Sale Sharks and Matthew Ginvert
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION DISCIPLINARY HEARING AGAINST ROHAN JANSE VAN RENSBURG, SALE SHARKS AND MATTHEW GINVERT DECISION Venue: A remote video hearing at which the panel, the legal representatives, the parties and the witnesses attended by Zoom. Date of hearing: 15 April 2020. Date of decision: 21 April 2020. Player: Rohan Janse Van Rensburg RFU Id No: 02282043 Club: Sale Sharks Registered agent: Matt Ginvert RFU Id No: RFURA/10/057 Panel: Sir James Dingemans; Tim Ward QC; Gareth Graham. Secretary: Rebecca Morgan Attending on behalf of the RFU: Kendrah Potts (counsel); David Barnes (Head of Discipline, RFU); Sebastian Bult (RFU); and Alys Lewis (RFU). Witnesses called by the RFU: David Humphreys (Director of Rugby, Gloucester Rugby); Johan Ackermann (Head Coach, Gloucester Rugby); Stephen Vaughan (former Chief Executive Officer of Gloucester Rugby and now CEO of Wasps); and Martin St Quinton (Chairman of Gloucester Rugby). Attending on behalf of the player: Martin Budworth (counsel); Rohan Janse Van Rensburg. Witness called on behalf of the player: Rohan Janse Van Rensburg. Attending on behalf of Sale Sharks: Martin Budworth (counsel); Oliver Orton (JMW Solicitor LLP); Mike Blood (Director of Sale Sharks and a partner of JMW Solicitors LLP); Steve Diamond (Director of Rugby, Sale Sharks); and Simon Orange (Joint owner of Sale Sharks). Witnesses called on behalf of Sale Sharks: Steve Diamond (Director of Rugby, Sale Sharks); and Simon Orange (Joint Owner of Sale Sharks). Attending on behalf of the agent: Matthew Ginvert did not attend and was not represented at the hearing. This followed a request by Steven Flynn (counsel) on behalf of the agent, agreed by the RFU and not objected to by the other parties, for the matter to be considered on the papers so far as his admitted breach of the RFU Regulations was concerned. Attending on behalf of Gloucester Rugby: Andrew Nixon (Sheridans solicitors). Summary of decision 1. This judgment follows a remote video hearing of disciplinary proceedings which took place on 15 April 2020. The circumstances giving rise to the disciplinary proceedings were that Rohan Janse Van Rensburg (“Mr Van Rensburg”), signed on 10 October 2017 a contract to play at Gloucester Rugby (“Gloucester”) from 1 November 2018 for the next three seasons and he was paid an advance of £25,000 under the contract. Mr Van Rensburg signed a contract on 11 January 2018 to play for Sale Sharks (“Sale”) from 1 1 July 2018 for the next three seasons. He signed a second contract on 25 June 2018 to play for Sale from 1 July 2018 for the next three seasons. He was represented from 11 January 2018 by Matthew Ginvert (“Mr Ginvert”), an agent. 2. Following a complaint by Gloucester the RFU brought charges against Mr Van Rensburg, Sale and Matthew Ginvert, the agent for Mr Van Rensburg. The RFU brought charges for breaches of RFU Rule 5.12 (conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game) against Mr Van Rensburg. The RFU brought charges for breaches of RFU Regulation 7.1 (approaches to players) against Sale. The RFU brought a charge for breach of RFU Regulation 8.8.1 against Mr Ginvert. 3. Mr Van Rensburg admitted two breaches of RFU Rule 5.12. The sanction we have imposed is a suspension from playing of two weeks; and a fine of £32,500, of which £25,000 shall be paid on by the RFU to Gloucester to reflect the advance of monies paid by Gloucester to Mr Van Rensburg which has not been repaid. 4. Sale admitted two breaches of RFU Rule 5.12. We took account of the fact that the suspension of Mr Van Rensburg would adversely affect Sale because he would not be available to play in two games for them, and we imposed in addition a points deduction of 5 points suspended for two seasons on terms that Sale does not act in breach of RFU Regulation 7, and a fine of £20,000. We did not order compensation to be paid to Gloucester. 5. Following the withdrawal of a charge alleging a breach of RFU Regulation 8.8.1 and the amendment to add a charge alleging a breach of RFU Regulation 8.5.2 (failure to observe the highest standards of fair dealing) Mr Ginvert admitted a breach of RFU Regulation 8.5.2 and the RFU and Mr Ginvert made agreed submissions on the papers as to the sanction to be imposed. This was a sanction of a fine of £3,750, a requirement to undertake the Agent’s Education programme, and a reprimand. Having considered the circumstances we agreed that the sanction imposed on Mr Ginvert is necessary and appropriate for the purposes of RFU Regulation 8.13.2, and fine him £3,750, require him to undertake the Agent’s Education programme, and reprimand him. These proceedings and the RFU’s agreed position with Mr Ginvert 2 6. After the RFU brought the charge there were various procedural steps taken by the parties and the RFU, but the proceedings were delayed by various issues. This panel was appointed in February 2020 and directions were given providing for a hearing date of 15 April 2020. 