I still think we're missing the point here, guys. Phindi may have got us to where we are, but there are a whole team of people, including Purple Capital, working very hard to ensure that relevant information is being brought to light. We ought to be focusing on the proceedings, rather than trying to knock the people who engineered the process in the first place. If / when the Commission rules, there will be plenty of time to sling mud at whoever you choose.
It is a pity that so few people have been able to attend, but I attach an eye witness account from Steve Reid posted on the Pure Punting forum. Mr Reid may not be everyone's favourite, but even making allowances for his colourful past, his account seems factual and moreover concurs with other 3rd party reports I've received. I think it makes for interesting reading no matter which 'country' you're in.
"I have spent a few days following procedings and it is a fascinating spectacle. The records are there for all to see at
www.comptrib.co.za/gold-circle-kenilworth-racing-merger
. It is unfortunate that regular "confidentiality" sessions are held as these are not recorded nor was I allowed to sit in on these sessions. You will note that these sessions are blacked out in the transcripts.
The highlight for me has been the vindication that something was wrong with this proposed merger. Unlike other areas previously highlighted on SFRW and other forums, where there were clearly problematic areas in racing, there was nowhere to hide for our friends from P/GC on this issue, and boy did the skeletons start coming out of the cupboards, and we are not done by a long shot. In my very humble opinion, the testimony of Chris van Niekerk and Vidrig Thurling has mortally damaged the chances of Phumelela overturning the Commissions previous decision not to allow the merger. Some fascinating facts emerged over the last few days and I will attempt to highlight why I think P's case is shot.
Chris van Niekerk is a board member of P as well as a trustee of the Trust. Amazingly under oath he testified that he had not had sight of the merger documentation until Sunday this week. You can read into that what you will, but in my opinion it shows me that he is just rubber stamping decisions made by the policy makers on the P board. During testimony he seemed either evasive or unsure of the answers of the most elimentary of questions viz. who was funding the WC in this merger. He steadfastly claimed that Phumelela would not be putting a cent in and in fact the money was coming in from the Trust. Vidrig Thurling was a disaster for P on the stand. He seemed very unsure of himself, being this nervousness or ignorance, I cant say. His whole rationale behing merging with P was the fact that stakes could be guaranteed and improved as WC would now get 26% of the national pot should the merger succeed. In his opinion WC racing could only go to P for assistance as nobody else had the expertise. Amazingly after various meetings with Jooste, Du Plessis, Wainstein and others over the merger proposal, he claimed no knowledge of what money was needed to be loaned from P/Trust. He furthermore claimed no knowledge of the workings of the loan save to say THAT THE WESTERN CAPES ASSETS WERE BEING UTILISED AS SECURITY FOR THE DEAL. This is critical as in essence the WC assets are not being safeguarded as he presented to his members at a meeting previously. After some vigorous cross examination, and being threatened with perjury, he finally admitted that a loan was being secured through Phumelela not the Trust, with the WC property assets being used as security. In my opinion, Thurling has deliberately mislead members on this issue, and seeing that he has been mandated by his board, it is time for either a vote of no confidence by the members, or they should do the right thing and get the WC board to resign en masse. A further revelation is the fact that the entire merger agreement was structured by Phumelela AND NOT ONE SINGLE ITEM IN THEIR AGREEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED NOR ALTERED BY THE WESTERN CAPE BOARD. This speaks volumes and is clearly total capitulation. A further revelation was the fact that the agreement in essence was that 50% of the future profits made in the Western Cape would accrue for Phumelelas account....... This deal is not a short term deal to assist the WC in its moment of need, the deal is for perpetuity."
I have assurances from one of the legal teams that any and all information made available during the public portions of the hearings are public information and Mr Reid (and indeed any interested party) is freely allowed to attend and interpret proceedings as they see fit.
Having not seen the formal court transcriptions as yet, I am basing my analysis on Mr Reid's report (which as I've said, may be considered biased, but does concur with other 3rd party reports I've received).
To me the relevant points from that report are:-
"Chris van Niekerk is a board member of P as well as a trustee of the Trust. Amazingly
under oath he testified that he had not had sight of the merger documentation until Sunday this week".
"He steadfastly claimed that Phumelela would not be putting a cent in and in fact the money was coming in from the Trust".
With regard to Vidrik Thurling's testimony, the following stood out for me:-
"Amazingly after various meetings with Jooste, Du Plessis, Wainstein and others over the merger proposal, he claimed no knowledge of what money was needed to be loaned from P/Trust".
