A rather unseemly spat is playing out in the media at present, with current and former senior Sharks stakeholders – who really should know better, you’d think – taking swipes at one another via the pages of the province’s newspapers, rather than picking up the phone and talking to each other like civilised people.
It all began on Friday, when former Chief Executive Brian van Zyl penned a letter to the Mercury, alleging serious financial issues at the Sharks and laying the blame squarely at the feet of his replacement John Smit. While light on real detail, van Zyl certainly pulled no punches, writing that “in good conscience I believe that all stakeholders, including loyal supporters of the Sharks, should be informed that, under the stewardship of Smit, the KZNRU president Graham Mackenzie and the board, The Sharks has deteriorated from a sound financial position to that approximating insolvency.”
Van Zyl points to the apparent lack of approved and published financial statements for the last fiscal year as further evidence that something major is amiss.
In a rebuttal published in the Daily News on Saturday, KZN Rugby Union chairman Graeme McKenzie had a good old play “at the man”, alleging that van Zyl “has allowed both his memory and judgement to be clouded by a personal vendetta”. Unfortunately, there wasn’t much in that statement other than personal attacks on van Zyl, with McKenzie leaving the ball unplayed – and the elephant still very firmly in the room.
“It is simply wrong to suggest the Sharks are financially unstable. As Brian very well knows, each of the provincial unions faces significant financial challenges and these problems pre-date his departure,” is what McKenzie has to say. To my mind, if a statement (based on no shared facts) is to be branded “simply wrong”, then the best way to make that counter claim stick is to provide facts to back it up.
As a fan, I perhaps speak for others in saying that we not interested in playground name-calling here, gentlemen. We get that you don’t like each other, but in all honesty, we don’t care. What we do care about is the health and viability of our union and if there’s a genuine issue here, let’s get the facts on the table and figure out how we are JOINTLY going to solve it.
It starts, I would think, with the audited financial statements for the past year. Let’s get those out and share the headline numbers (revenue, expenditure, P&L) and understand how they have moved over the last few years. Do that and we’ll know where we stand and won’t have to talk of “vendettas”, but can rather address the real issue.
Tweet
I thought you said no politics on the website 😯 😆
Agree, it starts with those audited financial statements. Van Zyl mentioned that they were always available in April under his tenure. Lets see them.
BJ is not going for John here,he has already resigned,he has a bigger agenda,he might regret opening this can of worms though.
Seems all is not well in Sharks country indeed. Remember where there is smoke there is fire. Nobody will throw out public allegations without some substance. The current sharks model does not seem to be sustainable as there arent many investors.
@SheldonK (Comment 4) : Exactly, plus how much money has JS thrown out the windows due to his personal vendettas? I said it from the start, JS may have been a good captain, but that does not make him a good CEO or Coach or anything else for that matter.
Rather childish measuring contest. I might’ve taken what BvZ had to say more seriously if not for “good conscience” then proceeding to try to highlight how amazing he was and how rubbish everyone else is.
Good time for the sharks to be 100% honest with their supporters.will still support the team.just be clear and honest.that is fair,right?
grab some popcorn boys, its amateur-hour in Durban.
@SheldonK (Comment 4) : Indeed where there is smoke there is fire, but Brian van Zyl seems to have had an axe to grind since this departure. Wasn’t there whispers of financial mismanagement under his watch? Could this be him trying to get some of his own back by shining a light on John Smits short comings in charge?
First off Brian van Zyl won precious little when CEO however he claims that when he left the franchise was making profit. Leigh Heard was apparently disciplined for financial irregularities. It is worth noting that she was at The Sharks for nearly 23 years. Neither she nor for that matter Brian van Zyl have been charged with wrongdoing. Heard I believe has taken her case to CCMA and did so 2 years ago but no finding or resolution has been made public that I am aware of. van Zyl wrote his open letter in his capacity as President of Durban Collegians and I believe that he must have cleared that with his club. The reason is that the financials of the body made up of shareholders The Sharks (Pty) Ltd; KZNRU and Supersport have not been presented to the AGM which should have been held in April. As a Pty The Sharks have no responsibility to “publish” their financials for 2015. It is apparent that several poorly handled contracts which have had to be paid out has cost a lot of money. Other “investors” are unhappy and suite-holders have dwindled. One wonders why such a favoured partner like Mr Price should lose faith. I agree that Graham McKenzie’s retort had little or no substance, but why? Why has Smit resigned if, as McKenzie claims, he has done a sound job? To look out for his family at age 38 when in one of the better jobs in rugby – all things being well in the boardroom? I agree with The Hound, BJ has an agenda which is, I believe, in the interests of the clubs.
