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

Buer · 28-03-2018 03:25PM

jr86 wrote: »

pc7 wrote: »

The law really needs to catch up on this side of social media, its crazy the stuff that was on twitter and reddit etc. I hope all the parties involved can move on with their lives, sadly they will never be the same for any of them. Belfast is a small place, the girl is known, the guys of course known.

Jackson's solicitor said they lost days of the trial due to Social Media nonsense

The "legal issues" days were dealing with that

Supposedly one of the main issues is a sitting judge tweeted something which was then hastily deleted. The defence were looking for the case to be thrown out.

Unbelievable that a judge could be so idiotic.

prawnsambo · 28-03-2018 03:27PM

molloyjh wrote: »

But that could open them up to legal challenges given that there are no grounds for dismissal or refusal to extend contracts etc. It's a mess from almost every perspective, for every party.

There could be 'behaviour' or 'disrepute' clauses in their contracts.

Zzippy · 28-03-2018 03:28PM

Right, despite numerous warnings people continue to post rubbish that is defamatory or demeans victims testimony, neither of which can be permitted. Mods don't have time to moderate every post in real time, and some of you are way too tetchy with your PMs too.

For the above reasons, discussion of the case itself, the facts of the case, and the verdict are NOT PERMITTED on this forum. Discussion of the players' future will be permitted subject to the above. This will be posted in the Ireland thread as well and anyone ignoring this warning will be infracted/banned

Podge_irl · 28-03-2018 03:29PM

jacothelad wrote: »

It seems they are going to be tried again by the IRFU. Double jeopardy anyone?

You know full well that that is not double jeopardy.

ScissorPaperRock · 28-03-2018 03:30PM

molloyjh wrote: »

But that could open them up to legal challenges given that there are no grounds for dismissal or refusal to extend contracts etc. It's a mess from almost every perspective, for every party.

I can't imagine there would be an issue with not extending contracts.... by definition, on the basis of completing their existing contracts, they would no longer be under contract, and I don't see why there would be an obligation to enter a new one.

Terminating a contract may be another issue.

Podge_irl · 28-03-2018 03:30PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

There could be 'behaviour' or 'disrepute' clauses in their contracts.

I'm sure there are, though "disrepute" is (probably purposely) a very vague term.

Buer · 28-03-2018 03:33PM

It would be very harsh but I'm sure there are grey areas around code of conduct for players. Whether they seek to pursue it or not, the IRFU will have 100% looked into their grounds for termination already regardless of the verdict by way of due diligence.

joseywhales · 28-03-2018 03:40PM

Honestly they will
1) try to break existing contract
2) use it as an excuse to low ball them in a new contract negotiation
3) Declare publicly that they believe in second chances, have taken action and back the players to redeem themselves.

ClanofLams · 28-03-2018 03:56PM

joseywhales wrote: »

Honestly they will
1) try to break existing contract
2) use it as an excuse to low ball them in a new contract negotiation
3) Declare publicly that they believe in second chances, have taken action and back the players to redeem themselves.

I don’t think the IRFU will consider the saving of a couple of hundred k worth the commercial risk.

I can’t imagine the players are going to accept low ball offers either. This case must have cost each of them hundreds of thousands of pounds if not seven figures. Olding had to apply for financial aid midway through the trial.

MJohnston · 28-03-2018 04:01PM

I think the one important detail is that I reckon that there's probably very little chance of either of them getting a central contract now (not that Olding was ever certain of one).

28-03-2018 04:06PM

The fact they're still stood down while the IRFU conduct their own review is ominous enough for them imo.

Brewster · 28-03-2018 04:09PM

I ask the question again.... Why wouldn’t the IRFU back them? What are the grounds for terminating their contracts?

prawnsambo · 28-03-2018 04:15PM

Brewster wrote: »

I ask the question again.... Why wouldn’t the IRFU back them? What are the grounds for terminating their contracts?

