The ink has not yet dried on the Blue Bulls contract of Griquas and Springbok wing Bjorn Basson and already there have been major consequences for the Griqualand West Rugby Union (GWRU).
It is believed that they did not consult Super 15 partners Free State and the Griffons in the decision to make Basson available to the Bulls.
The Cheetahs will now be seeking legal advice to determine whether the GWRU had disregarded the policy for the transfer of Super 14 players that had been signed by all three provinces.
If that has happened, legal steps may be taken against Griquas and in an extreme scenario his contract with the Blue Bulls may even be voided.
Basson is due to report for duty in Pretoria on November 1 once he has completed his Currie Cup duties with Griquas.
Cheetahs managing director Harold Verster was in a tele-conference with Griquas and the Griffons on Tuesday morning in which Basson’s move was discussed in depth.
The Cheetahs paid 60% of Basson’s Super 14 salary.
“In light of what has happened, the Cheetahs’ executive committee gave approval for us to seek legal advice on the matter,” said Verster.
“As soon as we have received the necessary recommendations there will be a special directors meeting where the findings, and the consequences thereof, will be discussed,” said Verster.
The Cheetahs are currently locked in a legal battle with the Sharks about the services of another wing, Lionel Mapoe.
The loss of Basson will be another setback for the Cheetahs ahead of next year’s Super 15.
“Bjorn is one of the Cheetahs’ top players. We are making every attempt to keep our star players in the region. We have to protect our interests,” said Verster.
Griquas chief executive Arni van Rooyen did not want to comment.
60: waar is oom Louis Luyt met sy faksmasjien, dat hy hulle sommer almal kan faks !
@ 4man:
Die Vrystaters is maar moeilik om mee besigheid te doen, ek hoor laasweek n ou se dat hulle die heel dag stry oor 50 sent per kilogram op n skaap. Dink net hoeveel geld hul kon spaar as hulle die ding binne minute afgehandel het.
So by the way wie weet hoeveel games Basson vir die S14 Cheetahs gespeel het die jaar. Was hy n regular?
superBul wrote:
50 sent per/kg op n 2 tand hammel geslag, is n kas bier man… 🙂 Kan n man mos nou nie blameer as hy sy sente tel nie 🙂
@ superBul:
Ek weet nie Super, maar my mening is hy het nie baie gespeel nie?
Mmmmm, I see some “Legal Opinion” from people who are not Lawyers here…. my goeie flok!
You have to ask a few questions here and look at the wording of Bjorn Basson’s contract(s):
1. Did Basson have a contract ONLY with Griquas and not at all with the Cheetahs Super Franchise whereas the loan / 60% salary deal is PURELY between Griquas and the Cheetahs Super Franchise? If so, the Bulls DID NOT NEED Cheetahs Super franchise permission to sign Basson, neither did Basson have the obligation to ask permission or inform the Cheetahs Super Franchise. Griquas might have had an obligation to consult Cheetahs Super Franchise, which only makes them liable for damages to the Cheetahs Super Franchise… no recourse against Basson or the Bulls (they still may try though to stall for time here).
2. If Basson had a contract with both Griquas AND the Cheetahs Super Franchise, it is a totally different scenario!
3. Are the Cheetahs in the blind here and did they or did they not know the Bulls were consulting Griquas and Basson, there are allegations both ways here now….
It appears that the Bulls acted in good faith towards Griquas and Basson, out in the open as well, permissions were obviously granted and a transfer fee negotiated, to my mind the Bulls have dispensed with their legal obligations with respect to fair player trade, which distinguishes this GREATLY from the Mapoe issue…
Anyway, the Law is an ASS, sometimes, and very confusing to laymen mostly….
Interesting scenario, this one!
gbs @ 65
😀 wel, jy gee opinies oor rugby,
nou gee ons rugbykenners maar ons opinies oorie law!! 😆
66@ Ashley:
Bwahahahaha…. TRUE…. hehehe
Maar ek issie so Layman oor rugby soos wat julle is oorie Law nie…. julle is nie net Laymen nie, julle is plain LUI MEN ook….hehehe
@ grootblousmile:
I know quite a bit about contracts law, have you got a copy of the contract/contracts?
68@ 4man:
No, I don’t…. and that’s the problem… we can only speculate. That’s why I ask the above questions, one must ascertain the status of the contracts and the contracting parties first and foremost… then work from there…..
Contracts can be either verbal and / or In writing….. or for that matter a verbal supplement (variance) to a written agreement, however it is standard practice to have a clause in MOST written contracts which states that an Agreement can only be varied when put into writing and signed by all parties involved and I would already assume there is such a clause in the existing agreement(s)…
67: daar is ‘n hele span na daai soort ouens vernoemd: LUI perde. Hoop nie hul staan en raak skielik fluks teen die Flukse Bulle nie !
66: kan jy nie lees nie ? daar staan “Storm” brews over Basson, nie “Stormers” nie ! Julle klomp daaronder ‘brew’ moes heeltyd, al dag, sommer op kantoor ook.
Wat hanna hanna pis pis julle Sharks ondersteuners so ?
Dit is duidelik hierdie is ‘n saak tussen die Griekwas en Cheetahs.