@Hulk (Comment 9) : Was thinking the same thing. Forensic audit showed irregularities when he was in charge, and fixing those would surely have had an impact on the current financials.
Clearly Van Zyl has an ax to grind, who wouldnt in his position. I doubt too much that there can have been any serious financial impropriety that was picked up on his watch or else he would never have come out all guns blazing about that very thing – financial accountability.
This is so NOT NEEDED RIGHT now
If I was a stakeholder I’d be a little worried that no financials were available at an AGM.
But as a supporter the only thing I give a damn about is my team’s performance on the field.
And right now, the Sharks aren’t looking too great in that department either, so that’s my main concern.
@Sharkfinn (Comment 13) : it is unpleasant,yes,but maybe this is just what the union needs.just bring it all in the open once and for all and then draw a line and start new.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 12) : exactly! who can blame for having an axe to grind?
I cannot believe how badly this has been handled,or is it intentional,spread just enough shit to get people smelling and let them fan the rumour flames
The comments on this site are a very polite version of the shit storm that is about to break.
The losers the Sharks and the people who make them what they are the faithful sos of bitches that support them through thick and thin.
I cannot believe anyone who has the well being of the union at heart would start this.
@The hound (Comment 17) : “I cannot believe anyone who has the well being of the union at heart would start this.” but when was it started – to me the answer is 3 or so years ago while Smit was still playing rugby overseas and some genius’ on the Sharks board decided that they should just install him as CEO, this in response to the outcry of the anti Plum brigade and the fact that Van Zyl was about to extend Plums contract.
Those guys that rode roughshod over Van Zyl in installing Smit as CEO are the real lot that should be held accountable.
Shots fired
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 18) : Look when BJ left a lot of others left with him ,including Kamp Staaldraad,
there was a serious purge, from the top down that I don’t think had anything to do with Plum.
Plum and John was another feud all together.
@The hound (Comment 20) : Not Plum per se, but Van Zyl extending his contract possibly. I dont know if you read Sharksworld in those days but there was a groundswell of anti Plum sentiment here with guys starting Face Book pages asking for Plum removal. I think the powers that be felt that the groundswell was so against Plum and lo and behold the then CEO had already drawn up a contract extension.
@The hound (Comment 20) : From a post of mine a while ago……..
“My addittional points
“Durban – A staggering 227 years of rugby coaching, managerial and administrative experience has been lost to the Sharks since the change of leadership from former chief executive Brian van Zyl to former Bok captain John Smit.”
THE DEPARTED:
l Brian van Zyl: Former chief executive – 20 years
l John Plumtree: Former coach – 7 years
l Garth Giles: Director of coaching – 19 years
l Hans Scriba: Academy MD – 22 years
l Rudolf Straeuli: Sharks communications manager – 13 years
l Colin Heard: KZN Rugby Union and Sharks general manager – 16 years
l Paul Ackerman: KZNRU Referee – 22 years
l Clinton Isaacs: Technical analyst – 15 years
l Swys de Bruin: Academy coach – 12 years
l Hugh Reece-Edwards: Sharks assistant coach – 8 years
l Grant Bashford: Sharks assistant coach – 7 years
l Megan Harris: Public relations manager –
15 years
l Piet Strydom: Admin manager – 20 years
l Gavin Melville: Junior Procurement – 17 years
l Roelof Kotze: Academy manager – 14 years
The full article can be read here http://www.iol.co.za/dailynews/news/sharks-mass-exodus-denied-1.1653088#.Vfe8JFV97IU”
There are a few more names that can be added since them, Smits being the latest.
Its not comfotable reading.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 21) : John ‘s war with Plum started when PdeV realised that his only hope in hell of keeping his job was for John to captain the Bok team and control the egos in that team for him.
John was already on his way out playing pension rugby overseas.In those days a Bok captain had to be shore based.
PdeV and Hoskins persuaded the Sharks to take him back.This seriously pissed off the duPlessis brothers and they transferred that pressure to Plum who in fact was happy with Bismarck as his hooker and did not want John back.
