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

padser

Hurrache wrote: »

Fans have an input too. Remember internationals are big family day outs. Regardless of the verdict, their actions have not gone down well with many people, something the IRFU will be keen to remain disassociated with.

Fans can have an input in both directions.

If the players are driven from their jobs due to being accused of a crime they are not guilty of, I wouldn't be buying Ireland tickets for the foreseeable future.

irishbucsfan

padser wrote: »

Fans can have an input in both directions.

If the players are driven from their jobs due to being accused of a crime they are not guilty of, I wouldn't be buying Ireland tickets for the foreseeable future.

They won't be driven from their jobs for being accused of a crime.

There are plenty of other questions that they will want to ask before they make a decision, but the decision will be made on their conduct (which we have evidence of) and even questions about what was in the evidence that was destroyed by the lads. More importantly, how that conduct and those decisions they made impact the IRFU's ability to continue to employ them. No one is going to be sacked for being accused of a crime. They'll be sacked because of the impact their own actions have had on their marketability as rugby players.

Hurrache

padser wrote: »

Fans can have an input in both directions.

If the players are driven from their jobs due to being accused of a crime they are not guilty of, I wouldn't be buying Ireland tickets for the foreseeable future.

Has been discussed, nothing to do with the crime.

$ausage$

Did not see mod post

Did not see mod post Deleted

MJohnston

People saying that fans will boycott the teams if they are forced to leave, I'm very skeptical:

First thing is that it's very unlikely we'll see anything other than a quiet and mutual departure for both players if it does happen, in other words it's very unlikely either player will kick up a fuss and say they were forced out.

Second thing is that even if some fans do that, they'll forget about it fairly quickly, and it is very unlikely to be a vocal and public campaign. On the flip side, if they retain those players, the fans who want them to leave will have a constant reminder that they're still with the team, and it will be a much longer negative effect, and in this case it is very likely to be a very vocal and public campaign.

In other words, the IRFU have a lot more to lose from retaining them.

eigrod

MJohnston wrote: »

People saying that fans will boycott the teams if they are forced to leave, I'm very skeptical:

First thing is that it's very unlikely we'll see anything other than a quiet and mutual departure for both players if it does happen, in other words it's very unlikely either player will kick up a fuss and say they were forced out.

Second thing is that even if some fans do that, they'll forget about it fairly quickly, and it is very unlikely to be a vocal and public campaign. On the flip side, if they retain those players, the fans who want them to leave will have a constant reminder that they're still with the team, and it will be a much longer negative effect, and in this case it is very likely to be a very vocal and public campaign.

In other words, the IRFU have a lot more to lose from retaining them.

I think the bigger risk to Ulster Rugby, IRFU & their sponsors will be non-rugby people/groups making an issue of it.

If either are picked again for Ulster or Ireland, you can guarantee that individuals and groups will organise protests outside and inside the grounds and I expect, initially at least, they will be significant enough.

prawnsambo

eigrod wrote: »

I think the bigger risk to Ulster Rugby, IRFU & their sponsors will be non-rugby people/groups making an issue of it.

If either are picked again for Ulster or Ireland, you can guarantee that individuals and groups will organise protests outside and inside the grounds and I expect, initially at least, they will be significant enough.

Indeed. You only have to look at the furore over Gerbrandt Grobler that resurfaced every time he was selected or was rumoured to be selected.

MJohnston

eigrod wrote: »

I think the bigger risk to Ulster Rugby, IRFU & their sponsors will be non-rugby people/groups making an issue of it.

If either are picked again for Ulster or Ireland, you can guarantee that individuals and groups will organise protests outside and inside the grounds and I expect, initially at least, they will be significant enough.

Yeah, perhaps, although I do think there will be a lot of direct loss of ticketing revenue from fans not willing to pay to see those players. Generally though I think it's fair to say that the negative effects of retaining the players will be much more visible and long-lasting than the negative effects if they are moved overseas.

Former Former

prawnsambo wrote: »

Indeed. You only have to look at the furore over Gerbrandt Grobler that resurfaced every time he was selected or was rumoured to be selected.

Grobler was selected last weekend and I didn't see it mentioned anywhere.

And no one outside rugby/sport really cared about Grobler. The Jackson/Olding thing is of much wider societal interest.

They simply have to go.

torqtorq

prawnsambo wrote: »

Indeed. You only have to look at the furore over Gerbrandt Grobler that resurfaced every time he was selected or was rumoured to be selected.

That is a thoroughly ridiculous example.

Gerbrandt Grobler was found guilty.

These 2 players were found not guilty.

prawnsambo

torqtorq wrote: »

That is a thoroughly ridiculous example.

Gerbrandt Grobler was found guilty.

These 2 players were found not guilty.

Perhaps you'd consider reading my post in the context of the one I replied to?

MJohnston

torqtorq wrote: »

That is a thoroughly ridiculous example.

Gerbrandt Grobler was found guilty.

These 2 players were found not guilty.

What's your point - do you think there will be no public reaction if they're allowed back into the teams?

foxyladyxx

MJohnston wrote: »

What's your point - do you think there will be no public reaction if they're allowed back into the teams?

I agree. There would be a massive backlash against IRFU if Jackson/Olding allowed to play again for Ireland.

I can only imagine that it might be the same for Ulster rugby.

Females on twitter seem to forget the trial was in a British courtroom and that the players would have been afforded anonymity if they had been tried in the Republic.

facehugger99

I can only speak for myself, but if Jackson or Olding are ever allowed pull on the green jersey of Ireland and represent my country, I'll be burning my jersey and not watching or attending any more Irish matches.

