Hoskins available for re-election
Posted by Boertjie - 18/02/10 at 10:02 pm under Rugby AdministrationFinally a despatch from the corridors of SA Rugby to cheer about – Oregan Hoskins is to make himself available for re-election as the body’s president. DAN RETIEF rejoices in this move.
In terms of the immediate future of South African rugby that is extremely good news for it was a matter of grave concern to me that the man who has steered the game through momentous and remarkably successful times was on the brink of departing… and no-one seemed to be doing anything about it.
It is easy now to forget what a mess South African rugby was in when the shy, dignified and quietly-spoken Natalian stepped in in 2006 to pick up the pieces after the tumultuous reign of Brian van Rooyen.
His tenure has coincided with great success on the field, as evidenced by the truck full of trophies currently touring the platteland, and intense “spolitics” (my word for the fevered interference and subjective meddling sports administrators have to deal with) off it.
Although success in local rugby is measured by the performance of the Springboks Hoskins did an amazing job in restoring South Africa’s shattered image and standing in the corridors of the IRB in Dublin.
He would have arrived as an unknown, representing a country that had once dominated discussions in the days of Craven and Luyt, but which was now a laughing stock and it is a remarkable achievement that he is now seen as one of the inner circle and a possible future president of the IRB.
Hoskins mentioned to me some time ago that he would not stand for re-election and while I understood his reasons (would you put up with it?) I wondered at the wisdom of allowing him to walk away.
Thinking about it I felt the bigger unions would not allow such an erosion of South Africa’s status in the world game, not to mention the potential downside of having a key player no longer involved in critical issues such as rugby’s relationship with the government and the thorny and ongoing problems with the eastern Cape – Eastern Province, Border, SWD and the Southern Kings.
In recent times I have stood back from the politics of local rugby but I must say I was alarmed to hear on the grapevine of the machinations to dragoon some other, decidedly lightweight (in international standing if not body mass!) official into the top job in South African rugby.
Surely someone is going to head this off?, I thought to myself so it was with a great sense of relief that I read that Hoskins had declared himself available to stand for another term.
I do not know him well but from the few exchanges we have had I feel sure he was driven by a sense of duty. I feel certain that for Oregan Hoskins it is more about rugby than himself and I’m not so sure I can say that about some of the others names that have been thrown into the hat.
It would be madness for South Africa to give up one of four positions on Rugby World Cup Ltd (Hoskins serves on the committee along with the current chairman Bernard Lapasset, the former chairman Syd Millar and the current vice-chairman Bill Beaumont) as well as one of the positions on the council of the IRB in the year ahead of the next World Cup.
The immediate agenda includes the ticklish situation of folding SA Rugby back into a single unit, the appointment of a CEO for that newly created organisation, the ongoing relationship with government and continued labours to find a solution to the problems in the eastern Cape and to me it seems imperative that Hoskins stays in the saddle.
Unlike my days on the Sunday Times I have not tested the mood and gauged the direction of the sentiment in the unions, where once again, I am told, there is much under-handed “konkling” going on to corner the vote of the country unions, but I would be astounded if those who claim to have the well-being of SA Rugby at heart did not move to head it off.
At this time, more than ever, the game needs someone at the helm who knows what he is doing and Oregan Hoskins is that man.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
Who cares
February 18th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
I watched that Invictus, it was pretty well done.
Quite surprised actually, that clint eastwood makes good films.
This was not the usual hollywood shite, it actually captured something which is very difficult to do with SA, I dont know who the adviser on the film was, but I struggle to believe Eastwood had such a grasp on the south african situation. I thought it was very good and actually quite moving in places.
Things were generally not overdone, it was more subtle, which is pretty bizarre for hollywood.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:47 pm
Reply to Jacques(Bunny) @ 11:18 pm:
Jy sal fkn omgee as Komphela
of Stofpoepies in daai stoel
beland.
Kyk maar wat het van SA Atletiek
geword. En netbal. En hokkie.
Om nie van poefbal te praat nie.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
lol, just been reading some of the reviews and it was panned, some of them make good points perhaps i was a bit swept away by it all.
February 18th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Reply to Boertjie @ 11:47 pm:
Boer weet jy of dit waar is dat Mandela voor die NSC gestaan het nadat hulle saamgestem om die Bok te laat dropkick into touch?
February 18th, 2010 at 11:59 pm
Reply to cab @ 11:55 pm:
Dunno. History/folklore/fact
- take your pick – is that
Mandela fought for the retention
of the Bok.
Is this not part of Invictus?
February 19th, 2010 at 12:00 am
Was Googling to see what it looks
like where that red dot on the
Clustr Map is:
Alice Springs is often referred to as the lesbian capital of Australia due to the large percentage of lesbians in the population.[15]
February 19th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Skeer die Spaanse skape
darem die hare onder hul
arms, of was jy nog nie
so naby nie?
February 19th, 2010 at 12:29 am
It seems the Kiwis are
fond of
One of Auckland’s oldest eyesores – the concrete sewer pipeline across Hobson Bay – is to join the city’s list of 14,000 historic sites.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:36 am
Reply to Boertjie @ 12:01 am:
moet se dus die bos hare wat vir my laat twyfel dat ek n panga benodig as ek verder suid moet exploreer. wens my geluk.
maar nouja elke skaap is mos aantreklik.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:37 am
bos – bors.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:42 am
Reply to cab @ 12:36 am:
Ja, as die paadjie so ruig
is, is die Beloofde Land
seker ‘n oorgroeide woud.