Plum set about converting John into a prop and seriously fucked with him making him gain weight and giving him no respect,the respect that aWorld Cup winning captain and Bok captain deserved.
John ‘s first act as a C.E O. was to tell Plum to collect his wages on his way out
I think the audited financials need to be produced along with the findings of the forensic audit. The kak needs to be fixes wether along diplomatic lines or other cause this nonsense is destroying the sharks from the inside out
@The hound (Comment 23) : Thats an interesting take on things but, if correct, just shows how bad a choice it was if he let his personal issues cloud his judgement and he set about settling scores. The warning signs should have been flickering then already.
@The hound (Comment 23) : according to your theory ,converting smit to no3 prop (was this not done on the request of pdiv?),should not have appeassed them either,since one of the duo was playing in that very same position ,no3.very speculative comment by you .
@benji (Comment 24) : I actually thought things were starting to settle down this year and then soon after Jacques Potgieter was shown the door and went public with a tweet this happened.
Agreed, Sharks really need a strong figure to now take the reins and save what there is to save.
@The hound (Comment 23) : @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 25) : Shit if thats true, its a moer of an indictment on Smit. Do you really think he got rid of Plum for not picking him? But wait now, did he really think he deserved to be picked ahead of Bismarck?
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 28) : He was the Bok captain and was ahead of Bismarck in that team,I reiterate he had retired as a World cup winning captain,played 100 tests and he was sought out and convinced to return to the game,and you think he should have been happy on the bench for the sharks,your coffee is cold.
@The hound (Comment 29) : Not saying he shouldve been happy, just saying it was an obvious mistake for anyone to pick him over Bismarck in the form he was in back then. Remember Plum shouldnt have to pay for whatever the latest moron coaching the boks decides to do. I must ad that I enjoy your comments. I always come on here and page through the comments looking for the Hound.
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 30) : sometimes a good player should be sacrificed for a good leader,something the Boks haven’t had since John retired.
John for me as captain was a better option than Bismarck as a player.
@The hound (Comment 31) : very true indeed, as a player him and Bismarck at that stage was not even in the same universe, but taking his abilities as a captain into consideration and you have something special in him
as you say since smith we did not have the same caliber captain that could rally the troops, and at the same time work the ref into a favorite position for the boks
@The hound (Comment 31) : that is not an argument we should go into imo.both were great players for the sharks and the boks.
@The hound (Comment 31) : I am sorry, but I do not agree with you at all. How many cups has JS won the Sharks?
@Uli Boelie (Comment 34) : very nearly 1
Who were the sharks captains 2008-2011?
@50shadesofshark (Comment 36) : Johan Muller and Stefan Terblanche
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 35) : Also very nearly won the Currie Cup a few times before 1990 which on the end counted as nothing.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 37) : almost once playing in the b-section.
@Uli Boelie (Comment 37) : thank you.thought so.
With the information publicly available regarding the Sharks finances, it’s easy to conclude that the Sharks are in trouble.
Anyone one of us with a vendetta (I’m looking at you Salmo :twisted:), could pen accusations of financial mismanagement , based on the Plum saga, JW saga, Bothma & Jacpot sagas etc.
But none of us have a clue as to how much money has been streaming in.
To me, BvZ is being a bitter old man…McKenzie should have been the better man though.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 40) : Look all you want, fact is your horse has turned out to be a bit of a nag. Seems like it was Smit that had the vendetta. McKenzie probably a better man but also not one in a position to make any statements on money matters.
#paybackthemoney….. too soon? 🙂
@SheldonK (Comment 42) : 😀 😀 too soon!!
@FireTheLooser (Comment 40) : BvZ has some right to be bitter after all. Look at how much money Smit has cost the Sharks, in reality he brought nothing but instability and extra financial woes to the Sharks. JS tried to fix all this by plastering the Sharks jersey and shorts with sponsor’s. I am pretty sure JS wont be writing about his success as Sharks CEO.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 40) : I would be bitter too if I had to look at Streauli and Swys winning currie cups, JW winning trophies in Europe, and Plum playing in S15 finals. All while our guy writes open apology letters to the fans. #CRINGE Give the man a break, he was one of the people who turned the banana boys into the Sharks. It must be hard to look on while a kid (by comparison) destroys your lifes work.
