Current Rugby Matters: briefing by Eastern Province Rugby Union and South African Rugby Union
Sport, Arts and Culture
25 October 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SPORT
AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
25 October 2006
CURRENT RUGBY MATTERS:
BRIEFING BY EASTERN PROVINCE RUGBY UNION AND SOUTH AFRICAN RUGBY UNION
Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)
Documents handed out:
Task Team Presentation to
Rugby Stakeholders on Eastern Province Rugby Union Poor Administration
Part1 & Part2
Presentation to the
Eastern Province Rugby Union and other Stakeholders
SUMMARY
The Eastern
Province Rugby Union presented their explanation of the events leading to the
current state of affairs. A group of clubs was trying to influence matters in
the province, but conditions were not chaotic. No proper discussion had been
held. Clubs had approved a league structure but some had subsequently withdrawn
claiming that this was done on racist principles. A forensic audit had revealed
possible financial mismanagement, and this matter had been handed over to the
police. A court hearing was expected shortly.
The South African Rugby Union could not agree that it was the cause of the
chaos in the Eastern Province. The history of the problems in the area was
detailed. Their feeling was that the provincial executive should step aside
while the situation was corrected.
A number of questions of clarity were asked and it was clear that the matter
needed extensive further investigation. The Committee directed that the South
African Rugby Union should dissolve the Eastern Province Rugby Union executive
and appoint an interim administration with a view to elect a new executive when
the situation had been normalised. It also instructed the Nelson Mandela Bay
Metro not to write off a debt owed to it by the Union.
MINUTES
The
Chairperson stated that the meeting had been called to discuss the problems
being experienced in Eastern Cape rugby. Parliament had agreed to spend R22 000
to send a delegation of the South African Rugby Union (SARU) to the Eastern
Cape. However, the problems had escalated in the last few weeks. The Committee
could not ignore these issues.
The Eastern Cape Rugby Union (EPRU) had shown an incorrect tendency. People
tended to go to the Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) with different
views. In terms of the Constitution Parliament needed no favours when summoning
people to attend meetings. In fact, people failing to answer a summons to the
Committee could be charged with contempt of Parliament. People should note the
authority of the Committee. A discussion with the fourteen provincial
presidents had been held recently. Some of them had thought they needed to meet
with the Minister and did not need to appear before the Committee. The Minister
had no authority over Parliament, but was accountable to the body.
The Chairperson said he would see if persons went to SRSA or other bodies with
other views. A meeting had been held in Port Elizabeth. Subsequently five
delegates had gone to SRSA with views contrary to those expressed at the
meeting.
He said that letters had been sent to SARU and EPRU the previous week, and he
was pleased to see that both delegations were present. There were a number of
issues to be interrogated from both the national and provincial bodies. The
President of EPRU had written the Chairperson a letter. He respected his
decision but would not let this influence Parliament. This was a very important
meeting.
The Chairperson reminded the meeting that Parliament had fought for the Eastern
Cape Super 14 franchise in Parliament. The Committee had not shifted its view
on this issue. There empirical reasons for this support, and the Minister would
not change his mind.
The Chairperson said that this meeting needed to check if there was cohesion
and understanding of the problems. The Committee would be visiting Port
Elizabeth in November. If SARU was unable to exercise leadership and control,
then the Committee would have to help. If matters were then taken to court,
then so be it. He stressed that no private entity could be allowed to cause
chaos. He also told the delegations that only executive members of their
organisations would be allowed to address the Committee.
Mr J Prinsloo (CEO, SARU) introduced his delegation. He apologised on behalf of
the President of SARU who was attending an important Board meeting in
Johannesburg. SARU was a national sport body. It did not belong to the
executive but was responsible and accountable to all South Africans.
The Chairperson said he would have the information communicated to the
Minister, together with the minutes. He wanted to find out what were the issues
that were causing rugby to be brought into disrepute in that area. He would
give SARU an opportunity to respond, but he first invited EPRU to state its
case.
