HIJACKED BLUE BULLS LOGO USED IN INVESTMENT SCAM

Dear Investors,

         The Blue Bulls logo in a colour newspaper advertisement was the stamp of approval that convinced people that the investment opportunity being offered was kosher.

          It told readers that this was the “Business opportunity of a lifetime” where they could earn a “Phenomenal income.” 

          It was said to involve a product used in the medical and sporting fields that was already “successful in 43 countries.”

          “Our product is approved by the Blue Bulls Rugby Union and other rugby unions and sports bodies will follow shortly,” it claimed.

          The investment required was R140 000.

          The Blue Bulls is one of South Africa’s best known rugby clubs and plays in the Super Rugby tournament under the Vodacom Blue Bulls name.

          “The Blue Bulls logo had a major impact in influencing me to invest,” said Rodney Lauder a retired bank credit manager.

          The ad appeared in the Beeld, the Afrikaans daily newspaper that is said to be the most quoted paper in South Africa.

          There were also others. One in the Sunday Times on 7 October 2012 for instance made this unbelievable claim: “Earn R25 000 passive income every month from January 2013.” The capital required was R250 000. To make it even more enticing this ridiculous return was “Guaranteed or your money back.” 

          Another one in the same paper on 14 October 2012 offered the same incredible income and guarantee on R200 000 with payments beginning in December 2012.

          At the bottom of both these ads was the name of the company The World Loves a Winner (TWLW) with the same telephone number and an address at Hanger 2, Rand Airport, Germiston.

          This Rand Airport address also appeared in the Beeld advertisement and was where the owner of the company, pilot Kevin Pearman had a flight school.

          He left Rand Airport about three years ago and when I asked the airport manager Stuart Coetzee what happened to the flight school he replied: “I can’t tell you. I’m not getting into that.”

PEARMAN

         Pearman has a history of making too good to be true undertakings in advertisements to get people to put money into his various get-rich-quick schemes which don’t produce the promised riches.
 See previous posts.
Telkom drops Pearman
Blog that nobody reads   
Cell C's strange deal
Big business shuns little man
                          

          This Bulls campaign netted him R1.1-million.

          Lauder put in R150 000 and some of the others, one of whom was disabled in a wheel chair, used their pension money, he maintained.

          The others were: Gideon van Zyl, Eddie Mabusela and Razia Hassan R200 000 each; Tony Baker R150 000; William Chauke, Sivanander Pillay and Noko Gnoebe, R50 000 each.

          The money entitled them to become licensees for Heat in a Click (SA) Ltd (HIAC) represented by Jess Cawood, although oddly all the shares were in the name of his wife Johanna Petronella Cawood. It was suppose to have the exclusive South African rights to market the products of the London based Heat in a Click.

          The products were said to consist of a variety of re-usable heating pads to treat muscle and related ailments.

           As the authorised broker Pearman had the investments paid into TWLW’s bank account. This was despite the fact that all the licensing agreements were with Cawood’s company, which gave money back guarantees in the contracts investors signed even though it had not been paid any of it.

          On his heat pad website Pearman stated that a minimum of 50 stands would be placed in shopping malls to sell the product. It showed a picture of a stand that was said to “produced an average profit of R5 000 a day.”

          It went on to say that a net profit per stand was projected to be R150 000 per month and 50% of this would be pooled to be shared equally by the licence holders.

          On this basis if there were only 50 licence holders they would each receive a “passive income of R75 000 per month.”

          Other hard to believe claims on the website included that “over the past few months a feasibility of the product was done here in South Africa by introducing it to a diverse range of potential markets ranging from doctors, school children, vets, maternity wards, physiotherapists, beauty salons, spas and a variety of sportsmen such as rugby players, hunters and fishermen, and this study proved that the product sells itself and that the retail pricing is extremely affordable.”

          “We were never told anything about this and I don’t believe it was ever done,” Lauder told me.

          The investors were not aware that the Bulls club had never authoriZed for its logo to be use in any investment promoting advertisements.

