robdylan

Smit rebuts van Zyl allegations


Written by Rob Otto (robdylan)

Posted in :In the news, Original Content, Sharks on 22 Jun 2016 at 13:04
Tagged with : , , ,

Kudos to Darryn Pollock of the Daily News for securing an exclusive interview with current (or is that outgoing?) Sharks Chief Executive John Smit. As we reported earlier, Smit’s predecessor, Brian van Zyl, created a proper ruckus late last week by writing a letter to another KZN newspaper, in which allegations of serious financial problems at the Sharks were levelled.

While there may well be merit in what van Zyl had to say, my personal feeling was that the former CEO weakened his own argument through unnecessary ad hominem attacks. The whole thing came across as rather petulant and spiteful and it is this aspect of the letter that Smit berates most in his response.

Have a read of the article here before continuing.

Now I’m as much a fan as you all are of a well-crafted John Smit response. If there’s one thing that our CEO is very good at, it’s turning on the charm when required and it would take a very hard heart indeed to not feel a level of sympathy towards the current administration (and Smit in particular) in the face of such a seemingly unprovoked attack.

What I’m missing, though, is the detail. It is encouraging that Smit states that the Sharks are “approaching break-even in 2016″, but even that statement could be read in a number of ways. Beneath all the bluster of van Zyl’s letter, one key point stood out – that the Sharks have seemingly not produced correctly audited financial statements for the last year. While I’m leaning towards accepting Smit’s version of these events, I need to know that those statements have been produced, duly scrutinised, and do, in fact, back up his claims of solvency.

Is that too much to ask?



135 Comments

  • Perhaps Van Zyl worded it inappropriately but doesnt detract from the state of affairs and Smit’s pretty weak explanation of wanting to spend more time with family. That together with no 2015 financials all point to problems of a financial nature at the Sharks. Say or believe what we will about the individuals involved but it doesnt change the fact that some strong business sense is needed at Sharks rugby. I hope the new CEO is a strong business mind because yes this is rugby but without a sustainable business model there wont be any rugby.

  • Comment 1, posted at 22.06.16 13:10:09 by SheldonK Reply
    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • Ah, ok.
    I dont getit why a letter penned to one publication is answered in a different one. Makes no sense, even if they are in the same stable..

  • Comment 2, posted at 22.06.16 14:00:41 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 2) : One conspiracy theory coming right up! ;-)

  • Comment 3, posted at 22.06.16 14:06:26 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartinAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 3) : There must be one in there somewhere, I just come up with it other than that the Daily News is (was in my day) an afternoon publication and going to them gave the respondents extra time to word their schpiel.
    How did I do? :mrgreen:

  • Comment 4, posted at 22.06.16 14:28:24 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 4) : Far too realistic a scenario I’m afraid. Very light on the crazy.

  • Comment 5, posted at 22.06.16 14:31:53 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartinAssistant coach
     
  • Hmmmm, let me work on something, how about your version?

  • Comment 6, posted at 22.06.16 14:33:06 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • Rob, can we still expect Mr Saad to also tell the Daily News all about the finances or is this it.

  • Comment 7, posted at 22.06.16 14:34:31 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 2) : Well, other than Vanmartin’s conspiracy theory from yesterday…

    Personally, I wouldn’t ad to the readership of the paper that published a “petulant” vendetta letter against me.

    I’d go to their direct opposition (even though the owners of these newspapers are smiling either way), and give them the plethora of follow-up letters…let them enjoy the increased readership, and let the Mercury read all about it in the opposition newspaper.

  • Comment 8, posted at 22.06.16 14:36:05 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 7) : no, apparently Saad is still to take his turn at the podium.

  • Comment 9, posted at 22.06.16 14:41:02 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 8) : except that the Mercury is the official media partner of the Sharks…. :oops:

  • Comment 10, posted at 22.06.16 14:41:37 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 10) : Maybe Saad will use the Mercury :)

  • Comment 11, posted at 22.06.16 14:48:02 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 8) : Well the letter would have been addressed to that newspapers readers so in order to maximise the audience that would be interested in the issue the reply should be made in the same letters pages. Maybe Im too old school and remember the vigorous debates that used to take place in newspapers letters pages on any matter of issues, these could carry on for weeks.. I suppose in this instance the national media has picked up the story and run with it so I suppose he could even have approached the Pretoria News and it would carry the same weight.

  • Comment 12, posted at 22.06.16 14:49:05 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 11) : ilanaga, especially now that the Sharks have taken the game to the townships, why Smittie didnt think of this one I dont know. :twisted:

  • Comment 13, posted at 22.06.16 14:51:24 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 13) : U could well be onto something there

  • Comment 14, posted at 22.06.16 14:52:06 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 9) : Thanks.

  • Comment 15, posted at 22.06.16 15:06:04 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 10) : Poor form when your official media partner publishes a scathing vendetta letter against you.

    We might see a change of media partner after this little stunt.

