The first time I realised that the Lions really couldn’t afford me was when I was forced to move out of my apartment in Melrose Arch to one in Grayston Drive after we had won the 2011 Currie Cup. I came to work one day and was told that I was moving. Just like that – ‘You’re moving’ – no negotiation, no discussion. They said they couldn’t afford to keep me in Melrose Arch any more. If they had just been upfront with me there and then, it might have saved them, and me, a lot of hassle and money.
I was very sensitive about that move: I was still living with the trauma of the 2010 break-in, when I had been attacked and stabbed. Since that incident, I’d been living in an upper-storey apartment in Melrose Arch, where I felt safe. The new place in Grayston Drive was far less secure. In the end, I had no choice but to move. It must have saved the Lions about R15 000 a month.
So, when I got the call from De Klerk saying my positon was going to be put on hold, I was already expecting it. I would have expected it even if Craig Ray hadn’t forewarned me. I told De Klerk to consult with my legal people and where to send the correspondence, and finished off my weekend obligations in Port Elizabeth, which involved some presentation work with commentator Hugh Bladen. We went to the Springboks versus England Test match, where I gave the SAB’s clients some insight into what a Test-match day is like from a coaching perspective.
As soon as I returned to Joburg, I started putting my defence together. I contacted Pierre Dormehl, who knew an excellent labour lawyer in Pretoria, but he was unavailable, so we approached Brian Patterson of law firm Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs. Pareen Rodgers, a senior associate in Brian’s team, was responsible for the preparatory work for the defence. They immediately saw an opportunity to build a good defence.
I started summarising the issues surrounding the case and got my records and files together. Fortunately, I had been meticulous about my record keeping since my days at the All Blacks. Due to the drawn-out process, I spent R855 000 on my preparation, which included video-conferences and the prepping of witnesses. The lawyers did a lot of homework and were nothing short of exceptional.
I felt nervous on the first day of the hearing. I had never attended one before, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was allowed to provide a plea on each of the allegations made against me at the beginning, and then sat through every bit of cross-examination. The sessions ran from June through to November 2012, despite the fact that it was supposed to take only five days. The cross-examination was handled by Fritz Malan, a senior litigation attorney at Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs. He is outstanding not only as a person, but also as an expert in his field. The chairman was Peter Bam, a well-known senior attorney from Joburg.
The Lions controlled everything, including the adjournments, but a lot went wrong. For instance, on day three several of the players didn’t pitch, so we had to postpone. Without them, the Lions’ strategies went out the door. And you could see the players who did present themselves were quite unprepared for being cross-examined and hadn’t realised quite how serious the process was.
When Josh Strauss came in, he told the chairman that he had a plane to catch in an hour. The chairman just looked at him and said, ‘Well, I guess you are going to be changing your flight then.’
A number of the players ended up confirming in their evidence that they had learnt a lot from me and that they had a positive personal relationship with me. Even De Klerk was not able to claim that our relationship was hostile, and at times the flow of the evidence probably left everyone in the room wondering why this process was happening at all.
Day one was focused on ‘profanities’, which, like most of the other allegations brought against me, was a mirror image of accusations I had faced at the Western Force. Players ‘testified’, and then De Klerk was called.
Then, on day two, it was about the code of conduct, and day three was about commercial matters. I stood accused of doing commercial work outside of my work obligations, even though most coaches are engaged in activities outside of their day job, mostly for love.
At some stage the previous year, everyone who worked at the Lions received a message which stipulated that we had to list any outside activities in which we were involved. I had spoken to De Klerk about it at the time and he told me it didn’t apply to me.
During the 2011 Rugby World Cup, SuperSport had asked me to participate in their Coach’s Corner programme. The panel consisted of Heyneke Meyer, Allister Coetzee, Garth Wright and me. I had received permission from the Lions to take part, as it didn’t clash with my duties at the franchise (a fact that was clearly evident, as we would go on to win the Currie Cup). And in meetings, De Klerk had never told me not to participate in the SuperSport programme. In fact, it suited the Lions that I was on the panel and De Klerk even complimented me on comments I made on the show. He admitted during his evidence that he was aware of the fact that I was commenting for SuperSport.
