The Spammers have been SPAMMED, is back online!

Monday, January 30, 2006


Rugby administration: Brian pleads……

Article by Donner

..... ignorance. On the SABC3 aired programme, Interface, Sunday 29 January 2006, Van Rooyen defended his position and the allegations made against him, in a open debate between David Williams, Anton Snyman and himself.

"I was in the dark..."

In answering the question on the inquest now underway in connection with the allegations made by Andre Markgraaff and Theunie Lategan, Van Rooyen made the following statement. I quote:

“I was in the dark, as was many of the presidents around the table in Friday’s President’s Council meeting. These allegations are untested, and made by people, I don’t know who made them and we need to test it. And I need to be given the opportunity in the laws of natural justice…. I don’t even know what are the terms of reference of this.

We don’t know who made the charges, when they were made, what process was followed, how was judge King appointed and subsequently resigned, who appointed him, what’s the terms of reference.”

What makes Mr. Van Rooyen’s statement all the more interesting is the fact that it was recently reported that he hired high profile lawyers to defend his case. If he was unsure about the substance of the allegations against him, surely he would be confident enough to defend himself, even without any legal council?

Van Rooyen also highlighted the fact, that the reason he appointed advocate Gilbert Marcus SC, is because his ‘constitutional rights’ were being questioned and attacked, which surely indicates he knows more about this case and the allegations than he is letting on by that statement.

The report on Judge King’s problems to get hold of the information, came out three weeks ago already and still he didn’t deem it necessary to get to the bottom of the process of an investigation, which is to investigate issues at SA Rugby and reflects directly on him as president of the SA Rugby Union.

Does this statement not underestimate and insult the intelligence of every rugby supporter in South Africa?

Rugby to the people

Van Rooyen congratulated himself on the fact that they did manage to get rugby back to the people and even went as far as to state the following. Again I quote:

“Unless there is a fundamental change within the organisation and the way the organisation is going to be run, we are going to sit with this problem on Interface in August again.”

How did they manage to bring the game to the people? By giving one day clinics, handing out T-shirts, photos with little boys smiling and then leave? Where do we stand with regards to transformation? Only 2 players of colour in the starting line up - is this progress? Is this bringing the game to the people? In a country where the majority of our population is black or coloured, yet we only see a handfull playing at the highest level? Where the majority of supporters supporting the game is STILL prodminantly white? To whom did he take the game? Aren't we exactly where we were two years ago?

During the past two years there was more than enough time for mr Van Rooyen to make these changes, but it did not happen. Instead SA Rugby administration has again became the laughing stock of world rugby through reports of back stabbing and scandals and the current administration even allowed the brand of SA Rugby to be misused.

With such reports doing the rounds, what was the realistic chance of the World Cup 2011 bid being succesfull? Did this turn out to be a money wasting exercise?

Sponsors unhappy

During the debate, Anton Snyman, sports editor at the SABC, mentioned that some sponsors where unhappy, but don’t want to speak out publicly, as to not hurt the relationship. Seeing that most of the sponsors are big companies within South Africa, why do they just keep on writing cheques, if they are not happy with the proceedings.

The Rover issue was reported widely in the press and how this was swept under the carpet, with Ford, the official car sponsor, not happy. Then on top of that, the programs for the Newlands test against the All Blacks included advertisements for four other car companies. Surely this must have been a breach of the contract with Ford? The question has to be asked who authorised these advertisements.

This raises the question of what other infringements might have occurred which could constitute a breach of sponsor contracts?

SA rugby needs the sponsors to speak out and tell the SA Rugby and it supporters, if there are situations they are unhappy with. It does not help to appoint Ali Bacher and then sit back and say ‘We have covered ourselves”

Ali Bacher, who oversees all sponsorships and was reported in week-end papers to have 'taken matters into his own hands' in resolving these, by contacting the unions presidents himself, to which Van Rooyen took offense too, according to the same reports. Does this give the sponsors the sense of security they wanted?