    @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 12) : Seeing as the Mercury is the Sharks official media partner, I’d be even more motivated to prove a point to them by going to the opposition newspaper.

  • Comment 16, posted at 22.06.16 15:08:51 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 9) : So to add to my conspiracy theory, the Mercury had their single day in the sun with BvZ’s vendetta letter, and in turn Daily News gets three days in the sun (McKenzie, Smit and Saad)….the Mercury should have given the Vendetta Letter to Daily News to run, and then they could have basked in the 3-days of glory afterwards. :lol:

  • Comment 17, posted at 22.06.16 15:12:12 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 17) : I would suggest that the Mercury has had it in for Smit since his time as Sharks captain as they preferred Bismarck so thats why they ran the letter in order to distance themselves from Smit and his words and refused to run his response letter. The Daily News is desperate after the Dolphins dont do anything newsworthy so jumped at the chance to fight back and get one over the popular paper , the Mercury. This is in fact a paper war and the Sharks office bearers are just the pawns

  • Comment 18, posted at 22.06.16 15:18:37 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • Smit doesn’t provide much financial details, but surely nobody here is naive enough to expect him to do that if the Union has apparently not yet revealed these to the stakeholders yet?

    One thing that bears repeat is that under Van Zyl pretty much NOTHING was done to grow the game amongst new demographics.

    Definite credit to the current lot for at least taking the game to a broader audience and opening up a constructive dialogue with the City regarding MMS – even if nothing comes of it, it’s built a bridge between the parties where only a gulf existed before.

  • Comment 19, posted at 22.06.16 15:43:26 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 18) :the best theory thus far :D

  • Comment 20, posted at 22.06.16 15:46:19 by 50shadesofshark Reply

    Team captain
     
  • I thought I’d weigh in here seeing as most of the debate is around the choice of paper rather than Smit’s rebuttal!

    The Sharks were not happy with the Mecury as they stated on their front page story referring to Van Zyl’s letter that they tried to contact the Sharks. Neither McKenzie, Smit, or even Saad for that matter were contacted. I took it upon myself to offer up the Daily News’ pages as they were seething to respond. Plus our readership is bigger ;)

    Darryn

  • Comment 21, posted at 22.06.16 15:51:27 by Darryn Pollock Reply

    Under 19 player
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 16) : Well then good on the Mercury for not playing censor, a cornerstone of what a newspaper should be.

  • Comment 22, posted at 22.06.16 15:51:54 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Darryn Pollock (Comment 21) : All lies…its a paper war ;) Whose got the best ink and coffee :)

  • Comment 23, posted at 22.06.16 15:53:30 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @Darryn Pollock (Comment 21) : is this a case of “but on the other hand,darryn” ?

  • Comment 24, posted at 22.06.16 15:58:41 by 50shadesofshark Reply

    Team captain
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 22) : You seem to applaud all things anti-Smit/pro-BvZ….a blind loyalist if ever I’ve seen one.

  • Comment 25, posted at 22.06.16 16:02:01 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 22) :
    I doubt that’s what actually happened, but share your sentiment.

    @Darryn Pollock (Comment 21) :
    That’s really piss-poor journalism if true. Journalists talk about politicians being demagogues yet what was that if not rabble-rousing?

  • Comment 26, posted at 22.06.16 16:03:21 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • Am I missing something?!?! Serious allocations were made about the Sharks financial state and Smit answer with “our financial position is stable” without giving any info/motivation or details and almost all comments are about what news papers was used?!?!?!

  • Comment 27, posted at 22.06.16 16:36:30 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 27) : THIS

  • Comment 28, posted at 22.06.16 16:38:45 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 25) : I applaud freedom of speech, freedom of thought and sometimes going off on a tangent. Are you a child of the new South Africa, if so, then you were born in the wrong era, you would have loved the old crowd that tried to tell you how and what to think and read and there were many newspaper men willing to toe the line. :twisted:

  • Comment 29, posted at 22.06.16 16:43:14 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 28) : “THIS” what?

  • Comment 30, posted at 22.06.16 16:44:54 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 30) : ”This is this” Robert de Niro in the Deerhunter.

  • Comment 31, posted at 22.06.16 16:46:14 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The houndAssistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 25) : @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 29) : personally I don’t think the Sharks should have responded in any news paper. They could have made an official statement via their website with some factual proof to show that BvZ’s claim is unfounded! That way all the Sharks fans could read it and there’s also no participation by the Sharks in this “media war” that was started by BvZ. Now BvZ wil probably also respond to JS response that will lead to the Sharks responding that will lead to BvZ responding and so on….. and all that will be left smiling is the news papers because of the higher circulation!!!

  • Comment 32, posted at 22.06.16 16:55:59 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @The hound (Comment 31) : don’t know that one?

  • Comment 33, posted at 22.06.16 16:57:21 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 29) : Off course I realise that the Mercury had no choice but to publish the letter, but it seems as though the Sharks weren’t so happy with the way they handled it.

