Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

Dubinusa

Well.... Ulster won today!!!!!.

OldRio

Faugheen wrote: »

Yeah, the mob were the ones who left a woman distressed and then boasted about it afterwards.

Some people really don't get it whatsoever.

Oh I think you will find the jury got it. You know the people who heard all the evidence.

Faugheen

OldRio wrote: »

Oh I think you will find the jury got it. You know the people who heard all the evidence.

What has anything of what I said got to do with the jury?

They were found not guilty of a crime, however it's clear the girl wasn't treated very well by the pair of them (hence the apologies) which is their fault, nobody else.

Burkie1203

Dubinusa wrote: »

Well.... Ulster won today!!!!!.

#fakenews

OldRio

You seem to have jumped on a post of mine commenting on an aspect of the case. Then twistedit to suit your particular agenda. Anyway enjoy your day. I have much better things to do than spend all day on the internet.

Faugheen

OldRio wrote: »

You seem to have jumped on a post of mine commenting on an aspect of the case. Then twistedit to suit your particular agenda. Anyway enjoy your day. I have much better things to do than spend all day on the internet.

Or you've assumed that I found them guilty of rape despite the fact there was no implication of that whatsoever.

I like that you've failed to address the point that the mob didn't cause the girl any distress and the only people who did were Jackson and Olding.

You keep blaming other people for the things Jackson and Olding did though.

bilston

I was very impressed by McPhillips kicking from hand yesterday. He put in some glorious kicks to put Edinburgh right back into their 22. I didn't realise he had that in his arsenal. He definitely looked at home in the 10 jersey last night. I hope the rumours about him leaving are fakenews.

bilston

prawnsambo wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

Cooney and McPhillips have been one of the few bright spots of this season. Hopefully they can continue to build that partnership, really promising.

Is McPhillips staying or going?

Rumoured to be going back to England. Hopefully that's not the case. He seemed really up for it last night. He didn't strike me as someone who didn't want to be there playing for Ulster.

OldRio

Right. My final post. Honestly. I have not blamed anybody else for what the players and others did or didn't do. The mob I'm referring to are the people who paid for that letter in the Belfast paper and their Ilk.

prawnsambo

bilston wrote: »

Rumoured to be going back to England. Hopefully that's not the case. He seemed really up for it last night. He didn't strike me as someone who didn't want to be there playing for Ulster.

Hope he stays. Whether Jackson is back or another ten is procured, there's a need for depth there and a sharp young guy who doesn't seem out of place is exactly what's needed. In his first cap, I thought he started at a relatively high level for an inexperienced player.

But delighted with the win. At home to Ospreys next. That's a winnable one with home advantage provided a bit of consistency can be found.

Anywhere I can watch the match in full??

Paul Smeenus

iPlayer, if you've got Hula or something similar.

prawnsambo

OldRio wrote: »

Right. My final post. Honestly. I have not blamed anybody else for what the players and others did or didn't do. The mob I'm referring to are the people who paid for that letter in the Belfast paper and their Ilk.

You may as well complain about the weather. :rolleyes:

The mob always existed. In the past it could have been anything from letters to the editor to pickets outside the premises and everything in between. Radio phone-in shows grew up on suckling it. The only difference now is that it's got its own medium to express its opinions. And organisations understand that if its strong enough, it could damage their 'product'.

Buer

Ferris gave a great insight into the mentality of a rugby player when asked on the situation at half time.

Never read his contract. Said he put faith in his agent and just signed it. Didn't know if there was a clause about behaviour or conduct. Christ. I thought these guys had some level of training for contracts and media as part of their preparation for life as a pro rugby player?

irishbucsfan

Buer wrote: »

Ferris gave a great insight into the mentality of a rugby player when asked on the situation at half time.

Never read his contract. Said he put faith in his agent and just signed it. Didn't know if there was a clause about behaviour or conduct. Christ. I thought these guys had some level of training for contracts and media as part of their preparation for life as a pro rugby player?

You can bring a horse to the water...

Squidgy Black

Buer wrote: »

Christ. I thought these guys had some level of training for contracts and media as part of their preparation for life as a pro rugby player?

I'd say a surprising amount of the lads wouldn't read their contracts themselves, they'd just see the figures and the years and say yeah that's fine. Bit like accepting terms and conditions on a website, they just want to be able to play rugby. Clauses and stuff would be left down to agents/solicitors.

Buer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Buer wrote: »

Christ. I thought these guys had some level of training for contracts and media as part of their preparation for life as a pro rugby player?

I'd say a surprising amount of the lads wouldn't read their contracts themselves, they'd just see the figures and the years and say yeah that's fine. Bit like accepting terms and conditions on a website, they just want to be able to play rugby. Clauses and stuff would be left down to agents/solicitors.

I'd agree. I was just taken aback at how blunt Ferris and iHumph were about it at half time. I can't recall which of them admitted that the only thing they looked at was the salary before signing.

They said the contract is about 50 pages long but they would never look at it. In their entire careers, they never took an hour or two to go through it or even get a synopsis on it from someone. I found the fact that Ferris didn't know if there was a section on conduct to be totally absurd. Even after everything in recent weeks, he still didn't know!

bilston

Buer wrote: »

I'd agree. I was just taken aback at how blunt Ferris and iHumph were about it at half time. I can't recall which of them admitted that the only thing they looked at was the salary before signing.