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 45) : Well said
Regarding the Plum/ Smit saga I was fully behind the axing of Plum. Not in the manner it happened but wasn’t it Mallet who let the cat out the bag in the press which then forced Smit to tell Plum that they were shopping for a new coach. At the time (2013) the Sharks had squeaked through to a wild card place in 2012 and from there made an amazing run to the final, but in 2013 it was back to the middle of the table again and I felt Plum had given the Sharks everything he had and we needed some new ideas. He was a great servent of Sharks rugby but we were seriously in need of a new coach. Smit was clearly having trouble finding a replacement and probably wouldn’t have canned Plum until he found one. Mallets comments in the press forced Smit to admit he was shopping and therefore the Sharks had to rush and get a new Coach.
I feel the right call was made removing Plum (Brian van Zyls good mate) and Smit might have even enjoyed it but sill feel it was the right way to go. Jake White seemed like a great idea, who knew it was going to turn out the way it did.
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 45) : Very interesting comment and paints a picture for van Zyl.
@Hulk (Comment 47) : Why axe the coach just because he hasnt won everyting he could, what is wrong with him seeing out his contract and then replacing him.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 49) : When you look at that list of people above who were axed,it was obviously spring cleaning time at the Sharks,so why would you want to keep the coach.Remember Venter was also in the frame.
@The hound (Comment 50) : It was a purge, the coach was of the first to go and the others followed.for what – certainly not for the betterment of our team or we would not be talking about this right now. Who in their right minds get rid of all that intellectual capital and replaces it with a nice guy rugby player. Why?
apparently Saad will give his explanation of the financial situation in the Daily News tomorrow
Smit got us a CC in his first year at the helm, and a 3rd place SR in his first as ceo – he then lost the plot…maybe JW gave him lip, and he enjoyed himself a power trip.
At the end of the day – and as Rob said – BvZ washing his laundry in a local newspaper is poor form…certainly not to the benefit of the Sharks and us fans….spreading rumours like that should be left to news24.
@robdylan (Comment 52) : So the Daily News now the preferred mouthpiece of the Sharks – I suppose The Mercury publishing BvZ’s vendetta-letter has done them no favours.
The burning question is why didn’t Brian van Zyl and Graeme McKenzie start this squabble on Facebook? It reads like a Facebook argument – it belongs on Facebook. I suspect there’s a deeper conspiracy at work here where mysterious forces are trying to make the Mercury and the Daily News relevant again.
@vanmartin (Comment 55) : you mean the company that owns both of them?
@robdylan (Comment 52) : @FireTheLooser (Comment 54) : the right way to do it is not in the news papers but if it must be made public rather place it on the Sharks website so that all Sharks supporters can find it and read it!
Sharks isn’t a public listed company, so no need to publish their Financials? 100% sure the actual stakeholders gets their monthly management packs and updates as they need or request them. Van zyl just shit stirring.
@vanmartin (Comment 55) : Now that’s a conspiracy theory that I can sink my teeth in. 😈
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 51) : You got your facts the wrong way around ,Plum was the last to go,and the only one to go under John’s CEO tenure,how could he fire B.J. he wasn’t even employed then.
Sad state of affairs. Keen to see Saad’s version of events, but I’m glad that we got rid of Van Zyl and Plumtree – we were stale under them.
That said, the manner of the removals was not ideal and until this year we’ve been rudderless.
A lot of opinions, very few facts…I think I’ll wait until we hear some actual details before I wade in with my opinion. I am concerned, though…
@robdylan (Comment 56) : I was actually angling towards the mysterious third force
He didnt fire van Zyl but Plum was not the last to go, Smit actually got rid of him before he had even officially taken over the post of CEO. Van Zyl was still in office when Smit did the dirty to Plum.
@robdylan (Comment 52) : That makes no sense, the open letter is written to a certain paper and the Sharks eventually reply in a different publication. Where is the logic in that Sharks admin.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 64) : Smit’s firing of all the stale ones is not the issue here – his cavalier attitude towards the Sharks finances is.
I don’t doubt that the board told Smit to “spend more time with his young family”, his record with the Sharks bottomline makes for dire reading. He got the Sharks a lot more sponsors, but wasted it on paying out settlements and players’ medical bills – for that, he needs to be held accountable.