And then, during the period of isolation while I was suspended by the Lions, SuperSport again invited me to appear on the show. I agreed, but only as long as we did not discuss anything related to the Lions. My lawyers had found a clause in my contract that allowed me to do outside work, as long as I was not remunerated for it. In effect, the clause stated that they could not stop me from furthering myself.
These television appearances, most of them retrospective and dating back at least a year, were now an issue raised during the hearing. If the Lions’ management had had a problem with my television work, why hadn’t they brought it up at the time?
Events at the hearing became comical when, every time we reconvened a hearing, the Lions’ legal team would start by saying, ‘We saw your client on television again.’ And we would think, ‘Oh boy, here we go again …’
Steadily, during the course of the hearing, more allegations were added to the list. From the initial six or seven, they grew to 28, and you could see that the chairman, although emotionless, was not impressed. Why hadn’t they just declared all of them at the start?
De Klerk looked really stuffed at the end of his day-long cross-examination, and then he still had to come back the following morning. He looked hugely relieved when he finally got out of there.
Aspects of Kevin’s behaviour would have been quite funny if the situation wasn’t so serious. For instance, he scrambled a bit when trying to justify the allegations of profanity. He made out that it was a big issue and that swearing shouldn’t be allowed. Then, a short while later, when he was put under pressure, he exclaimed, ‘Fucking doos!’ Of course, my legal team was all over him for that: ‘Mr de Klerk, I thought swearing wasn’t on?’ I think Kevin knew then that it wasn’t an angle that could be pursued with any success. Interestingly, De Klerk later confirmed that he still thought I was the best technical rugby coach in the world when he was reminded about statements he had previously made to the press.
I will briefly explain some of the charges, as they appeared on the charge sheet, as well as their outcome, but due to a confidentiality agreement I signed with the Lions, I am unfortunately precluded from discussing the chairman’s findings on each. However, I was exonerated from all charges.
Charge 1: You humiliated, belittled and scolded Michael Rhodes, one of the GLRU [Golden Lions Rugby Union] rugby players, and violated his dignity by shouting at him and reprimanding him in front of other players, staff and members of the public (parents and supporters) in the Johannesburg Stadium auditorium after the game against the Bulls. You also inappropriately manhandled him by pushing him on the forehead with your hand.
Plea: This was an effective discussion for a purpose and no discomfort was shown by Michael Rhodes. The discussion did not take place in front of other players, staff and members of the public, except for Johan Ackermann. The discussion was functional and no grievance was laid at the time.
It was apparent from the evidence of Rhodes and De Klerk that I had been charged for this particular incident nine months after the event, that no grievance had been lodged with De Klerk in September 2011, which was when the incident had happened, and that the first time I had heard of the incident was when the charge sheet was presented to me. Rhodes had not brought it up with me.
It also emerged in the evidence that Rhodes had been asked to submit the complaint only after he had participated in the vote of no confidence on 19 June 2012.
It was also apparent that my reason for addressing Rhodes immediately after the game was because he had displayed individualism and had given away penalties, and had chosen to speak to a fellow player outside the routine of the half-time performance management. I felt he needed a change of attitude, and that is why I spoke to him straightaway and in context, a decision I made together with Johan Ackermann. We took Rhodes to one side and I put my finger on my forehead to indicate ‘this is where the shift is necessary’ and then placed my finger on Rhodes’s head to show ‘this is where it needs to change’.
Rhodes concurred with me that, after that incident, the required change did take place. An email that was submitted in the testimony and which Rhodes had sent to me also clearly demonstrated that Rhodes’s relationship with me had not broken down. Like the other allegations, this issue had clearly been dredged up after the fact to bolster the case against me.
