KPMG's conduct 'shocking'

2011-11-30 14:11

Johannesburg - Submissions auditing firm KPMG made at a hearing on Cricket SA were inconsistent with an executive summary it compiled earlier, a CSA official said on Wednesday.

This was the testimony of CSA cricket committee chairman Andy O'Connor before the sport ministry's committee of inquiry into CSA's financial affairs.

O'Connor told the inquiry in Pretoria he was shocked by KPMG's conduct.

He was asked to read a paragraph from the KPMG report in which the auditing firm said CSA chief executive Gerald Majola had not wilfully deceived anybody.

"My understanding is that he [Majola] did not wilfully go out of his way to deceive anybody or hide anything from anybody," O'Connor read from the final KPMG report.

However, KPMG's risk and compliance specialist Herman de Beer, told the committee last week there were "technical contraventions of the Companies Act".

O'Connor said these revelations had shocked him as CSA had paid KPMG a lot of money to conduct the forensic audit which finally bore contradictions.

Recommendations made by a commission, headed by CSA acting president AK Khan, which ultimately let Majola off without punishment, were debated at length.

All board members with the exception of one agreed to adopt the recommendations.

"It was a majority decision and [former CSA president] Mtutuzeli Nyoka was present, and Mr [Bernard] Matheson [Nyoka's council] was present," O'Connor said.

He said the board was satisfied with the recommendations made by the Khan commission as they also felt that Majola had done an exceptional job in organising the Indian Premier League tournament and deserved bonus payments for his work.

"We felt the profit and the amount of work being done and possible benefits economically to the country warranted those kinds of bonuses," he said.

"I felt it was not out of the ordinary due to the fact the tournament was put in place in four weeks which was an amazing feat, and felt it was a job well done by Majola and [former CSA COO Don] McIntosh.

John Blair, chairman of CSA's audit committee, said there was not enough evidence to give Majola a stronger sanction.

"Perhaps there were irregularities and certain people could make out that there were problems, but in the interest of cricket we needed to go forward and make decisions," Blair said.

"We came out with the finding that there was not sufficient fiduciary evidence."

Representatives of CSA were giving the only oral presentations to the committee, chaired by Judge Chris Nicholson, on the fifth day of the hearings.


  • Brendan - 2011-11-30 14:20

    ....and we should be suprised by all this????

  • Edwin - 2011-11-30 14:35

    It's expected from the defence. That's why it is called "defence mechanism".

  • ivan.coetzee2 - 2011-11-30 14:37

    Consulting firms, LOL pay them cash, and you can tell them exactly what you want them to say to whomever you trying to conceal stuff from and they will do so. Hired guns of the business world.

  • chiepner - 2011-11-30 14:42

    But in all honesty now - did the CSA entire executive board actually need to pay an audit firm to tell them what they already knew by heart and mind was a wrong thing to do? Its pathetic to even think they spend even more money to try and justify the money they already "stole" out of crickets coffers. If the sponsors start walking away is this not suppose to be a wake up call? Seriously this is no excuse and if you sir might think that is shocking I woner why you didnt feel the awarding of millions or rands of bonussus was not shocking? Seems clear to me that the entire CSA board is out to line their own pockets even after these imbasiles witnessed what happned in ASA they still went ahead with arrogant selfish greedy behaviour like this. Structure needs to change. The boys on top is not looking after the game and seems to not have the players and fans best intrest at heart. They should all be prosecuted for fraud and corruption. The entire board!

      odupreez - 2011-11-30 14:45

      And you work for KPMG ?

      ivan.coetzee2 - 2011-12-01 09:26

      Exactly, make them pay the money back, name and shame the entire lot, it's not a case of some benefitted and other didn't!

  • Stephen - 2011-11-30 14:49

    He who pays the bill, gets to pimp the auditor :-)

  • Victor - 2011-11-30 14:55

    CSA officials must step down...

  • John - 2011-11-30 14:55

    By comparison the amounts in question are peanuts when we look at what government officials take on a daily basis. Plus the money paid while on suspension plus the legal costs incurred because none of them go quietly when they are caught with fingers in the till. Forensic auditing in this country is big business

  • Sidima - 2011-11-30 14:56

    From the 1st minute i said KPMG was paid to contradict themselves so this Majola guy can get away with this issue on a technicality. Case and point. They had enough evidence to recommend a dismissal. There is more to this story than what meets the eye. That whloe board is frott...!!!

