FIXTURESNo upcoming fixtures — check back soon.
FORUM / RUGBY /  Vincent Koch sells the Mpumalanga Pumas down the river

Vincent Koch sells the Mpumalanga Pumas down the river

Started by sharkbok22 REPLIES458 VIEWS· 08 Jun 2016, 19:03
SHAREXFACEBOOKWHATSAPPTELEGRAMREDDITLINKEDIN
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,269 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,269 posts
08 Jun 2016, 19:03
#1
08 Jun 2016, 19:03#1

Cape Town - The Pumas have lodged an official complaint with SA Rugby regarding a matter involving tighthead prop Vincent Koch, who is still on their books.

This comes after English club Saracens earlier this week announced the signing of the Springbok.

Koch, 26, will join the English and European champions on a two-year deal ahead of the 2016/17 season.

He has represented the Stormers as a loan player for the past two seasons, but is still contracted to the Pumas until the end of October.

The Pumas want him to play for them in the Currie Cup later this year before he departs for England.

Koch is believed to be upset because the Pumas do not want to agree on a transfer fee with Saracens. He has now informed the Pumas that he will be undergoing an operation for a long-term knee injury once the Super Rugby season is over.

But the Pumas are not buying Koch’s excuse and believe that the prop and his agent Gert van der Merwe are “blackmailing” them.

The Mpumalanga union say they have received information that Koch is not injured.

“It’s blatant blackmailing,” Pieter Burger, CEO of the Pumas told Netwerk24.

“If Vincent’s knee injury is so serious, why is the operation postponed? It’s very coincidental that he needs to spend time on the sidelines exactly when he should represent us in the Currie Cup.

“We invested in Vincent when no one else believed in him. Those were the opportunities we created for him, that allowed him to grow. We don’t have any claims to his future, but we would like him to give something back to the local players in a final Currie Cup campaign.”

The transfer fee Saracens eventually agreed upon was R240 000, but the Pumas’ executive council turned down the offer.

--- (For Pounds- this is peanuts. i agree it is ludicrous- he is just brokering the best deal for himself by pocketing a smaller portion of the transfer fee-)


“Seasoned tighthead props are scarce commodities in South African rugby. R240 000 for a Springbok prop is ridiculous,” said Burger.

Koch played two Tests for the Springboks in 2015.

sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,269 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,269 posts
08 Jun 2016, 19:16
#2
08 Jun 2016, 19:16#2
I expect the club rightly just want a fair transfer fee. If players are going to leave when in a contract- the club should get paid out. This is also money back into the economy that developed Koch. 
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
08 Jun 2016, 19:21
#3
08 Jun 2016, 19:21#3
 Well, the Pumas did not actually have his best interests at heart in seasons gone by. Yes, they gave him his break, but he did his share too. Small unions like them should rethink their aggressive enforcement of contracts. My bias view...again.
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,269 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,269 posts
08 Jun 2016, 19:27
#4
08 Jun 2016, 19:27#4
Disagree- a contract is a contract and should be honoured, and only changed by any agreements of both parties. 
If Koch were injured or out of form- he would be covered by his employer. 
Saracens could be alleged to be offering a player a higher contract on the basis that he can sever ties with his current contract- to save them money by paying the least amount possible. Plus SA should not allow resources they have invested in- to be picked up with a bargain basement price. 
If a player is offered a contract- I think the employer should also have an option of finding a better contract where both they and the player get a better deal. Sold to the highest bidder. This money can then be reinvested in new player development to fill the gaps of departing players. 
Some of these players have been looked after since being in school- and spend more years in training that representing the senior team.
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
08 Jun 2016, 20:23
#5
08 Jun 2016, 20:23#5
 SB, I agree 100%, but you mention a couple of "ifs". Well, I've got a few of my own. If the surgery is needed, surely it's up to the player to decideds what and when are best for him? We've seen in the recent past that unions have given dodgy contracts to some players and when tested in the courts, the players have been vindicated.  Vincent was given permission to play for the Stormers because the Lions did not want him, and when he when WP wanted him for the CC, the Pumas basically told him to FO and serve out his contract with them. Hard stance. It was their right, no problem, BUT, that did not tell him that his union had had his best interest at heart. It told him that he was just another commodity to be used or discarded as the union decided. So, if an injury comes along, with surgery needed, but is not serious enough to warrant immediate surgery...at some risk to the player,  why should he take that minor risk for a union who only see him as a commodity?  Trust and loyalty is built and earned, clearly not the case here.
That's a possible other side to the story, but we won't know the real deal before all the facts are in the open. Talking to each other in the press is never a sign of mutual respect and a sure sign of burned bridges.
I'll reserve judgement till all the cards are on the table.
sharkbok
sharkbok
Captain23,269 posts
sharkbok
sharkbokCaptain23,269 posts
08 Jun 2016, 20:33
#6
08 Jun 2016, 20:33#6
that is more background knowledge- and does paint more context to the situation. 
I now recall he did not play for the Stormers in the Curry Cup which must have been frustrating given it was at the Stormers he got his real chance. He should have played for the Stormers. given he had made it to top level in SA.

