Official Super Rugby 2016 Thread

F

FoXtroT

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,265
Cray said:
I wonder how much they had to pay out Plumtree for his contract, and how much Jake White cost them for one season..? Good to see a cach injection but would love to know where the money went..
Click to expand...

Wasn't Plumtree's contract virtually over? I think White leaving was by mutual agreement so I doubt they paid him much, it was getting him here that cost the Sharks.

I also think the Sharks have been losing large amounts of money due to the massive drop in attendance. Its barely able to fill up for a Bok game let alone a Sharks game. That coupled with the fact of trying to keep the Sharks as one of the top unions has caused them to spend too much on salaries for players we never end up using even though they are brought back from overseas at great cost instead of using local, cheaper talent.
 
Cray

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,549
FoXtroT said:
Wasn't Plumtree's contract virtually over? I think White leaving was by mutual agreement so I doubt they paid him much, it was getting him here that cost the Sharks.

I also think the Sharks have been losing large amounts of money due to the massive drop in attendance. Its barely able to fill up for a Bok game let alone a Sharks game. That coupled with the fact of trying to keep the Sharks as one of the top unions has caused them to spend too much on salaries for players we never end up using even though they are brought back from overseas at great cost instead of using local, cheaper talent.
Click to expand...

I know they had to pay Plumtree out to leave early -thought he still had a bit to go on his contract, and with Jake White -yeah that's what I meant, how much did they spend to get him there..?

Agree with the part about getting players back from Japan, also how much did they spend keep the Du Plessis brothers in Durban?
 
MickeyD

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,117
Why I highlighted it is that the Kings wanted to sell off a share of their franchise to an external party and SARU rejected it as it was "in breach of the SARU rules". Why then can SS buy more shares in the Sharks franchise? (will now be 49%).
 
Cray

Cray

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 11, 2010
Messages
34,549
MickeyD said:
Why I highlighted it is that the Kings wanted to sell off a share of their franchise to an external party and SARU rejected it as it was "in breach of the SARU rules". Why then can SS buy more shares in the Sharks franchise? (will now be 49%).
Click to expand...

It's a fair point, not sure why the double standards.. Who did the Kings want to sell to? Perhaps SARU allowed it because Supersport is such major player with reards to Rugby...
 
MickeyD

MickeyD

RIP
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
139,117
Cray said:
It's a fair point, not sure why the double standards.. Who did the Kings want to sell to? Perhaps SARU allowed it because Supersport is such major player with reards to Rugby...
Click to expand...
It would also depend on the % shareholding to be sold. As you see, SS will have a 49% shareholding. IIRC the owner of Toulon RFC wanted more than that at the Kings. SARU clause 22 prevents that.
 
F

FoXtroT

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,265
Cray said:
I know they had to pay Plumtree out to leave early -thought he still had a bit to go on his contract, and with Jake White -yeah that's what I meant, how much did they spend to get him there..?

Agree with the part about getting players back from Japan, also how much did they spend keep the Du Plessis brothers in Durban?
Click to expand...

I think I remember seeing the figure of R1 mil being bandied about to bring White in initially. Then again it could also have been A$1 mil.

Its not only Japan players but its bringing old guys from Europe back, like Matt Stevens, Mjekevu, Claasens etc. I can't imagine they got them too cheaply as giving up the pound and euro must be quite an ask. Then, besides Claasens, we hardly use them.
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
MickeyD said:
Why I highlighted it is that the Kings wanted to sell off a share of their franchise to an external party and SARU rejected it as it was "in breach of the SARU rules". Why then can SS buy more shares in the Sharks franchise? (will now be 49%).
Click to expand...