Now if we though it was not serious, ask yourself this, why would Ali get himself involved, as a well respected man in sport circles, and run the risk of tarnishing his reputation, if the issues in SARU was not of such a nature that it could permanently damage the reputation of the game and the brand worldwide?

Serious questions

David Williams, Associate Deputy editor of the Financial Mail, said it best in the opening part of the debate, when referring to Morne du Plessis and Theunie Lategan’s resignations and I quote:

“You have to ask some serious questions if so many people are saying that they cannot work within a structure, and the chairman of the audit committee says he can’t do his job. In a normal business, this would be a scandal.”

Will these serious questions be asked now? Will we be able to look back in six months’ time and be satisfied that SA rugby is finally run by people who do it for the love of the game?

Will we have someone in charge of SA Rugby that will be able to make us as proud of the administration, as Jake White brought back our pride in the Springboks?

Will 24 February 2006 bring us the same freedom and democracy in SA Rugby, as 27 April 1994 brought South Africa as a nation?

Only time will tell.

My sincere appreciation to PissAnt for his contributions to this article.
Can we get a report of who the 14 provincial presidents are, the ones who must be held accountable for their decision in February?

Please. Name them, so that if they choose the wrong decision, we can shame them.

The list of people to have left rugby once Van Rooyen entered the fray is as long as your arm with not a few openly citing that they couldn't work with that man.

When a man as mild mannered as Morne walks out saying he has irreconciable difference with Van Rooyen, you know there is something deeply wrong.
You were investigated you git. Surely YOU got the damned Heunis report as the president of SARU. Dammit you made media statements saying you're innocent. Surely you know about the offices rented. That's a Labat issue so on the boards of two organisations you know nothing about important operational dealings.

AND you know nothing about the Rover. You choose to say you knew nothing NOW, and you've had literally MONTHS to prepare.

If all the other presidents are in the dark, how come the minister of sports knows? Are you failiung to communicate thibngs from SARU to its constituents?

YOU appointed Hefer and King!!!!! How can you do this and NOT know what their terms of reference are. YOU appointed Gill Marcus as you lawyer. Surely then you must know, to quote David Cau, "Hier kom kak"

Nobody's ever said a word about your 'constitutional rights'

All everyone ever said was that YOU ARE A BAD LEADER

So given the hiring of Gill Marcus you must have instructed him on something. What did you say to him?

"Ek weet hoekom nie, maar hier kom kak" to paraphrase comedian Cau again.

You've had two years to effect radical change and the best you've done is:

Decorporatise SARU
Change its name from SARFU (god alone only knows why?)
Mismanage it
Incorrectly appoint people like Gideon Sam
Bled expertise like Morne Du Plessis, Theunie Latgan and Keith Parkinson
Been threatened by the Minister of Sport and ANCYL
Your auditor says he can't work in the environment
Your HR Manager resigned


Also, how come so many who have left were loud in their condemnation whilst in office and dead quiet once they had left?

Nayo comes to mind, full of fire and brimstone whilst still there, quiet as a church mouse once he'd left.

Did SARU make any compensation payments?

How much has SARU paid out in compensation since Van Rooyen became president?

What has SARU's legal bill been since Van Rooyen took office?

Why should a national sporting body constantly have so many legal issues?

All these problems remind one of a spiders web and all the strands lead back to the spider in the middle.

The public, the ultimate pay-masters, just want a clean game.

Administrators should largely be seen and not heard. 95% of SARU business should be conducted in an open forum with full disclosure, full transcripts available, full details on the record.

A culture of under-the-table deals has developed, minutes of meetings appear to be a luxury not an absolute requirement.

There is a snake in the grass, it needs to be banished.

the questions need to be asked and the people need to be exposed for who and what they are.

some of van rooyen's supporters has already been given the boot.

the president of griquas was kicked out, and so to the president of EP rugby union, gues what they are doing???

sueing the i ask, in the name of all that is holy, how the f@#k can you sue a union if you have been voted out through a majority vote???????

we will try and get all the presidents and through reports in the media it should be quite easy to see who supports BVR and who not, like the guy from the leopards, who is getting the AB test and not the Sharks - no prizes for guessing who he supports??? and of course we all know the sharks admin hates BVR's guts.