Mr Pat de Silva (President, EPRU) said he did not know where to start. There
were two totally different battles raging in the Eastern Province (EP). The
first issue was that of the Spears franchise. The other was the upcoming
election for the EPRU executive. There was always strong canvassing at this
time together with mudslinging and the formation of camps. This was acceptable
in any democracy, and was in accordance with the Constitution. This happened
every second year. However, some mischievous people had jumped onto the
bandwagon and were sensationalising the issue.
He said that the problems were not insurmountable. The history of the Eastern
Cape (EC) was full of divisions and breakaways, and many tombstones in
graveyards were monuments to these events. Issues should be solved in the
boardroom. However there was some negativity, and power hungry people were
sabotaging the EPRU. A certain group had placed nine or ten grievances on the
table. They had been given prominence at national, provincial and local level,
and none of them had turned to the legitimate body, which was EPRU, to solve the problems.
Mr de Silva stated that there was a wrong perception. The EPRU had 102
affiliated clubs. A message had been circulated that fifteen clubs had attended
the last meeting, where all three tiers of government and the mother body,
SARU, had also been present. The facts presented had not been tested, and there
had been no consultation with the EPRU. He asked if genuine clubs had been
represented or whether there were some defunct clubs amongst the fifteen.
Honourable people had attended and given credence to the meeting.
On the Spears issue, Mr de Silva said there was a very wrong perception that
EPRU was the Spears. This was not so. EPRU was one of three shareholders. They
had seen feeble attempts to stop the Spears. The EPRU had decided that the
Spears were of utmost importance to the EC as a whole and that they thus needed
the opportunity. However, this was not the be all and end all of EC rugby. There
would be benefits for all three unions in the EC.
He said that it was on record that SARU had been active in the townships of
Port Elizabeth. They had attended funerals and had there encouraged clubs to
take over the EPRU. The reason was coupled to the debate over the Spears, as
EPRU was the only of the three EC provincial unions that was firm on the Spears
issue. Black clubs were told they needed to take over the province, and in fact
this had been published in the media. This was a major cause of instability,
and SARU was responsible.
Mr de Silva said he believed there were three different expressions. The EC was
a depressed area. There was an allegation that there was absolute chaos and
anarchy in the area. EPRU would welcome a visit from the Committee to show that
EPRU was a stable organisation. Anarchy and chaos had been engineered to give
support to SARU’s case that the Spears were not viable. This matter was soon to
be heard on appeal. He believed that after a meeting with the clubs the previous
Saturday SARU had asked the EPRU executive to resign. The clubs had rejected
this call, and felt that SARU was responsible for this move.
The second expression was that there was no respect for the EPRU constitution.
Therefore the mother body, without consulting the clubs, had invited SARU to
visit the area and talk directly to affiliated clubs. There had been no answer
from the mother body on this matter.
The Chairperson said that he would invite other delegates from the EPRU to
address the meeting.
Mr Freddie Makoki (Vice-President, EPRU) thanked the Committee for the
opportunity to address them. This chance had not been afforded them locally.
They had never been asked by the mother body to verify the claims made. Club
rugby had started in February. All township clubs had been called on in
response to the Minister’s call to revive club rugby. Tournaments had been
played before the season began in April. The EPRU had asked clubs what they
thought the format should be. The Grand Challenge had taken place between April
and July. After this, a secondary competition had been proposed. Teams were
divided into three areas, namely Northern, Suburbs and Town. Clubs felt that
this would bring people back to the game, as there were few people attending
club matches. When this regional competition was about to start, the Spring
Roses, a black club, had said they would not play in a racially oriented
competition.
The Chairperson remarked that this was the beginning of the problem.
Mr Mokoki continued that 24 clubs had been grouped into areas. Only Spring
Roses had said they did not want to play, and the African Bombers club had
later joined them. There had been a directive from the Minister’s office to
revive club and school rugby. There would have been a meeting the previous
Friday. He had heard that the meeting had been called by the concerned group of
clubs. They had wanted to take the black clubs away from EPRU and form their
own union. He said that he thought about fourteen clubs were involved. He had
learned that some of the people involved were not from clubs, and that only
three clubs had been represented at the meeting. There had also been a meeting
the previous Wednesday,.which had been attended by the mother body and some of
the government structures.