But for cleaning house, he needs to be applauded.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 66) : The act of cleaning house is the main reason for his record with the Sharks bottomline.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 66) : Stale, the buzzword around here nowadays….. pah they delivered, are still delivering and will still deliver while the regenerated, fresh and vibrant saviours trip over their own feet at almost every turn.
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 67) : Correct.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 66) : wasted it on paying out players’ medical bills”
How is this his fault ?
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 69) : Wrong he never cleared the house it was done before he was appointed ,he was responsible for Plum and White
@The hound (Comment 70) : He headed up player procurement – decided to allow a guy like Jackpot a free stay at the SHarks medical facilities, and then allowed him to get out of his contract.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 68) : How many SR trophies have they won to date at their respective teams?
Brendan Venter proved how easy it was to win a CC title, JW proved how easy it was to reach SR semi-final.
Sharks need to win the SR trophy, why stick with the tried and tested, when they failed on multiple occasions to get the SR trophy in the cabinet?
@FireTheLooser (Comment 72) : So he was entirely responsible for procurement, so we have him alone to thank for the signing of Willie,Peterson,Claassens,,Botha,April,those alone should balance out the one bad egg,who by the way was welcomed with open arms on these pages.
@The hound (Comment 74) : My point was with regards to money being wasted.
Plenty of good signings under his belt, no doubt.
@The hound (Comment 71) :Nope,see here @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 22) :
the most astounding decision yet has to be letting go of conference winner Jake White at the behest of the senior players, most of whom packed up and left the very next season. #leadership #foresight
@FireTheLooser (Comment 75) : I hate the whole kick a man when he’s down syndrome.John’s one mistake was Jake White,but at the time it was regarded as a stroke of genius.
I still think Venter seriously undermined White,he was always in the frame when something positive was about ,and away in his practice in Cape Town or at Saracens when something bad was prevalent.
I also firmly believe that if Jake had been allowed one or two more seasons we would have won the Super competition.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 76) : All those decisions were made before John was appointed why is it so hard for you to understand,how could John have fired B.J when he only took the job after B.J was fired.All except Plum.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 73) : Of course we want them to win every trophy available but dont tear down the house in an attempt to do it. Go and read Robs latest article to see where our rugby is at, at the moment.
@The hound (Comment 79) : Sigh, faceslap, ok I will paste the actual words here if you dont want to follow the link ……”Durban – A staggering 227 years of rugby coaching, managerial and administrative experience has been lost to the Sharks since the change of leadership from former chief executive Brian van Zyl to former Bok captain John Smit.”
the million dollar words there are SINCE.and FROM.
@The hound (Comment 79) : I dont recall saying that Smit fired BJ or that BJ was even fired.
I did read on another site that the great Bryce in Oz reckons that BJ was fired for gross financial incompetence but then again that guy does like making it up as he goes along.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 81) : Your information is correct but your interpretation sucks big time,you are claiming John was responsible for that loss of leadership.He was the result of that purge and came in after it happened,there is a huge difference between that and your insinuation that he caused it.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 82) : lets put it another way does B.J.sound like a guy who resigned.
@The hound (Comment 83) :
Having a carefully nurtured and treasured grudge will do that to ya. Facts become pegs to be hammered into the convenient holes.
@The hound (Comment 84) : Now there’s some perspective right there.
Don’t worry guys, we still have Jacques Botes on the bench 😎
@The hound (Comment 83) : Are you implying that all those people were given the boot?
Wow, ok let me get this rght then, so all those guys were ‘purged” before Smit rode into town (or onto the the practice fields). Two questions then, who did the “purging”, dont answer BVZ and 2, why did they wait for Smit to take up residence before heading for the hills.
@The hound (Comment 83) : @Big Fish (Comment 85) : @FireTheLooser (Comment 86) : Get a room guys, you can discuss the merits of the next great fantasy novel (or even pen it yourselves) If that doesnt grab your fancy you can play around with FB pages and hashtags. 😈
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 88) : You have obviously never been terminated,normally you are given a period of notice.
@The hound (Comment 84) : I think he retired, with the intention of biding his time till the opportunity came to put the dagger in and twist it.
@The hound (Comment 90) : Who terminated them, and why, remember it must be before Smits time but cant be BVZ
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 92) : The board most organisations and unions have one,sheet I can’t believe i have to the that
@The hound (Comment 93) : Yeah right, seems that the board has a lot more to answer for than their brainwave to appoint Smit.
