Performance will fall behind transformation for SA rugby: Hoskins

rpm

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,806
Reaction score
5,057
Location
Johannesburg
Whoever the next Springbok coach is will enter the job knowing that making strides in transformation is his - or her - primary mandate.

Anything less than winning a Rugby World Cup is considered a failure by the South African Rugby Union (SARU), but the implication from president Oregan Hoskins on Friday was that performance will fall behind transformation on South African rugby's list of priorities over the next four years.

"Whoever wants to apply for the job needs to know that transformation is going to be on top of his agenda, or else he shouldn’t apply," Hoskins said.

"We as an organisation are going to have to be much, much harder than we’ve ever been. We don’t have another opportunity. We’ve signed an agreement with the sports governing body in the country (SASCOC) and the ministry and we believe in it. So as a sport we need to go forward with that in mind."

The agreement that Hoskins was speaking of states that the Springboks will have 50/50 player representation by 2019.

Transformation is an area where outgoing coach Heyneke Meyer failed to win over his critics, and that is something that Hoskins and SARU are not prepared to let happen again.

But, at what point does administrative interference become too much? It is, after all, the coach who is tasked with selecting the side most capable of winning matches.

"You will recall that when Peter de Villiers became the coach, SARU had taken a decision that the president and the leadership should not interfere with selection," said Hoskins.

"That’s still the policy at the moment. It’s always been a case of the coach selecting the team and we haven’t changed that policy. We might have to look at it going forward but that wasn’t the case for the last two coaches."

According to Hoskins, Meyer was fully aware of the transformation policies and ambitions of SARU.

"When you’re an administrator you’re asked to administer the game and you appoint coaches to select a team, and you put your faith in those coaches," he said.

"In terms of best practice, I think that is the right thing to do. Sometimes I do, as president of SARU, I stand back, and I question the fact that more players of colour should have played.

"That’s my own experience as a South African, so I’m not disaffected by what happens. I come from a background where I want to see that happening more and more, but there is a thin line between interfering in the team because of the moral imperative that we require more transformation... where do I draw the line in terms of interference?

"You find that, as an administrator, you might play the player of colour over the white player. But then it’ll probably go into ‘I prefer this flyhalf to that flyhalf’, and it doesn’t end. So I might as well be the president/coach/selector ... and I don’t think that’s going to happen."

So, it appears that the next coach will still have free reign to select the side that he wants. As long as it's not the wrong one.

"It is an important issue, it was important when we signed that agreement with SASCOC and with government, and we have a duty to stick to our side of the agreement," said Hoskins.

SARU is set to meet on December 11 where they will map out the process of appointing the new Springbok coach.

Sport24 - http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springboks/new-springbok-coach-has-free-reign-but-20151204
 
If we're going to push transformation over actually putting forward our best side, I'm not entirely sure I want to support rugby anymore...

And if Oregan is saying things like that, I can guarantee that the top people who would be good coaches are not interested in the position anymore.
 
ToxicBunny said:
If we're going to push transformation over actually putting forward our best side, I'm not entirely sure I want to support rugby anymore...

And if Oregan is saying things like that, I can guarantee that the top people who would be good coaches are not interested in the position anymore.
Click to expand...

"That’s my own experience as a South African, so I’m not disaffected by what happens. I come from a background where I want to see that happening more and more, but there is a thin line between interfering in the team because of the moral imperative that we require more transformation... where do I draw the line in terms of interference?
Click to expand...

Because it is the moral thing to do... ;)
 
I am so done with SA Rugby. Will not be purchasing any season tickets, nor attend any match any longer. If the need bites in future, I will much rather support Australian or New Zealand rugby.
 
In my opinion, it is a moral imperative to pick your best available side on national level. Merit should be rewarding, and that is to wear the Green & Gold to represent the nation. I have read many opinions on MyBb, SuperSport etc. where the public wants to retain their players within their respective Unions/Franchises providing that they may be contracted by any other Union/Franchise within SA, but player representation agreements based on skin colour will only alienate the participants in sports where they will seek greener pastures.

Participation in sports has the need to be developed on grass roots level, merit has no colour.
 
The politicians and their pals are very close to killing rugby in SA. This is a watershed for me. Even under apartheid, race wasn't the main factor driving rugby. Now it is.

And so the wholesale dismantling of civilisation proceeds apace...
 