The Chairperson said he had a list of sixteen clubs whose delegates had signed
the attendance register, which he would provide to the EPRU.
Mr de Silva did not complain about the situation. As President, he was the
political head of the organisation and was there to lead the body. He had to
take responsibility. It was up to him to explain what the problems were, but he
had said nothing. He could not just complain that there were problems. The members were not children. Everybody was
saying that there were problems, and Mr de Silva should take the members into
his confidence to explain the situation.
Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) wanted to find out how creditable the leadership of the
Rugby Union was. He asked if they enjoyed the support of the religious sector,
the community or broader society. Archbishop Tutu had attended the Currie Cup
final in Bloemfontein recently, and Mr Dikgacwi took this as a sign of support.
It seemed that rugby was separated from the broader EC community. He noted that
there were 102 clubs in what was a vast province, including areas such as the
old Transkei. He asked if Mr de Silva represented the whole EC province or just
a section. He noted that the fifteen clubs had been supported by everybody, and
asked what had been done to engage with them. Mr Makoki had spoken about a
program within the African community. This was taking the sport back to the
days of SA Rugby Association, the Federation and SA Rugby Football Union. This
program was therefore based on racial boundaries. He asked if this was part of
the new South Africa. He could not see this as a component of a non-racist
country, and was a sign that the body wanted to take the country back to the
old order.
Mr R Reed (ANC) said that rugby was once again being played on racial lines,
and this flew in the face of the transformation program.
The Chairperson had not heard clearly if rugby was racially divided. He
understood it was not, and that the fixtures were not drawn up on a racial
basis. If they were, then this could not be so. He understood that the teams
were not racially based.
Mr Makoki said he would need some time to clear up the misconceptions. The
meeting was talking about the Eastern Province only. Border was a separate
union within the EC, and also had about one hundred member clubs.
The Chairperson raised the issue of provincial demarcations. He said that these
little pockets of apartheid must end. This issue was creating problems.
Mr Reed said that fact was that EPRU was blaming its mother body as being the
cause of all problems. He asked if they had ever met with SARU to discuss this
issue, or if this was the first occasion. The Minister had said that club rugby
must be revived. Rugby was well received in the EC. In Port Elizabeth alone a
number of unions had existed under the previous dispensation. It was strange
that club rugby could no longer draw spectators. It was no use organising
competitions in the township. The EPRU had to address the problem of the
decline in spectator numbers.
Ms M Ntuli (ANC) said that EPRU should check if these problems only prevailed
in the run-up towards elections. She asked if such problems also occurred at
other times. They had been invited to a meeting on 16 October. She said that
EPRU should check its constitution regarding the terms of office of its
executive members. She asked if members could serve life terms, or if there was
some constitutional limit. She asked if the Spring Roses club could justify
boycotting the competition if they felt it was arranged on a racist basis.
Mr L Lukai (Chairperson, EC Provincial Legislature Portfolio Committee) told
the EPRU leadership that they should have been ready for this meeting. A
written submission should have been made which would have tabled the different
problems.
Mr de Silva told the Chairperson that there was a submission, but due to the
delays earlier in the morning this had not been distributed. He would provide
members with copies.
He said that he should brief the Committee on the present situation. He was not
intent on hiding the problems. The biggest of these at present resulted from
the two or three audits into EPRU affairs. It had emerged that there was
certain prima facie evidence of mismanagement. Three advocates had been
appointed to interact with these findings. On their recommendation the case had
been handed over to the SA Police Services (SAPS) and prosecuting authority for
further investigation and the laying of charges if appropriate. The SAPS
process had been delayed. This was creating a bad stigma regarding the
competencies of the EPRU leadership. There was an impression that EPRU was
doing nothing.
Mr de Silva had taken over office some two months previously. This pending
investigation was a major problem for the EPRU. The Union needed funding,
sponsorships and lottery grants. All of these were being withheld while the
court case was still pending. During a meeting with SARU he had appealed to
them on three or four occasions to resolve the acrimony between the two bodies.