So has Saad tol the Daily News how flush we are yet?
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 89) :
I never thought that I’d have reason to describe you as bitchy, but that was truly Kardashian-like.
I do however confess my admiration for your steadfast loyalty to Plumtree and van Zyl.
Having met both, it’s clear that your infatuation is not based on physical attraction, which therefore speaks volumes of the non-superficial characteristics that you apparently find attractive in a man.
Well I think we will all be friends again if we get lucky enough to get Edward Griffiths to come and run the show. It could prove to be the most important signing in the history of the Sharks.
@Big Fish (Comment 96) : Awww you took offence, I thought I was being light hearted so you obviously took it up the wrong way – there must be something there that struck a nerve but I cant imagine what. I thought that this smilling 😈 guy indicated that Im stirring in a playful way. Sorry if I upset you.
BTW what is a Kardashian – you have lost me there.
“Having met both, it’s clear that your infatuation is not based on physical attraction, which therefore speaks volumes of the non-superficial characteristics that you apparently find attractive in a man.” …… eh What does this mean?, I suspect its also something “bitchy,” is that a Kardashian like thing you just did there? 😈
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 97) : Yes and Dickie Muir will come in tandem and Gold can go back to coaching the Datsun Dirt trackers in the J league.
@West Indies Cricket Board (Comment 97) : That we will all indeed be.
@The hound (Comment 99) : Not so sure about Dick Muir, I think he shines when he has a strong technical coach at his side (Plum’s best attribute).
@The hound (Comment 99) : Isnt he growing vegetables in the Vryheid area thesedays.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 100) : I was replying to the comment that Griffiths is on his way,and that as far as I know Dickie and him are very tight.I remember seeing them together at Remos and at a Sharks game earlier this year.
I for one won’t shed any tears on Gold’s exit.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 101) : Planting cabbages,coaching cabbages just semantics
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 98) :
Uuuhm, was similarly light-hearted. I must remember to include smilies…
@Big Fish (Comment 104) :
😆 😆 😆
@The hound (Comment 99) : leave Datsun out of this 😉
@Big Fish (Comment 105) : Much better. 😆
@JD (Comment 106) : Reckon Gold could even fuck that name up.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 100) : Rob DuPreez is a strong technical coach…no?
@Dancing Bear (Comment 109) : My thinking was more along the lines of Muir being the player’s buddy figure, with Plum being the brains behind the operation (seemed to be the 2007 setup).
Rob du Preez ticks both boxes, knows how to think rugby, as well as work with the players…give him James Smal and we’ll be golden, just needs more experience at SR level.
Sharks need a DoR, able to put structures in place – Muir definitely does not fit that bill, not sure Gold does either.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 95) : seems not. Maybe tomorrow?
@Hound
My list of poor form or just popr decisions by JS is a liittle longer.
Fishing for a new coach before telling Plum his contract won’t be renewed.
The remote part time arrangement with Venter.
The high school coach.
Not backing White.
Gold’s entry last year.
The not welcome messages to players last year.
These are all leadership failures which is surprising given his previous position.
Messy finances would be more within expectations.
Ultimately the blame lies with the splendid chaps on the BOD.
@fyndraai (Comment 112) : I feel I need to do this not because I am a John Smit apologist,but because I think you are so wrong on so many of those.
Firstly he was totally within his rights to sound out potential coaches before he gave notice to his current one,the disgrace there was Mallets disgusting display of vindictiveness.
Venter was ensconced in the works before John arrived,so I don’t think John was responsible for his contractual arrangements.
Brad won a Currie Cup in his first session as a coach,but then you are going say it was part time Venter’s cup.If that was the case then Venter should take the blame for the later part of that partnership,as well..
We don’t know if he did or didn’t back White,so much crap has been surmised
I agree totally on Gold,and hell every year players are terminated
I personally think if John had continued his partnership with White and let arrogant players and staff leave ( which they did) instead of trying to buy their favour he would have still had the job minus the bad procurement decisions the dark cloud on his track record and probably the best and most well alanved/matched team on the books. But we all take the wrong path sometimes and end up in places we never dreamed. As for financial mismanagement. Yes probably true. Unintentional maybe but true. Too many little boo boos accumulate…
There is a difference between acting within your rights and doing the right thing.
