back to bite you.
A little boy got on the bus, sat next to a man reading a book, and noticed he had his collar on backwards. The little boy asked why he wore his collar that way.
The man, who was a priest, said, “I am a Father.”
The little boy replied, “My Daddy doesn’t wear his collar like that.”
The priest looked up from his book and said, “I am the Father of many.”
The boy said, “My Dad has four boys, four girls and two grandchildren and he doesn’t wear his collar that way.”
The priest, getting impatient, said “I am the Father of hundreds,” and went back to reading his book.
The little boy sat quietly… but on leaving the bus, he leaned over and said, “Well, maybe you should wear your pants backwards instead of your collar.”
The town fathers were looking for a way to increase attendance and participation at their regular meetings. One member suggested bringing in a hypnotist.
The officials agreed, a famous hypnotist was hired, publicity distributed, and everyone was pleased. A few weeks later the meeting hall was packed, and the townspeople sat fascinated as the hypnotist withdrew a pocket watch. The hypnotist began chanting, “Watch the watch, watch the watch, watch the watch…”
The crowd became mesmerized as the watch swayed back and forth, light gleaming off its polished surface. Hundreds of pairs of eyes followed the swaying watch, until suddenly the hypnotist’s fingers slipped and the watch fell to the floor.
“Crap!” said the hypnotist.
It took three weeks to clean up the town hall.
Wel, ons kan nou vir Maansters en die Lions uitkak soos ons wil, maar die fout begin by Alberts en Ludick in die geval. Hulle het kontrakte met die Lions geteken, en of daar nou fout was met daai kontrakte of nie, hulle het geteken om vir ‘n sekere tyd te speel EN hulle het elke maand hulle tjeks gewissel wat hulle by die Lions gekry het. As hulle wou waai, om watter rede ook al, sou die regte prosedure gewees het om hul werknemer te gaan sien en hul griewe te lig en dan kon die Haai en Lions onderhandel het vir ‘n oordragfooi. Hierdie kontrak storie gaan nog baie kak veroorsaak, want binnekort gaan dit die unie met die slimste prokureurs wees wat al die spelers gaan he.
Strfskop @ 7
When the GLRU/Lions Rugby were looking for a new CEO, the decision for various reasons (which I would not like to elaborate on here) was made to make the appointment from within the Union.
There has been ongoing discussions since the appointment by some connected to the Union as to whether Mr Reyneke was given KPI’s in terms of his functions, and whether his performance was monitored as appraised as is the norm in business.
When a vote of no confidence was tabled against the previous Exco’ the the President (Prof’ Jannie Ferreira) and the rest of the Exco’ resigned.
Mr Reyneke however remained in the post of CEO as he had a vaild employment contract and the process of removing him from that post legally would be both costly and protracted.
Again one must question what the situation may have been had KPI’s been agreed upon and assesments performed.
Anyway, the new Exco’ was voted in under Mr Kevin de Klerk’s Presidency and I have it VERY good authority that the question of performance appraisals for all GLRU employees was raised. Whether anything was actually done I cannot say.
What I can say is that since the new Exco’ was voted into power in July last year, there have been improvements in the management in a few areas, but nowhere near what the expectations were.
Indeed, there are some people who are unhappy with the general level of performance of the current Exco’.
“The more things change the more they stay the same”
As far the Lions supporters on this (and any other) blog are concerned, it does not help behaving like an ostrich, burying your head in the sand and hoping that when you pull it out the problems will have dissappeared.
For a Rugby Union to be successful as a business it must be managed in a professional manner from top to bottom!
Anything else and in the long run it WILL NOT SUCCEED.
14: hoor hoor, KP.
Saint skryf: “Just like the case was with Fourie, forcing a player to play somewhere against their will might not have exactly the effect they are after.”
Nou Saint, bepaal ‘kontrakte’ of mense se ‘wille’ waar hul mag en moet speel ? Moes die Bulle dus destyds vir Bakkies net laat gaan het, bloot omdat hy oorsee ‘wil/wou’ speel, of bepaal sy kontrak waar hy moet speel ?
Is daar nie ook so iets soos jou woord is jou woord nie, d.w.s. jou handtekening beteken iets, nie van “totdat ek dit nie meer like nie’ sal ek hier speel. As spelers en unies saam besluit om uit mekaar te gaan voor die kontrak verby is, wonderlik, maar dit kan nie eensydig deur spelers besluit word nie.
