Rugby players put hundreds of thousands of euros into a proposed €100m Béziers deal. The money is gone, the club was never bought, and the players deserve answers. But turning Anthony Johnson into the convicted villain before anybody has proved he deceived them? Nahhh. That’s not how this works.
Let’s start with the part nobody should sugar-coat.
This deal was a disaster.
According to an investigation published by IOL on 20 September, rugby players put hundreds of thousands of euros into a financing scheme connected to a proposed acquisition of French Pro D2 club AS Béziers Hérault. One former Sharks hooker reportedly transferred €120,000. Another player reportedly put in €300,000. The plan was supposed to help unlock financing of €100 million.
Five years later, the loan never materialised.
The proposed takeover never happened.
The players have not recovered their money.
And a criminal complaint has now reportedly been opened with Polish police.
That is serious.
Those players have every right to be furious. They have every right to demand their money. They have every right to ask where it went.
But there is a line between saying “this investment went catastrophically wrong” and saying “Anthony Johnson conned rugby players.”
Right now, the publicly available evidence does not establish the second proposition.
And ScrumAtMe isn't jumping over that line just because everybody else is running towards it.
FIRST: THESE GUYS MADE AN INVESTMENT
This point seems to have disappeared from the conversation.
Nobody walked into somebody's house and stole €120,000 from underneath the mattress.
According to IOL's own reporting, the former Sharks player attended a Zoom presentation, received an agreement, signed it and then made 12 separate €10,000 transfers. The agreement reportedly promised the €120,000 principal back plus another €80,000 in interest, potentially within 30 days.
Read those numbers again.
€120,000 in.
€200,000 back.
That's approximately a 66.7% return.
In roughly a month.
Unc.
If somebody offers you that return, we are no longer talking about putting R500 on the Boks by 12.
This was a serious, extremely high-return investment proposition involving grown men and serious money.
And with serious potential reward comes serious risk.
That doesn't mean an investor deserves to lose his money. It certainly doesn't mean any deception, if eventually proved, becomes acceptable.
It means something much simpler:
Investors have agency.
They decide whether the proposed return justifies the risk.
They can ask questions.
They can obtain independent financial advice.
They can have lawyers review agreements.
They can investigate counterparties.
And, ultimately, they can say no.
The earlier research supplied to ScrumAtMe reached the same basic principle: an underperforming investment does not itself establish wrongdoing by an intermediary; actual misconduct would require evidence of things such as misrepresentation, concealed liabilities, misuse of funds, an undisclosed conflict or breach of mandate.
That principle becomes even more important here.
Because the latest reporting actually changes the Béziers story substantially.
TO BE CLEAR: THEY NEVER BOUGHT BÉZIERS
This is where we need to correct the earlier version of this story.
This was not the later, legitimate 75% acquisition of Béziers associated with Bobby Skinstad, Andrew Mehrtens and Strangford Capital.
Different transaction.
Different people.
Different story.
The scheme now being reported dates to 2021. According to IOL, the players' money was supposed to serve as collateral that would help unlock a much larger loan. That loan would then finance a purchase of Béziers.
The loan never arrived.
The club was never purchased.
Anthony Johnson himself acknowledged that to IOL.
Béziers, meanwhile, remains very much alive and playing in Pro D2; the official competition site currently has ASBH competing in the 2026–27 championship.
So don't say:
“They bought a rugby club and it failed.”
The more accurate description is:
They invested in a proposed financing transaction intended to facilitate the purchase of a rugby club. The financing failed, the acquisition never happened, and the invested money has not been returned.
That's actually worse financially.
But accuracy matters.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT ANTHONY JOHNSON
Johnson isn't some random name somebody added to the story.
He was involved.
IOL reports that Johnson arranged the Zoom meeting through which the opportunity was presented. The former Sharks player says Johnson asked him to invest. Johnson also confirmed that another player's money passed through one of his company's accounts on its way onward.
Those facts deserve scrutiny.
But here's another fact from the same investigation:
Johnson says he put his own money into the transaction too.