Charge 2: You humiliated and belittled Alwyn Hollenbach, one of the GLRU players, and violated his dignity, after the Lions game against the Cheetahs by scolding him in front of members of the public.
Plea: The discussion was not in front of members of the public, but in front of the University of Johannesburg coach, and it was appropriate for him to be present. The discussion was not inappropriate or humiliating or belittling. The communication was functional. No grievance was laid at the time.
The GLRU ultimately did not pursue this charge, but the incident had taken place a long time before – on 3 October 2011 – and the matter had not been raised at the time. Alwyn Hollenbach testified that he and I had a good relationship, and that our relationship had not broken down irretrievably.
Charge 3: You used foul and abusive language, and swore at James Kamana in front of other players on various occasions, and violated his dignity when you continuously told him that he was ‘shit’, called him a ‘pussy’, accused him of being soft and that he needed to ‘harden the fuck up’. After the game against the Crusaders, you defamed him by telling him in front of his fellow players that he was a ‘fuckin’ idiot’ and ‘fuckin’ stupid’.
Plea: Profanities are used generally and this is an accepted practice. No discomfort was expressed with the words JM used. The type of discussion is not denied. It was necessary to have this type of discussion given the circumstances. No discomfort or grievance was raised at the time. JM cannot recall exactly which words were used after the delay, but some of the words like ‘pussy’ are not words he uses and are therefore denied.
The evidence demonstrated that there was no formal policy about swearing and that swearing did at times occur in the coaching environment. The main aspect of this charge related to an incident that had occurred in the Crusaders game in the 2012 Super Rugby season. What gave rise to the swearing – which wasn’t disputed – was that, early in the game, Kamana had made a tackle with his eyes down and with no leg drive, and he dived at the player. I actually remember the other coaches in the box also swearing in reaction to that tackle because it was dangerous. Kamana knocked himself out and had to be taken off on a stretcher as a result.
I admitted at the hearing that I had sworn at Kamana to emphasise my point, to get a message across to the individual and to get a generic message across to the team. Kamana had never expressed any discomfort at the way he had been addressed. In my evidence I explained that I used swearing to emphasise a point and not to violate the dignity of James Kamana but simply to get the message across and to teach him that his technique was completely incorrect and dangerous, and to also get the message through to other players. It was in any event apparent from the evidence that there is no written rule against swearing at the Lions and that swearing was, in fact, commonly accepted. Again, no grievance was laid at the time.
Charge 4: You used foul and abusive language, and swore at Martin Bezuidenhout in front of other players on various occasions during practice and violated his dignity by calling him ‘a fucking c–––’.
Plea: The words JM recalls were: ‘Get your fucking nuts over the ball and straighten your back.’ The word ‘c–––’ is denied. It was not abusive, no discomfort was shown, the player was not humiliated. There is no rule against abusive language.
Specific dates were not recorded as to when this took place, and Martin Bezuidenhout acknowledged in testimony that he had a good relationship with me and that our relationship had not broken down. Bezuidenhout said he had raised his complaint to Cobus Grobbelaar and Josh Strauss but had never raised it with the president or the union, and had not discussed it with me when he had the opportunity to do so.
I argued in my testimony that I would never use the c-word and that the sole purpose for addressing Martin by swearing was to get a message through based on clean-out at the time because Martin repeatedly gave us skill grief, and his inability to shift and correct his arrival work was a constant point that the coaching staff had to stress. We were dealing with micro-skill training at the time.
I testified that I’d had many one-on-ones with Martin and he had had plenty of opportunity to raise his objections then – but he hadn’t. Martin agreed in his testimony that my style was ‘energetic and passionate’, and that this was my way of getting my message across. He agreed I was doing it for the purpose of improving his skills.
In his testimony, Martin said he was under the impression that I had been spoken to about my manner, and that Grobbelaar and Strauss were sorting out the grievances with me. He further confirmed that when the players met on 19 June, they were under the impression that I’d been given a chance to mend my ways but had failed to do so.