Was it not that SuperSport already had a 40% stake in the Sharks? They are also the party which approached Teichmann so there may be slack on the union’s side. SuperSport also seemed unhappy with how the Sharks 2016 AGM was conducted. SARU may be the governing body, but I think that a union's constitution may take precedence.
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
MickeyD said:
It would also depend on the % shareholding to be sold. As you see, SS will have a 49% shareholding. IIRC the owner of Toulon RFC wanted more than that at the Kings. SARU clause 22 prevents that.
Click to expand...

http://www.sarugby.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SA-Rugby-Constitution-approved-AGM-01.04.2016.pdf (PDF)

22 OUTSIDE INTERESTS IN MEMBERS AND COMMERCIAL COMPANIES

22.1 No province shall permit any person, club, body corporate, partnership, trust or any
other entity (all of which are hereinafter referred to as an entity) or group of
entities, acting alone or in concert, directly or indirectly, to acquire an interest of
whatever kind in that province without SARU’s prior written consent, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld.

22.2 For the purposes of clause 22.1, the concept “interest” is to be widely construed and
will include, without limitation, the holding of any number or class of shares or
debentures, or any other interest, in a commercial company, but shall not include
loans.

22.3 No province shall permit any entity or group of entities, other than a member itself,
acting alone or in concert, directly or indirectly to own or control a commercial
company.

22.4 For the purposes of clause 22.3, the concept “ownership” includes, but is not limited
to, the holding or having of a beneficial interest in a commercial company of fifty
percent (50%) or more.

22.5 For the purposes of clause 22.3, the concept “control” means the ability of an entity,
or group of entities, by whatever means, to procure that the affairs of a commercial
company are or may be conducted or influenced in whole or in part in accordance
with that entity’s, or group of entities', wishes.

22.6 An entity, or group of entities, will be deemed indirectly to own or control a
commercial company if, pursuant to an agreement or understanding, whether formal
or informal, such entity or group of entities, acting alone or in concert, obtain or
secure or are able to obtain or secure ownership or control of a commercial company,
in whole or in part.

22.7 For the purposes of clauses 22.3 to 22.6, the concepts “indirect ownership” and
“control” are to be widely construed in order to give effect to the underlying intention
that no entity, or group of entities, acting alone or in concert, shall control, or be in a
position to control, either directly or indirectly, any commercial company, in whole or
in part.

Approved: AGM: 1 April 2016
Click to expand...

The stake that SARU has in EP Rugby, that might have had played a role.
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
MickeyD said:
Yep, the Toulon guy wanted ALLES!!
Click to expand...

French businessmen love to acquire sports clubs (or in this case the union), then to overhaul them in accordance with their purposes. In my opinion, I do not think that he was planning to abide national government and SARU policies… that might have also played a role.
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/SuperRugby/sharks-boost-at-botha-cleared-to-travel-20160720

Durban - It was a day of bad and good news for the Sharks on Tuesday when they left for New Zealand - and their Super Rugby quarter-final against the Hurricanes - accompanied by lock Ruan Botha but missing tighthead prop Lourens Adriaanse.

The towering Botha has been cleared by SANZAAR to travel to Wellington, but Adriaanse, their first-choice tighthead, has stayed behind in Durban for family reasons.

Botha, who has shown encouraging form this month after recovering from injury, has played in only three of the mandatory four games necessary to qualify for the playoffs. But the former Stormers lock was listed as an injured player at the start of the season and head coach Gary Gold this week successfully applied for special dispensation. Last night the Sharks said that Botha had permission from SANZAAR to accompany the squad but, curiously, they had not yet cleared him to play.
Click to expand...

But... Pat Lambie was sidelined, he only needed to be in the squad next week...
 
F

FoXtroT

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,265
Monde Hadebe named as one of those tested positive for steroids. Banned for 4 years.
 
OrbitalDawn

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
47,031
What the hell do you do for 4 years if you've been banned from all rugby? Just give up and switch careers?

Surely your insurance is also cancelled if you're found guilty of doping?
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
OrbitalDawn said:
What the hell do you do for 4 years if you've been banned from all rugby? Just give up and switch careers?

Surely your insurance is also cancelled if you're found guilty of doping?
Click to expand...

Here in sunny SA you always go play rugga.
 
DanDango

DanDango

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
11,065
OrbitalDawn said:
What the hell do you do for 4 years if you've been banned from all rugby? Just give up and switch careers?

Surely your insurance is also cancelled if you're found guilty of doping?
Click to expand...

Ban is for Rugby union, try to make the switch to Rugby League ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top