  • Comment 34, posted at 22.06.16 17:00:31 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • There are actually 3 issues here, as there are multiple allegations being made by Van Zyl:
    - Were the Sharks significantly more profitable under Van Zyl and company?
    - Are the Sharks currently in serious financial trouble?
    - If the answer to either of the above is in the affirmative, is this due to any action/ inaction on the part of Smit and the current crop?

  • Comment 35, posted at 22.06.16 17:02:29 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 28) :Exactly, we wait for Saads space in the Daily Nrews.

  • Comment 36, posted at 22.06.16 17:11:14 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 35) : must say I personally want to know if the Sharks are financially OK and if not why and how will management solve it?
    What happened in BvZ’s time is irrelevant as it will not add 1 cent to Sharks books.

  • Comment 37, posted at 22.06.16 17:23:01 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 38) : quite true.

  • Comment 38, posted at 22.06.16 17:45:33 by 50shadesofshark Reply

    Team captain
     
  • The Mercury and Daily News are both owned by the same company, Independent Media; one is a morning paper, the other an afternoon paper

  • Comment 39, posted at 22.06.16 19:53:14 by Julesgr8ter Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Vodacom Cup player
     
  • @JD (Comment 37) :
    I definitely want to know the comparative state under Van Zyl.

    It will give us an indication of his integrity given the big swipes he is taking at the current board and also let us know what to compare against.

    For example, national airlines the world over are not profitable, as their primary purpose is not money-making but facilitating national trade and tourism. Yet this never comes up when discussing SAA. This doesn’t mean SAA is not a balls-up, but it is important context.

  • Comment 40, posted at 22.06.16 23:10:29 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • I think many people are missing some of the basics here.

    The Sharks cannot go bankrupt or insolvent, in the way normal businesses do, because no one other than the KZNRU may own a controlling stake in the Sharks and they have to play rugby to have value. Even if a creditor takes their stadium, he’ll have to rent it back to them at a favorable rate for it to have any value.

    Talk of profit or loss is nonsense. The Sharks should run at a small to medium loss all the time. Whenever cash run low, shareholders are obliged to make investments and creditors are obliged to take hair cuts – else they’ll get even less.

    Just go look what happened in Dunedin not so long ago when the Highlanders were low on money.

    Why you need audited books is not to answer the How-Much question, but rather the How question.

    What’s important in the Sharks finances is not how much money they made or lost, but how they spent what they did. Was it used on team or game-day experience improvement or was it wasted in some way.

  • Comment 41, posted at 23.06.16 02:50:37 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 41) :
    Good points.

  • Comment 42, posted at 23.06.16 07:39:06 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 41) : You make some interesting points. However, the Kings financial troubles and EP Rugby being on the verge of liquidation counter your argument that the Sharks cannot go bankrupt and become insolvent. Sharks Pty Ltd can certainly fall foul of those things.

  • Comment 43, posted at 23.06.16 08:24:58 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 40) : Van Zyl better be squeaky clean and have run a tight ship if he doesnt want to get serious egg on his face.

  • Comment 44, posted at 23.06.16 08:47:49 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 41) : Very interseting, I dont understand why the aim is to run at a small to medium loss though.

  • Comment 45, posted at 23.06.16 08:49:29 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Darryn Pollock (Comment 21) : Hi Darryn, have you reserved space for Mr Saads reply to BVZ, if so, when can we expect it.

  • Comment 46, posted at 23.06.16 08:50:39 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 27) : JD, in my humble opinion these articles may serve as a interesting yardstick on the average supporter’s state of mind regarding SA rugby. It tells me a fair few things:
    1. The Kings debacle has set a precedent that no matter how bad it gets, someone will bail out a union and the guilty parties probably won’t be held accountable. Speaking for myself, I’m concerned but not especially worried to be honest.
    2. We’ll most likely lose some of our star players if the Sharks are really in a bad way but the European & Asian player drain has numbed us to this reality to a great degree already. I don’t see any creative thinking from unions to try and keep promising youngsters or key signings from leaving our shores.
    3. I think we as supporters are tiring from the fact that proper rugby planning and coaching seems to be taking a backseat to boardroom politics and juvenile public spats. Everyone lauds the great spirit evident within the ‘rugby brotherhood’ and though I frequently see this amongst players, it’s largely absent at management level.

    This list goes on but those three points could start to give you some insight into the general sense of apathy in this thread. As pessimistic as I come across here, I still love the beautiful game. I honestly think rugby is heading down a bad path though.

  • Comment 47, posted at 23.06.16 09:28:50 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartinAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 47) : it wont be long til we all get together in a pub wearing Toulon or Saracens jerseys and watching a game far away, just like saffas now get excited to watch Man U play Liverpool. Rugby in this country is dead. Half my friends dont even know where saturdays test will be played. My old man cant name 5 current springboks. In my group of friends, we havent even planned our day for the All blacks test in Durban. It didnt use to be like this.