The fifth charge related to an incident where I had allegedly humiliated and ridiculed Josh Strauss in front of outside coaches after a game against the Cheetahs, when I told him that he was ‘fucking fat and unfit and costing the team’ because he had had a Coca-Cola after the game.
I denied using those precise words, and I submitted that although a hard and direct discussion had taken place, it was not inappropriate and had been necessary. Again, this was a charge that dated back a long time, to the previous October. Josh had been called into the GLRU boardroom and he was right in stating that there had been outside coaches present, as Hugo van As, the coach of the University of Johannesburg, had been there. But he was an outside coach only if you ignore the fact that Hugo was involved with the Lions Rugby Match Committee, which meets on a weekly basis. The University of Johannesburg has a close relationship with the Lions, sharing players and investing in certain players, and I had invited Hugo as an observer that week, which was a few weeks before the 2011 Currie Cup final.
Hugo testified, as did Wayne Taylor, who was also present. Wayne testified that I had a high-performance mentality, was very experienced and professional, and did not tolerate mediocrity or short cuts, that I wanted to ‘drive a high-performance product and produce the best performances’ possible.
Wayne had told me he wasn’t happy with Josh’s weight, and in his evidence he testified that Josh had reacted positively to the directive to sort himself out, when he said, ‘No problem, Coach, I will sort it out.’ Of course, Josh was my captain by then, so I was very determined to get him to change so that the other players would follow his example.
Charge 6: You displayed a negative and/or offensive attitude towards Player X by verbally insulting him when you told him he should find a lower-grade competition that suits his abilities. He was told he should think about leaving the Lions, as the ‘people from the top no longer want you here’. This was untrue and, in your position as head coach, your unauthorised action constituted constructive dismissal of Player X as an employee.
In a reply requesting further particulars, the charge was amended to read: ‘Your unauthorised action provided justification for the employee to terminate his employment contract.’
Plea: There were disciplinary problems with Player X; his discipline was generally poor and his performance disappointing. It was admitted that he was asked to consider whether this was the level at which he wanted to play, but that this was done for a valid reason and there was no rule against it. The Professional Rugby Player Committee had already decided that the player’s future with the GLRU should be terminated. It was appropriate and fair to inform the player that his future was in jeopardy.
In this instance, Player X had been drinking heavily one night and had missed the bus the next morning. I had had a one-on-one with him about the incident and, in view of his inconsistent form, told him that he needed to decide whether our level of rugby was right for him and that he should consider his future. I never told him that he was no longer employed. I testified that the Professional Rugby Player Committee, which determined these issues, had the same view and that I make rugby decisions over whether a player has a future with the Lions but that I would not implement such a decision without the committee agreeing to it.
A copy of the minutes of the Professional Rugby Player Committee was provided to the hearing. The relevant clause read as follows: ‘Player X: not performing and displaying very poor discipline – look to offload … action RM [Ruben Moggee].’
I testified that it was the right and honest thing to do to inform the player about where he stood.
I had a similar response to charge 7, which stated that I had displayed a negative and/or offensive attitude towards four other players by telling them they should think about leaving the Lions. I denied saying that to two of the players, but admitted that I might have said it to the other two (who, in testimony, said I had told them that they were ‘just not good enough’). It was the right thing to do and did not constitute constructive dismissal, as the Lions argued. After all, someone had to let some of the 120 contracted players know that their services were no longer needed. Is there ever a nice way to tell someone he has no job?
Charge 8 related to Josh Strauss thinking that he had been dropped from the team when I left him out of an attack simulation at a training session. He clearly hadn’t been dropped: he played for the Lions that Saturday.
Charge 9 related to me shouting at Strauss when he wanted to help Etienne Oosthuizen after the latter had injured his ankle during a drill. I was alleged to have said, ‘Fucking leave him! He knows where the medical rooms are.’