Lyk my baie rugbyspelers raak nou heeltemal te groot vir die spel, volg seker ou Smith van die Proteas se voorbeeld, wat na my mening die hoofoorsaak is van al die Proteas se probleme, maar goed dit is nou weer ‘n ander onderwerp)
Stem saam met KP, hul moes saam met Leeus en Sharks onderhandel het oor hul griewe en oordragsfooi, EN DAN DAARNA, as almal saamgestem het, in vrede na die Sharks gegaan het.
Oor ons Leeu vriende wat nie meer hier blog nie:
Ons ondersteun maar elkeen ons spanne passievol en ‘banter’ en spot mekaar se spanne. Almal moet maar pasop vir oorsensitiwiteit. Hoop regtig ons Lions rugbyvriende kom gesels hier ook as die S14 begin (hoor jy Ed, Willa, K9 en die res!)
Nou ja, daar is my mening, gee my net ‘n minuut om agter my skuiling in te klim, dan kan julle begin aanval ! 🙂
bdb
Verseker se ek dat kontrakte ge-eer en respekteer moet word. Ek was self lank betrokke in die regte, maar dit is die kwessies rondom die kontrakte wat nou van belang is. ‘n Kontrak bepaal waar jy speel, maar dit is duidelik dat die spelers nie gelukkig is met hul huidige omstandighede nie. Wie sal wees? Die leeus is die vloerlappe van SA Rugby…
Om te hamer op ‘n tegniese punt gaan niemand enigiets in die sak bring nie. Indien die leeus so sterk gevoel het oor die beweerde kontrakbreuk, sou regsaksie mos die aangewese pad vorentoe wees, dis hoe die hele wereld dit doen? Maar nee, hulle kla by SARU, vir wat? Hierdie is ‘n sake-transaksie, eenvoudig soos dit, as daar kontrakbreuk is, dagvaar, behalwe as jy eerder die betrokke partye se name wil skade aandoen, omdat jy dalk weet jy het nie ‘n saak wat in die hof sal staan nie.
Eerstens moet ons die idee dat rugby net ‘n sport is vergeet, dit is ‘n multi-miljoen dollar besigheid. Net soos met enige werk, kry die spelers ‘n salaris, en net soos ons elkeen, word daar elke nou en dan ‘n beter offer op die tafel geplaas wat oorweeg moet word. As ek ‘n geskikte aanbod vandag kry, met beter voordele en salaris, gaan dit maar broekskeur gaan om te weier. En dieselfde geld vir rugby-spelers.
Bakkies het ‘n goeie aanbod gekry, wat hy oorweeg het, en wou neem, maar die Bulle, wie se admin werk wel in orde was, het ‘n teenvoeter gehad, maar ek glo nie vir een oomblik dat hy gebly het net omdat die Bloubul Maatskappy gese het hy mag nie gaan nie. Daar is verseker ‘n paar “Egyptian Handshakes” gewissel, en ‘n paar bankrekeninge geaffekteer.
Ludik en Alberts het moontlik nie reg opgetree in hulle hantering van die saak nie, maar totdat ons die kontrakte nie sien nie, sal ons nie kan se of hulle wel verkeerd was nie. Dit is vir my onmoontlik om te verstaan hoe daar ‘n geskil kan wees of die kontrakte in 2010 of 2011 verstryk. As jy arbitrasie moet gebruik om iets so eenvoudig soos ‘n datum te bepaal, moet daardie kontrakte iets ysliks wees.
So in antwoord op jou vraag, dit is ja en nee, ‘n speler moet speel waar sy kontrak bepaal, maar hy moet ook daar ‘wil’ speel, maw. daar moet ‘n goeie verhouding tussen speler en bestuur wees, net soos met enige besigheid, anders neuk jy net jou eie span se dinamika op.
17: Saint, ek dink jou laaste paragraaf vat die dinge saam: ons wil hê unies moet spelers gelukkig hou én spelers moet kontrakte eerbiedig. As daar probleme is, moet dit saam opgelos word, nie eensydig nie. Maar, die feit staan: as ‘n speler ongelukkig is moet hy daar bly speel (ongelukkig of te nie), totdat die kontrak verby is, of ons saam ooreengestem is op ‘n skeidingspakket. As ons professioneel wil wees, sny dit beide kante toe.
Dankie vir jou verduideliking.
Sien in die koerant vandag die hoofopskrif: “Mickey glo weg oor kleur”
Ek sê ook al laaaaaaaaaaankal hul moet in blou, die wenkleur, speel, dan sal die blommetjies nie so baie verlep (choke) nie !
Maar nee, hulle willie luister nie. Laat hulle vir hulle kry.
Users Online
Total 41 users including 0 member, 41 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,503,399 Page Impressions
_