One of the hot topics in school rugby at the moment is recruitment/poaching/buying/”gapsing” of good players from other high schools.
During August Muir College near Port Elizabeth hosted Traditional Schools Headmasters’ Annual Conference for 2014 and this issue of recruitment was included on the agenda.
A lot of important school related matters are tabled for discussion at these conferences and some big decisions get made along the way. The fact that headmasters did not get very far in attempts to address the recruitment issue doesn’t necessarily make the conference a failure.
Unofficial feedback is basically what happened was it looked like most headmasters were very cautious on what they said about recruitment. So apparently it took nearly two hours for anything of meaning really to be said. Brendan Grant, headmaster of Queen’s College then got up and said that all should stand up and accept that there was a problem here and by being silent did nothing to help the situation at all, and that certain schools and Headmaster were hiding behind provincial agents. At the end of the meeting it looked like the main three points that were tabled for further agreement were the following:
- That no movement should happen after Grade 8
- If a boy wanted to move after Grade 8, that the school were the boy was going to would inform the school of departure before any acceptance was given, to give the school enough time to make a counter offer if needed or to discuss the issue with the boy parents. (This seemed to be the biggest issue as boys would not just disappear at the end of term, and those schools were usually the last to find out)
- That professionalism was to be kept out of school sport at all costs.
There was also a suggestion afterwards that some headmasters were being underhanded. Seemingly an indication that they had no intention of changing their ways once they left the Conference.
@Green Hopper: well the email I got from TK asking about recruitment a few months back was extremely unprofessional. I was shocked. I know who removed me, one of TK’s pawns….
@Grasshopper: i will join
@Grasshopper: i don’t know who suspended you as I am not on that page , for very obvious reasons, but what I can tell you is that in 2011 after some very frank and interesting conversations with one TK and lady head of department , whom possible runs the school at the moment, as is a reason much of the traditions are now being removed , had frank discussions and email conversations
but in brief I was told , in no uncertain terms , that if my son , wanted to be a prefect , he had to disassociate himself from his best mate, questions of freedom of association and speech were brought up and possible court action as well and repots going the department of education , suffice to say there was some movement , but not enough , however , I never followed it through and then issues such as the procurement of players , brought a whole other set of issues , and ultimately the boy suffered, I am thankful, he was better than them and showed more maturity and dealt with a issue he really could vote on , and change , as he was a student and the master , slave principle came into effect
lucky if I was to be challenged with all this , I had recorded the conversations the various parties, unbeknown to them, had have kept the emails and letters, which reading are diabolical
@Gungets Tuft: Not the brine and disease I’m worried about. The one he sends to me might be laced with strychnine…….
@GreenBlooded: But if you do use a tjikkin, get it from ou Ploegie … less brine and not diseased. The local ones might still have feathers on them, you don’t want to confuse them about your intent ..
@Grasshopper: Hahaha. Maybe back off for a bit and see what happens. The okes on the GOB site are mostly appalled by you getting ejected – and many of them support your view. Maybe best to lie low for a while and let others carry the torch for a bit – it won’t do your cause any good constantly going on about it. Sometimes better to use a feather than the whole chicken if you know what I mean……..
@Grasshopper:
Beet, any chance of changing jersey to a green one with a red cross going over it? Or skull and bones….hahah
@QC86: Maybe, I think I’m going to start a Facebook group for anyone supporting recruitment or poaching of kids for sport from grade 9 upwards, with an obviously slant on Glenwood doing it….hopefully get a good 100 or more followers…
@Grasshopper: you are officially my new best friend.
In this day of freedom of speech & democracy it’s appalling to say the least. Especially when this is essentially about childrens lives……fekkers!
@Grasshopper: I believe there are more bloggers that agree with you than those who will be against you…… But there will be a few especially in the east of Pretoria
@McCulleys Workshop: I mean to be chucked out for expressing an opinion, not bad language very level headed. My family has been at Glenwood since 1926, you would think they would have more respect than that. When I get a bee I my bonnet I’ll not stop….these buggers will get exposed. 104 years of history destroyed in a decade, not happening. I believe in karma and the wheel is turning….
@Grasshopper: Hopper, don’t do that please, we need the entertainment! It seems the typical method, you have to drink the cool aid and no room for differing views. If his methods were sustainable and enhancing of all boys at the school and not to anyone’s detriment, he would welcome your view and be able to argue his point and maybe you would see the green light. The fact that you or the other Old Boys need censorship in 2014 is a wonderful testament to F.All.
