SA Tourism acting CEO denies knowledge of Chelsea proposal

SABC Sport reported this morning that an individual close to another Premier League club Chelsea had reacted with shock to news that Spurs were set to conclude a deal with the SA government. 

In documents seen by the public broadcaster's sports desk, Chelsea, through FIFA Match Agent Ellen Chiwenga, were the first club ready to enter into a partnership with the SA government.

The proposed deal was similar in nature to that of the current Tottenham one, where a sleeve on the team’s official playing kit would be dedicated to promoting travel to South Africa.

However, the initial Chelsea proposal would only cost around R760 million over a three-year period, rather than the envisaged R911-million Spurs deal.

During his media briefing earlier today, Khumalo insisted he has no knowledge of the Chelsea proposal.

"Yes, I did receive a phone call last night concerning a Chelsea deal. I raise both my hands, I've never seen the document, I asked my colleagues [and] I've seen a completely different team [proposal] but not the one that is being referred to," said Khumalo.

"So, have we received another team? Yeah, we did. But I've not seen the one that's being referred to. Maybe it was seen by a colleague, I don't know, but formally being presented as an option, no, that we've not seen.

"If the department has seen the document? We wouldn't be able to speak on behalf of the department, I think that question should be directed to the DG and I think they would be able to respond to that one. It was not communicated to me, I've not seen that proposal."

Khumalo also confirmed that the SA Tourism board went to London for a feasibility study on the proposed deal and says that the leak placed the process out of context, hence the uproar.

"You have to do due diligence on any single thing that you do. Certain board members went, we had a look, we were persuaded that this was a good opportunity, we came back and it went through the board process rigour," the acting CEO noted.

"The marketing committee of the board, then to the board on January 27th [2023]. Additional time was needed to conclude the conversation, and that meeting was held at 12:30pm on the 31st, which was Tuesday, and the full board then met at 8pm on Tuesday.

"This story was already out before the board even met to have the conversation. I'm saying this to [highlight] that the version of the story that you've been told is not true. 

"It was leaked out of context, and this whole thing could have been avoided if we just had a conversation about why we're doing this. Therefore, the intent of the leak was not to aid the economic recovery of the country, it was something else that has nothing to do with the mandate in the tourism act."