Unions that voted in favour of the Ackerley Sports Group’s (ASG) R1.4bn proposal for securing a stake in SA Rugby have criticised the big unions that rejected the deal, saying they had ulterior motives that were aimed to benefit them more and oppress the small unions.
ASG’s proposal to purchase 20% of Saru’s commercial rights did not gain the required backing as seven out of the 13 unions voted against it.
For the deal to go through, Saru needed 75% of votes, meaning 10 out of the 14 unions would need to vote with them.
But only 13 unions voted as Western Province is under Saru administration.
The Dispatch understands that Border, EP, Griffons, Valke, Leopards, and even Lions who were expected to oppose the deal, voted in favour, while the Pumas jumped ship at the last minute and formed part of the seven which included the Sharks, Bulls, Griquas, Cheetahs, Boland and SWD.
SA Rugby president Mark Alexander had said that the equity partner would be a key cog in diversifying the union’s revenue base.
Alexander said the union had opted for a partner with international expertise because of the dire need for a cash injection to sustain the sport.
But concerns were raised by the majority of the big unions on reducing third-party commission fees from 15% to 8% and Test-hosting payments.
A member in the camp which supported the deal said the seven unions had their own personal agendas and not “what they are saying in the media”.
The affiliate said the other six unions were left feeling frustrated because if the deal had proceeded, they would have known “how much grant we were going to be getting extra from what we are getting currently from Saru”. .
The smaller unions do not have partners.
Johann Rupert and Patrice Motsepe, both SA business magnates, share ownership of the Bulls.
Marco Masotti’s MVM Holdings has a 51% share of the Sharks.
Motsepe and Rupert are controlling shareholders at Boland while Western Province has seen a recent injection from Red Disa Investments.
“In the new deal, the Test match model was going to change and be centralised to Saru, that is what they are fighting for,” the source said.
“For instance, the Sharks, maybe let’s say, would not have been able to host the Springboks for the next 10 years because Saru would the one in charge with the company.
“That is where the problem is, they are making money from hosting Test matches.
“Us on the other side, we don’t host Test matches anyway and we would have benefited because some matches would have been co-opted to the smaller provinces.”
Though the deal was axed, another said they were waiting for the new developments that ASG was making in terms of negotiating a new deal and the possible deals that hade surfaced from local companies.
Dispatch LIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.