Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Microphone picks up Sale owner calling Gloucester witness a 'liar' in RFU hearing

(Photo by Tony Marshall/Getty Images)

A stinging verbal outburst by Sale owner Simon Orange during a recent RFU disciplinary hearing has laid bare the broken relationship that now exists between the Manchester club and Premiership rivals Gloucester. At the heart of the fall-out was how Springbok midfielder Rohan Janse van Rensburg – who wanted a move away from South Africa in June 2017 following the death of his mother, an ACL injury and being the victim of an armed robbery at his home – wound up signing contracts with both Gloucester and Sale at the same time.

ADVERTISEMENT

That extraordinary situation led to the disciplinary hearing which resulted this week in the South African receiving a two-week suspension and a £32,500 fine, of which £25,000 must be repaid to Gloucester after they advanced him that sum of money when he initially signed in October 2017. 

Sale were given a five points deduction, suspended for two forthcoming seasons, and a fine of £20,000, while van Rensburg’s agent Matthew Ginvert received a reprimand, a fine of £3,750 and was directed to undertake the agent’s education programme.  In announcing these punishments on Friday, the RFU released the compelling 25-page written verdict of the three-person independent disciplinary panel comprising James Dingemans (chair) with Tim Ward QC and Gareth Graham. 

Video Spacer

The Rugby Pod hears from Agustin Pichot ahead of World Rugby’s chairman election

Video Spacer

The Rugby Pod hears from Agustin Pichot ahead of World Rugby’s chairman election

Included in the 80 sub-sections sifting through the various parts of the case, part 34 recalled the January 2018 communication between Sale owner Orange and Stephen Vaughan, the Gloucester director who has since gone on to become Wasps’ chief executive. That telephone call resulted in Orange calling Vaughan a liar more than two years later when the ex-Gloucester administrator gave evidence to the disciplinary panel.

The written verdict stated: “On January 2, 2018, Simon Orange, the owner of Sale, rang Stephen Vaughan, a director of Gloucester, and asked whether Gloucester had signed van Rensburg. Vaughan confirmed that Gloucester had signed van Rensburg but asked that the matter be kept quiet. Orange said that Vaughan had used the words ‘hush, hush’ but Vaughan did not accept that he had used those words. 

“We cannot see that anything very much turns on this particular point, it being just the sort of difference in recollection that one might expect from honest witnesses attempting to recall some two years after the event the details of a conversation which was not recorded or noted. 

“When Vaughan was giving evidence Orange was watching on his own laptop. Orange was in the same room (at a safe distance for Covid-19 reasons) as Martin Budworth, counsel for van Rensburg and Sale who was questioning Vaughan through Budworth’s laptop.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Orange could be heard calling Vaughan a liar in comments which must have been picked up by the microphone on Budworth’s computer. When Orange gave evidence he particularly remarked that Gloucester seemed to believe that its directors had a ‘divine right’ to be believed. 

“We can confirm that no witness has such a right to be believed, but we could not discern any basis on which we should not accept Vaughan’s evidence which was given in a straightforward manner and accorded with the documents. 

“We accept that Orange believed that the words hush hush had been used, but this was consistent with Vaughan either asking that the matter be kept quiet and Orange remembering the words used as hush hush, or Vaughan using the words hush hush and remembering that as a request that the matter be kept quiet.”

The contentious 2018 phone call was further referenced in section 35 of the written verdict. “In evidence, Orange said that in the phone call Vaughan was slippery and that he immediately did not believe that Gloucester had signed van Rensburg. However in an email dated April 25, 2018, from Orange to Martin St Quinton, the chairman of Gloucester, Orange said ‘when Steve told me you had signed the player I had no reason not to believe him UNTIL we asked the player and he told he definitely had not signed a contract’.

ADVERTISEMENT

“It is not possible to reconcile the email with Orange’s oral evidence to us. This is because Orange could not immediately have disbelieved Vaughan because he was slippery and yet said ‘I had no reason not to believe him’ in the email.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JPM 1 hour ago
Forget Ireland, the All Blacks face the real alpha of Europe next

Unfortunately you don't know anything about French rugby, coaches and players but still making a lot of assumptions and judgements to push your prefabricated and simplistic point of view that Dupont is manipulating everything and is a bad guy. I am not a NZ rugby specialist and wouldn't dare make such theories about what is going on within the ABs team. Therefore my advice to you is to do like Dupont and stay humble when you don't know all the background of the issues !!!


Firstly if you knew a bit of Galthié, he is not the type of coach who is going to ask advice to his players and even his captain about team selection. He is as stubborn as you...


Second Ramos has played a lot of times as 10 with Toulouse and therefore Dupont (in particular when Ntamack is injured and unfortunately it has often happened recently and for long periods). He even played 10 during the last 3 games of the 2024 6N and this was far better performance than the first two games with Jalibert as 10.