  • Comment 48, posted at 23.06.16 09:48:46 by West Indies Cricket Board Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    West Indies Cricket BoardTeam captain
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 46) : It may come as a surprise, but these allegations are not the biggest priority for the Sharks, because they feel they are baseless. However, they also feel they need to be addressed because they are incorrect (remember, I am a reporter – or in other words, a messenger – don’t shoot me!)

    The next response will come from President of KZNRU Graham McKenzie, hopefully on Friday, answering Van Zyl’s allegations that the game is not being grown and that the club system is in a mess. McKenzie brought out the first response, on that fateful Friday, but that was pretty general – this will be from the point of view of the KZNRU.

    I have been told numerous times that Saad will be making a statement, both by Smit and McKenzie, but when is up for question.

    P.S: I have tried numerous times to contact Van Zyl, to let him know about Smit’s response – more as a courtesy – but he is silent and does not seem likely to respond. read what you will into that.

  • Comment 49, posted at 23.06.16 09:59:05 by Darryn Pollock Reply

    Under 19 player
     
  • a sports team must ensure a constant financial income so as to make investments in their most important asset: players.this is also why financial projections are so important to give a forecast of available funds for player acquisition.the need to invest in players is an investment at growing the income by being competitve (winning) on the field.

  • Comment 50, posted at 23.06.16 10:02:42 by 50shadesofshark Reply

    Team captain
     
  • @Darryn Pollock (Comment 49) : my own attempts to engage with van Zyl were also fruitless. He told me that he’s not going to say anything further. Feels a little bit like the guy wanted to lob the hand grenade and then watch the carnage from a safe distance.

  • Comment 51, posted at 23.06.16 10:06:25 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @Darryn Pollock (Comment 49) : @robdylan (Comment 51) : All of this for the good of Sharks rugby. :roll:

    Seems the Sharks needed to get rid of this cancer a few years earlier – also puts into perspective why Smit and the board felt they needed to deep-clean the ship.

  • Comment 52, posted at 23.06.16 10:36:55 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @robdylan (Comment 51) : Mission accomplished then?

  • Comment 53, posted at 23.06.16 10:44:25 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Darryn Pollock (Comment 49) : Thanks for the response Darryn. For me, Im most interested in the audited financials, which it seems, will not be addressed by Graham McKenzie.

    It seems you have landed yourself a Shark here, are you guys inline to become the new official media partner of the Sharks? :cool:

  • Comment 54, posted at 23.06.16 10:48:48 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • Dear Mr van Zyl

    During John Smit’s tenure, he has had precisely zero murders happen on King’s Park grounds. What was your count like?

  • Comment 55, posted at 23.06.16 11:12:18 by josefgremlin Reply

    josefgremlinVodacom Cup player
     
  • EDIT: Apologies, I should know better, let’s rather steer completely clear of this topic.

  • Comment 56, posted at 23.06.16 11:16:13 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartinAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 56) : That incident feels like yesterday, was it really that long ago? :|

  • Comment 57, posted at 23.06.16 11:18:03 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 41) : @SheldonK (Comment 43) : must say I can not agree with you.
    Sharks can for sure go bankrupt. Yes the stadium can’t really be repossessed but the rest of their assists like furniture, vehicles and other stuff can be. Also the biggest loss will be in losing top layers (even more than now) as the Sharks would not be able to pay them. Just think back to what happened at the Kings.
    Sharks must make profit as that’s the only way to ensure that they can sign top players and have a chance to retain these players.

  • Comment 58, posted at 23.06.16 11:30:45 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 47) : must agree something needs to change but unfortunately I cant see it happening!!!

  • Comment 59, posted at 23.06.16 11:32:45 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 58) : Top layers,we lost Warren Britz a long time ago.

  • Comment 60, posted at 23.06.16 11:34:10 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The houndAssistant coach
     
  • :shock: Its going to be some day today…what have we got, the very pale people deciding whether they are part of Europe or not, some being called a cancer while others blaming a murder at Kings Park on the KZNRU. That hand grenade is having an impact.

  • Comment 61, posted at 23.06.16 11:44:51 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @The hound (Comment 60) : Warren Britz……was he the first rugby player to wear neon coloured boots?

  • Comment 62, posted at 23.06.16 11:47:17 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 62) : A legend in his lifetime,both on and off the field,to those who know him ,JD ‘S
    misspelt top layer is very appropriate to his misspent youth.

  • Comment 63, posted at 23.06.16 11:53:24 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The houndAssistant coach
     
  • @The hound (Comment 63) : :mrgreen: :lol:

  • Comment 64, posted at 23.06.16 11:55:32 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 48) : to be 100% honest I’ve been thinking if things carry on like now which international team would I support.

  • Comment 65, posted at 23.06.16 11:57:12 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 62) : @The hound (Comment 63) : so glad I’m able to amuse the two of you. ;-)
    I’m using my phone today and my fat little fingers does not always work on my phones keyboard!
    As for Brits don’t know to much about his off the field stuff but on the field he was an awesome player!