Do you really think we will know who voted for who?

This is even worse than the IRB vote for the WC 2011. We will never know, doesn't matter who wins.
forget compensation paid out, how about the earthshattering f@3kup that saw chavanga play sevens for SA and he was not allowed to do so - what was that 1Million cold they had to pay.

the 150K lunch bill?
These questions are just the tip of the iceberg.

There has been such a lot happening within SARU that most people don't know about.

People resigning and then using private companies to perform the services they did when in employement of SARU. At a higher price of course. And then getting performance bonuses just to put the cherry on the top.
bringing the game to the people....

what a joke.

the majority of people in SA is black and coloured, yet we see a "quota" system in place that has changed NOTHING in 10 years. still only 2 players of colour on the field.... to whom did you take the game van rooyen?

also, the majority of people supporting the game is STILL 99% white, after 10 years and a world cup......okay so you werent there from teh beginning......but again, to whom did you take the game exactly?????

the majority of our black and coloured players are from the eastern cape, yet they are plagued by rugby voilence, corporate mis-management, union presidents criminally investigated for theft and fraud.....again please explain, to whom did you take the game please????????
Slippery as an eel, the gall of the man seems to know no bounds.

Brian, as you seem in complete ignorance of why you are being investigated, nay, you seem deeply hurt that anyone would have the temerity to cast aspersions on your noble intentions, then I suggest you hop along to and read the 'SARU Report'.

I know it will come as a shock but some people don't think it's cool to appoint old buddies as senior SARU board members.

I know it's ridiculous but, damn, some people think it is seriously unfunny to become president of SARU and then get SARU to rent office space and employees from your own company.

Unbelievably some people lack the intellect to see the amusing side of spending R150 000 on a lunch for a handful of people. A lunch where what was served doesn't appear to add up to the massive bill. Ahh well, maybe it can be explained away by a massive tip?

People are so boring, lacking in imagination. They want a transparent, communicative sports body running the sport in the best interests of all South Africans.

How droll.
Why does one always feel, after a programme like this, that the right questions were not asked? That a spokesperson from Rugga World would have done a much better job?
BvR was allowed to get away with murder, instead of being nailed.
As for Anton Snyman - well, say no more.
Why is the media dragging its feet on this issue?
And also ask yourselves why the "Other Site" is again ignoring it :-)
as harold verster said - for someone like ali to get involved in all this you seriously have to ask the question - who is lying?

with ali's reputation and the respect he has in the world of sport, it certainly wont be him.
i get the feeling there are a lot fo people in other people's pockets boertjie - here is an idea, get john robbie to do an interview with BVR live on 702.  
Let's wait and see how long Bacher can bear being taunted by the company he keeps.
no, maybe i should. good idea  
PissAnt have you mailed this site to John Robbie?  
Like the one John Robbie did with
This could be another scream!
But why not on Boots & All - will give them some balls for a change.
Or are they in cahoots with certain people? Why do they always steer away from controversy?

Do you have the email address?

My thoughts exactly. How is it possible for the media to just disregard these issues and not report on them?

We are amateurs with limited resources, but shyte we can put one and one together and come to an answer.

i have his email address
Helooo Brian

Let's have some fiction free news for a change.

You're like Bill Clinton. You may as well have said

"I did not have relations with that woman"

Well written fantastic but sad piece donner.

Thanks for watching SABC. Duno 'bout you guys but I was more interested in the lithesome bodies of Drew Barrymore et al on Charlie's Angels 2 on E-tv...

Much more to watch...more honest too and closer to reality.
i would rather get f@3ckedover by them too davids that this git  


Luckily it was on before Charlie's darlings, but I would have rather watched Carte Blanche's piece on Lance Armstrong. But hey rugby comes first when it comes to sport.

Seeing that the F1 season is still some time of.

You can email John Robbie from 702's website.

As to f*ckf@ce van Rooyen, I'm not even going to say anything.
The media will not latch onto these things. Just the same way they did not investigate the whole issue between Markgraaff and Jake White.