Darryl Kroll, the Club’s brand promoter had this to say when I sent him a copy of the Beeld ad.

          “I’m flabbergasted; we would never have approved that. I cannot believe how unscrupulous and devious people can be. It saddens me.”

          He told me that one of Cawood’s companies was “licensed purely to distribute Bulls branded Heat in a Click packs to retailers in South Africa.”

          “But there was shortfall of the minimum guarantee and they were put in breach once they did not pay.”

          He added that they tried for months to get hold of Cawood to get what they were owed but he seemed to have disappeared. As far as he knew no Bulls heat pads ever got to the market.

        And no stalls were ever put in any malls, according to Lauder.

         Inevitably the investors began complaining that they had not received any of the promised income. The money back guarantees in the agreements they signed were not honour and they soon realised they had lost all their money.

          Pearman and Cawood then accused each other of fraud.   

          “I’m sure they were working together,” said Van Zyl, an IT specialist. “We were told so many lies.”

          However Pearman denied this saying that he was duped by Cawood and that was the reason he laid a fraud charge against him.

This was done at the Germiston Police station, but the prosecutor declined to take it any further as it was regarded as a civil case rather than a criminal one.

          In an affidavit 62 year old Pearman, who lives at 21 Chaucer Avenue, Senderwood, Bedfordview, Johannesburg, stated that on the basis of an agreement he had with Cawood he recruited the investors. Approximately R500 000 went in his expenses and R441 475 was paid into the Absa Bank account of Cawood’s wife.

          On 19 January 2013 he stopped doing business with Cawood and in terms of a termination agreement they both signed Cawood agreed to continue with Heat in a Click in the “best interests of the investors.”

DISGRUNTLED INVESTORS HAVE OPENED THIS FACEBOOK PAGE

          After this he was surprised to learn that Cawood was doing nothing further and in April 2013 he contacted the London Heat in a Click only to be told that they had not given Cawood the sole South African rights and that “this could be a fraudulent scam.”

          In a letter to an Inspector at the Companies and Intellectual Properties Commission, to whom the investors had complained, Cawood’s lawyer Neels Grobler said according to his client Pearman and his company were only mandated to find buyers for the products.

 “At no stage was he given permission to obtained investors and at no stage did Heat in a Click receive the money from the investors,” he wrote. “At no stage did Mr or Mrs Cawood representing Heat in a Click sign any of the investors’ contracts.

“We have appointed our own forensic investigator to investigate charges of fraud against Mr Pearman.”

On 21 January 2013 Pearman sent a circular to the investors saying that “an extremely exciting new avenue has opened up for our sister company which demands our total attention. Consequently from today The World Loves a Winner will no longer handle any responsibilities for Heat in Click.”

He referred them to Cawood and his company HIAC which he maintained was now in full control of the business and “all plans remain exactly the same.”

In a letter to the investors dated 28 February 2013 Pearman told them that although he had ended his relationship with HIAC “we felt morally obliged to ensure that none of the investors loses their investment.”

For this reason he was putting pressure on Jess Cawood to honour his agreement to put stands in shopping centres and to begin marketing the products.

“Rest assured we will make good our promise to liquidate HIAC and appoint a liquidator to manage the business in the sole interest of the investors.”

He stated that his attorney Frik Weldhagen had been instructed to do this immediately after the expiry of seven days unless he got a satisfactory answer from Cawood.

Good hearted Kevin added: “Please be aware that we are instituting this action at our cost on behalf of all investors and will not be seeking any contributions from you.”

But like a lot of Kevin’s promises this never happened. “There was no point in throwing good money after bad,” he told me.

THE FACEBOOK PAGE

He assured me he was not a crook and proof of this was that he had even given one investor their money back towards the end. Asked who this was he could neither name the person nor give me the amount involved.

Eddie Mabusela, who had a small construction business in Pretoria, told me that the loss of his investment affected him “big time.”