7. As a result of the COVID-19 crisis the hearing was conducted by remote video hearing on the day. At a rehearsal (to ensure that all the parties were able to access Zoom and hear each other) on Tuesday 14 April 2020 the RFU and Mr Ginvert announced that the original charge brought against Mr Ginvert would be withdrawn, a further one substituted which Mr Ginvert would accept breaching, and there would be agreed submissions about sanction. In the light of these developments a request was made on behalf of Mr Ginvert that the matter be dealt with on the papers. None of the other parties objected to this course and the panel agreed to consider the matter on the papers. 8. Towards the end of his oral evidence at the hearing on 15 April 2020 Steve Diamond, the Director of Rugby at Sale (“Mr Diamond”), said that he had been told by Mr Ginvert that the RFU had agreed to the outcome with Mr Ginvert on the basis that Mr Ginvert give a statement and made various other comments about Mr Ginvert and the RFU. The implication of the comments made by Mr Diamond were that the proceedings were not fair, and that Mr Ginvert’s interests were being preferred so that the RFU could get at Sale. 9. As there was a break in the hearing scheduled at the conclusion of Mr Diamond’s evidence the panel asked for submissions about the status of Mr Ginvert’s evidence, and whether, in the light of the concerns raised by Mr Diamond, Mr Ginvert should be called to give evidence. After the break and in the course of the submissions it became common ground that Mr Ginvert’s witness statements were admissible, but that their weight should be for the panel to assess in the light of all the evidence available to the panel. Mr Budworth explained on behalf of Sale and Mr Diamond that Mr Diamond had been contacted the night before by Mr Ginvert who had said he had been asked to make a further statement, that in fact the further statement related to the factual issue of whether Mr Diamond had asked Mr Ginvert to hold on to the January contract between Sale and Mr Van Rensburg, that Mr Ginvert’s supplementary witness statement was to the effect that he did not recall that matter, and that because the agreement between the RFU and 3 Mr Ginvert had come very late in the day Mr Diamond had not had complete information. Sale, the RFU and Gloucester did not make submissions suggesting that Mr Ginvert should be called to give evidence. 10. In the light of the comments made by Mr Diamond and the submissions that we have had, we have examined again the papers relating to Mr Ginvert with care. We can confirm that we do not consider a need to call Mr Ginvert to give evidence to us, and that we will treat his evidence as admissible and will consider the weight to be given to the evidence in the light of all the other evidence we have received while noting that we have not heard him give his evidence or be questioned about it. We address the specific issues relating to Mr Ginvert’s sanction below. 11. A core object of the RFU Rules is to promote the values of, among others, respect, see RFU Rule 3.2. We should record that although disciplinary proceedings will inevitably be stressful, and although we accept that there were added pressures because the proceedings were conducted by remote video hearing and because there was a late agreement between the RFU and Mr Ginvert about the disciplinary charge brought against him, and there are the stresses caused by the suspension of the season because of the COVID-19 crisis, the comments made by Mr Diamond suggested that there appeared to be a lack of respect for the other parties involved in the proceedings and in particular Mr Ginvert and the RFU. The combative approach of both Mr Diamond, and Mr Orange as appears from paragraph 34 below, to the other parties was disappointing to record. The issues for the hearing 12. The parties agreed issues for the hearing. We are very grateful to the legal representatives, the parties and all of those attending for their hard work in preparing for the hearing and ensuring that it was effective and that everyone could be heard.