And unlike an empty claim with nothing behind it, IOL says Johnson showed the journalists records of three payments totalling €91,500 from his Irish company into Antonino Pane's Warsaw account. IOL did, however, note that those records alone did not establish whether all of that money was Johnson's personally or included money originating from other players.
Johnson's position is that he is in essentially the same hole as the players.
He told IOL he had nothing to do with Eurokredit Merchant Bank as an employee and that he had himself invested in the project. He said he was introduced to Johan Roux through former Bulls coach Rudy Joubert and that the objective was genuinely to acquire a rugby club.
Does that prove Johnson did absolutely nothing wrong?
No.
Does it prove he was orchestrating a fraud?
Also no.
That's the point.
AND THE REST OF THE STORY IS WAY MORE COMPLICATED THAN “BAD AGENT”
According to the investigation, former Springbok scrumhalf Johan Roux described the structure as a collateral arrangement intended to unlock the €100m financing.
The player says Johnson organised the introduction.
But IOL reports that Roux was the person explaining the financial mechanics during the recorded Zoom meeting. Roux allegedly told the player that they were €120,000 short and offered repayment of €200,000. Roux also reportedly said he had a mandate from Pane to raise money, although he did not provide that mandate to IOL.
Then there is Antonino Pane.
The €120,000 was reportedly transferred to an account at Alior Bank in Warsaw held in Pane's name, with each transfer labelled prêt—loan. Pane was described as the chief executive of Eurokredit Merchant Bank.
Then there is Rudy Joubert.
He told IOL that he spent roughly R500,000 of his own money on travel and legal costs, received nothing back, and wasn't involved in the financial transactions.
So look at the picture we actually have.
Players say they lost money.
Johnson says he lost money.
Joubert says he lost money.
The €100m financing never arrived.
The rugby club was never purchased.
And the money trail reportedly ends up involving an account in Poland while a criminal complaint is now being investigated there.
Yet somehow the public conversation is already supposed to have a completed villain arc?
Nahhh.
We need the rest of the movie first.
AND HERE'S WHERE SCRUMATME IS GOING TO UPSET SOME PEOPLE
We feel for the players.
Seriously.
Losing €120,000 is horrible.
Losing €300,000 is horrible.
If somebody broke the law, lied about material facts or knowingly diverted their money, follow the evidence and hold that person accountable.
But this idea that professional rugby players become financially helpless the moment an investment fails?
Come on, mayne.
Because imagine the alternative universe.
The €100m arrives.
Béziers gets purchased.
The investment explodes.
These guys end up sitting around a boardroom in the south of France owning a piece of a professional rugby operation.
Are they calling ScrumAtMe?
😭😭😭
“Guys, unbelievable news. We made an incredible investment. Please come share in our upside.”
HELL NAHHH.
We weren't getting that phone call.
Nobody was sending South African rugby supporters dividends.
Nobody was opening the ownership documents and saying:
“The people must eat too.”
And that matters because investments work both ways.
You don't privatise the upside and then socialise responsibility for the downside.
If the investment makes you rich:
your decision.
If the investment fails:
suddenly everybody else made the decision?
That's not how investment works.
AND THERE'S ANOTHER PART THAT RUBS US THE WRONG WAY
There are rugby players sitting in South Africa right now who would do almost anything for an opportunity to play professionally in France.
Young players.
Club players.
Guys outside the traditional pipelines.
Players trying to get footage in front of French recruiters.
Players sending CVs.
Players hoping an agent returns an email.
Players whose dream isn't to own a French rugby club.
Their dream is just to get a contract and play in one.
Meanwhile this proposed transaction involved rugby people potentially positioning themselves around the ownership of a whole professional club.
Again: nothing wrong with that.
Make your money.
Build your portfolio.
Own ten clubs if you can.
We actually love rugby people thinking bigger than their playing careers.
But don't ask ordinary rugby people to pretend that sophisticated investors had no agency because the big-money opportunity didn't work.