We don't know the grounds because we don't have their contracts. But it would be standard to have code of conduct clauses in contracts like that.

lalababa · 28-03-2018 04:15PM

Brewster wrote: »

We have seen the worst of social media in recent times. The #notmycaptain BS was terrible. The jury clearly couldn’t acquit these lads quickly enough, this is the reality, they walked into the court innocent men and left innocent men. What gives anybody the right to question the jury in a criminal trial? It’s astonishing. These people were not in court for 9 weeks listenting to ALL of the evidence. The IRFU should absolutely get behind the two lads, anything else would just add insult to injury. A court of law has found them innocent.

Ulster and IRFU should stand up and be counted , putting full support behind these players. Back training in a couple of weeks, back to normal service there on. The Irish rugby bodies would lose much respect from me if they do anything less.
Do anything less and I would see them as craven mice , unjust, mamon following ,false pc brigade following , social media gimps,husks of rational beings.

Faugheen · 28-03-2018 04:15PM

Brewster wrote: »

I ask the question again.... Why wouldn’t the IRFU back them? What are the grounds for terminating their contracts?

You can't surely expect an answer to that question because people will have to refer to the trial, which we can't do.

I think there's plenty of reasons. Sponsors won't touch them. Both will be booed out of every building in Ireland and the values of what it means to play for Ulster don't necessarily hold true for the pair of them.

joseywhales · 28-03-2018 04:16PM

Brewster wrote: »

I ask the question again.... Why wouldn’t the IRFU back them? What are the grounds for terminating their contracts?

I think they will back them but will scrimp whatever they can get out of their contracts. Jackson will have to create a credible threat of leaving.

prawnsambo · 28-03-2018 04:16PM

lalababa wrote: »

Ulster and IRFU should stand up and be counted , putting full support behind these players. Back training in a couple of weeks, back to normal service there on. The Irish rugby bodies would lose much respect from me if they do anything less.
Do anything less and I would see them as craven mice , unjust, mamon following ,false pc brigade following , social media gimps,husks of rational beings.

Really? You don't think an employer has the right to hold employees to certain standards?

damianmcr · 28-03-2018 04:17PM

Hadassah CoolS Backside wrote: »

The fact they're still stood down while the IRFU conduct their own review is ominous enough for them imo.

I dont agree.

I will point out what we have learned from the trial is that Kiss and Bryn were the first people to know of the accusations. Im sure the IRFU were notified by one of these two that same day or someone else at least.

They were both still selected by Ulster and Ireland and only stood down when the case went to court.

Can the IRFU now sack them after being found not guilty having played them before the trial but aware of the charges?

Something to think about.

prawnsambo · 28-03-2018 04:19PM

damianmcr wrote: »

I dont agree.

I will point out what we have learned from the trial is that Kiss and Bryn were the first people to know of the accusations. Im sure the IRFU were notified by one of these two that same day or someone else at least.

They were both still selected by Ulster and Ireland and only stood down when the case went to court.

Can the IRFU now sack them after being found not guilty having played them before the trial but aware of the charges?

Something to think about.

Not really. They were told there was an accusation. Nothing more. Then they were charged and that's when they were stood down.

Now they have to review their contracts in light of sworn testimony in court and admissions made by them under oath.

joseywhales · 28-03-2018 04:21PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

o

lalababa wrote: »

Ulster and IRFU should stand up and be counted , putting full support behind these players. Back training in a couple of weeks, back to normal service there on. The Irish rugby bodies would lose much respect from me if they do anything less.
Do anything less and I would see them as craven mice , unjust, mamon following ,false pc brigade following , social media gimps,husks of rational beings.

Really? You don't think an employer has the right to hold employees to certain standards?

Personally I dont think an employer has any ownership of an employees free time, nor a right to judge them on it. Now if they are paid as public representatives to uphold PR status of the organisation, then its part of their job not to mess around in public. Is it part of the job of a professional athlete? Can someone be responsible for being put on trial for a crime they didn't commit and the PR outcome of that trial?

damianmcr · 28-03-2018 04:21PM

They were charged and found not guilty.