Geen vergelyk te tref tussen die en die skelm streke van Mapoe en die Sharks nie. Die Bulle het al vir Mapoe vergeet toe die Cheetahs aangedui het hy het nog ‘n kontrak en wil nie onderhandel nie. Anders as die “sharks” van KZN. 😯
Ek is op die foon, sal later kom inloer na watter grashalmpies julle nog gaan probeer gryp…
@ grootblousmile:
Yes, thats pretty normal these days in the time of lies and confusion. I will reserve my judgement on the Bulls until all is clear. Interesting that lots of ous here are so confident the “Bulls can do no wrong”. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Even if the contract between Cheetahs and Griquas wasnt explicit, the Bulls legal team must have been aware of it because it was all over the blogs and the press…but they chose to ignore it probably, if this is true then in my book it makes them also culpable, if not legally certainly morally. I dont like the management team at the Sharks (not talking about the players and coaches now) there has always been bullsh!t flying around. I think the single minded bloggers however can be a bit more open in their thinking. JMHO.
74@ 4man:
I agree, let’s wait for the facts to appear.
It’s as clear as mud at the moment.
@ grootblousmile:
I will be on the plane for this weeks matches on Saturday, or at least at the airport, but next week the Sharks have given me some tickets, pity it is only for the Leopards.
76@ 4man:
Good man, mail me your itenirary…
Assumption is the mother of all fluck-ups….
Necessity is the mother of invention… (I recon the Cheetahs finds it necessary to invent a story here, because they slept late on making sure Basson was contracted properly).
Speculation is just as bad…
Rumour is another one I don’t like…
@ grootblousmile:
I think it is pretty clear the Bulls acted on what has been presented to them, so no problems there.
The question remains whether Griquas disclosed everything to them. What I have been told by the guy dealing with these types of contracts is that it could be well argued that given the circumstances, the Griquas contract might well be argued as being an extension of a Super rugby contract given who pays it or how it is divided.
But it would still be tough to challenge this legally if it is not specifically set out which will render the Bulls current contract legal and binding, and the Cheetahs only in a position to sue Griquas…
Very interesting one this.
79@ Morné:
Is there a way you can obtain the Griquas / Basson player contract for us…. does not have to be discussed here, just so you and me could have a squiz at it?
Regarding the contracts… the “Prior in tempore” principle (Earlier in Time principle) will be crucial here… if Basson’s current Griqua contract is dated before the Cheetahs ever paid for Basson’s 60% salary portion, then I can see no way that the Griquas contract can be an EXTENTION of a later Cheetahs Super Franchise contract, it would have to be the other way round…. or not an extention at all.
In other words, Basson’s Griquas player contract should have and most likely existed and Basson played for Kwas BEFORE Basson played for or was reserved to play for the Super 14 Cheetahs….
Unless there was some later renewal… again… pure speculation.
But it is interesting nonetheless.
@ grootblousmile:
I know there was a renewal, hence the decision to split payments, let me see what I can do…
81@ Morné:
Thanks!
Assumption from my side (I know, I know… it’s a fluck-up)… if Basson was a PARTY in ANY contract with the Cheetahs… we would have known it because the Cheetahs would have proclaimed they had a contract with him, forcing the Bulls in a negotiation with them… their beef HAS TO BE with Griquas Union alone… only thing which makes sense.
GBS,
One vital thing I forgot to mention…
When the Cheetahs presented their bid for Super rugby participation (which was later than the other 4 unions of course) there were special mentions and clauses in there to develop talent actively through the feeder unions.
Therefore, the participation agreement from the Cheetahs will differ slightly between them and their associated unions which makes up the Cheetahs Super rugby franchise than it would for the other franchises.
This agreement, on top of individual contracts by these unions will also then possibly play a part and this is another aspect the Cheetahs FRANCHISE is banking on (we need to distinguish between the Cheetahs Rugby Union and Cheetahs Super Rugby franchise who are two different legal entities).
@ grootblousmile:
Quite right, their beef is with Griquas not the Bulls.
But see my previous comment, it might be because of the participation agreement on Super rugby level why this is…
Now we come down to which contract supercedes the other?
Royal mess this.
The Bulls negotiated the deal based on the union contract, the Cheetahs (franchise) is now disputing this because of the Franchise agreement between the unions…
83@ Morné:
Yes, but the paticipation agreement is between the Cheetahs Super Franchise and their feeder Unions (of which the Kwas and Cheetahs are 2 of the feeder Unions)…. players are not PARTIES to that agreement UNLESS their Union Player Contracts state so, unequivically.
@ grootblousmile:
Quite right again, and I doubt this is the case, which again brings it back that the Cheetahs franchise, has beef with Griquas the union, which has no effect on the Bulls dealings and that they now have Basson legally…
My personal opinion, the Griquas knew exactly what they were doing, and there is, as I mentioned, bad blood between the two unions as is.
Griquas also desperately need money, and that is another motivating factor.
The Cheetahs imo, are wasting their time.
86@ Morné:
This all brings you and me back to what we’ve advocated for a long time, that the Unions and Super Franchises are not run professionally or like fully blown business entities and according to sound business principles…. whereas they should be, fark!
That is where all this mess, including the Mapoe mess stems from…. freegin amatures running our beautiful game….
When i posted the first article i was so exited about this great coup, now i feel n bit gatvol, i never thought we would land in hot water. I sommer feel like sending him home and let us use our player who came trough the structures.
But then i look back at the loaned players and realize we need a player like Basson.
Hope teh Legal eagles can sort this out peacefully, we just want a legal clean player PLEASE.
87@ Morné:
Cheetahs seem to be reactive in nature, rather than pro-active…. I have a problem with that.
Met ander woorde, hulle probeer vure agterna doodslaan in plaas van om vure te voorkom.
Users Online
Total 324 users including 0 member, 324 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 41,822,787 Page Impressions
_