It is becoming quite clear as the argument around the PSL commission payments unfolds that there are parties to this debate who are patently dishonest.
It has been said by some PSL club owners, PSL executive committee members and the sponsorship committee members that the issue of the payment of commission to the members of the sponsorship committee was discussed and agreed on in November 2006.
None of the characters against the payment of the commission seem to dispute that. This then raises the question: why make all the noise when it is time to pay up?
Is it because they did not expect the sponsorship committee to do so well, or is it because they are mainly black, they do not really deserve that much money?
All kinds of red herrings are being thrown at us to justify why the members of the sponsorship committee should not be paid, including "bribery and corporate governance" issues. Why were these not brought up in November last year?
Some members of the sponsorship committee did not have the luxury of watching every game of their teams in the past season (as some of the whingers did), while they worked hard on these deals.
They deserve it.