“I’m broke,” he said. “I put all my savings into this and they ducked and dived.”

Pearman once told me he has never hurt anyone. I suppose leaving somebody “broke” doesn’t count and taking hundreds of thousands of rand from people, many of whom could ill afford to lose it, doesn’t count either.

Regards,                                                             

Jon, the Consumer Watchdog who stands up
for the less fortunate when nobody else will.                  

                                                                                 

P.S. When Rodney Lauder began complaining that there had been “misappropriation of funds and a total misrepresentation of the business” he started getting anonymous calls on his landline in the middle of the night. Odd that, as I had the same experience (See my post “Blog that nobody reads.”).

Why South Africa will never win the Cricket World Cup

Dear Cricket Lovers,
            Below is what I wrote in 2011 at the time of the previous Cricket World Cup. It is just as true today, if not more so. We'll never win this Cup when the selectors have a Government sponsored millstone of prejudice around their necks forcing them to selected players on colour first and ability second.

PHILANDER

            The Times reported today that fast bowler Vernon Philander, a coloured was selected for the Proteas semi -final World Cup match against New Zealand ahead of Kyle Abbott, a white who had been the team's most consistent bowler in the matches leading up to this game which South Africa lost.

            This was done, the paper claimed, because the selectors felt that they had to add to Hashim Amla, JP Duminy and Imran Tahir to ensure there were at least four players of colour in the team.

ABBOTT TAKES ANOTHER WICKET

            The really deplorable aspect was that Philander had missed a lot of the earlier games because of a hamstring injury and was not fully fit when he was picked for this, the Proteas' most important match. He managed to bowl eight overs for an expensive 52 runs without a wicket before his injury forced him to leave the field prematurely.
            Russell Domingo was the Proteas head coach, who is also coloured. His lack of confidence in his ability to produce a World Cup winning team was evident in the way he surrounded himself with almost a cricket team of specialist coaches and advisers. No other team at the tournament had as many.
           He said of Philander: "He is a hell of a good bowler and it's unfair to lay the blame on him or any other bowler."
            How right he was, the people to blame were those who picked Philander.

RUSSELL DOMINGO

            The whole world was very vocal about the apartheid policy of discrimination against Blacks practised by the previous Whites only South African Government. But now that the Black African National Congress is in power and is advocating it the other way round in sports team selection nobody is saying a word.
            The policy was given a serious bloody nose when South African born Grant Elliott hit a six to clinch the win for his adopted country. A cricket refugee he left South Africa because he feared that as a white the quota system would prevent him from becoming an international.
            He really got his own back when he was also the Man of the Match with an unbeaten 84 for the Black Caps.
            Not content with the way South African cricket has already been hamstrung by this iniquitous policy the Minister of Sport Fikile Mbalula is now threatening cricket and rugby (seen as essentially white sports) with all kinds punishments like "withdrawing national colours" if they don't meet transformation targets.

           Last year he blew his top and accused the mainly black national soccer team Bafana Bafana of being a "bunch of losers" when they were knocked out of the African Nations Cup at the group stage.

          Well Fikile my prediction is that you will have reason to say this a lot more often about our cricket and rugby players if you and your Government persists with this sports apartheid. And as nobody loves a loser we can expect sponsorship to drop and have these sports tumble down the world rankings, much like Bafana Bafana is in the habit of doing, until nobody really wants to watch them and all our stars are playing overseas.
           Regards,
           Jon

First Posted 21/01/2011

Dear International Cricket Council, 

          Have you ever tried playing cricket with one hand tied behind your back? Well that’s what the South African Proteas are expected to do.

          And what’s more they are supposed to go to Asia and win the World Cup with this rather debilitating handicap.

          Oh! by the way I’m not talking about the World Cup for paraplegics. This is for able bodied players. So you can appreciate that it is also giving the South Africans a major headache with so much riding on their performance back home.