  • Jan - 2011-11-30 15:05

    At their salaries one would expect the CSA executive staff to be on top of their jobs and all legislation that goes with it. Ignorance of tyhe law is no excuse.

  • Peter - 2011-11-30 15:23


  • Tony - 2011-11-30 15:24

    Amazing how many people make judgments based on a 300 word news item. Read the full KPMG report and then judge.

      Yar - 2011-11-30 18:24

      @Tony The report could be the same length as the combined works of Shakespeare, it doesn't matter. Why didn't KPMG blow the whistle? This is unacceptable!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • eddie.norton1 - 2011-11-30 15:35

    No Mention of the R268m paid to CSA for the running of the IPL. Ask KPMG why this money was never mentioned. Is it still sitting in the CSA bank account???

  • eddie.norton1 - 2011-11-30 15:37

    What has happened to the R268m paid to CSA by BICC for running IPL ? Maybe KPMG should bring this up so the minister of Sport so he can add it to the terms of Ref.

  • Marick - 2011-11-30 15:49

    Here, so you understand how this works: 1) Contraventions of the Companies Act were discovered after a forensic audit was performed. 2) Comments made by KPMG beforehand were made before the forensic audit. A forensic audit is a much more involved process than an "executive summary", and as such would have discovered contraventions that could be "covered up" by information given to compile and make comments on an executive summary. If anything, this proves that the forensic audit achieved its objectives by uncovering irregularities (or in this case, contraventions of the Companies Act).

  • Mark - 2011-11-30 15:51

    This particular bunch of corrupt CricketSA Officials are only there by dint of Government policy. Kick them out and let Cricket be run by people who love cricket - and not by the present political "Comrades"

      Atholl - 2011-11-30 16:57

      Let the Cricketers take over the Administration of Cricket.. ... if your natural affiliation to succeed in {{ play }} is to train hard in the nets -- then to realise the result on the pitch -- and in the recorded annuals, then .. when you are in a position to {{ manage }} --- logic dictates that you will use the same work ethic to set the environment for others to realise the same or better results in the record annuals. That's what the Bachers, the Van der merwe's (P) and the Pollocks did - and the annuals show the results. ... er Majola ? who ? which team did he play for again? did he open the batting, or the bowling ?? ... or did he open the safe ?

  • Trevor - 2011-11-30 15:59

    Why is it, whatever the ANC touches turns to crap....even sports......

      davieoosie - 2011-11-30 16:32

      My thoughts exactly, thy can't manage anything.

  • Mohammed Afzal Jhetam - 2011-11-30 16:38

    KPMG is a among the top firm in SA, probably 'the' top auditing firm. I doubt any other firm could make a better decision. The truth is.... Just because the decision never go in your favour doesn't always mean that it's the wrong one.

      abrhamtwaksak - 2011-11-30 18:26

      mohammed, are you doing your articles mmmmmm

      Mohammed Afzal Jhetam - 2011-11-30 18:42

      Lol, hopefully the following year! I hope some top dog from KPMG is reading.:)

      Yar - 2011-11-30 19:25

      @mo Better hope it's an exec from a different firm. KPMG's reputation is going to be justifiably shot. Korruption Pimping Maladministration Graft

      ivan.coetzee2 - 2011-12-01 09:29

      Who says they are? What about PWC etc??

  • clem.human - 2011-11-30 18:00

    what a bunch of greedy liars - and we must invest so they can continue to steal C = crooked S = self serving A = administrators

  • BrianJudy - 2011-11-30 18:46

    how sad that the gentlemans game has become a finanancial windfall for some

  • Marcos - 2011-11-30 21:07

    Don't forget all the big banks were given clean audit reports for the 10 years preceding the financial meltdown...audit firms are full of know it alls who don't see it all...forget the theory use your noggins!

  • George - 2011-11-30 21:35

    They get paid to do a job,Do it, why must they get a bonus for doing there job, Why is every thing they do, must come with a reward, Pay me to do a job then pay me more if I actualy do that job. Now you know why no business want to employ, it is for that reason.

  • Johan - 2011-11-30 22:02

    Has somebody in the government has contacts with KPMG???

      ivan.coetzee2 - 2011-12-01 09:30

      It's part of the curriculum at Keep Paying Money Guys, to do an internship with the govt to learn how to do graft! LOL

  • Mohan - 2011-11-30 23:12

    Bouquets to Gerald Majola. Brickbats to KPMG. Mohan Kallivalappil Queenstown

  • CarynLacey - 2011-12-01 09:54

    Keep Playing More Golf guys...

  • pages:
  • 1