In this case the right thing would have been to inform Plum. Be nice. Ask him to stay for an orderly transition. Add a sweetener. Then and only then start to sound out others.
I cannot think of anyway in which this would have played out worse than what actually transpired.
@robdylan (Comment 111) : maybe told to leave it?!?!
@coolfusion (Comment 114) : What bad procurement, :
” minus the bad procurement decisions the dark cloud on his track record ”
Potgieter,who else must be a helluva lot to throw a bad cloud on his track record
@fyndraai (Comment 116) : informing the employee about to be dismissed is good practice.the person about to lose his job needs to be given the earliest possible opportunity to start working on finding new employment,especially if that person also has a wife and family to support.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 118) : You are confusing dismissal with not renewing a contact,two very different scenarios.Plum was on a contract,and no contract comes with a guaranteed renewal.
@50shadesofshark (Comment 118) :
Jake White new that his contract would not be renewed after the WC. It probably motivated him into more effort to enhance his next prospects.
The best course of action for Plum would have been something similar.
Most contract renewals come with a performance clause and only Arsene Wegner gets hid contract renewed in perpetuity,without winning shit.
@The hound (Comment 78) : I fully agree in fact the very next season
@Dragnipur (Comment 58) : just what if they did not?
@The hound (Comment 113) :
I find it interesting how you shift blame to Mallett.
Mallett’s actions did hurt the Sharks’ interests only because it revealed and was predicated on Smit’s previous activities. You cannot judge Mallett without also judging Smit.
Smit was acting as an agent for the Sharks. He was under obligation to act in the best interest of the Sharks. Mallett was not.
Your agent’s actions harmed your interest, yet you focus on the other guy.
@fyndraai (Comment 120) : that will depend on what management told him. If they told him he will get his contract renewed why would he need to look for something else?
@The hound (Comment 119) : like I commented it will depend on what management told him. If they told him his contract will be renewed why would he have to look for a new job?
@JD (Comment 126) : As far as I remember, BvZ guaranteed Plum a 2 year contract extension….BvZ was also supposed to stick around for the first 6 months of Smit’s appointment.
All of that went out the window, and judging by BvZ’s vendetta-letter, it wasn’t by mutual agreement.
@JD (Comment 125) : Management told Plumtree that his contract would be extended, instead they stuffed a lot of cash in his back pocket.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 127) : Apparently BVZ was to mentor Smit and show him the ropes. who knows maybe BVZ, having done a proffessional job for years just could not stomach the whole process of a current rugby player walking in and running one of the worlds top unions – a job he was given, didnt apply for and had no credentials to fill.
This ties in with another pertinent point of that letter BVZ wrote to the Mercury and that is the appointment of a new CEO. He was also very critical of the current advert for someone in this position being only placed on the Sharks website and the short window period for applications.One would hope that the Sharks would have learnt the lesson of appointing the right person for the job this time around so I presume that they already have someone lined up and thats why they have not advertised extensively.
@robdylan (Comment 52) : Was this hearsay or was it published somewhere. If it was a formal statement then it worries me that it never happened.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 127) : @Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 128) : that’s my point! Management told him (and apparently signed) that his contract will be renewed so can’t blame Plum for seeking compensation for breach of contract!
@fyndraai (Comment 124) :As I understand it Mallet was sounded out in confidence that if the job became available would he be interested,which in business and this is business,is a perfectly acceptable process.Only an idiot would terminate an integral member of his infrastructure without having an identified a replacement.Mallett was not actually offered the job.
He then went to the media knowing full well the confidentiality of the situation and that Plum had not been made aware of it,and told them he had turned down the job..
Do you wonder why Mallett is sitting in theSuper sport studios doing his Walter Matthau impersonation,nobody with a job offer will go any where near him ,the man has no business ethics.
What is apparent from all of this is that JS appointment is just like the BMH appointment, Both had no grounds to be there, yet they would be “groomed” to fame.
@Salmonoid the Subtle (Comment 129) : @Uli Boelie (Comment 133) : I agree, John Smit should not have been made Ceo (though I thought it would be a good idea at the time), Strauelli’s commercial manager position might have been better suited to Smit’s talents, as that seems to be the only area where he has shone as ceo.
@The hound (Comment 132) : “…doing his Walter Matthau impersonation…” Priceless! 😆 😆 😆
@The hound (Comment 132) : England was dumb enough to make the same mistake as Smit, Mallet again proudly opened his trap about it, and Lancaster read about this in the newspapers before England told him that his contract would be terminated.