In my defence, I argued that there was no point in Josh interrupting the session to help Etienne, as I had attended to Etienne myself. In any event, it was a minor injury caused by his failure to strap his ankle. Etienne returned to the practice drill once his ankle had been strapped.
Charge 10 claimed that I had discriminated against injured players by not greeting them. Then there were several charges claiming that I had forced injured players to play and train before they had recovered from their injuries. I vehemently denied these claims: the decision on whether a player can play or not was made by the medical staff, and not by me as coach. The Lions must have agreed with me on that issue because they never pursued those charges.
Charge 15 related to my verbal altercation with Bob Dippenaar, the acting commercial manager.
Charge 15: You shouted at and used profanities towards a GLRU employee, Bob Dippenaar, the acting commercial manager, when he sought clarity from you about a grievance that you conveyed to Ruben Moggee, the acting CEO. Without providing any explanation for your grievance, you, in the presence of players and staff members, told him, ‘I do not need this fucking shit before a game and especially these players. You people continually fail to understand what the team is about. They need to buy into the process. You have fucking never communicated with us and you fucking never will.’
Plea: JM admitted an altercation with Bob Dippenaar and admitted that a profanity may have been used. His reaction was justified because, at the time, he thought the commercial manager had interfered in the players’ area, as he believed Bob Dippenaar had placed items in the change room that were inappropriate and without consulting either JM or the players’ representative.
My unhappiness had been caused by somebody putting branding in the players’ change room before a match and without my input. The change room and its branding are very important to the player group’s strategies and was the prerogative of the head coach.
In the hearing, Dippenaar agreed that it was important to align the team strategy with the commercial side of the entity, and could understand why I would be upset if I had thought he had been responsible for the breach. Dippenaar did not lodge a grievance other than to report the incident to the union president and the CEO. It was also not raised with me at the time. Dippenaar said during the cross-examination that he had felt we could work through it.
Charges 16 and 17 related to public appearances that I had made.
Charge 18 related to an accusation made by the Lions that Barloworld had not renewed their sponsorship with the union on the grounds that I had not permitted them to make use of a photograph of me for internal use at Barloworld. I denied this. Neither could I recall demanding R3 200 for the use of the photograph.
This charge had not been raised as a charge of misconduct when it was first brought to the attention of the employer, but only after the ultimatum of the players.
Charge 19 was similar, and also related to Barloworld. It was claimed that I had refused to be part of a photo shoot of which I had not been informed.
Charge 20 related to comments I had made to the media in Perth, at the end of the Super Rugby tour of Australasia, about the franchise’s Super Rugby future and SARU’s handling of the matter. I was alleged to have breached a clause in my contract of employment by ignoring a written directive from Kevin de Klerk to refrain from discussions on the matter.
In my plea, I argued that there hadn’t been a clear instruction and that I was formally responsible for press communication, and that what I had said should be seen in the context of what was happening at the time and the frustration that I was feeling. I was commenting on something that was having a seriously negative impact on the team. My comments were in line with the views of the GLRU, Kevin de Klerk and the CEO. The evidence showed that I had asked for clarification by email but had received no response from De Klerk. This issue was also again only dredged up after the players’ ultimatum.
Then there was a charge against me for having accused SARU of blackmail. However, I believed that my views in this regard were in line with the facts at the time and seemed to reflect the public opinion and the opinion of the GLRU on the issue. The list of charges was concluded by a whole heap that related to my work with SuperSport, which I mentioned earlier.
The hearing was a laborious process and, of course, it is important to maintain your dignity throughout. During the proceedings you are constantly bumping into the ‘enemy’ at recess.
I was taking part in the Wines2Whales mountain-bike race in the Western Cape when the call came that the decision would be announced. I had just completed day three, the third stage of the race.
As we suspected it would, the hearing went our way and I was found not guilty of the allegations. It was a resounding victory – I was exonerated from all charges – but at what cost, I wondered …