How pathetic is this, joined a Glenwood Old Boys group on Facebook. I posted a story about Stefan Terblanche not agreeing with Glenwood’s professionalism in rugby. I posted my concerns about it and how it’s morally and ethically wrong, I get chucked out of the group! How childish can you get! This inspires me more to build up a following against this from all the bloggers here etc. This little man with a chip on his shoulder needs to be stopped. His personal goals are clouding his vision. How can it be ethical to recruit boys in grade 10 to replace current ones!!!! Ah these buggers have seriously cheesed me off now. I honestly hope all schools boycott Glenwood now to stop these egotistical men!
@GCollege86: Oh! Even worse. Thought they had 21 teams. Well, that brings participation rate down to 36% (less than Dale and QC percentage wise)…and that’s only 2/3rds of what the big gov schools in KZN field.
@Playa: Selborne has 18 teams. Seniors – 7, u16 – 3, u15 – 4 and u14 – 4. Selborne has 740 boys in the school. So you can do the maths.
@Grasshopper: Some perspective…Dale and QC would have to combine ALL their teams to have a derby against College, Glenwood or even Westville. Selborne, who are the biggest college in the Border (second to Grey in the EC), would also need some help to give you guys a full fixture list. Participation rate at QC and Dale is around 45% mind you.But number of boys who play is still half your 33% rate. And around 50% at Selborne. 80% is a myth. If Dale and QC had 80% participation, each school would have 400 rugby players (I.e. 27 rugby teams each) and Selborne would have 560 players (37 rugby teams!!!!).
Percentages get tricky when you’re working off different bases.
@Green Hopper:
“the story with Westville was the start of the issues we are seeing now, and these are attributable directly to SE” – Or he was an instrument in a policy devised by his masters?
“why didn’t he stand up for his fine principles, and move on, he had options , any school in the country would have taken him, ???” – He did!!
@GreenBlooded: mate, i agree, that his task master was and is a hard man , having personally spoken to all three, I disagree that he was a man who stood on his own , I think he was under tremendous pressure , he however inherited a great 2008 team, from Toppy, in the year that followed and following the only to succeed and beat Grey at GW , Toppy, it was is objective to beat this team, the 2010 team was considered to be the team that could possibly do it , and failed with a 63 – 3 loss at Grey .
However one has to listen to the reports coming out of the school, this year , and the change in playing style, I openly admit that I didn’t think Dames was up to the task, and I have previously eaten my words. However the darkest days over the last 7 years has been the Marne and Potgieter debacle , the story with Westville was the start of the issues we are seeing now, and these are attributable directly to SE, his ambitions of Currie Cup in and around the 2011 /2012 season, being too connected to Stauli etc.
If as you suggest he was a man or decent person of substance , why didn’t he stand up for his fine principles, and move on, he had options , any school in the country would have taken him, ??? or would they have???. My personal issue has no bearing on my suggestions or pointes made, I am more about the continuing stories coming out of issues, and more ,
What I can say about “that” issue is purely that the words came out of SE’s mouth to Dubas, and was supported by the boys that also heard this , and it was after a meeting request by SE and others, on things written about players on a different blog, purely despicable, no decent act of an individual or proposed character . however that’s cover under separate topic, and has washed out like it was supposed to have , however I invite you to read what I have posted on the other topic, “wasted talent” you might find it interesting , as I said things are moving along
,
@Green Hopper: I think you and many other give SE far more flak than he deserves. Consider that he was an employee at Glenwood with a difficult task-master to report to and great expectations to perform to. From my admittedly limited knowledge – I believe him to be a good and decent man. I’m sure the good folk from Paarl Boys High will agree. I do have empathy for the situation which affected you and understand your animosity towards him – but perhaps you need to consider that perhaps he was acting on orders from above? I might be wrong – but think about it.