@The hound (Comment 132) : @Culling Song (Comment 135) : 😆
@The hound (Comment 132) : I have a suspicion that Mallet prefers playing armchair coach from the comfort of the SuperSport studio where his every uttered word is then enshrined on the SA rugby mag website the following day. Given the choice between coaching in SA and doing that, it’s probably not that difficult a choice.
@vanmartin (Comment 138) : Considering how much Supersport is paying him so say what he likes even if controversial it definitely sounds better than actually coaching where you get criticised daily and your job is on the line weekly.
@SheldonK (Comment 139) : The Super sport money is not great,look at Naas declaring himself insolvent.
Mallett has such a huge ego that he probably would do it for free,just so he could replay the footage at home while he admires himself in the bath.
@The hound (Comment 140) : Naas doesnt get paid as much as Mallet. And he cant manage his financial affairs. Trust me Mallet is on very decent money…not as much as Skinstad who is the highest paid but still very good for pretty much no risk or ridicule.
@SheldonK (Comment 141) : I think you are wrong,Naas started that show years ago with Darren Scott,he must have equity in it,he is also a permanent feature in the show whereas Mallet is a studio guest,although he thinks he is the focal point.
@The hound (Comment 142) : I have a good friend involved in the finances at multichoice. Naas isnt paid as much as he doesnt do that much besides rock up and say a few things. Rob Marawa is the most paid guy at Supersport followed by Skinstad. Mallet is also on very decent pay.
@SheldonK (Comment 143) : I will bow to your superior knowledge then,must admit I did a lot of work with them years ago when Darren was involved but have done very little in the past 10 years.
Naas was and I am not sure if he still is a big share holder in the Sharks academy,he was one of the guys that set it up based on Mexted’s school in N.Z.
Naas is a clever businessman,maybe he is our next C.E.O
@The hound (Comment 144) : From what i understand Naas put his finger in a lot of pies and does good work initially but his financial management skills are not good and he lands himself in trouble and having to sell or withdraw his stake from some of the pies he has. From what i understand too Mallet is purely hired for his confrontational and controverial opinions on the shows etc. Guys like Marawa and Skinstad actually do a lot of work behind the scenes etc and a guy like Xola is also working hard but not the most technically astute. They are apparently under pressure to change the old school panel like discussions etc to cater for the new generation so guess will see what develops there.
Any indication from the Sharks when the new CEO will be appointed?
@SheldonK (Comment 145) : Was that the reasoning behind Jean de Villiers’ appointment?…thus far, he’s been rather poor in front of the camera – not much different to his past 4 years in a Bok jersey.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 147) : I havnt asked but i would suspect its more an experiment than anything. The thinking being that the views of the previous Bok captain would be liked by viewers. Think they did a similar thing with Matfield. Perhaps a bit harsh that on DeVilliers who was a good player and not many good 12s in SA of late…he should never have shifted to 13.
@SheldonK (Comment 148) : Since Tex left there the quality of presenters has deteriorated to the lowest common denominator,Paulse is my worst,he mumbles crap all the time and Ashwin after all these years still can’t operate that screen.
But the two bimbos on the show seriously have me heading for the remote,neither has a clue about rugby and its a rugby show.
You wouldn’t put Mallett on a hip hop show would you, so why shoe horn these people into a rugby show.
Thank God for Netflicks
@FireTheLooser (Comment 147) : Strange, I rather enjoyed the de Villiers’ cameo. He seemed less scripted, more genuine in his opinions. Different stokes I guess 😀
@vanmartin (Comment 150) : Problem for me with de Villiers, he’s still speaking as if he’s being interviewed….then again, only Xola, Tony Ndoro and that kiwi in the mornings has a professional vibe about them.
The rest, decidedly amateur.
…another thing Sevens rugby gets right, at halftime, we listen to the teams and their coaches – no weekend experts with their flawed interpretations. Doubt SS will ever catch on to this, unless someone else does it first.
@The hound (Comment 149) : Think Tex did well leaving when he did.
@FireTheLooser (Comment 151) : I enjoyed Mitchell and Campo as well
@The hound (Comment 153) : Campo was cool. Mitchell i think too technical for most so think there werent sure if he was good or not haha