My bias is more the overseas clubs poaching players at a low cost. 
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
08 Jun 2016, 20:47
#7
08 Jun 2016, 20:47#7
 No problem SB, IMO, when any party makes statements in the media before there is actually a real issue, it looks like spin doctoring and I'm immediately suspicious of the motives. I might still be wrong about this, and I like the Pumas, but something is off here.
BE
Beeno1
Captain40,032 posts
BE
Beeno1Captain40,032 posts
08 Jun 2016, 21:00
#8
08 Jun 2016, 21:00#8
 My bias is more the overseas clubs poaching players at a low cost - per sharkbok The crux of the matter. Something very bad is happening here and the Pumas are being robbed.
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
08 Jun 2016, 21:13
#9
08 Jun 2016, 21:13#9
 Beenz, the Pumas lost dibs when they alienated one of their best players with short-sighted ego politics. If Koch was allowed to sign for WP last year, he would've probably been playing here for a year or 3 more. 
MO
Mozart
Captain49,914 posts
MO
MozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Jun 2016, 22:36
#10
08 Jun 2016, 22:36#10
 These guys are just trying to make a few bucks before their bodies implode, after which the  best case is a job as a sports rep. They have my sympathies. If we want to cut fat go after the overhead....all those provincial rugby administrators.
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
09 Jun 2016, 07:37
#11
09 Jun 2016, 07:37#11
 They should just part ways and do it as quickly as possible.
Why force a player when there's clearly bad blood between them. He's not going to give it his best and I seriously doubt that they'll welcome him home with banners and a marching band procession down the street.
There'll be a vibe that could divide the camp as I'm sure Koch has a few mates back home supporting him .
Nobody wins in the end.






MA
Machiavelli
Club Pro323 posts
MA
MachiavelliClub Pro323 posts
09 Jun 2016, 08:26
#12
09 Jun 2016, 08:26#12
 Agreed CleanCut, when a relationship has reached such abrasive levels there is no point in forcing it as neither party would be giving close to 100% of their "agreement". Using a player in a team when his loyalties are clearly not there will inevitably influence the morale and balance of the team thus impeding on the chances of success.
As you say "Nobody wins in the end"
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
09 Jun 2016, 08:59
#13
09 Jun 2016, 08:59#13

 Well players and unions should honor their contracts and to accuse a player of blackmail in the media and by extension fraudulent behavior by faking a knee injury. I wonder if he’ll be faking the surgery as well? If it was me in the same shoes, I would also get the surgery out of the way, before starting for my new club, instead of playing the last few months of my existing contract for a union that only see me as a commodity. 

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
09 Jun 2016, 09:01
#14
09 Jun 2016, 09:01#14
 I think the issue here has to do with the contracting clauses - it is a professional era where contracts counts and sentimentality is not an issue.   In a court of law the latter would not count I am afraid.   Even though relationships may have broken down completely - it is not a marriage,  it is the fact that the Pumas gave space and training to Koch to allow the means for his development in his profession that would be the sticking point I am afraid.  The other issue here is the question of how much a professional player earns in SA.  You can bet your bottom dollar a player like Koch earns at least four times that amount and to replace him is going to cost at least three times the amount the Irish is offering the Pumas.   My contention is the Pumas should let him go - but the Pumas    should be paid a reasonable amount to facilitate his release - R250 000 equates to about 12 000 pounds, which really is an insult to the intelligence of people  - since his replacement would cost at least twice that amount if not more.         
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
09 Jun 2016, 09:19
#15
09 Jun 2016, 09:19#15
 Mike, it depends on how much is left of his contract. He is contracted to the end of October and is still playing for the Stormers in SR till the end of July, with a relatively good chance of making the Bok group for the RC thereafter...another 2 months. Which leaves one month of play for the Pumas. And there is still the very real possibility of an injury during that time, dodgy knee and all. They should have taken the money. STUPID!!!! I wonder who is actually blackmailing who?
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
09 Jun 2016, 09:24
#16
09 Jun 2016, 09:24#16
 Agreed ... all this fuss over 2 months.
There's more to this than what we've been told ... surely?





DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
09 Jun 2016, 09:35
#17
09 Jun 2016, 09:35#17
 "There's more to this than what we've been told ... surely?"
My point exactly.
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
09 Jun 2016, 09:40
#18
09 Jun 2016, 09:40#18
 Changing the subject a tad ... how's that woof of yours, Draad?
Must have grown some these last few months, huh?
I hope all's good there with the lad. 
Post a pic if you can. 

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
09 Jun 2016, 11:52
#19
09 Jun 2016, 11:52#19
 In any professional game there is a transfer fee payable and to put that fee at 12 000 pounds is seriously funny.   The fee does not relate only to take-over of a player's outstanding contract period - but includes the opportunities afforded to the player to  enhance his professional career, ie the investment of the releasing club in the player.   I think a fee of 50 000 pounds will be appropriate in this case.  The foreign clubs should not be allowed to get away with murder - like is obvious in this case.       
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
09 Jun 2016, 19:23
#20
09 Jun 2016, 19:23#20
 Not so Mike, unlike soccer,  when your contract expires in rugby, you are as free as a bird, no transfer required to my knowledge.  I think it was a generous offer for potentially less than a month early release. 
DB
DbDraad
Captain26,388 posts
DB
DbDraadCaptain26,388 posts
09 Jun 2016, 19:32
#21
09 Jun 2016, 19:32#21
 CC, the lad is doing well. At 8 months already larger than my Border collie/Husky was as adult. Must be close to 25kg already..if not 30. Clever and easy to train, although he can't help himself with destroying shoes and the odd item from the washing line. With all that hair, I'm yet to find any in or around the house! I'll try to post a recent pic this weekend.
CL
CleanCut
Pro9,905 posts
CL
CleanCutPro9,905 posts
09 Jun 2016, 20:46
#22
09 Jun 2016, 20:46#22
 Awesome Draad.
Funny think is that I have three Great Danes and even though they have short hair they shed like crazy all the time.
Drives me insane. 

CL
clevermike
Coach57,555 posts
CL
clevermikeCoach57,555 posts
09 Jun 2016, 21:24
#23
09 Jun 2016, 21:24#23
 You two are lucky -very lucky.   I have four Jack  Russells = small bodies, very very big trouble.   They have refined to an art the way how dogs should handle humans and they win 99% of the time.    
— END OF THREAD —

More from Rugby

More news