          Their impediment that pretty well guarantees that they won’t be raising the winner’s trophy is so hush, hush that the South African media hardly ever mentions it.  But Stuart Hess made a passing reference to it in the Cape Times when he reported on our World Cup Squad.

          Out of the 15 players chosen he told us that there were six black players - one short of what is understood  to be the agreed figure. He didn’t say who the agreement was with or how the selectors, headed by Andrew Hudson decided who is black and who is white.

          My sources tell me that the selectors were all issued with unique spectacles. They enabled them to tell who had enough coffee in their milk to be put in this special category where colour is more important than ability.

          I’m not saying that there aren’t players of colour in the team that don’t deserve their place. But if you have a system like this nobody will ever know how many more talented Whites were left out so as to make up the Black numbers.

          In South Africa’s new branding process you are considered Black when it comes to choosing the National cricket team if you are slightly brown of Indian origin; Coloured of black and white decent or completely Black from one of the indigenous tribes like the Zulus. If you happen to be any other colour you probably won’t be considered never mind how good you are because there’s no category for you.

          Here’s the team and I’ll leave you to guess their colour in the Comments section of this blog. Greame Smith (capt.), Hashim Amla, Jacques Kallis, Johan Botha, AB de Villiers, JP Duminy, Faf du Plessis, Colin Ingram, Morne` Morkel, Wayne Parnell, Robbie Peterson, Dale Steyn, Imran Tahir, Lonwabo Tsotsobe and Morne` van Wyk.

          This colour coding applies essentially to the white dominated sports in South Africa. Nobody says a thing about mixing more colours in the virtually all Black National soccer team Bafana Bafana  which is ranked nowhere in the world. And who else would want to play for them anyway because they haven’t won anything of note for as long as even the most ardent fans can remember?

          Back to the cricket. The teams competing in this World Cup will be playing in India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. How many of them are forced to included players who are not necessarily the best available just because they have the right coloured skin? Other than South Africa my bet is the answer is; None.

          So to even things up my proposal is that the Proteas should have 30 runs added to their score in every match to level the playing fields as it were.

          The countries where the games take place are a paradise for spin bowlers which is another factor counting against the South Africans. Brought up on hard, fast wickets more suited to quick bowling the Proteas haven’t got a spinner worth anything and most of their batsmen struggle again this kind of bowling.

          So even without having to play with one hand tied behind their back the team was probably onto a hiding to nothing. The only fair thing to do is to even the odds.

          I know this will invite some colourful headlines, but nothing in this life is ever just in Black and White.

          Yours truly

          Jon, an anthropologist of note.

P.S. Should a team chosen on apartheid lines be allowed in the World Cup just because South Africa now has a Black Government? In the old days the English team called off its tour to this country because the all White Government refused to accept a team that included Basil D’Oliviera, who was coloured.

IS "UP TO" PERCENTAGE MARKETING OKAY?

Dear Consumers,

DISCOVERY'S  GORE

         It’s amazing how many top South African companies use the words “up to” when promoting their products or services. This is particularly prevalent among firms like Discovery; Momentum and various banks that have extensive rewards programmes.   

         Say an insurance company advertises that it will give you back “up to” 50% of the total of the premiums you have paid after two years. What would that mean to you?

         My interpretation would be that they could be giving you a lot less than 50%, but the figure sounds impressive and it makes the claim correct for any amount from just over 0% to 50%.

         A high percentage is a bait to get customers on the hook when the truth of the offer is so variable that it can be extremely suspect. That’s my belief.

         However in a confusing part of its Code of Conduct the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA) says this type of advertising should not be used, but only if certain obscure conditions apply.

         Clause 4.5 states: “Claims, whether as to price or performance, which use formulas such as ‘up to 10 kilometres per liter’ or ‘prices from as low as R5’ are not acceptable where there is a likelihood of the consumer being misled as to the availability of the benefits offered. Such claims should not be used.”