You were trying to buy the building while other guys were still trying to get through the front door.
Have some perspective.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN JOHNSON GETS A FREE PASS
This is important.
Being sympathetic to Johnson does not mean ScrumAtMe should become his defence attorney.
There are legitimate questions for him.
What exactly was his mandate?
What due diligence did he perform before introducing his clients?
What did he know about Eurokredit?
What did he know about Pane?
Why did another player's money pass through his company's account?
What precisely was Johnson promised?
What representations did he personally make to investors?
And what was meant by the discussion, reported by IOL, about his inability to openly hold an interest in a club because of his work as an agent?
Those questions deserve answers.
Johnson should answer them.
Roux should answer questions.
Pane should answer questions.
Everybody involved should put the paperwork on the table.
But questions are not convictions.
And allegations are not findings.
IOL reports that Johnson, Roux and Joubert said they had not been contacted by law enforcement and did not know a criminal complaint had been opened.
At the time of publication, we have found no court judgment establishing that Anthony Johnson committed fraud in this transaction.
That's not a technicality.
That's journalism.
AND WE'RE NOT DOING TRIAL BY HEADLINE
Look at how quickly the story changes depending on the language.
“Agent convinces rugby players to hand over millions.”
Sounds one way.
Now try:
“Professional rugby players voluntarily invest hundreds of thousands of euros in a high-return financing proposition; financing fails and money remains unrecovered.”
Same disaster.
Very different allocation of agency.
Or:
“Agent who introduced players to failed investment says he also lost approximately €100,000.”
Suddenly we're asking a different set of questions.
None of those formulations establishes the ultimate truth.
That's precisely why we shouldn't pretend the case is already solved.
IF THERE WAS FRAUD, PROVE IT.
Show us the agreement.
Show us Johnson's mandate.
Show us the representations.
Show us the messages.
Show us who controlled the money.
Show us where it went.
Show us who knew the financing couldn't happen.
Show us whether the promised collateral existed.
Show us whether the insurance described in the agreement existed.
Show us who profited.
And most importantly:
show us who intentionally deceived whom.
If those documents establish that Johnson knowingly lied to his clients, concealed material information or participated in diverting their money?
Then we'll write that article.
Loudly.
But until then, we're not calling a man a crook because an investment he introduced turned into an absolute shitshow.
Especially when he says—and has reportedly produced payment records indicating—that he put substantial money into the same thing himself.
BAD INVESTMENT? ABSOLUTELY.
Bad judgment?
There are certainly questions to ask.
Insufficient due diligence?
Given what has subsequently emerged, investors themselves may want to ask whether enough was done before the transfers were authorised.
Possible wrongdoing somewhere in the transaction?
A criminal complaint reportedly exists, so that question is plainly alive.
Anthony Johnson proven to have deliberately defrauded rugby players?
Not on the evidence currently public.
And that distinction matters.
Because agents already occupy one of rugby's easiest villain roles.
Deal goes well?
Player made a smart move.
Deal goes badly?
Agent fucked him.
Contract is huge?
Player earned it.
Investment explodes?
Who introduced me to this thing?!
Nahhh mayne. 😭
Sometimes grown men make risky investments.
Sometimes those investments go horribly wrong.
Sometimes multiple people involved in the same transaction lose money.
And sometimes the right answer isn't immediately finding the most recognisable middleman and putting devil horns on his head.
Sometimes the answer is:
FOLLOW. THE. MONEY.
Not the headline.
SCRUMATME VERDICT:
We feel terrible for every player who lost money.
We hope they recover it.
We hope the Polish investigation establishes exactly what happened.
And if somebody stole, lied or deliberately deceived them, that person should answer for it.
But until evidence establishes who did what:
A FAILED INVESTMENT IS NOT A FRAUD CONVICTION.
And Anthony Johnson being the agent who opened the door does not, by itself, prove he was the man who emptied the room.
Cameras off.
Show us the paperwork.
ScrumAtMe — Comedic Technical Analysts.
Real rugby news. Weaponised into comedy.