"He furthermore claimed no knowledge of the workings of the loan save to say THAT THE WESTERN CAPES ASSETS WERE BEING UTILISED AS SECURITY FOR THE DEAL".
(interesting. I'm fairly sure WC members were told that WC assets were being safeguarded).
"he finally admitted that a loan was being secured through Phumelela not the Trust, with the WC property assets being used as security".
(this is odd and seems to contradict Mr van Niekerk's statement that Phumelela were not putting any money into the deal).
"the agreement in essence was that 50% of the future profits made in the Western Cape would accrue for Phumelelas account"
"the entire merger agreement was structured by Phumelela AND NOT ONE SINGLE ITEM IN THEIR AGREEMENT WAS NEGOTIATED NOR ALTERED BY THE WESTERN CAPE BOARD".
"The highlight for me has been the vindication that something was wrong with this proposed merger."
There are some conflicting and in some cases, directly contradictory statements there. I wouldn't like to guess at the reasons behind them, but at the very least I think we have some bona fide examples of exceptionally poor stewardship here.
Mr van Niekerk is a director of Phumelela and a trustee of the Racing Trust and he had NO knowledge whatsoever of the deal being offered to the Western Cape until last Sunday. Responsible directorship ???
I was under the impression that this deal has been discussed for over a year. We keep being told what a liability the Western Cape is. If that is true, one would think that the Racing Trust or Phum (or whoever) agreeing to step in in whatever capacity would be quite a big deal. How is it possible that someone who is both a director of Phum and a trustee on the Racing Trust can have had no knowledge of any of the dealings until last Sunday? How can that possibly be construed as constructive or responsible directorship ???
And if the statement is true that Mr van Niekerk had no knowledge of the proposed transaction until last Sunday, then what purpose does he serve on the boards of either of those two august institutions? When exactly was he going to take an interest? And more importantly, if a high ranking, long standing board and trustee member has no knowledge of it, it surely begs the question who has been constructing / managing the transaction then?
I'm sorry. I consider myself a fairly reasonable person, but given Mr van Niekerk's professional standing and his long association and involvement in racing, his statements do not make any sense to me whatsoever.
There is one silver lining though - he did possess enough knowledge to state that none of the funding was coming from Phumelela. Which implies that he must have attended one or two meetings or at least had sight of some board meeting minutes somewhere along the line. So that's a relief.
OK.
Now we move on to Mr Thurling's testimony.
Having also been involved in 'negotiations' for over a year now, he had no knowledge of where the funding was coming from for the deal. This is a ridiculous statement from someone who is a professional businessman. Pick & Pay would not sell me a can of beans if I did not have the money to pay for it. Better still, the WC board have declared Purple Capital an unviable prospect because they refuse to disclose who their backers are. Yet the WC have apparently happily entered into an agreement with no knowledge of any funding of the deal either! Responsible directorship???
Mr Thurling seems to be aware that the WC would be entering into a loan agreement, but says he has no knowledge of the terms of this agreement. Responsible directorship???
Holy heck. I've only ever borrowed money to purchase relatively small things like vehicles and property, but even I know that if someone lends you money, there are terms and conditions attached. I usually like to know what those are before I sign on the dotted line so that I can do boring things like, oh I don't know, budget and plan ahead. But perhaps I'm odd that way.
Having assured members that the WC assets were not in any way vulnerable, it seems that they are in fact being used as collateral for a deal (the terms and conditions of which our stewards have not taken much trouble to familiarize themselves with). Responsible directorship???
Mr Thurling then remembers that the money for the deal is in fact (contrary to Mr van Niekerk's statement) coming from Phumelela. How odd. According to Mr Reid's report, Mr van Niekerk told the panel under oath that the money was not coming from Phumelela. But perhaps our witness got it wrong. Either way, it would be interesting to find out how two gentlemen involved in the transaction at apparently senior level can have such polar opposite understandings of how things are constructed.
Mr Thurling states that Phumelela would stand to take 50% of any WC profits. It is an interesting point as to the best of my knowledge, that has not been communicated to WC members. But as we're constantly told, the WC is such a bad business proposition that it is never likely to make any profit. Still, one would have thought it might be worth mentioning.
Lastly, not a single item in the transaction was negotiated or altered by the WC board. Responsible directorship ???
I shall be most interested to read the formal court transcripts as there appear to be some very odd statements being bandied about.
Guys - let's not fiddle while Rome burns. These are faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more important discussion points than the history between Mr Freeman and Ms Kema.