  • Comment 66, posted at 23.06.16 12:04:01 by JD Reply
    Friend of SharksworldCompetition Winner Administrator
    JDAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 66) : and a layer of note as well.

  • Comment 67, posted at 23.06.16 12:11:52 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The houndAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 58) : Isnt that what i said – the Sharks can go bankrupt. So then you agree with me? Just checking we on same page

  • Comment 68, posted at 23.06.16 12:13:43 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @JD (Comment 67) : best remembered by me as the first player habana stepped on his way to the match-winning s12 try.should have herded him towards the right-hand corner.bulls were on a penalty advantage 5m from sharks tryline.momentum and hunger clearly with them.leave it up to a from-the-touchline conversion.

  • Comment 69, posted at 23.06.16 12:17:11 by 50shadesofshark Reply

    Team captain
     
  • @50shadesofshark (Comment 69) : Why the fuck bring that up ,probably the worst moment of my life and I have had some,I have a seething hatred for Habbana from that DAY ON.

  • Comment 70, posted at 23.06.16 12:42:44 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The houndAssistant coach
     
  • @The hound (Comment 70) : All part of the ‘van Zyl grenade’ package I’m guessing

  • Comment 71, posted at 23.06.16 12:44:36 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartinAssistant coach
     
  • “Nightsticks and water cannons, tear gas, padlocks
    Molotov cocktails and rocks behind every curtain”

  • Comment 72, posted at 23.06.16 12:53:15 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 71) : Probably Van Zyls fault that it happened, after all it happened while he was in office.

  • Comment 73, posted at 23.06.16 12:56:41 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 45) :

    What’s the point of a profit?

    To buy better players next year? They should have bought them this year already.

    A little red on the books is no problem, because as long as the team is winning the stakehokders will make up the difference.

  • Comment 74, posted at 23.06.16 13:01:10 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 73) : That one’s actually my fault. I started celebrating prematurely and you know how the universe loves raining on a parade. Sorry everyone, my bad.

  • Comment 75, posted at 23.06.16 13:02:58 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartinAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 75) : Dont worry, me too. Im just as guilty. Sorry everyone.

  • Comment 76, posted at 23.06.16 13:05:31 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 43) :

    Sone team is always on the verge of liquidation. How many has ever actually been liquidated?

  • Comment 77, posted at 23.06.16 13:05:34 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 73) : That moment got your chum Plum the head coach position – had we won S12, Muir wouldn’t have left….matters little now, neither of the three are at the Sharks anymore, although one seems to be struggling with abandonment issues. ;-)

  • Comment 78, posted at 23.06.16 13:07:27 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 74) : I suppose the winning bit is the important part of turning a loss. Accumulated loss over years cannot be a good thing though.

  • Comment 79, posted at 23.06.16 13:08:20 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 75) : @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 76) : You fellas (and a fair few others) should learn to keep your optimism in check.

    I had no re-corking of the champagne bottle in my house – I remain skeptical until I see the Sharks captain drinking a beverage from the cup. :twisted:

  • Comment 80, posted at 23.06.16 13:09:48 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 77) : Being on the verge could mean many different things. Just because teams have been bailed out doesnt mean that its not possible. Sharks Pty Ltd is a company like any other. For sustainability any company needs to have more income than expenses. Racking up debt will only end badly.

  • Comment 81, posted at 23.06.16 13:16:27 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 81) :
    Wrong; the unions are NOT the same as any other company. No other normal company would expect to receive so much of their revenue from stakeholders. And certainly not based largely on goodwill/ branding as opposed to a financial ROI.

    Fyndraai knows what he’s talking about (in this case at least). :twisted:

  • Comment 82, posted at 23.06.16 13:31:52 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 82) : Sharks Pty Ltd sells a [product (rugby) for which it generates income (ticket sales/tv rights) . Its has expenses in the form of salaries and running costs. Thats a normal company. And just like a normal company it has to ensure its income exceeds its expenses. If not it has to either raise capital or debt. There is no reason why the Sharks Pty Ltd cannot be liquidated or placed in administration. The fact that is may be possible that a last minute bail out could drag it out of liquidation is not something that should be celebrated. Financial problems should be a massive concern.

  • Comment 83, posted at 23.06.16 13:39:59 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 79) :

    As long as you win, the shareholders will willingly make up for the losses. If you don’t win they will still do it because the alternative for them is always worse.

  • Comment 84, posted at 23.06.16 13:49:07 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 83) :
    You are missing the point.

    Yes, unions need to not operate in the red, but they are in a pretty unique position that a huge percentage of their income is from sponsorships – this is not the case for normal companies.

    Sponsorship income is not based on business fundamentals- it’s based on sponsor goodwill and confidence. In addition, that income size really only gets decided once the size of the annual deficit is known. This is not normal business.

    Are you aware that since 2008 the NZ union has only not made a loss 3 times? SA Rugbt’s biggest revenue stream is sponsorship – not tickets or TV rights.