If they were really interested in it, they would have discovered that it was actually Pietersen who intervened with Jake White and not Markgraaff.

This was just a way to get rid of Markgraaff with the help of Mark Keohane.

Markgraaff was gathering support against Van Rooyen and they got nervous that all the inner dealings would surface. Just as they are now. Unfortunately for them they don't have another scapecoat and they sure ain't gonna take on the minister.

Now van Rooyen is trying to use the constitution to get his way.

That is worth a good laugh.

"Van Rooyen, through his spokesperson, on Sunday strongly denied he'd considered standing down, but Bacher on Sunday said the rugby boss had called him to discuss the possibility of a deal.

"At Mr Brian van Rooyen's request, I met him on Thursday (January 26) in Sandton and he asked me, for certain reasons, to facilitate his exit from South African rugby," said Bacher. "I agreed to do so."

Is there no end to BvR's ability to cause strife with respected people? He's even got Ali Bacher involved in it all now.

I'm beginning to doubt his psychological well being. There are just too many examples of one thing apparently being said one day, only for a 180 degree turn the next.
he is a bloody cheat.

but he has made a huge mistake to make bacher his enemy, i do not believe ali will stand for this shit and have his name tarnished by a git like bvr.

hope he fries your ass bvr!
You may have a point.
You may have a very good point...
Personally, I think BvR would LOVE to get out of it all except for two compelling reasons;

1) R800k plus perks and expenses is a welcome annual stipend, especially to someone whose company has allegedly had it's difficulties on the JSE.

2) If he is involved in this web of intrigue as so many intimate, it is easier to keep obfuscating the issue from within rather than trying to defend it from without.

Let's hope the shredders are not working overtime.
jack spratt,

They can shred all they want to. There are to many companies, even BEE companies, involved to hide everything.

Just follow the money.
the butcher
Why do i get the feeling you support Markies?
Oh, and where do you get your info from?

I for one am happy that he is no longer involved in SARU, his ego is too big.

Where I get my info is not important. The info is correct however.

Whether I support Markgraaff or not is not the issue, but the way he was backstabbed by the circle surrounding BvR is
Anyone who supports Andre Margraaff needs serious help. The guy is a liability to SA Rugby.

Anyway, so what if they stabbed him in the back. He was foolish enough to get Van Rooyen into power in the first place. I am not behind BVR or his cronies for that matter, SA rugby will be better off with all of them as well as Markies...

Do you think Markgraaff could do worse than Van Rooyen?

I certainly don't. At least he will focus on the rugby. Not his own interests.
One must not expect the impossible. This man has never made sense, why should he start now?  
Go steady on Markgraaff.
To a big degree he was demonised by Mark Keohane and his drooling muppits - for reasons that you can work out yourself.
Keohane only supports something if there is gain for him. Like right now he is trying to demonise Hoskins.
Markies made his mistakes, has his faults, but I will back him over BvR any day. For one he does not need the money like BvR does.
So tell me, if it is true that Markies threatened Jake before a test last yr will you guys still back him? I for one wont back him cos of his attitude. he thinks he knows it all. As i said b4, i dont want BVR there either. Neither of them is good for SA rugby...

P.S. Jake actually stated that Markies threatened him b4 the test, why would he lie about this? Who put him up to this?

C'mon guys, i cant believe you giving credit to keo for getting rid of

Like so many things, what happened could have easily been orchestrated. You have to ask the question: Did you actually hear Jake saying it? Or was it just some other report on Keo?
Keohane has got nothing to gain by demonising Hoskins, but he sure has alot to loose by not doing it.

Monarch still owes SARU money. Trading as HSM now probably means that they won't have to repay that, because Monarch has been put into liquadation.

Think people think. Complete the puzzle and you will see all.

Be careful of any linking you see in 'certain' sections of the media with Markgraaf and Hoskins.

I don't believe for one second that Markgraaf is making ANY kind of comeback to SA rugby.

Remember, there are media manipulators at work, spinning the position to best suit their own pockets and interests.

