Old Selbornian Derek Page recently confirmed that his stint as Director of Rugby at Selborne has come to an end as long ago as March 2026. From the outset, it always felt like an unconventional appointment. In the traditional schoolboy rugby sense of the role — one requiring deep technical oversight, programme structure, and high-performance coaching acumen — Page appeared a very unusual fit or better said, out of his depth.
That said, perhaps the appointment reflected a more out-of-the-box strategy than was appreciated — one less concerned with the traditional technical demands of the role and more focused on leveraging a popular and influential figure to galvanise support, attract goodwill, and help raise the capital required to fund an ambitious rugby programme.
Ultimately, it was not to be.
His departure once again exposes the fault lines within Selborne’s rugby community. One camp is desperately calling for meaningful reform to stop the programme’s regression and drag it back toward competitive relevance. On the other sits an old guard seemingly content to preserve dated tradition, even if it means tolerating a slide into mediocrity or beyond.
This is not merely about wins and losses on a Saturday afternoon. In the last decade, Selborne was a rugby school capable of toppling Grey College, when beating the Bloemfontein rugby factory powerhouse was a rarity reserved for only the strongest programmes.
The stakes extend well beyond schoolboy rugby.
A thriving sports programme is often a powerful driver of enrolment, particularly in South Africa’s competitive semi-private school landscape. Success attracts financially secure families; stagnation sends them looking elsewhere. And with those fee-paying families often come influential parents with the capacity to sponsor initiatives, sometimes even facilities and to invest in the broader school ecosystem.
When their sons happen to be first-team athletes, that generosity can become even more pronounced.
Success in school rugby also strengthens old boys’ sense of belonging, encouraging them to reconnect with the school and even support it financially.
In that sense, rugby is rarely just rugby. At schools like Selborne, it is deeply intertwined with identity, reputation, and financial sustainability. That is why the programme’s direction matters far more than many are willing to admit.
Selborne will still exist in 10, 25, 50, even 100 years’ time. Its survival is not under threat. What is under threat is its relevance.
And in modern school sport, relevance is inextricably linked to money.
Financial muscle helps shape a school’s identity. It funds facilities, attracts quality staff, supports ambitious programmes, and enables a school to keep pace with increasingly well-resourced competitors. Once that identity begins to erode, securing the money required to reverse the decline becomes significantly harder.
It is a vicious cycle.
The moment a school slips into irrelevance, the climb back becomes a mammoth undertaking. Recovery demands widespread buy-in, difficult structural change, and renewed trust from stakeholders who may already have shifted their support elsewhere.
Digging out of that hole requires enormous effort, substantial time, and comes with no guarantee of success.
That is precisely why it makes far more sense to do everything possible to avoid falling behind in the first place.
Derek Page’s media release:
Over the past several weeks, there has been considerable public discussion and media commentary regarding the Selborne College rugby programme and the events surrounding the involvement of Mr Jake White and myself.
I have intentionally refrained from making any public comment during this period out of respect for Selborne College, its leadership structures, the boys, the coaching staff, parents, Old Selbornians, and the broader school community. I believed it was appropriate to allow the school the opportunity to communicate its position formally before engaging publicly.
However, in light of ongoing media enquiries and public speculation, I believe it is necessary to clarify my position factually and respectfully.
I was originally approached by the Selborne Foundation Trust to serve as Director of Rugby as part of a proposed long-term rugby development programme intended to strengthen and advance rugby structures at the school.
During my period of involvement, it became evident that there were differing views regarding the implementation, management structures, and strategic direction of the programme. In particular, it became clear that several of the proposed rugby structures and operational approaches were not aligned with the expectations and preferred governance approach of the Headmaster and broader school leadership.
Following various communications and engagements regarding these matters, I communicated my intention to step away from the role until such time as there was clarity and alignment regarding the way forward.
Accordingly, I confirm that I have not operated in the role of Director of Rugby at Selborne College since 4 March 2026.
Subsequent to the public circulation of the Jake White correspondence and the resulting media attention, meetings were held between relevant stakeholders regarding the future direction of the rugby programme. It was ultimately communicated that the school would proceed with its own internally managed long-term rugby strategy under the direction of the Headmaster and existing governance structures, and that there would no longer be a requirement for the Director of Rugby role as previously envisaged.
I also wish to clarify that certain media reports and public commentary subsequently suggested that I remained actively involved in the Selborne rugby programme. That information was incorrect. I have had no operational involvement in the rugby programme since 4 March 2026.
I wish to place on record that my involvement at Selborne was always undertaken in good faith, with a genuine desire to contribute positively to the growth and long-term success of rugby at the school. My intentions throughout were centred on creating strong structures, supporting coaches and players, and contributing toward a high-performance rugby environment consistent with the proud traditions of Selborne College.
