Border burns ... again
The Border Rugby Union has been suspended by the South African Rugby Union (Saru) because they are in a financial mess four years after they emerged from the previous one.
What this takeover actually means is that the whole administration is to be taken over by a Saru-appointed administrator. All financial and operational decisions will be taken by the administrator.
The present executive led by Phumlani Mkolo will be rendered powerless as all their constitutional powers have been ceded to the administrator.
All meetings of the Saru general council and decisions taken there will go ahead without any input from Border.
They can not vote and practically do not exist as a constitutional entity until they emerge from this latest meltdown. I agree with the step taken by Saru as a last-gasp measure to save the more than 100-year-old union.
It would have been a travesty if Saru stood by and allowed the union to go bust.
However, one has to dig a little deeper and ask, “What exactly are the underlying reasons for the collapse of Border rugby?”
It would be easy to say it is because Border clubs elected a politician who had no time for rugby as its president. It would be easy to point out the fact that because of Mkolo’s controversy as he faces fraud and corruption charges related to the scandal surrounding the funeral of former president Nelson Mandela in December 2013, many sponsors would want nothing to do with Border rugby.
Some would say it is because there is a lack of quality in the second layer of leadership in that executive. No one has the gumption to go against Mkolo and his absence leads to paralysis – if Mkolo is not around, no decision is made. No one asks what role Saru played in the rapid deterioration of the financial situation in Border.
They are now seen as the knight in shining armour swooping in to save the union in distress. Are they there as an honest party or are they there to cover up their part in the mess? Are they there to kill off the court case brought by Griffons, Boland, Leopards, Border and Valke?
These unions are contesting the 52% slashing of their allocation from Saru which was only announced in December last year.
Are they eliminating Border from that list? We have seen this move by Saru before, when they could not run away from the commitment to enter Southern Spears in Super Rugby in 2007. They simply “bought” controlling stakes in both EP and Border and killed off any resistance.
Mind you, player contracts are concluded in October, so when the subsidy was slashed, Border was stuck with contracts they could no longer afford.
So Saru has also contributed to the malaise, have they not?