Thirdly Jalibert lacked of respect to a La Rochelle player so your theory is once again out.


Fourth as I explained to you Galthié went for a 6-2 bench and Jalibert can only play 10 which doesn't fit that plan. Furthermore as 15 Buros is better under high balls than Ramos and everybody is prepared for a tactical kicking game.


So you can blame Galthié for a lot of things (as you clearly enjoy doing at the end of your post and you should be very happy as an AB fan) but certainly not Dupont. Sorry once more for your conspiracy theory.


And don't worry about potential disharmony in the French team; they are excellent mates around their captain. Jalibert is well known in the French rugby circles to have not a strong character (and we saw that in the WC quarter finals as he is very nervous in any decisive international game unlike Ntamack and Ramos as for his late penalty kick vs England this year).


In conclusion enjoy the game tmrw night. It is good that the ABs are very upset; we should watch a great game of rugby. I hope for running rugby and not too much kicking. With 5 key players injured on our side (Ntamack, Baille, Atonio, Cros and Penaud) and 2 on your side I and various French fans see you as favourites. I obviously hope for another result.


If you are interested you can read a good article in the Guardian on the subject of France-NZ games.

92 Go to comments
K
KB 1 hour ago
The 'one difference' between Boks and the back-to-back All Blacks

Consistency hasnt been there they have many great players SA were also not unbeaten in the 2023 WC - NZ were in 2015 WC McCaw and Carter Nonu and Smith - SA did not have those Marque players in those postions in 2019 or 2023 - I wouldnt rank them ahead of the 20I5 ABs - They clocked up 60 points against France in the QF - Furthermore I do not believe for one moment SA won 2023 fairly no way - they were so favoured it became obvious that behind the scenes SA the nation bought the title - Their last 3 matches were won by a solitary point there were many contentious decisions that went their way that it became obvious it wasnt coincidence - Sport has been hijacked by a satanic cult just as is Politics

Some players coaches officials and sponsors are involved - they know who they are - its called Freemasonry - any sport that allows betting is corrupt - its not all about money either for these parasites its also about control - Lots of American NFL players have spoken openly about games being scripted - Football is also rigged Referees have been caught on film showing freemason hand signs - The 95 RWC final ranks as the highest and most obvious attempt at cheating There was no way SA were going to allow NZ to gate crash Nelson Mandelas reunification party - NZ were so good they had to posion almost the entire team to get a 3 point win - a Hollywood Movie ( theres your Red Flag ) was made about SAs triumph called Invictus


William Henley wrote a poem called Invictus


It starts


Out of the night that covers me BLACK ( All Blacks ) as the pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever GODS maybe for my unconquerable Soul ...( Olan says INVICTUS is an evil Malevolent entity who corrupted the Titans ... this is Mandelas double meaning speech ( hes a fraud ) - of thanks for helping overcome SA's adversary NZ - There is only ONE true God Yahuah - Only a false god would be complicit in Cheating Corruption and Harming others to win a RWC for a sick and sinful Nation ) the poem ends with


I am the CAPTAIN of my soul


SA will forever bear the stain of guilt and disgrace over their involvement in poisoning the ABs a day before the 95 RWC Final

13 Go to comments
C
CO 2 hours ago
Forget Ireland, the All Blacks face the real alpha of Europe next

I cannot believe that you don't think the French rugby team coach and captain are not discussing putting Jalibert on the bench in favour of Duponts club teammate that doesn't even play at 10.


This is a terrible, massive insult to a 10 and I'm sure Dupont would also be very enraged if benched for a player that doesn't even play halfback.


A good captain would've insisted to the coach that it was an idea of madness and either select Jalibert or replace him with another 10 if you want him to be reserve.


Jalibert may not be the world's finest tacklers but that's often not a tens main strength that the loose forwards and second five cover. An intercept pass is never great but they happen.


When any player is playing for his club then it's club first, respect doesn't need to be shown to opposition players simply because they're internationals.


Who exactly are you claiming Jalibert hasn't respected? If it's Toulouse international players then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this bench demotion out.


The outcome of selecting Jalibert to the bench and he then throwing his croissants out the window of the team bus immediately prior to playing the Allblacks is a disaster that will be team disharmony as any team mates of Jalibert are in a state of anger and revolt so a performance that will be sub optimal against a team that is thirsting for revenge against France.


I don't know about you but the Allblacks are very upset they've lost twice in a row to France and want to put out a statement performance so this preparation by Galthie of creating havoc looks to me like a coach that is clueless.

92 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ 'Two groups of dancing bears': The cross-code clash making a comeback for charity 'Two groups of dancing bears': The cross-code clash making a comeback for charity
Search