  • Comment 85, posted at 23.06.16 13:55:50 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 85) : As you say Sponsorship is the major factor keeping Unions alive through goodwill and confidence. Why is the New Zealand rugby union able to function at a loss (probably just an accounting loss)..because they win, and win often. The wheels would very quickly turn if they stopped winning. The Sharks rely heavily on Sponsorship as without it they cant afford the stadium costs etc(ever wonder why talks of moving across the road resurfaced? perhaps that sponsorship is no longer a guarantee). No sponsorship is guaranteed…especially if the Unions financial position is not well managed and the team isnt winning. You and Fyndraai make it out like financial problems shouldnt be a worry as its business as usual. I guess we should just make the Sharkie mascot the CEO as it doesnt matter who runs the finances as the sponsors will just pay.

  • Comment 86, posted at 23.06.16 14:02:36 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 85) : You make some good points,but generalise a lot of others.
    Sponsorship or the ability to attract sponsorship relies on performance and visibility of the sponsorship.
    The better the performance the bigger the exposure,and television is still the best exposure.
    The bigger the game the better the exposure.
    But you only get to attract that sponsorship if you have a winning team,and you only get a winning team with the best players and coaches,and these rely on big sponsorship.

  • Comment 87, posted at 23.06.16 14:04:46 by The hound Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    The houndAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 86) : I agree – there is the age old concept of TINSTAAFL in economics.

  • Comment 88, posted at 23.06.16 14:05:28 by Bokhoring Reply
    Administrator
    BokhoringAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 89) : There is no such thing as a free lunch

  • Comment 89, posted at 23.06.16 14:09:27 by Bokhoring Reply
    Administrator
    BokhoringAssistant coach
     
  • @Bokhoring (Comment 90) : Been a while since ive seen that word. Thanks

  • Comment 90, posted at 23.06.16 14:11:26 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 86) :
    @The hound (Comment 87) :
    Perhaps I’m expressing myself badly.

    Of course a rugby union’s biggest contribution to its profitability is its ability to win games and trophies. I fully agree.

    What I am trying (and apparently failing) to illustrate is that whereas in the normal business world investors invest capital for growth on that capital (and hence keenly basis their investment decision on financial statements), in the rugby world the investment decision is based on the halo effect of association with the brand. These are not the same things.

    In addition, a sponsorship size negotiation will often only be made once full financials have been announced, in order to fill the retrospective or envisaged financial gap. So initial financials may look dire, but the next year’s budget could be greatly inflated, as future sponsorships are not static entries.

  • Comment 91, posted at 23.06.16 14:14:04 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 92) : I do understand what you are saying. Yes part of Sponsorship is about brand awareness so being associated with the Sharks is the return for their investment. However, we need to appreciate the state of affairs of our economy and that of rugby in SA. Companies now need to justify those sponsorships to their own board and shareholders and show a real return for them. The amounts are certainly not open ended as well. So as you say a sponsor could make the picture look a lot better, but the loss of a sponsor or two could make things look very dire indeed. Bear in mind the Smit resignation would not have happened if all was rosy and financially sound.

  • Comment 92, posted at 23.06.16 14:19:58 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • sponsorhip is also affected by the prevailing economic situatiion,and future financial projections as well as the returns on said sponsorships.not many will invest in a perceived sinking ship,be that the team or the sporting code.

  • Comment 93, posted at 23.06.16 14:21:50 by 50shadesofshark Reply

    Team captain
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 92) :
    Yes, but the decision on whether to sponsor will be based on market reaction to the brand association – largely a function of the win ratio.

    Reality is however that poorly managed organisations seldom perform sustainably in any area. But we need to recognise that unions are not primarily judged as going business concerns. It’s possible for a union not to turn a resounding profit (or even make a small loss) despite being well run.

  • Comment 94, posted at 23.06.16 14:46:25 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • The thing in all of this that has me puzzled is whether the title of the article should read “…rebuts…” or “…rebuffs…”

  • Comment 95, posted at 23.06.16 14:57:09 by Culling Song Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    Culling SongTeam captain
     
  • @Culling Song (Comment 95) : I also wan’t sure. So I went with whatever was closer to “butt” :)

  • Comment 96, posted at 23.06.16 15:01:49 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 95) : In regards to your last point it really depends on the nature of the loss. If the loss is purely an accounting loss then yes fair enough. If however, its a reslt of a shortfall in paying stadium costs or salaries..well then thats a larger problem. And would you say that the current Sharks brand has a good image? Bearing in mind the recent comings and going at board and coaching level…recent results…fan turn outs at games…

  • Comment 97, posted at 23.06.16 15:03:18 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 97) :
    Potential sponsor: “And would you say that the current Sharks brand has a good image?”
    Sharks representative: “We’re not the Kings”
    Potential sponsor: “And that should do it”

  • Comment 98, posted at 23.06.16 15:09:02 by vanmartin Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Author
    vanmartinAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 97) :
    Different discussion – although in my mind we are only now starting to show signs of being well-run.