Their relationship needed to be rebuilt. He also asked SARU to provide support
by putting pressure on the investigators to proceed with the case, as this was
a huge block on EPRU. Mr Prinsloo could report on this. A court date had been
promised.
The second issue was the reviving of clubs. There were many reasons for the
demise of the old clubs. He had experience himself with the Swans club, which
was no longer in existence. This decline was not due to bad leadership, but to
many other factors. These included forced removals, financial problems and the
growth of soccer. No rugby was played at schools. It was not the fault of
leadership, but EPRU was failing in that the sport could no longer attract
players. He thought EPRU was credible. They had held meetings with different
shareholders such as the clubs and Spring Roses in particular.
The third challenge seen by Mr de Silva was the vast area of the province,
which ranged from Adelaide to Grahamstown to Misgund to Middelburg. Sub-union
structures existed in these areas. Some clubs had two teams and some only one.
There were 102 registered clubs that had fulfilled their fixtures.
On Wednesday 16 October the EPRU had asked to meet with the task team. A time
had been set but the meeting was postponed on the day before it was to happen.
There had been a meeting with SARU where solutions to the problems were
discussed.
Mr de Silva said the question of the falling spectator numbers was a study on
its own. This was common to all sports. It was well known that divisions
existed, and these became more prominent as executive elections approached.
Members of the executive served a two-year term, and could be elected for a
second term.
Mr de Silva then stated that all clubs had met at the end of 2005. They had
decided on the competitions for 2006. Different problems were foreseen by the
clubs and the fixtures committee. SARU fixtures started in June or July. EP had
no contracted players and no professional team. Their players were all amateurs
who had their own employment and only received match fees and expenses, and were
all selected from the clubs. Currie Cup, rural, Under 19, Under 21 and women’s
fixtures started in June or July. If players were selected to represent EP,
then their clubs would be granted postponements. This made if very difficult to
run their normal league structure during this period. The clubs had therefore
decided that after the first round of fixtures, the clubs would play within
their geographic areas. This would save on transport and other costs, and games
would also be played in the areas where spectators were resident.
Mr de Silva said that all the matches in the Uitenhage area had been played and
the competition there had been a huge success. The Northern area games had also
been very successful, with spectators returning in their droves. However,
Spring Roses did not take part even though it was explained to them that this
was not an EPRU decision but had come from the clubs. The African Bombers club
had asked to play on Sundays, but had later decided to withdraw from the
competition. He stressed that the province took care of these clubs. Their
players and officials were still selected as part of the various provincial
teams and there had not been a fight between Spring Roses and the EPRU.
Mr Lukai asked if the findings of the three advocates had implicated any
persons. He asked what actions, including internal actions, had been taken. He
asked what leadership had been exhibited by the EPRU.
Mr de Silva replied that when the reports were finalised they had been sent to
the EPRU (Pty) Ltd. The only persons implicated were the CEO and Chairman of
Finances, who were employees of this company. These reports were forwarded to
the SAPS. The EPRU still supported this decision, and no members of their
executive had been implicated.
Mr Prinsloo said that SARU had problems in the EC, therefore the scheduled
meeting had been cancelled. He could not agree that SARU was the cause of the
chaos in the EP.
The Chairman told Mr Prinsloo not to be polite about the issue as EPRU was
saying that SARU was the literal cause of the problems.
Mr Prinsloo reaffirmed that SARU was not part of the problem. Various meetings
had been held in the EC. This was a very important issue for South African
rugby and to the country in a broader context. The problem was within EP, and
he wondered if even the executive’s eyes were still on the ball. He had been at
the meeting on 16 October, and the clubs attending had all signed the register
publicly. The group of clubs had said that they had problems and wanted to
solve the issues.
He then asked if SARU could interfere in the situation. In terms of its own
constitution, the national body could intervene under a number of conditions.
The EC was a major concern for SARU. Therefore the SARU Management Committee
had asked the EPRU executive to resign. The issues had to be resolved before a
new election could be held. An election under the present conditions would not
solve the problems.