I remain deeply appreciative of the support shown to me by many Old Selbornians, parents, coaches, players, and members of the broader Selborne community during this period.
Selborne College is an institution with a proud legacy and rich traditions that extend far beyond rugby alone. I sincerely wish the school, its leadership, its coaches, and, most importantly, the boys every success as the programme moves forward under the school’s proposed five-year vision and strategic plan.
I also encourage Old Selbornians and the broader school community to continue playing an active, constructive, and supportive role in the future of the school. Institutions with strong traditions thrive when their communities remain engaged, invested, and committed to the values that have historically defined them – including respect, discipline, accountability, character, spirit, and excellence.
I trust that this statement provides the necessary clarity regarding my position and involvement.
@KES Oldboy (Comment #1)
Well said! An aside – I see the recently retired HM of Maritzburg College has been appointed to oversee the Dale transition after their HM issues. A good rugby man in Chris Luman.
@Grasshopper (Comment #2)
Queen’s is not battling
@beet (Comment #6)
Tend to agree with this line of questioning. Would like to hear how other schools are structured, but KC has historically had a Junior school HM, a senior school HM and then a “college” HM that overseas it all.
Granted we haven’t yet had a non-academic college head, but the role itself has a big emphasis on marketing the school brand etc both locally and especially abroad. You will then also have heads of academics, sport, discipline etc
@beet (Comment #5) Hi beet. Thanks for the clarification.
@Vleis (Comment #4)
On a slightly different note, I’ve also put a question to a few people close to the system about why a headmaster necessarily has to come from an extensive background in education, and whether the role could, in theory, be filled by someone with 20–30 years of senior business experience instead.
@Vleis (Comment #4)
Typically, even in cases such as St Alban’s recent appointment, schools tend to look for a heavyweight figure with the experience to step straight into an A-team coaching role if required — someone capable not only of coaching players, but also of mentoring coaches and driving development structures from U14 through to 1st XV level. In many respects, this is a pro-type coach in his own right; not someone who necessarily requires a professional consultant to fulfil that function.
That said, these roles also carry a significant managerial and administrative component, which is often more generalist in nature than purely rugby-specific.
I think MJ Mentz at Nellies was an good example of getting in a guy with extensive coaching experience whose first presentation immediately made it clear to those in attendance just how detailed, analytical and solutions-driven his approach was — particularly in identifying fixes and improvements across the programme.
I’m not sure who’s idea it was to appoint DP as the “DOR” but in terms of appointing a popular figure to use his corporate skills to create structures to fund the rugby, that seemed like a genius idea.
In that Robbie Fleck – Bishops OD interview, they could not help but get into the details of the needs of a competitive rugby programme and although actual Rand value did not come up, it quickly became apparent through basic maths that the financial requirements are substantial and unlikely to be met without significant sustained investment.
I don’t know Derek Page, but I believe that he’s a Selbornian through and through, has extensive rugby knowledge and runs his own business…so why would someone like that be out of his depth as a Director of Rugby? It makes no sense to me, but maybe I’m missing something?
.
Be that as it may, I’m significantly more confident that the Headmaster will be out of his depth in this role – especially given that he has so many other duties, responsibilities, etc.
Beet very true the points you revered to in your article. Again a very good, well thought out piece of writing. The bottom line is once you slipped, for what ever reason…. be it headmaster, location, lack of funding, wrong appointments…. It’s almost impossible to get back to the same height. To get back you need a combination of leadership, money and a clear short to medium term plan with all stake holders to buy in. Money if we want to admit it or not the most important. Maybe Waterkloof can be looked at as a case study. Location not a problem in fact the opposite. Money not a problem at all. Leadership 50/50 although huge improvement from previous. Couple of years afther the fact and results is there to see for everyone. With leadership 100% nothing will stop them to be a top 10 again. That’s why I’m with Grasshopper although money alone won’t solve all the issues as you can see with SC above.
Not great to see and Glenwood are also in this exact hole becoming almost irrelevant in the KZN A league, drawing to St Charles yesterday, losing at U16A and U15A level. Jeppe was there, Parktown is there, it’s tough. Even Bishops is/was there BUT have the moola to buy there way out. Selborne might have some golden geese OBs around, Glenwood we are trying. All it takes is 1,000 OBs contributing between R100 and R1,000 a month and then you have the money to bring in the right talent and coaches. Not bigwig global coaches the next ‘Sean Erasmas’ type coaches. Seeing the traditional rugby schools like Selborne, Queens, Dale, Parktown, Glenwood, Bishops battle, is tough to see from afar. Let’s hope they can find their way out of their respective holes. Maybe it’s time the franchises and gov step in with money to assist those schools in rougher areas…
Selborne College is one of the great South African schools. This too shall pass……