February 19th, 2010 at 12:59 am
LMAO
February 19th, 2010 at 1:00 am
I thought you might enjoy this exchange below, with a typical south african response. the kiwis are the only nation that are as besotted with rugby as we are, and the only ones that can talk such blatant parochial kak while still believing its the truth.
kiwi:
“27 of the 35 All Black players went down with food poisoning 48 hours before the match. To their credit the team played while still suffering from the effects.
I remember Jeff Wilson retching/vomiting on the side line at one point.It was a thrilling match, won by South Africa in the last few minutes. Whether the food poisoning was accidental or deliberate one does not know. it did happen and was widely commented upon in NZ at the time.”
south african response:
‘27 of the 35 All Black players went down with food poisoning’.
The problem with the food-poisoning conspiricy starts here. In the ‘95 WC every squad had only 26 players.”
February 19th, 2010 at 1:42 am
Reply to cab @ 1:00 am:
LOL Classic.
It seems every kiwi poster on keo personally witnessed the food poisoning.
Although I don’t think we can just dismiss the suzi allegations. As a South African I have to say that such skulduggery was perfectly possible.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:43 am
Reply to cab @ 11:25 pm:
I felt the same way.
It must be an expat thing.
February 19th, 2010 at 1:48 am
I also completely agree about Hoskins.
The man has been great fro SA rugby. May he continue.
February 19th, 2010 at 4:40 am
I’m not a huge fan of Hoskins… but I shudder to think of the alternatives (I doubt it would be a proven, qualified corporate man with rugby ethos to boot)…
However Hoskins has succeeded in… retaining the Bok, getting rid of Stofile (for now)…
February 19th, 2010 at 4:41 am
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 4:40 am:
and generally foiling the pollies at their own game…
February 19th, 2010 at 4:58 am
But hey if an incompetent, idiotic, corrupt bigamist can be elevated to the leader of the entire nation… I foresee a Stofile, Yeye type creeping back…
February 19th, 2010 at 6:23 am
Reply to bryce_in_oz @ 4:58 am:
I just have to hang my head in shame when people bring the 3 wives and 20 children up.
Thye jsut had a quesion on radio whether it is lawful in SA for men to be bigamists.
SA is the fucking laughing stock of the world.
Reply to cab @ 11:25 pm:
I guess then Julius Malema is also your hero now. Seeing that just like Mandela he supports the idea to nationalise the mines.
February 19th, 2010 at 8:12 am
I had this discussion before with someone here can’t remember who where I asked the question that if Hoskins had to leave today what legacy would he have left behind…
I cannot think of much.
Hoskins is not a stirrer, so in that respect it is obviously better than BVR who moved from one crisis to the next – but what was done for rugby?
February 19th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Reply to Morné @ 8:12 am:
Ja it is a pity that people are these days judge on how much shit they didn’t cause, instead of what was achieved.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:32 am
That said, Hoskins did save us from the McSpears.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:38 am
Reply to Deon @ 10:32 am:
Hey which radio station in Aus is broadcasting the Reds game?
February 19th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Reply to Morné @ 10:38 am:
Shit will have to check, but I doubt anyone will. Will get back to you.
February 19th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Reply to Deon @ 10:50 am:
Sweet.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Reply to Morné @ 10:38 am:
Nothing sorry. Can’t find one. Tried the talk radio I usually listen too, because they atleast report on the game, but nada.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Reply to Deon @ 11:03 am:
Bummer.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Reply to Morné @ 11:05 am:
Just check again.
Just shows you where it ranks on the priorities. Spoke to an Kiwi at the club tonight. He says he was shocked to realise that there is NO sport really at the state school here. Made a good point though that maybe it is about the insurance issue for when kids get hurt and the claims that might follow. But lets not get into that liberal bullshit now.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Reply to fyndraai @ 1:42 am:
hehe, yeah also not quite sure Suzie either, lol, there was a point in invictus where big M is being driven around and wondering how can they beat the ABs, i thought someone would mention Suzie.
Why i dont really believe it tho is for anyone who has actually had food poisoning WILL be laid low, there is no ways you can stand up let alone play 100 mins of rugby, i dont care if its buck shelford with a torn balsak – so if they had something i think it was very slight.
i must say, i aint a big one for god and fate and stuff, but that world cup was unbelievable and almost seemed to suggest there was a higher force at work at just the right time.
Reply to Deon @ 6:23 am:
i dunno Malema, but from what i seen, no i dont believe he is even in the same stratosphere in terms of what Mandela wanted or his political astuteness for what was needed at any given time. In the movie, it was mentioned Mandela did not even like rugby, LOL. What was interesting for me is that the movie i thinkk was based largely on the book ’studying the enemy’, in which Mandela supposedly learnt the afr ways – but i think in the process he realised there was much passion and honesty there also and he even learned to like the game a bit. But he was generally, obvuiusly an immensely thoughtful man, i mean how the hell did he read poems like invictus? In SA, i was reading Scope and you Loslyf.
February 19th, 2010 at 11:42 am
Reply to Deon @ 11:26 am:
What is the difference then between medical there and here?