I could agree with you more, and it might say a lot and support the issue that coaches are more interesting in their personal status as winning , just like Erasmus , was and TP and TK, were by buying players so they could keep the win ratio up,
It has become more about them and the coaches rather than “coaching” Is coaching about taking a bunch of individuals with varying levels of skills and combining these players and working with the best set of skill he has to play a team that play about these expectations
You need to show faith in the players and the boys in the school, who have done the hard yards in working through the years , believing in the ethos and all the rhetoric spoken to them by adults , who should know better, only to see in the culminating year the purchase of players, TP , TK and Erasmus did and do all of these things, as Grassy mentioned it, really got bad with the Marne story , and I think IMPO, that this did more harm to GW , than GW wish to admit , it really rocked them, and this is why I think SE , ultimately left , it has changed much , but is scaled down somewhat , more to the level of pre Marne and co , but this is why they are experiencing all the backlash they are getting now, the chicken are coming home to roost , this is why Old Boys are beginning not to send their sons to the school, OLD boys days are not nearly as busy as there were a few years back, its souring in many ways . sad but true ,
This path that they have followed will roll out and the results will be seen by other schools, Westville and College are also going along the same path, but are behind, what they will see will be the stumbles GW and possibly avert them, and they are, because whilst GW is getting lambasted by the media and public about buy and importing players, it’s happening at these schools to , but they are averting the attention because GW is coping the flak
But as I have stated earlier, the status has to change one way or the other, if it is to go professional etc , then rules and a plan forward needs to be set out now, or the whole system needs to be stopped , but what we have at the moment is untenable
@Green Hopper: Ja, look, I don’t like individual examples but the fields are full of those who fail to follow the script. Brandon S still has lots of potential, possible not as an international #8, but perhaps on the side of the scrum, he’s still strong and fast. But that leads onto my 3rd point – thoughtful mentorship. A kid going through the ranks will become a known quantity to coaches at developmental schools. They will see, season to season, even game to game, how the boy is coming on. They can then guide a position change and start that process early.
The real weakness where a school buys in players to fill gaps is that they might see buying as the first step to compensating where their plans go wrong with a kid that stops growing, doesn’t build pace etc. They don’t see the option of retreading a big #8 in U16 to a big #6 in U18. They look to import, drop the focus on the star they bought in Grade 9. The other weakness in that theory is the investment in the player already in the #6 – you’ve bought him, presumably on a 5-year deal, and suddenly he is playing 2nds.
Don’t know all the answers, but if you decide to play that game then be prepared to walk the hard yards as well, taking the pain of a long term “contract” that might not work out, or the negative publicity that arises when you suddenly stop the bursary of an U16 player that has dropped from the radar.
@Gungets Tuft: I agree, , focus needs to be on building teams, by buying teams, there is no investment in teaching training and building the resource of players , and it will reduce the quantity of players as there is no investment in developing and coaching players,
For me , I look at Staples, the boy was a talent , fitted into the category I talk about often, exceptionally big at u14 level, good skills, fairly more advance then his peers at that time, moved schools too many times, IMHO, and look at him now, I say him a few weeks, back, as a17 year , he is average in size, if not even a bit on the small side, playing in the UK,
I personally don’t think we will hear of him after school, at any level, he might just have enough momentum to carry him through to a possible 1st team level position at school, , but the combination of being thought of as a talent at grade 8 , moving schools, because they were all wanting to buy him, has resulted in him, almost becoming a nondescript
@rugbyfan:i agree, and it will have an impact on the structures and the game at the school, the ethos and the sustainability of the school
What needs to be understood is that the present system and this proposed system won’t work, we have to embrace professionalism and work with it , How and how its structured needs to be thought out , progressive about it , trying to deny that it isn’t there or stem the tide, is much like when they tried to keep it amateur in 1996 François and the boys,
What needs to happen is a structured an planned opening up and moving forward, if not , it will be and remain a mess ,
I don’t think the rugby unions such as the sharks are progressive enough , isn’t this how super rugby can out of a level of rugby that wasn’t Currie cup and wasn’t test , this might have lost it way a bit now, with it really being Currie cup , but ultimately a path forward has to be set up
@Queenian: I get it. I have been thinking about the “professional” thing. My take is this – that life in general, sport in particular, has become more professional. So, concentrating on sport, if our boys are going to play rugby and cricket we need to :
1. Have more specialist facilities. Gyms, indoor nets, biokineticists and conditioning coaches. Our boys are learning from the pro athletes, and apsire to be Bakkies, Bizzie, Willie and Gio. Best we make sure that while they do it, they are as safe as we can make them. That means skills and conditioning that doesn’t happen in 90 minutes practice twice a week.