Fulcrum29 said:
In my opinion, it is a moral imperative to pick your best available side on national level. Merit should be rewarding, and that is to wear the Green & Gold to represent the nation. I have read many opinions on MyBb, SuperSport etc. where the public wants to retain their players within their respective Unions/Franchises providing that they may be contracted by any other Union/Franchise within SA, but player representation agreements based on skin colour will only alienate the participants in sports where they will seek greener pastures.

Participation in sports has the need to be developed on grass roots level, merit has no colour.
Click to expand...
I think we share the same sentiments so I won't repeat them.

With rugby they can enforce quotas up to and including Vodacom Cup level. But Currie Cup, Super Rugby and Springbok rugby is an entirely different matter. At that level it simply has to be that you select your best team. This from a commercial and professional perspective. This is where spectators and fans pump in their monies and they deserve to watch the best team on display.

On the international stage it is imperative that you always select your best available team; not only as a courtesy to your opponents but also to the players selected. In this day and age I do not think that any top level player wants to be tagged as a quota player. It's an insult!

And lastly, MONEY... Sponsors support successful teams. If you cheapen the worth of the jersey you will lose your sponsors. No sponsors, no rugby.
 
Arthur said:
The politicians and their pals are very close to killing rugby in SA. This is a watershed for me. Even under apartheid, race wasn't the main factor driving rugby. Now it is.

And so the wholesale dismantling of civilisation proceeds apace...
Click to expand...

Yah well, all that I’m going to say is… whomever will be appointed as the Springbok coach, he/she and the selectors has to promote new black talent and current quotas throughout the next 4 years to put an 50/50 team in RWC Japan which will ‘best’ represent the national team on merit, based on the agreement with SASCOC. They want 50/50, then they better need to start now, because our rugby landscape is about to change shape.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Yah well, all that I’m going to say is… whomever will be appointed as the Springbok coach, he/she and the selectors has to promote new black talent and current quotas throughout the next 4 years to put an 50/50 team in RWC Japan which will ‘best’ represent the national team on merit, based on the agreement with SASCOC. They want 50/50, then they better need to start now, because our rugby landscape is about to change shape.
Click to expand...

Whoa... don't even mention SASCOC !!! Did you know that they are now a private enterprise?
 
A major international world cup winning rugby team....makes performance it's secondary priority.

That's going to take a while to sink in.
 
Fast losing interest too....those racists running the show can only hope now for some all black sponsor.
I will not support any company in bed with SARU anymore.
 
More and more rugby players will want to play overseas first rather than try be a Springbok. I prefer watching the best skills rather than the best who suck up to the coach and/or rugby administrators. Irrespective of race. HM was a symptom of it. SA Rugby is cancerous to the core.
 
Seeing that SASCOC has been given as the reason for this "transformation" rubbish, let's take a minute or 3 to read this opinion piece: http://www.news24.com/MyNews24/Sascocs-legal-dilemma-20150516

==================== OPINION PIECE ==================

Sascoc's legal dilemma
by Colin Webster (16 May 2015, 11:15)

It is often said that South Africa law is becoming too complicated. This is debatable, it certainly seems to be proving a challenge for the Minister of Sport and Recreation and his department.

Let’s start by sketching some background. The Companies Act, 2008 provides for the creation of a company known as a Non Profit Company (also known as an NPC). (The equivalent provision in old Companies Act was the Association Not For Gain or s 21 Company).

The Non-Profit Organisations Act, 1997 on the other hand deals with the registration and regulation of Non-Profit Organisations (or NPOs). NPOs are in many cases voluntary associations which are registered in terms of the Act.

They are completely types of organisations and are dealt with differently. There are even different government departments which look after them.

There is no provision in the Companies Act for a company to become a Non-Profit Organisation (and vice versa). The Companies Act only provides for a company, under very narrow circumstances, to become a Co-operative, but other than there is no provision in that Act for a company to become something other than another type of company.

There’s a good reason for that – a member of the public dealing with a company needs to know who they are dealing with. If the company is allowed to chop and change what type of legal entity they are there would be no protection for creditors, etc. You enter into a contract with a company based on the provisions of the Companies Act and suddenly you find it is no longer registered with the CIPC because it has decided to become something else with different rules applying. You may not have entered into the contract if you knew the organisation was not a company.

It is also important to understand that if a Company is wound up in terms of the Companies Act it is dissolved and ceases to exist. If a new organisation starts up using the same name, it cannot be regarded as the same organisation.