I don't think it will come to this however.

Just my opinion, others are free to decide differently.

bilston

Former Former wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

Indeed. You only have to look at the furore over Gerbrandt Grobler that resurfaced every time he was selected or was rumoured to be selected.

Grobler was selected last weekend and I didn't see it mentioned anywhere.

And no one outside rugby/sport really cared about Grobler. The Jackson/Olding thing is of much wider societal interest.

They simply have to go.

No they don't.

Just to clarify I'm saying they don't have to go yet. The relevant authorities should test the waters. At least five it some thought. Guage the views of stakeholders first.

bilston

facehugger99 wrote: »

I can only speak for myself, but if Jackson or Olding are ever allowed pull on the green jersey of Ireland and represent my country, I'll be burning my jersey and not watching or attending any more Irish matches.

I don't think it will come to this however.

Just my opinion, others are free to decide differently.

Why?

You have to remove the rape allegation from the equation now as they are not guilty of it.

That being the case are you happy to watch the two lads play who were caught up in something similar in the past?

damianmcr

I doubt Ill be back at Ravenhill next year if they arent playing.

Former Former

bilston wrote: »

No they don't.

I'm not saying I agree with it, and it might be a different kettle of fish if they somehow end up seeing out their contracts with Ulster and aren't picked for Ireland (probably not an issue for Olding anyway). That might work.

But I just can't see any scenario in which Jackson plays for Ireland this side of the World Cup anyway. There's an incredible amount of anger out there and the first picture of Jackson having the craic at Ireland training camp or his team-mates hugging him in celebration, all that anger will be focussed squarely on IRFU.

I don't think this is just going to blow over.

prawnsambo

damianmcr wrote: »

I doubt Ill be back at Ravenhill next year if they arent playing.

Really? Let's suppose they decide that they are better away from the environment that carries such painful memories. Or that they feel they need a new start away from the microscopic attention that wil inevitably follow their every move. Or they just get a better offer.

Are you still walking away from Ravenhill?

facehugger99

bilston wrote: »

Why?

You have to remove the rape allegation from the equation now as they are not guilty of it.

That being the case are you happy to watch the two lads play who were caught up in something similar in the past?

There wasn't enough evidence to secure a rape conviction, but their behavior and treatment of a drunk teenager, IMO, was appalling. It renders them unfit to represent their country, again IMO.

Don't believe the other situation you refer to is anyway comparable TBH.

facehugger99

facehugger99 wrote: »

There wasn't enough evidence to secure a rape conviction, but their behavior and treatment of a drunk teenager, IMO, was appalling. It renders them unfit to represent their country, again IMO.

Don't believe the other situation you refer to is anyway comparable TBH.

We're not meant to be discussing details of the trial so I'm not going to respond with specifics but the evidence left open enough possibilities that their actions could have been absolutely reasonable by any contemporary standard.

If people want to get upset about some private whatsapp message then fine, but having a dark sense of humour doesn't at all equate to being a bad person or disrespectful. In the absence of neither a conviction nor any evidenciary silver bullet these people should go back to where they were before this started as far as I'm concerned.

The Black Stags

facehugger99 wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

Why?

You have to remove the rape allegation from the equation now as they are not guilty of it.

That being the case are you happy to watch the two lads play who were caught up in something similar in the past?

There wasn't enough evidence to secure a rape conviction, but their behavior and treatment of a drunk teenager, IMO, was appalling. It renders them unfit to represent their country, again IMO.

Don't believe the other situation you refer to is anyway comparable TBH.

You say that, but have no idea what the other players are saying in their private conversations. These are young men talking nonsense to each other in private.

Innocent until proven guilty. They have always been Innocent.

MJohnston

bilston wrote: »

Why?

You have to remove the rape allegation from the equation now as they are not guilty of it.

You don't have to at all. It's entirely up to reach individual person what they think of that, we aren't bound by the choices of the legal system in our personal opinions. Easy example in that regard - OJ Simpson.

That being the case are you happy to watch the two lads play who were caught up in something similar in the past?

It wasn't similar at all. There was no accusation of any crime for a start.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

Easy example in that regard - OJ Simpson.

This is nothing like the OJ Simpson trial. It's the equivalent of me pointing out instances where false accusations of rape have occurred in the past. Would you consider that a fair addition to the debate?

irishbucsfan

The concerns have nothing to do with a dark sense of humour.

There is absolutely no way that these lads will go back to where they were before this started, and that is entirely down to their own actions.

Bridge93

Personal opinions we have aren't bound by the laws of science either. But you do look a bit ignorant to ignore them when they're laid down by people far more in the know than any of us

Zzippy

A reminder that rehashing the trial or verdict is a forbidden topic. Player's futures can be discussed. If you want to make insinuations about guilt or innocence, or make insinuations about the main witness, take it to twitter. You'll find a receptive audience there no doubt.

jacothelad

prawnsambo wrote: »

Indeed. You only have to look at the furore over Gerbrandt Grobler that resurfaced every time he was selected or was rumoured to be selected.

Yes but he was actually guilty.:D:D

Zzippy

Posts deleted, benefit of the doubt that users may not have seen the latest warning. Any more sh1te will see bans.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Zzippy wrote: »

Posts deleted, benefit of the doubt that users may not have seen the latest warning. Any more sh1te will see bans.

Can we refer people discussing the trial and verdict to an after hours thread on the subject?