2. Better coaching. It doesn’t mean that we have to have professional coaches, but as I have said elsewhere, we might need to resort to non-teacher coaches because running 24 rugby and 14 hockey sides means 38 teachers (still mostly male), resources we struggle to have on staff. But those we do have need to be qualified, so all coaches should be properly trained as coaches for skills, injury prevention, conditioning.
3. Thoughtful mentorship. That means that we are cautioning them about a career in sport, while encouraging them to be the best they can be, pointing out the diminuishingly small possibility that they will be a Protea or Springbok, and how short that career might be anyway, and ensuring they get a decent education as well. It also means that there is a dedicated drive to prevent the use of PEDs and steroids, growth hormone etc. Stories about the likes of Toppie, Skonk and others abound, and they were about the whole man, not just the sportsman.
Looking at rugby, the game has moved on light years since I played and I think it is critical that the way we manage it moves on as well. If that’s professional, then bring it on.
HOWEVER … the way I see it is that schools are increasingly looking at themselves as franchises, just as the Shark, Bulls and Stormers (et al) do, and buying teams rather than building. So, as soon as a school starts advertising “elite academies”, and skilling and resourcing those differently to the “rest”, I think you have a foot on the slippery slope. That’s not a dig at Glenwood who have given their specialist facilities a name, I think a lot of schools segregate, but not all use it as a “selling point”.
You all make the assumption that a boy in grade 8 has and is the talent come grade 12, well it’s been proved , time and time again that this isn’t the case, and plenty can go wrong in the 5 years a boy is at any particular high school, injury , parents’ divorce, loses interest for girls, all sorts of things, more especially that he happened to be particularly big at grade 8 u14 age group , but is small at open level,
So much can change during this phase of a person’s life.
I don’t condone the moving of players, its my pet hate , and you will find that loop holes will be found and the old adage , well it is against the letter of the agreement , will be used again and again
So this isn’t the solution,
@Grasshopper: We have the same participation problems you guys have,only diffs is your 30% of grade 11 and 12’s pans out to 160 boys were our 30% pans out to 100 boys,bigger will always have more,doesn’t matter how you try and spin it.
@rugbyfan: complete rubbish again! I’ve have been to all the Colleges in EC & Border, good facilities with more fields. Everyone focuses on the big Gov schools having 1200 boys, only about 400 play rugby so when comparing schools you have to factor in participation %, 33% at Glenwood. Probably closer to 80% at smaller Colleges. Glenwood offers close to 50 extra curricular activities covering all types of personalities. Surfing alone probably has 50 boys involved. If a kid can’t find an activity they like then they do social cross country, but it’s compulsory to so something. Remember College’s get the elite big Gov schools get all types so have to cater for all…
@GREENMASJIEN: You speak about boys leaving ECape schools because they have more structures and put more money in facilities and coaches in places like Glenwood and Westville and so on. All I can say is what a load of “horse crap”.
When last you go to say Selborne or maybe Queens they have by much better facilities than either Westville and Glenwood and they have good coaching and Old Boys set up,s. Ask QC86
It is pure an simple both Westville and Glenwood are trying to succeed by buying players, how can Glenwood with 1200 boys not find there own talent makes you wonder that all those great structures you talk of don’t even help with there own people.
Its simple give Selborne/Dale/Queens 1200 boy and they would kick those schools butts everytime.
@Gungets Tuft: What I am saying is yes for a school to get professional with the kids they have and not professional in the way of trying to buy any school kid you can get your hands on from any school you can.
@Queenian: What you are saying is that we need MORE professionalism, not less. That behaviour is distinctly unprofessional.
@QC 86.No idea why he did not greet his teammates.
I think most are mis-reading what point 3 means, it does not mean that schools must not get sponsership’s from Mr Price and Co or Old Boys what it was meant by this was when a agent from the North offers a boy from QC at the Grant Komo Week a Bulls contract and free schooling at a Private School( ala Southdowns ) and then gives the parents a cheque to influence there decision that is what is not needed.
@iRugby: So what you’re saying is that DB was approached and accepted during the holidays???
It’s no whining, it’s your dispute of ‘above board’ and ‘transparency’ that is in question. Don’t get uncomfortable, face the music and quit sugar-coating. It matters not that he is back in EL, the point is the whole process of him leaving in the first place was as transparent and above board as the Arms Deal.
