Lionel Mapoe, What now...

[ST1]

http://www.ruggavibe.com/page/news/...ut-exactly-what-is-going-on-with-Lionel-Mapoe

"
A source within the Lions has apparently told OFM that Lionel Mapoe has signed with the Lions. We saw Lionel in Durban yesterday... exactly what is going on?
A Springbok Sevens player and one of the most exciting players in the country, Lionel Mapoe has been out of action for some time now. Not because of injury, but because of a contract dispute.
The fact is he wanted to move to the Sharks. He signed a deal with them. The Cheetahs wanted him to stay so they wouldn't release him. A court found in favour of the Cheetahs. Now, for the Sharks to get their man, the Durban-based franchise will need to pay a big transfer fee. An amount they do not want to pay. They have been paying his salary after all!
The Lions, now flush with money, have allegedly made an agreement with the Cheetahs, meeting their transfer fee, but have no deal with Mapoe. Complicated enough for you?
Whose side are you on? The player or the Union? Which Union?
When will we finally see Mapoe in action again and in which colours will that be?"




He should of sucked it up and gone back to the cheetah's... and if he didn't wanna play nice SA Rugby should of given him a Ultimatum as he was clearly in breech of contract...

 

[Seaton]

I have to side with Lionel Mapoe, I think it was quite evident that the Cheetahs exploited him by paying pittance compared to his
Compatriots.

If the Lions did pay the release fee, I hope they re-imburse the Sharks for the salary that they were paying

As a Sharks supporter I am only mildly dissappointed in this case, as the depth right now is looking pretty good considering Odwa has upped his game
With Mark Richards and possibly Piet Lindique coming through the Sharks academy

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

If the union honours the contract then so should he.

 

[ranger]

If the union honours the contract then so should he.

If the Cheetahs wanted him so bad they could have paid him at least what everyone else in the team was making. The Cheetahs are the bad guys in this story.

 

[nickdnz]

If the Cheetahs wanted him so bad they could have paid him at least what everyone else in the team was making. The Cheetahs are the bad guys in this story.

Well, yes and no.

A legal contract is a legal contract. No one had a gun to his head when he signed it, and therefore he has to legally honour it as such.

However, it was stupid of the Cheetah's not to have ruled him up a bigger contract, when they discovered his potential importance to the team. It was short sighted. However I don't think he was getting paid so little that it could be considered exploitative. This really just comes down to bad buisness by the Freestate Cheetahs.

 

[Seaton]

Well, yes and no.

A legal contract is a legal contract. No one had a gun to his head when he signed it, and therefore he has to legally honour it as such.

However, it was stupid of the Cheetah's not to have ruled him up a bigger contract, when they discovered his potential importance to the team. It was short sighted. However I don't think he was getting paid so little that it could be considered exploitative. This really just comes down to bad buisness by the Freestate Cheetahs.

However he was promised that he would get increases according to his form/increased appearances.
His salary was doubled by the Cheetahs to R100 000 when announced he was planning to move to the Sharks, meaning that his prior salary was around 4-5k a month, which as a stand alone income is **** poor in this country, and in comparison to what other, less featuring players were payed and had increases it can very easily be considered exploitive.