          In Clause 4.5.1 it adds that this should only apply “where the price or other advantage claimed bears no relation to the prevailing level of prices or benefits, and in particular where it does not apply to the goods or services actually advertised or to more than an insignificant proportion of them.”

         My question is: “How is anybody who sees this kind of adverting supposed to know what this last clause means exactly?” 

         The ASA’s view is that it’s up to the customer or client to find out by looking at the firm’s Terms and Conditions – a curse of modern advertising. But I doubt that there is any company website that explains the ramifications of this at all, let alone clearly.

         About four years ago Capitec, one of South Africa’s youngest and most innovative banks tore up its Terms and Conditions (See “Brilliant Trail Blazer’s new Consumer Standard”). Unfortunately there is no sign of other businesses following suit.

         After my admittedly rather short investigation my guess is that the Discovery Group uses “up to” with at least one “as much as 14%” as a variation possibly more than anybody else.

         On its website for the five arms of its empire that extends to Medical Aid, Life and Short Term Insurance, Credit Cards and the Vitality Wellness Awards scheme these two words are mentioned “up to 300%” of the time, or is it “up to 60%” or “up to 30%”?

       Any of these could be right because they cover such a wide guess.

         Discovery also uses them in its Television advertising and possibly elsewhere.

FOR INSURING YOUR CAR WITH DISCOVERY

         Here are some samples of the many examples and at least one variation that you can find on the Group’s website. The * comments are mine.

Medical Aid: “Our plan contributions are as much as 14% lower than those of all South Africa’s medical schemes.” * Does this mean 0.1% lower, 10% lower or what?

“Executive Plan: Guaranteed full cover in hospital for specialists on payment arrangement and up to 300% of the Discover Health rate for other specialists.”

There are various other “up to” percentages for less costly plans.

Life Insurance: “Up to 60% of your premiums can be paid back to you depending on how well you manage your health.

“Receive up to 28% off your premiums up front.

“Up to 30% of you premiums back every year.”

Various “up to” percentage discounts are given if you have the other services provided by the group. * So it’s up to you to sign up for as many as possible to get a percentage of that juicy carrot that may or may not be much more than a pittance.

Short Term Insurance: “Up to 50% back on your BP fuel spend each month for driving well.”

Another version given is, “Get up to R800 of your fuel spend back each month.”

* This implies that you get money back wherever you buy your fuel, not just at a BP station.

Vitality: “Get up to 25% cash back on HealthFood items at Pick n Pay or Woolworths.

“Get up to 25% cash back on HealthGear at Sportsman’s Warehouse and Total Sports.” * Is this a lucky dip? Does it mean that today you could get say a 3% discount, tomorrow 8% and perhaps very occasionally when the stores want to get rid of excess stock 25%? Why is this so vague? Surely there should be a definite percentage discount if there is one.

“Save up to 80% on monthly gym fees at Virgin Active or Planet Fitness.”

I emailed the above to Adrian Gore, Discovery’s founder and Group Chief Executive and invited him to comment if he wished. I was told he had seen it although he was in London. The job of replying then tumbled down the ranks from Hylton Kallner, the Chief Marketing Officer who is also a director to Rene Vosloo, Head of Corporate Communication and Media Relations.

According to her I had got it all wrong if I thought Discovery had done anything amiss, so you readers will have to be the judge.

This is what she told me: “At Discovery we take our commitment to our clients and our abidance of the ASA Code of Conduct very seriously. Discovery doesn’t utilise the phase ‘up to’ unless our clients can and do obtain the values quoted under reasonable scenarios – for certain of the products quoted, clients receiving less than the benefits listed are in the minority (*by giving “up to” percentages no specific benefits are given), with the majority of clients in fact obtaining maximum ‘up to’ benefit. This is in line with our own principles of fairness and honesty as well as the FSB’s (Financial Services Board) Treat Customers Fairly legislative framework under which our products operate and are regulated.

“We are therefore confident and comfortable that all our material is developed within the ASA Code of Conduct.”