@iRugby: I use DB as a counter to your first post under this thread,and what happens when money becomes a factor in any activity,not only in school sport.Backroom deals are made by adults that are trying to secure future income in stead of putting the well being of kids first.DB was nearly dragged to the headmaster to inform him and that was because he was told not to tell anybody.Never even said cheers to his first xv teammates ,why
@GREENMASJIEN: Even if they arrive with their talent already identified by others and just slot in, meaning all your nattering about developing is actually just gathering talent. I’m not even going to try and figure out whether you believe what you say or you are trolling, but either way it doesn’t matter. The key to schoolboy rugby is having opposition to play. Your school is losing that match 0-3 right now, so on the one measure that actually counts, beyond your opinion, things aren’t looking too sharp.
QC 86.I have not been involved in the players move to Glenwood.I am not his agent.DB himself went to your headmaster and personally told him he was going to move.If that is not above board together with the Paarl headmaster phoning your headmaster in the holidays to inform him of the move than I don’t know what is.Stop whining and move on on DB.He is back in EL now.
@GREENMASJIEN: Poepsak.
Be sceptical in the EC , be what you want to be. Young players who want more from their support structures must move to the schools that clearly and proudly put their money where their mouths are, by investing in top facilities , coaches and opportunities these progressive schools do offer more so I encourage all talented young players to leave the sceptics behind and move with the times.
The world is your stage.
@iRugby: tell me why in the recent DB debarcal and the other player movement from Selborne that you have been involved in ,, they have all been instructed not to tell anybody about the move if all is above board, makes me very sceptical
@iRugby: In your case mostly one traditional school. Be that as it may, at least we agree on recruitment latest gr.9 for gr.10, but even then I am sometimes concerned about how some schools, or rather their recruiters, go about their business. Must be the pressure of more competition in the market, but it leaves a very bad taste.
@iRugby: “And the whole process is above board ….” …. is exactly what the headmaster conference was to achieve but appears to have failed to do. I have a (just) 17 year old boy, and am close to many of his mates. They don’t make decisions like that, simple. They are convinced to do so, by parents, agents, recruiters. I personally know of one boy that was convinced to move, I saw weeks of Whatsapps from the boy to his former schoolmates, bitterly unhappy. His own description, he was more miserable than the first 3 weeks of 2nd form. One can argue that the boys need guidance at this age, but it’s being manipulated by people that have their own interests ahead of the boys.
The right way to do it is to NOT approach boys after Grade 10, at all, ever. Everyone has a counter argument to the right way to do it. If a boy, especially a scholarship boy, is looking to move, the first talk is to his own headmaster. Only then the approach to the target school. Then a discussion between headmasters, before things proceed. But that takes honesty and integrity, something that appears in short supply. I know there are always arguments, reasons why it will not work, but the main reason is simple, certain people have no interest in making it work, and will dress up the poaching as simply acting in the boys interests, but coincidentally also in their own. If there’s a solution I don’t see it, because I have seldom seen appeals for decent behaviour universally accepted, and all it takes is one to break ranks and all is lost.
@Gunges Tuft
Thanks for your polite and mature response.I think first prize for schools is to get great sportsmen to enroll in Gr 8.Second prize is for boys to join is Gr 10 because a lot of parents feel their boys are only ready for Boarding establishments when they turn 16 but any move to another school after Gr 10 was and will always be a big risk for any learner to be accepted and to fit into his new school.
There a lot of pressure on schools from various parts of the community to deliver outstanding results may it be on sporting ,academic or cultural level and the reasons differ from school to school but rugby are being supported by the majority of learners ,old boys and parents and thus creating a lot of emotion.99.9 % of recruiting are being done directly by schools and each school has a different recruiting policy .I think the way it is being done remains very important .We as adults should also respect it if a boy wants to further his rugby career at a big traditional school.Who are we to stop them if an oppurtunity arise and the whole process is above board.
@iRugby: All those things mentioned are fine, they are all elements of doing your coaching job properly. However, none of it explains why schools go for wholesale recruitment in the middle years of a boys high school years. I can guess at a few:
1. The schools sponsors demand “success” in return for their cash. That success is defined in terms of Top 10 rankings at the moment, or appearance in the televised festivals. The drive for the Top 10 ranking in return calls for rabid recruitment.