    Remember that it is van Zyl who is attempting to equate financial performance and board performance. That is the notion that I am tempering. I also think he left a legacy of bad issues for the current guys to clean up.

  • Comment 99, posted at 23.06.16 15:10:22 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 99) : haha fair enough. cant argue there

  • Comment 100, posted at 23.06.16 15:11:07 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 100) : Ya look i think Van Zyl got a lot right in the early years but there is no doubt that the Union was flourishing when he left. And it seems the case hasnt improved much throughout the Smit tenure and perhaps is a bit worse now but to a different degree. As i said in one previous thread the next CEO needs to be a good business professional that has the balls to make good business decisions that will allow the Union to be strong going forward

  • Comment 101, posted at 23.06.16 15:14:06 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • Speaking of sponsorships, have any of you heard of Blue Label Telecoms before the Springboks were sponsored by them. Double edged sword this, great exposure for Blue Label but on the other hand have the Boks lost so much lustre that they cant pull a BIG name sponsor.

  • Comment 102, posted at 23.06.16 15:14:24 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Culling Song (Comment 95) : Yep, its been playing on my mind as well. Rebuffs is what first comes into the brain when seeing the headline.

  • Comment 103, posted at 23.06.16 15:17:31 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 102) : I think they sponsored the Proteas previously.

  • Comment 104, posted at 23.06.16 15:24:45 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 103) : Yeh they have sponsor the Proteas Cricket before if im correct. Think they do more business telecomms etc.

  • Comment 105, posted at 23.06.16 15:26:00 by SheldonK Reply

    SheldonKAssistant coach
     
  • @SheldonK (Comment 83) :

    Sharks Pty Ltd’s business is to stage sanctioned rugby matches in KZN. The rights for this is conferred upon it by the KZNRU, which according to SARU’s bylaws, is the only entity that may do this.

    If Sharks Pty Ltd, goes insolvent and is placed into administration, ownership transfers to the creditors and they lose their raison d’etre (the right to stage rugby matches). At this point the KZNRU may simply find a new company (eg. Sharks Rugby Pty Ltd), and give it the right to stage rugby matches and sell 49% shares to new investors.

    I’m not saying financial turmoil and maladministration is okay. It is not. What I’m saying is that simple profit/loss statements do not tell us anything about this subject.

  • Comment 106, posted at 24.06.16 05:06:14 by fyndraai Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    fyndraaiTeam captain
     
  • @vanmartin (Comment 98) : Alternative Response to Potential Sponsor: If you can guarantee that we`ll be able to A Keep everyone we have at the moment and B Lure Jake White as well as Frans Steyn back for at least 3 years, We will Guarantee Silverware . . . ” :mrgreen:

    #Everyone`s a Winner at the Cotton Club!

  • Comment 107, posted at 24.06.16 05:20:48 by Original Pierre Reply
    Author
    Original PierreSuper Rugby player
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 106) :
    Better explanation than mine to be honest. That’s really the nub of it.

  • Comment 108, posted at 24.06.16 09:14:16 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @fyndraai (Comment 106) : Now even I understand.

    Quick, send that explanation to van Zyl – seems after all his years at the Sharks, he’s still struggling with this concept.

  • Comment 109, posted at 24.06.16 09:42:57 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 109) : Talk about a clouded vision, First you wanted Strools fired, then Plumtree and now you have some unhealthy fascination with van Zyl. So you want someone to explain to van Zyl that by running a profitable organisation which at least delivered supplied audited financials on time that he got it wrong and should have rather followed Smits example of squandering a 40 million profit within a 3 year period to not even having aiudited financial statements available. Yeah right.

  • Comment 110, posted at 24.06.16 10:07:10 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 110) : BvZ decided to throw himself into the lime-light by writing his vendetta-letter. Up until now, I really couldn’t give a hoot about his life (I’m sure you’ll be able to tell me exactly what he’s been up to since retirement – talk about an unhealthy fascination with the man.).

    And regarding the state in which he left the Sharks, plenty reports about the Sharks being in a less than favourable financial position when BvZ left.

  • Comment 111, posted at 24.06.16 11:15:57 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 111) : No fascination with Van Zyl, its simple, I think the Sharks were in a better situation under him than after he was sidelined. The fact that he is lobbing grenades shows that he has a bit of oompf in him and is not just a meek puppy.

  • Comment 112, posted at 24.06.16 12:18:15 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 112) : BvZ seem to be a serious blindspot for you…nothing he does receives criticism from you, even when he writes a letter filled with accusations, but extremely economical on facts.

    One thing is for sure, BvZ will never again run the Sharks, he had his time, but it’s over now – the two of you should really accept this.

  • Comment 113, posted at 24.06.16 12:23:25 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 113) :
    I suspect that Salmo is a bittereinder. He’s on this lark while taking a break from seeking Siener van Rensburg and the Kruger millions.