The FSB lists six requirements as part of its Treat Customers Fairly code. One of these is that: “Customers are provided with clear information and kept appropriately informed before, during and after front of sale.”

*But how clear is any “up to” a certain percentage at the “before” stage?

         One of the largest financial groups in South Africa MMI Holdings, more commonly known as Momentum is in a similar, if not quite as extensive an area of business as Discovery. It’s into Medical Aid, Life and Short term insurance; Fitness Promotion as well as Investments.

         The Proteas Cricket team is covered by Momentum Health.

         I don’t know which one, out of these two groups, first started this “up to” marketing, but Momentum’s is remarkably similar to Discovery’s.

         My guess it that there is an “up to” 100 chance that Discovery started it but then again the probability is “up to” 100% that Momentum got in first.

         On its website and in a Television advertising campaign during the World Cup cricket on DSTV Momentum tells us: “Get up to 60% off your Momentum life insurance; up to R5 400 paid into your Health Saver Account; join Virgin Active or Planet Fitness gyms for R99 and save up to 80% of your membership fees; up to 20% off your golf and cycling equipment at The Pro Shop or Cycle Lab and up to 50% off Mango flights.”

         Unlike Discovery Momentum does not state specifically that it abides by the ASA Code of Conduct but its Group Chief Executive Nicolaas Kruger had this to say in his introduction to the firm’s Code of Ethics.

         “Momentum is committed to do what is right, fair, reasonable and lawful.”

         There’s a heading entitled Speak Up, which could apply to me. It says: “We encourage people to speak up against any breach of our values and standards and have zero tolerance policy on retaliation as it is our belief that speaking up is always the right thing to do.”

        

KRUGER

When I asked Nicolaas Kruger Momentum’s Group CEO for his view he passed the job to Zureida Ebrahim the CEO, Client Engagement Solutions who replied on the letterhead of Momentum Multiply, which is its wellness and rewards scheme.

         She maintained that “client-centricity” was the heart of their business and they “demonstrated this in the ease and transparency in which our clients can take advantage of the various levels of benefits (hence the use of ‘Up to…’) available to them.”  *It’s hard to fathom how ‘up to’ percentages can be at all transparent. I would say they are the complete opposite to this. They hide the true picture.

         Zureida went on to say: “As the conditions of the ‘Up to …’ offer cannot be contained in the limited space of an advertisement, all our advertisements provide a website address where clients can view the terms and conditions of the offer.

         “Our sales process also provides a further opportunity for clients to gain more information on how the programme works as well as the benefits available to members.”

         She included a ruling made by the ASA in 2012 when somebody had evidently complained about the use of “up to” in ads. So I am not the only person who thinks this kind of advertising should not be allowed.

         Below is the ASA’s complicated ruling that “up to” ads are perfectly okay.

         Well I bet that if a survey was done there is "up to"a 90% chance that the majority of people would think this is certainly not alright.

         Based on my experience of the ASA’s decisions the chances are “up to” 100% that this decision was taken to appease all those companies that would have to go to considerable expense if they were ordered to change their “up to” ads to something more plausible.

         The ASA claims to be an impartial, independent body set up by the marketing and communications industry to ensure that its system for self-regulation works in the public interest.

         Only the industry knows how it can impartially enforce its Coded of Conduct when it is regulating itself. It’s like appointing your own judge at your trial.

         HOW CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST?

         It’s dubious impartiality and bias towards big business was glaringly exposed in the way it dealt with various complaints that I made, the results of which you can read on my blog.

         Here are some of the worst examples: citizens aladdins cave of dubious ads ; ridiculous advertising standards authority and bungling advertising standards authority 

         Yours faithfully,

         Jon, your Consumer Watchdog, who does his best to get big business to come to heel.

P.S. I will be sending the link to this post to Leon Grobler, the ASA’s Manager Dispute Resolutions just in case he might one day say he knew nothing about what the advertising industry has really been “up to.”