2. In the search for that pay cheque, which you have pointed out only arrives when the boy earns more than R100K a year, the agent drives the boys movements to the school that he believes is best able to provide that opportunity. You can dress that up as the best for a boy chasing a rugby career, but the cost is never quantified, that being a sense of belonging to something more than just a career vehicle, but to a community and a culture that exists at many of our excellent schools. I don’t believe a boy arriving in Grade 11 will ever feel for a school, and his schoolmates, as much as the kid that’s done the 5 year journey.
3. The management of the school, be they the headmaster and staff or the Governing body, or Old Boys, let their personal ambition drive the way they run the school. In their headlong rush to achieve a ranking, or whatever measure they will use to adjudicate “success”, they forget that there is real flesh and blood in their charge, not products that make up the advertising that points to their personal success.
I just think that people dredge up some noble motive to justify behaviour, but turn off the fancy lights, blow away the smoke, and you see ambition and greed at the root of it all. I am open to persuasion, but your answer is superficial unless it explains why we see the current recruitment frenzy in certain quarters. JMHO.
@Gunges Tuft
My definition of professionalism without personal attacks on anybody commenting on this blog.
1.One has to distinguish between commercialism and professionalism.
2.Professionalism means a director of rugby ,a team of coaches at a schools first team,a team of conditioning coaches at a school for eg. a fisiotherapist,biokineticist as well as a sport scientist and I will add a kicking coach as well.
3.An analyst of video’s taken of a team’s performance as well as the opposition being played the next Saturday.
4.All the top 10 Rugby schools in South African Schoolboy Rugby are employing 90 % of the above personnel I mentioned above.How do they fund these personnel?From school fees only??No definitely not.Through commercialising their schools rugby brand.
Commercialism definition
1.Sell the real estate on your First 15’s jerseys.
2.Get kit sponsors for your different sport codes in the school eg. Adidas or Puma or Canterbury.
3.Sell advertising space at your rugby grounds.
4.Partake in Premier Interschools and sell the advertising rights to get your marches being broadcasted on Supersport.
These are only a few means of funding a rugby program.Gunges I hope I have answered to your request.
@QC 86 .Without personal attacks do you think the above is to the detriment of schoolboy rugby ?
QC 86.FYI .Agents only make commission out of rugby players once they receive a salary at U/19 or U/20 level and mostly when they earn a salary of over R 100 000 per annum.When rugby players are at school they only cost agents money!They don’t earn any salary at school so where do agents commission comes from when they are at school?If you want to know more about agents roles please feel free to contact me as you seem not to know how they function.This is not personal or an attack just to give you fact.
Good move Brendan Grant
@iRugby: Point 3 is just a statement of opinion, not a consequence.
But now that you have opened the can, explain the other three, perhaps starting with your view of professionalism. Why does sponsorship of kit, payment for the privilege of broadcasting a schoolboy game, or paying coaches for their time make professionalism inevitable. Clarify your definition of professionalism and then we can discuss this from a clear starting point.
@Tandem: schoolboy rugby agents represent a huge amount of what I think is causing all of what has been written about in the media regarding player recruitment. They operate in the shadows , making promises and luring kids from one school to the next with bags of money. Read his above comment, all to do with money, can somethings at school not just stay pure and be money free.Do we really need corporate names on our rugby jerseys, kids lives are confusing enough in this day and age , can we not just let them grow up first.
@QC86: Very unnecessary personal attack . T
Sounds like the United Nations – a toothless tiger. Agree to all sorts of things in principle but no method of sanction or enforcement. I’m sure there is a decent golf course somewhere in Uitenhage – the HM’s should have rather spent the time there. It would have achieved more.
@iRugby: and take away a opportunity for a oke like you to make profit from a child, schoolboy rugby has been great for a 100 years until money has become an issue.
I can’t think these Boys Schools rugby can survive by agreeing to point 3.That would mean the following:
1.No sponsorships on jerseys from companies = no money for rugby programs
2.No financial contributions other than school fees from axternal institutions to pay external coaches!Which of these schools have teachers only coaches left and which schools don’t pay their teachers extra for coaching rugby?
3.It amazes to think that some educators still think that rugby at school must be amateurish again!
4.No Premier Interschools = no payment to these schools involved.
Therefore I am not surprised that a few headmasters with vision let common sense prevail by not agreeing to accept the abovementioned conditions.Tradition can be a stumbling block to making progress!!