A vote for Hoskins should by no means be construed as a vote for Markgraaf. It's a no-brainer.

If anything, the Markgraaf support thing was a throw-away comment but I'll believe nothing until I see it somewhere else in the media other than where you saw it.

South African rugby has to move forward and it cannot begin to do that while a thoroughly discredited Van Rooyen is involved.

In my opinion, Van Rooyen is the cancer at the heart of South African rugby.

Markgraaf is not involved at any level of administration within SARU, don't allow yourself to be blinded by crappy media tactics.

Hoskins may have made some questionable administration decisions at the KNRFU but he has to operate with a board and a CEO, maybe those decisions were not his, maybe he was just complying with good corporate governance by allowing due procedure to take place. Maybe a simple majority vote led to both decisions that JJ and DavidS cite.

In that case he should be applauded for his integrity, not denigrated.

A BvR, by contrast, would have bulldozed his own preferences through.
so with that you are saying:

keo is in bed with bvr

markies threatened bvr with all the shady dealings as mentioned in the press (the rainbow cup etc)

bvr trying to save his own ass then calls on his media soapbox (keohane) to discredit him and even get all the keonites to sign a petition.

markies resigns because - as he mentioned - public pressure and i think he specifically mentioned keohane didnt he?

who pressured JW, markies or peterson?

were the statements as mentioned in the media not true? was JW actually never quoted within saying this other than a letter that got leaked to the media? - wasn't keo the first one to publish the details of this letter?

can JW not come out publicly with the truth? - because he is, after all, the national coach and BVR pays his salary?

conspiracy theorists unite!!!!!!!!!
if what you say is true, ill be pissed off cause i signed that petition!!!!!!!!  

Keo in bed with bvr.

What a thought for a get slim easy program.
HSM needs Brian van Rooyen to stay for various reasons. Trust me if Van Rooyen goes, HSM's management is going to sit with ulcers the size of watermelons. They must keep Van Rooyen there to protect them.  
Problem would be there'd be too much dirt clinging to them and the sheets would be seriously dirty.

Ew ew ew!

It's simple isn't it:

1. Keohane has NEVER said anything against BVR.Never.
2. HSM uses a SARU trademark, publishes the SARU mag, publishes the rugby programmes.
3. Now I ask you where do you think Keohane's interests are buttered?

Now we have Markgraaf.

1. He coached the Boks, so he knows the pressure. An unsuccessful Bok side so he'd know even more about the pressures.
2. Jake White was aksed to reprot to Andre Markgraaf and he didn't.
3. There was apparently a letter from Jake White's "lawyer" to Markgraaf. Why write a letter over that small single little incident that had no effect on the players?
4. I read the letter at the time and said it was too well written in style to have come from a lawyer. Lawyers have a very particular, jargonistic, distinctive and specific writing style.

That letter did not have it.

I still question whether a lawyer wrote that letter.
so lets ask the question - or JW, to name his lawyer that wrote it and if he signed it?

i agree, there is more than just BVR loosing his job - a lot of other people stand to loose a shit lot.
there has been a dispute over the SARU trademark as well as it was published in the media wasnt there?

where whoever asked if keohane or the publications were legally allowed to use such a trademark?

whatever happened to that?

was it resolved, does keohane have rights to use the trademark or not?
Will check with Cipro and ask SARU to comment and provide us with the licensing agreement if there is one.

Nowehere in SA Rugby Magazine does it say that they are using the words SA Rugby under licence
Bacher, on the other hand, remained tight-lipped on a deal having being struck but confirmed that he had been in a meeting with Van Rooyen to discuss reasons for a possible exit from rugby.
New story on News24.

Also quotes Bacher re his SMS and who is lying:

"I don't want to say anything further. All I can say is that at Mr Van Rooyen's request, I met with him in Sandton on Thursday. He (Van Rooyen) asked me for reasons to facilitate an exit from rugby and I agreed," was all Bacher was willing to say.
like OO would say:

Down with the Clowns!!!

i have some serious questions to ask regarding this bullshit
Lets put our faith in the democratic process- for now


Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?