  • Comment 114, posted at 24.06.16 15:18:29 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 114) :
    Oh shit… :lol:

  • Comment 115, posted at 24.06.16 15:18:53 by Big Fish Reply
    Author
    Big FishAssistant coach
     
  • @Big Fish (Comment 114) : Bittereinde about what, that I thought the Sharks were in better shape than now. Other “falacies” I also believe is that the Western Cape is also beter run than Gauteng or KZN but you guys would not be able to see that either.
    Who is Siener van Rensburg, first you bring up someone called Kardashian and now this van Rensburg charachter – what do you do with your spare time? :twisted: :lol:

  • Comment 116, posted at 24.06.16 15:47:35 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • https://www.ecr.co.za/news-sport/sport/sharks-focusing-bright-future/

    Interview with McKenzie.

  • Comment 117, posted at 24.06.16 16:12:17 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 117) : Ahhh let me go and read the spin. It should be good with all the time they have had to work on it. :twisted: , nearly as long as that crowd took to find that the PUKKE had not breached any rules of the VC.

  • Comment 118, posted at 24.06.16 16:47:23 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 117) : Is this the Daily News interview?

  • Comment 119, posted at 24.06.16 16:50:35 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 118) : rubbish article that says nothing, in my slightly jaundiced view

  • Comment 120, posted at 24.06.16 16:50:52 by robdylan Reply
    Competition Winner Administrator
    robdylanHead Coach
     
  • @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 119) : Don’t think so…seems to have been ecr themselves.

    One thing that seems evident is that the Sharks finances being flush or in the red (and considering what fyndraai said), all depends on how much the sponsors pony up….sure is a strange scenario.

  • Comment 121, posted at 24.06.16 17:13:36 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • Saad’s long awaited letter will probably only come after the Sharks have convinced the stakeholders to load the deficits with stacks of money….suppose that’s how pro rugby goes in SA.

  • Comment 122, posted at 24.06.16 17:16:08 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • @FireTheLooser (Comment 121) : Maybe the Daily News pissed them off :twisted: just pulling your leg Darryn.

    Anyway, Sharksworld should be their preferred mouthpiece. :mrgreen:

  • Comment 123, posted at 24.06.16 17:27:31 by Salmonoid the Subtle Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Salmonoid the SubtleAssistant coach
     
  • We are all speculating on the absence of fact. Knowing the sharks management the fact part will remain in absentia so what’s the point?

  • Comment 124, posted at 24.06.16 18:18:57 by coolfusion Reply

    coolfusionTeam captain
     
  • Well the good news is at the rate the pound is dropping we can start buying back players one of these days.

  • Comment 125, posted at 24.06.16 18:31:05 by coolfusion Reply

    coolfusionTeam captain
     
  • @coolfusion (Comment 125) : Now there’s that proudly South African glass half full spirit.

  • Comment 126, posted at 24.06.16 18:53:50 by FireTheLooser Reply

    Assistant coach
     
  • Ja …. I try…

  • Comment 127, posted at 24.06.16 19:41:37 by coolfusion Reply

    coolfusionTeam captain
     
  • Since this thread is about money, how about a wakeup call for southern hemisphere rugby. Tonight Toulon and Racing 92 are playing a final in Barcelona in front of 100 000.

    Obviously live spectator numbers don’t indicate rugby standards, but we have to admit that, judged solely on the results of the U20′s, there’s most likely some heartache in the pipeline for rugby folk down south, spefically SA, for a few years to come.

    For SA rugby to survive we need politics to fuck off and somehow to negotiate integration into the northern hemisphere competitions.

    Makes sense time zone and money wise.

  • Comment 128, posted at 24.06.16 20:57:05 by Spirit of Rugby Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @coolfusion (Comment 125) : On the other bright side, players earning Yen are smiling :grin:

  • Comment 129, posted at 24.06.16 21:17:41 by Spirit of Rugby Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld
    Spirit of RugbyTeam captain
     
  • @Spirit of Rugby (Comment 128) : Speaking of the final…how incredible is this story about 14-man (since the 18th minute) Racing leading Toulon by 12 with 14 minutes to go!!!

  • Comment 130, posted at 24.06.16 22:25:07 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
    pastorsharkCoach
     
  • Hmm…Toulon score with 9 minutes to go…this will be a nailbiter…26-21…

  • Comment 131, posted at 24.06.16 22:31:24 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
    pastorsharkCoach
     
  • Carter has a chance to seal it with a minute to play…

  • Comment 132, posted at 24.06.16 22:41:31 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
    pastorsharkCoach
     
  • He nails…and incredibly that will be it!!

  • Comment 133, posted at 24.06.16 22:42:28 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
    pastorsharkCoach
     
  • Down to 14 men with the score at 3-3 and 62 minutes to go…in the final…and they win 29-21!!! Unbelievable…

  • Comment 134, posted at 24.06.16 22:44:35 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
    pastorsharkCoach
     
  • Unbelievable scenes…well done…

  • Comment 135, posted at 24.06.16 22:47:27 by pastorshark Reply
    Friend of Sharksworld Administrator
    pastorsharkCoach
     

Add Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.