Id imagine it would be a specific clause in their contract as Ulster have let a few players off with some **** in the past though nothing compared to being charged with rape.

ClanofLams · 28-03-2018 04:22PM

Brewster wrote: »

I ask the question again.... Why wouldn’t the IRFU back them? What are the grounds for terminating their contracts?

Their comments on WhatsApp that have become public knowledge do not reflect well. I have no doubt that many other players have made similarly poor comments on WhatsApp etc but ultimately theirs became public. I’m not judging them, I’m sure I have said equally ill advised remarks myself but they are a significant factor. They can be used against them notwithstanding the innocent verdict.

This is a time of ‘activism’, the merits and disadvantages of that could be debated but it can’t be disputed. If Jackson/Olding represent Ulster or Ireland again I have little doubt that there will be campaigns and boycotts of sponsors organised,etc. The IRFU has to consider the financial implications this will cause.

That may not be ‘fair’ but it’s probably the right call for the IRFU for the pair to ply their trade elsewhere.

MJohnston · 28-03-2018 04:23PM

damianmcr wrote: »

Can the IRFU now sack them after being found not guilty having played them before the trial but aware of the charges?

Something to think about.

I don't think anyone thinks that IRFU will sack them, that's not what anyone is talking about.

mfceiling · 28-03-2018 04:23PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

o
Really? You don't think an employer has the right to hold employees to certain standards?

That's a difficult one. Can you go out and take copious amounts of drink and drugs at the weekend as long as you are fit, able and legal to turn up to work on Monday?
Where does the employer's standards come in here? Yes you can go mad but keep it off social media and make sure none of our clients see you or you represent our company and you should be in bed at 9p.m on Saturday night and be at 11a.m mass on Sunday morning?

prawnsambo · 28-03-2018 04:24PM

joseywhales wrote: »

Personally I dont think an employer has any ownership of an employees free time, nor a right to judge them on it. Now if they are paid as public representatives to uphold PR status of the organisation, then its part of their job not to mess around in public. Is it part of the job of a professional athlete? Can someone be responsible for being put on trial for a crime they didn't commit and the PR outcome of that trial?

Much of that depends on the nature of the employment. Where the employee is synonymous with the employer, the margins get a lot tighter. Or where the employer is identifiable. So an off-duty Garda, is still a member of the police force for example.

MJohnston · 28-03-2018 04:28PM

mfceiling wrote: »

That's a difficult one. Can you go out and take copious amounts of drink and drugs at the weekend as long as you are fit, able and legal to turn up to work on Monday?
Where does the employer's standards come in here? Yes you can go mad but keep it off social media and make sure none of our clients see you or you represent our company and you should be in bed at 9p.m on Saturday night and be at 11a.m mass on Sunday morning?

I appreciate that this would be true for most professions, but PR and media image is a huge part of being a professional rugby player, and that can't be ruled out of considering their future.

prawnsambo · 28-03-2018 04:33PM

MJohnston wrote: »

I appreciate that this would be true for most professions, but PR and media image is a huge part of being a professional rugby player, and that can't be ruled out of considering their future.

Yeah. Teddy Thomas was hit with a fine by Racing after the 'Edinburgh fracas' which was actually a forfeit of his 'ethics bonus' for that month. He wasn't playing for Racing at the time, but that didn't stop them withdrawing the bonus. But it shows that these ethics clauses exist in rugby player's contracts.

joseywhales · 28-03-2018 04:36PM

OH no, not the FEMALES! good god

errlloyd · 28-03-2018 04:41PM

John Hardie didn't fail a drugs test, and didn't commit a crime. But he was suspended.

Conduct "unbecoming of an Ulster Rugby player" could be leveled against them, and they could be suspended with pay. I imagine there is a possibility Ulster Rugby will do that.

mfceiling · 28-03-2018 04:42PM

MJohnston wrote: »

I appreciate that this would be true for most professions, but PR and media image is a huge part of being a professional rugby player, and that can't be ruled out of considering their future.

Fair point.

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

Comments