SOUTH AFRICA'S BRAINLESS CRICKET

 Dear Cricket fans,

AB DE VILLIERS

         Facing their first serious hurdle at the Cricket World Cup, the Proteas as they some how got called after previously being the Springboks, had to make 308 to beat India. It was a formidable task but not impossible.

         They had almost a cricket team of expert coaches and consultants to advise them so you would have expected, at the very least, that they would have done nothing stupid.

         That’s where you would have been wrong, terribly wrong.

         They batted as if most of them had not got a brain between them.

         Opener Quinton de Kock started with a wild swing at a ball that could easily have had him caught behind the wicket. After a few innocuous shots he sent a soft one into the hands of the opposition and was gone for seven.

         Mr Reliable Hashim Amla, one of the best batsmen in the world in all formats, skied a short ball onto the leg side where he was caught on the boundary for 22. Somebody of his experience should have seen that trap a mile off.

         Faf du Plessis, in at three, who has been out of form lately, played sensibly with wickets falling around him. At 55 off 71 balls he had a brain storm, ran down the pitch and gave the Indians an easy catch.

         Captain AB de Villiers, the top ranked One Day International batsman in the world in 2014, also showed his lack of sensible thought. After a couple of narrow run out escapes he evident believed his speed made him invincible. One risky run too many and he was out for 30 when his team so badly needed a big innings from him.

         JP Duminy, who made a century in the previous match admittedly against lowly Zimbabwe, played possibly the most brainless shot of all. With his score at only six he decided on the most risky shot in cricket – a reverse sweep. As a left hander he was playing the shot as if he was right handed.

         The result was the last of the Proteas' recognised batsmen was back in the pavilion.

         David Miller, one of the top six, who had come in just before Duminy, followed his captain’s bad example and was run out for 22.

         That was effectively the end of the Proteas scoring because the last five players, you couldn’t call them batsmen as the commentators do, made a total of only 28 runs.

         How the South Africa selectors expect to win a world cup with so many players who can’t bat I don’t know. They badly need at least one good all rounder who can bat and bowl reasonably well.

         As it was in this game they relied on Wayne Parnell to fulfil this role. His bowling was hammered for 85 runs at almost 10 an over, nearly twice as many as the next worst bowler. His solitary wicket didn’t alter the fact that his figures were shocking.

         He made 17 not out off 28 balls when the game was already lost. But if he is the best all rounder the Proteas have got it will take a miracle for them to win the Cup.

         To cap this match of brainless play the Proteas were fined 10% of their match fee with captain De Villiers being penalised 20% for badly overrunning the three and a half hours allowed for a side fielding to complete their overs.  

         The Proteas' 130 thrashing was by far their worst performance at a World Cup and the first time they have ever been beaten by more than 100 runs.

         So what was the point of all those advisers? Where were they when the Proteas batsmen lost their minds?

Where were they when the Proteas, named after a hardy wild flower, faded so badly?

         Apart from the Head Coach Russell Domingo they had fielding coach Adrian Birrell; specialist bowling coach Allan Donald; specialist spin bowling coach Claude Henderson as well as former South African batsman Gary Kirsten who was the coach of the World Cup winning Indian team four years ago. He was there as the batting consultant.

THE A TEAM FEATURED IN THE TIMES

         You would think they had enough experts to keep any team on a winning high. But no they had to add retired Australian batting star Mike Hussey as the finishing consultant, whatever that is.

         My suggestion is that this think tank team should play in the next match with some of the best of the Proteas to make up the numbers and we’ll see if they are any good on the field because in the Indian game they were as useless off it as the Proteas were on it.

         Watch out for the West Indies on Friday Proteas. You might have beaten them easily shortly before the World Cup started, but if Chris Gayle and some of their other hard hitting batsmen get going there will be no room for any more mindless cricket.

         Your avid cricket fan

         Jon, who would very much like to see De Villier’s prediction that “We’ll win the World Cup” turned into fact. But on the showing during the India match it will be very much against the run of play unless there is a superhuman improvement.