Mr Prinsloo noted that there had been an 8% growth in the game in the province
at both junior and senior levels. In 2004 a letter had been sent to SARU to ask
them to get involved in developments in the province. A task team had been
commissioned to investigate, and had submitted a report. Members of this task
team were appointed locally, including
Mr de Silva. Other letters had also followed and a caretaker administration had
been appointed which was subsequently withdrawn. Price Waterhouse Cooper had
been appointed to undertake a forensic audit. He felt that SARU had gone the
extra mile to resolve the problems.
Mr Prinsloo said that EP’s vision was to be one of the top rugby provinces in
the world. This would not happen if the problems were not resolved, and SARU
had therefore entered into the fray. They had found that the concerns were
genuine. An amount of R6.7 million had been given to the province and R 4.85
million to the Spears during the year. While the court case regarding the
Spears was still ongoing, the franchise should not disappear. However, SARU
felt that they were not ready to play at a high level yet.
Mr Louw noted that SARU seemed reluctant to act. Their own constitution
permitted them to take action. From what had been said, there had been no
suggestion that SARU would indeed act on the matter. Their version was totally
different to that of EPRU. They knew the seriousness of the problems both in
terms of politics and administration. As elected leaders, the SARU executive
had been chosen to lead. They were now only leading but not giving leadership,
which sometimes required unpopular decisions to be made. Meetings, workshops
and programmes had all been conducted but tangible action was now needed.
Mr C Frolick (ANC), said that he had been summoned to a meeting with the then
Chairperson of the Standing Committee on the EC Legislature. The then President
of SARU, Mr Brian van Rooyen, had attended and he thought Mr Prinsloo had also
been present. SARU had said that they could not allow the situation to
deteriorate. A calculated risk had been taken to allow EPRU to sort itself out.
Various reports had followed. The King 1 and 2 Commissions had reported on the
governance and responsibilities of sports bodies. EPRU was responsible for good
corporate governance.
He asked what had changed since then. If there had been no improvement, he
asked if the situation could be allowed to continue. Local and provincial
government members had been at the meeting. No invitation was needed if these
people were acting in the line of duty. The big picture did not look good.
Mr Frolick said that the same local government had been instrumental in getting
two rugby Tests to be played in Port Elizabeth. Attendance had not been good.
He asked if the strategies had been successful. He was left astounded by the
reference to local government. EPRU was indebted to the Nelson Mandela Bay
Municipality to the tune of millions of Rand. Local government had been told
not to write off this debt unless an acceptable turnaround strategy was put in
place. Appropriate action would be taken if needs be. The EPRU must serve the
community.
Mr Lukai asked if SARU had commissioned the forensic audit. He asked why they
had not acted on this matter. He also asked what powers SARU had in the event
of defiance by an affiliate. The wrong precedent was being created. He asked if
the constitution was so flexible as to allow this situation. His question to
EPRU about internal action against employees had not been answered. The right
signals had to be sent to other provinces.
Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) thought that the matter should go to court, as there seemed
that there was nothing else to be done.
Mr Prinsloo said that both SARU and EPRU had experienced changes in leadership.
He agreed that his executive had dragged its feet. The matter should have been
addressed long ago. He had seen the prosecutor dealing with the forensic
report, and he believed that there was indeed prima facie evidence of
mismanagement. The press had asked the same questions. He believed that
prosecution would happen before the executive election. The new President of
SARU wanted to get to the bottom of the matter. They had tried their utmost to
assist and had therefore requested the EPRU to step down. They would now take
the issue further. It was time for agreement. The EP leadership must tell SARU
what was to be done, and a committee should be formed to deal with the
situation.
Mr de Silva believed that, as the CEO was an employee of the company, it had
handed the report over to SAPS. They had thought that an immediate
investigation and prosecution would follow. EPRU was represented on the
commercial company but did not control it.
The Chairperson concluded that EPRU leadership could not deal with the matter
as it was company business. He asked if the company was separated from the
EPRU.
