IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well Thornley said that he was told specifically in his role as Chairman that the IRFU see RWI as a direct competitor. That's worrying enough as it is.

He did say that but I find the notion of someone from the IRFU telling him specifically that they saw the media now as a competitor absolutely bizarre.

Jack Kanoff

Interested Observer wrote: »

He did say that but I find the notion of someone from the IRFU telling him specifically that they saw the media now as a competitor absolutely bizarre.

Just on this, the IRFU release interviews under the guise of an exclusive. How can it be an exclusive if they are an employee of yours?

Interested Observer wrote: »

He did say that but I find the notion of someone from the IRFU telling him specifically that they saw the media now as a competitor absolutely bizarre.

Were also getting the information exclusively from the side that now feel their livelihood is in jeopardy.

That certainly shouldn't make us in any way sceptical though.

phog wrote: »

Fantasy

It's absolutely not. I assure you. I can tell you at great lengths, if you ever want to discuss it, of real-world examples.

Deleted User wrote: »

Were also getting the information exclusively from the side that now feel their livelihood is in jeopardy.

That certainly shouldn't make us in any way sceptical though.

They're telling us why they think their livelihood is in jeopardy.

Either Thornley is telling a direct lie, which surely the IRFU will ask he corrects, or their livelihood actually is in jeopardy and we should all be concerned.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They're telling us why they think their livelihood is in jeopardy.

Either Thornley is telling a direct lie, which surely the IRFU will ask he corrects, or their livelihood actually is in jeopardy and we should all be concerned.

Thornley seemed fairly unfussed by the whole thing, I certainly didn't get the impression of a man who thought he'd be out of a job any time soon. Did you?

Interested Observer wrote: »

Thornley seemed fairly unfussed by the whole thing, I certainly didn't get the impression of a man who thought he'd be out of a job any time soon. Did you?

No, I didn't. I'm just allowing Venjur's conceit.

Thornley knows that they've been here long before the lads on the other side and they'll be there long after, hopefully.

I've been following this with interest for a while and have made some enquiries. Some of what's been said here is pretty wide of the mark and some has been a bit closer to what I've been told.

Relations between the IRFU and the print media are at an all-time low, that's a fact. It's interesting reading how this is being reported because although it's not very clear, there are areas of conflict that are apparent. Firstly that this is affectinig print media only. There's no discussion on other media such as TV or online outlets. The mention of the 'huddle' is particularly relevant since this is a print media only privilege. As are apparently facilities within the Aviva for print journalists to compile and file their copy.

The IRFU want to expand those 'privileges' to the online media, who are very much the poor relation on match days. I assume this is the likes of Balls.ie and The 42 etc. The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

So in essence it's print vs online. The IRFU can be considered part of that online presence, so the presentation of this being the IRFU pushing their online activities is accurate if you squint a bit and look through your fingers.

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Sorry, but it absolutely would. And it'd make him a target from the types of people who've been hurling insults at the journalists over this issue.

Sorry but that really is taking out of both sides of your mouth. Putting your hand up and admitting to a mistake is one thing, trying to portray yourself as a marter, while concealing the facts is just spin. His current stance invites criticism, it’s hypocritical in the extreme.

If the IRFU came out and said we made a mistake, we aren’t going to tell you what it is, ROC, you and everybody else would be screaming blue murder.

Hurrache

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The IRFU want to expand those 'privileges' to the online media, who are very much the poor relation on match days. I assume this is the likes of Balls.ie and The 42 etc. The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

So in essence it's print vs online. The IRFU can be considered part of that online presence, so the presentation of this being the IRFU pushing their online activities is accurate if you squint a bit and look through your fingers.

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

That's quite interesting if this is a reason. The print vs online has been ongoing a while now in all spheres of journalism, not just rugby, with most of the attacks being launched from the print side of things. They use the lazy generalisation that online media is poorly researched junk by a teen in their bedroom, step forward the likes of Murray Kinsella.

Facebook news feeds are another thing trotted out by them. Now it may be because I'm an oul lad and of the wrong generation, but I don't know anyone who gets their news from Facebook feeds, in fact no news appears on mine so I don't know if I've opted out or I just don't follow any such sources.

Neil3030

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well Thornley said that he was told specifically in his role as Chairman that the IRFU see RWI as a direct competitor. That's worrying enough as it is.

It may be that ROC did something horrible and intentional (which means he's lying and it'll ultimately see him removed from the union, as others before him have discovered). If that's the case then fair enough. But it's still deeply worrying to hear what Thornley has said.

The bolded bit above would contradict the cancellation being Schmidt and Nucifora's doing - as per ROC's comments on OTB.