They said the contract is about 50 pages long but they would never look at it. In their entire careers, they never took an hour or two to go through it or even get a synopsis on it from someone. I found the fact that Ferris didn't know if there was a section on conduct to be totally absurd. Even after everything in recent weeks, he still didn't know!

That might just be Stevie Ferris! Others might take a bit longer to look at it.

I suppose for the guys in their early 20s they may just see the numbers and think BAZINGA! I suspect the older the players get the more interested they become in the fine print.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

I'd agree. I was just taken aback at how blunt Ferris and iHumph were about it at half time. I can't recall which of them admitted that the only thing they looked at was the salary before signing.

They said the contract is about 50 pages long but they would never look at it. In their entire careers, they never took an hour or two to go through it or even get a synopsis on it from someone. I found the fact that Ferris didn't know if there was a section on conduct to be totally absurd. Even after everything in recent weeks, he still didn't know!

I'm not that surprised. There is a bit of a tldr with massive contracts and often someone will say I'll read it all or none of it as reading a quarter is a bit pointless.

prawnsambo

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I'd say a surprising amount of the lads wouldn't read their contracts themselves, they'd just see the figures and the years and say yeah that's fine. Bit like accepting terms and conditions on a website, they just want to be able to play rugby. Clauses and stuff would be left down to agents/solicitors.

But solicitors and agents would only be looking at those clauses to see if they're standard, fair or unfair. Once they're happy that those standards are met, they'd reccommend the contract to their client.

But the client wouldn't know what their duties and responsibilities were without reading the contract. A bit like getting house or car insurance, you do need to have a skim through it and see if there's anything that might be an issue for you.

Synode

A solicitor would give them the gist of it and highlight amy significant areas that need considering

Former Former

Doesn't really matter though, does it? If there's something in a player's contract about off-field conduct, then whether he read it or not is utterly immaterial.

prawnsambo

Synode wrote: »

A solicitor would give them the gist of it and highlight amy significant areas that need considering

Yeah, but what's significant for a solicitor may not be what's significant for their client and vice versa.

The fact that Ferris and iHumph weren't ever aware of clauses concerning conduct or behaviour and that he only mentioned his agent and not a solicitor would tend to support that. I suspect that the agent would have consulted a solicitor, and then passed their opinion on to the player.

It's a small sample size admittedly, but 100% of them said the same thing, for whatever that's worth. But the main thing is that we know such clauses exist.

Synode

Have they given any indication as to when this hearing or whatever it is will take place?

Squidgy Black

Synode wrote: »

Have they given any indication as to when this hearing or whatever it is will take place?

I don't think it's a hearing or anything like that, just that it's under review. No dates around it or anything, just a decision that the IRFU will make in due time.

BBDBB

The longer it takes from today, the more favourable the decision in my view




Within reason of course

bilston

Synode wrote: »

Have they given any indication as to when this hearing or whatever it is will take place?

I have nothing other than my gut telling me this but I reckon the IRFU will try and ride it out. They will test the waters and if they think its possible they will keep them on. Whether that's possible is anyone's guess.

For what it's worth ccording the Ulster Rugby Supporters Club none of it's 983 members have contacted them wanting Olding and Jackson dismissed.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, but what's significant for a solicitor may not be what's significant for their client and vice versa.

The fact that Ferris and iHumph weren't ever aware of clauses concerning conduct or behaviour and that he only mentioned his agent and not a solicitor would tend to support that. I suspect that the agent would have consulted a solicitor, and then passed their opinion on to the player.

It's a small sample size admittedly, but 100% of them said the same thing, for whatever that's worth. But the main thing is that we know such clauses exist.

I'd say every single person on this forum if they look at their employment contract under the disciplinary section will have a clause relating to not damaging the brand nor bringing the brand into disrepute. It's extremely common to the point that it would be unusual to be left out of even a fairly basic employment contract.

People with a more public facing roles have much broader and clearer covenants with more defined restrictions and permissions regarding their public utterances and actions.

I've yet to see one that prohibits or in anyway references what a person can get up to in their bedroom however.

irishbucsfan

It absolutely doesn't have to say anything about the bedroom whatsoever. Not sure why that keeps coming up. It's such a weird attempt to twist the problem into something that is easier to ignore.

All the employer needs to do, outside of giving the lads a fair hearing, is provide evidence of the reputational damage. Which is not going to be something which causes the acquisition of too many grey hairs or the loss of too many brain cells. If they want the lads gone, they will be gone. But we're not there yet.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It absolutely doesn't have to say anything about the bedroom whatsoever. Not sure why that keeps coming up. It's such a weird attempt to twist the problem into something that is easier to ignore.

All the employer needs to do, outside of giving the lads a fair hearing, is provide evidence of the reputational damage. Which is not going to be something which causes the acquisition of too many grey hairs or the loss of too many brain cells. If they want the lads gone, they will be gone. But we're not there yet.

Yes, that's all they have to do. It's that simple.

Ever wonder why RTE waited until after Kieran Creaven pleaded guilty before they sacked him?

Hint: because it's not that simple.