Mr Mvelelei Ncula (Deputy CEO, SARU) said that the situation with SARU was that
their commercial arm was the SA Rugby Board. SARU was the sole shareholder in
the commercial arm, and thus had total control. The provinces had made similar
arrangements. Both the provincial and commercial arms would have CEO’s. In the
EP, the same person held both offices.
The Chairman invited the members to ask questions of clarity from SARU.
Gen B Holomisa (UDM) said that the major problem appeared to be that a new
structure could not be elected while the problems still existed. He suggested
that SARU appoint an administrator to work with the existing structure and with
the other factions. He saw that even the league was based on racial lines. The
meeting was being misled. He made a strong recommendation that SARU intervene.
SRSA could also monitor the situation.
Mr Louw had a question for SARU. He suggested that the EPRU structure be
dissolved. SARU should appoint an interim management. SARU had to show
integrity, guts and that it cared for rugby in the country. A no prisoner
approach must be followed.
Mr Dikgacwi commented on the issue of the change of leadership. The property of
any company or organisation remained in place even if there was a change of
personnel. This was a flimsy excuse that he would not buy. He asked if the
constitution of the EPRU was above that of SARU. He challenged the credibility
of the EPRU leadership. They had not attended the meeting on 18 October. The
National Coordinating Committee (NACOC) and everybody else had been there. EPRU
did not want to be part of the solution. Spring Roses and African Bombers had
withdrawn from their own functions. The use of racial boundaries could not be
allowed.
Mr Reed aligned himself with Gen Holomisa and Mr Louw. The whole issue
resulting from the meeting in 2003 had been left to the incumbent executive.
Three years later the problems had not been attended to. There was no way that
the current leadership could be allowed to continue. He blamed SARU for not
implementing its own decision. There were a range of issues, which included
financial mismanagement and the introduction of a racially divided league. This
was not the situation of the past. A steering committee rather than an
administrator should be appointed until a new executive could be elected.
Mr Frolick believed that SARU should appoint an administrator. He mentioned a
number of candidates including Mr Cheeky Watson. Previously Mr Gary Boshoff had
been appointed as a caretaker administrator but had received no support from
the EPRU executive. He proposed that the current executive should be dissolved.
The election scheduled for 18 November should also be cancelled. The SARU
administrator should be in charge for a two-year period. He could not see how
the situation could improve otherwise.
He held SARU responsible for development, for the administration of day-to-day
affairs and for the administration of finances. The EPRU was in a situation
where the municipality could apply for their liquidation to pay their bills.
Things could not continue in this vein. He was a man from this area but could
no longer support his friends. A R1.1 billion stadium was being built for the
2010 World Cup, but hardly any spectators were attending matches at the current
venue. Rugby and other bodies would have to contribute towards the maintenance
of the stadium after 2010, and EPRU would be unable to fulfill their
obligations given their current situation.
The Chairman said that members had raised their views. There was no sharp
difference to the views expressed by Gen Holomisa and Mr Louw. Mr de Silva had
said there was no state of depression, chaos or anarchy in the province. The
Committee took the matter in a serious light. Mr Prinsloo created another
dimension by explaining the developments since 2003. SARU was battling to bring
stability to the province. The EPRU was a completely arrogant organisation that
showed a lack of organisational discipline. The procedural way to deal with
disputes had resulted in chaos. This was contrary to the EPRU view.
He had spoken with Councillor Nancy. A huge amount of EPRU debt to the
municipality had already been written off, but EPRU was still in debt by R 4
million. SARU had made a big mistake by transferring R 6.7 million to EPRU, as
R 500 thousand was still owed from the Test match played in Port Elizabeth.
SARU was not getting value for its money.
The Chairperson instructed the Committee Secretary to tell the Nelson Mandela
Bay Municipality not to write off any more EPRU debts. The union had to settle
these. He then issued a directive to SARU to dissolve the EPRU executive. A
meeting with SARU would be arranged one month later at which it would have to
brief the Committee on developments. The Committee supported SARU in its
mission.
The meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
Present
- We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting
Download as PDF
You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.
See detailed instructions for your browser here.