I just want to see for myself: what did ROC say, and how was it dealt with. If it's pretty minor, and immediately corrected, then yeah, we can debate how much of this is a paranoid/control freak coach or organisation insulating the team; or a more sinister, opportunistic exercise by the IRFU to drive rugby journalism out of business.

However, it's also possible that ROC seriously overstepped a mark, and that his employer, or his union didn't handle it in a satisfactory manner. Thus, by cancelling one media session (which is all that's happened so far), the IRFU/Schmidt are sending a timely reminder to all that such actions could have consequences.

I feel that any debate on this needs to take stock of the fact that we don't have enough information right now to fully appraise the situation.

Hurrache wrote: »

That's quite interesting if this is a reason. The print vs online has been ongoing a while now in all spheres of journalism, not just rugby, with most of the attacks being launched from the print side of things. They use the lazy generalisation that online media is poorly researched junk by a teen in their bedroom, step forward the likes of Murray Kinsella.

Facebook news feeds are another thing trotted out by them. Now it may be because I'm an oul lad and of the wrong generation, but I don't know anyone who gets their news from Facebook feeds, in fact no news appears on mine so I don't know if I've opted out or I just don't follow any such sources.

Yeah, I don't do Facebook (although I have an account - mostly to keep up with frineds abroad) so that stuff is all ignored or blocked. But the likes of Murray Kinsella and The 42 generally would be my first port of call these days for rugby related news. I never realised that they were kept so much to the fringes until I was told. And when it's pointed out, you start noticing their absence from the print media and radio.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

Wellity wellity wellity.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

Had dinner with a friend who is in the middle of those "poor relations" last night and he's certainly completely unaware of this if that's the case. There is though a seperation between the print and online guys (the online guys also includes the radio guys now as they've reduced in numbers quite a bit) and they do sit seperately and keep to themselves.

They don't see themselves as a poor relation though. The print guys getting the briefing when a game falls on a Saturday is seen as a balance to the fact they end up waiting with that info. That's why they don't do the huddle on a Sunday game.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Had dinner with a friend who is in the middle of those "poor relations" last night and he's certainly completely unaware of this if that's the case. There is though a seperation between the print and online guys (the online guys also includes the radio guys now as they've reduced in numbers quite a bit) and they do sit seperately and keep to themselves.

They don't see themselves as a poor relation though. The print guys getting the briefing when a game falls on a Saturday is seen as a balance to the fact they end up waiting with that info. That's why they don't do the huddle on a Sunday game.

Yeah. It's hard to know, but I didn't have much difficulty finding out. Made a call, got a call back a couple of hours later and that's what I was told.

Edit: The 'poor relations' thing was just my words.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Had dinner with a friend who is in the middle of those "poor relations" last night and he's certainly completely unaware of this if that's the case. There is though a seperation between the print and online guys (the online guys also includes the radio guys now as they've reduced in numbers quite a bit) and they do sit seperately and keep to themselves.

They don't see themselves as a poor relation though. The print guys getting the briefing when a game falls on a Saturday is seen as a balance to the fact they end up waiting with that info. That's why they don't do the huddle on a Sunday game.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is not remotely true or relevant. Noone, absolutely noone, is asking for a life time ban.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is about the drug issue alone. The press have been, very rightly, skewering the IRFU's total incompetence on many issues over the past 18 months. They're tired of losing so they're taking their ball and they're going home.

So then. Who is it exactly that is tired of losing and is taking their ball home?

Deleted User wrote: »

So then. Who is it exactly that is tired of losing and is taking their ball home?

It's written pretty clearly in that post. Surprised you're still back on that one.

The IRFU have been absolutely dire in dealing with majorly important issues over the past 18 months. From women's rugby to drug usage and so on.

Neil3030

So just to recap all the theories:

IRFU want to as best they can do away with the media, and replace it with in-house content
IRFU want to extend print media privileges to online media
IRFU frustrated by recent coverage on certain issues
ROC printed something heinous
Schmidt hates the huddle, always has

Have I got them all? I suppose it could be more than one of the above...

Neil3030 wrote: »

IRFU want to do away with the media, and replace it with in-house content

Just on this, there are contractual obligations such as the post match press conference. They cannot do away with those for example, it has to be done.

Neil3030

Interested Observer wrote: »

Just on this, there are contractual obligations such as the post match press conference. They cannot do away with those for example, it has to be done.

List edited

Neil3030 wrote: »

So just to recap all the theories:

IRFU want to do away with the media, and replace it with in-house content
IRFU want to extend print media privileges to online media
IRFU frustrated by recent coverage on certain issues
ROC printed something heinous
Schmidt hates the huddle, always has

Have I got them all? I suppose it could be more than one of the above...

The first one makes no sense to me. Just because you have your own outlet, doesn't mean people will use it. And certainly not use it exclusively. So there will always be other sources of news. Which means you have to talk to them if you want your message to be spread.