To give an example, ABC Company employs staff and is registered for Income Tax, VAT, Employees’ Tax, etc and has all the relevant registration numbers. The owners decide to wind up and start over again as DEF Company. They have to retrench their staff, pay off any debts, and have the company deregistered. Then they have to register with SARS all over again as DEF Company. They also aren’t the employers of the staff at ABC Company. That all seems obvious.

The only way ABC can transfer everything to DEF is to pay all of ABC’s debts, transfer all left over assets to DEF, transfer the staff to DEF in terms of the Labour Relations Act, and then close ABC down. It is not possible for ABC to transfer it’s debts to the DEF without all the creditors’ agreement. Also, any court cases with which ABC is involved will end with its dissolution, unless the court grants it leave to substitute DEF as a new party in its place.

Any properly trained lawyer will tell you this. But it seems the Minister and his department do not have access to any of them. Or at least his response to a question asked in Parliament by Mr MS Malatsi (DA) last year would indicate that to be the case.

When asked where he was aware that the non-profit company of SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) had indicated its dissolution in its 2014 financial statements, the Minister responded that he and his department were “fully aware that SASCOC was converting from an NPO (sic) registered in terms of the Companies Act to a Voluntary Association” and further that “the SASCOC membership took a resolution at its Special General meeting on 9th November 2013 to dissolve the NPO (sic) SASCOC as of the 31st March 2014 and adopted a constitution and the formation of SASCOC as Voluntary Association. The Assets and Liabilities of the NPO SASCOC will be transferred to SASCOC the Voluntary Association.”

As we have seen, an NPO is registered in terms of the Non-Profit Organisations Act, and not the Companies Act. SASCOC is also a Non Profit Company, not an NPO.

There seems to be no consideration of the fact that debts can’t just be transferred. Otherwise anyone could just call a bank up and tell them that they have transferred their overdraft to their friend. Try that and see how far you’d get.

In response to further questions the Minister clearly refers to SASCOC NPC being wound up in terms of s 80(2) of the Companies Act.

But the Minister further states that a body called SASCOC is still recognised as the macro sports body, claiming that it is still in existence as a voluntary association now and no longer a company. As we have seen, once a company deregisters it ceases to exist and any new organisation has to start from scratch. It is not the same organisation.

This, of course, has far reaching consequences, which need to be dealt with otherwise it will create a legal headache in years to come.

Since a company cannot ‘convert’ to a voluntary association, if SASCOC has formed itself as a new organisation it will have to have done, at the very least, the following:
• Registered afresh with the tax authorities.
• Signed new leases on all property and equipment it rents.
• Transferred all its staff from the company to the association, in terms of the Labour Relations Act.
• Settled all its debts or obtained the agreement of its creditors to allow the new organisation to accept the liability to pay the debt.
• Terminated any court cases with which it is involved or obtained the leave of the court to substitute the new organisation in place of the company. It is known that SASCOC NPC is involved with several court cases, including a high profile defamation case against Graeme Joffe. With SASCOC NPC dissolving, that will have to end, as it is inconceivable that someone can sue for defamation on behalf of someone else.
• Asked the Minister to end the recognition of SASCOC NPC as the macro sports body in terms of the National Sports and Recreation Act and recognise the new body in its place.

The Minister and his department, and SASCOC (whether the company or the voluntary association), seem to burying their heads in the sand and not dealing with a legal dilemma they have created by the hasty decision to deregister as a company, after they found the provisions of the Companies Act to be too onerous. If nothing is done to correct the mistakes which have been and are being made, future generations of sportspeople and administrators could find themselves paying for them.

As a matter of interest, SASCOC NPC is still registered with the CIPC as being in business, over year after it was supposed to be wound up. Even more interestingly, SASCOC was registered as a Non-Profit Organisation on 25 April 2006 and is still registered. So we have a SASCOC which is an NPC, one which is an NPO and one which is a voluntary association.

Confused? You are not the only one.

===================== END ======================
 
Last edited:
Tranformation already takes presedence over all aspects of South Africa, at the cost of stability, safety and progress. It's a good thing that the escapism that is rugby is tackled next, perhaps people will stop their make-belief of a prosperous N.S.A. as if things will sort themselves out.
 
This is sad to see. Performance should always be the number 1 priority for a country widely regardless as one of the greatest rugby nations on the planet.

Unfortunately it is this sort of policy that will stop me watching SA rugby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X