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

06-04-2018 03:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Both morals clauses / restrictive covenants have been vindicated in individual EU courts and the ECJ. Unfortunately your experience isn't matched by specific knowledge.

Sorry, but restrictive covenants are defeated with vastly greater frequency than they are upheld. They are regularly used but extremely difficult to enforce in a meaningful way.

How many employment law contracts have you seen that specifically prohibit certain types of sexual activity? If the IRFU sacked Jackson for having a threesome, how long do you think the EAT would take to award him damages?

prawnsambo · 06-04-2018 03:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, but restrictive covenants are defeated with vastly greater frequency than they are upheld. They are regularly used but extremely difficult to enforce in a meaningful way.

How many employment law contracts have you seen that specifically prohibit certain types of sexual activity? If the IRFU sacked Jackson for having a threesome, how long do you think the EAT would take to award him damages?

That is not going to be the issue at all.

Again, I bring you back to what happened Teddy Thomas. He got a fine from his club for something that he wasn't even representing his club for.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 03:13PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry, but restrictive covenants are defeated with vastly greater frequency than they are upheld. They are regularly used but extremely difficult to enforce in a meaningful way.

How many employment law contracts have you seen that specifically prohibit certain types of sexual activity? If the IRFU sacked Jackson for having a threesome, how long do you think the EAT would take to award him damages?

Yeah, but imagine the IRFU fired someone for eating too many fig rolls, has that been tested yet? Remember in this example though, that the fig rolls were into it.

06-04-2018 03:15PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Do you really think you could try and attempt to argue that a rugby players duties of employment start and end on the field?!

Anyway, Joy Neville is just one of potentially many female officials these lads will encounter there in future. You would get nowhere with that argument.

I'm not making that argument, that is simply what I took the author to mean. Don't forget that their contracts will reference the laws of the game and require that they comply with said laws. Those laws cover physical contact with other people that most contracts don't. Obviously if you tackled someone in an office you would be sued for assault. Rugby players however would have an exemption to things that in other jobs would be considered assault. None of those exemptions apply to women.

Again it's probably just clumsy writing, but that is what I thought she was referencing.

06-04-2018 03:16PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

That is not going to be the issue at all.

Again, I bring you back to what happened Teddy Thomas. He got a fine from his club for something that he wasn't even representing his club for.

Which happened in public. That is a massive distinction.

prawnsambo · 06-04-2018 03:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not making that argument, that is simply what I took the author to mean. Don't forget that their contracts will reference the laws of the game and require that they comply with said laws. Those laws cover physical contact with other people that most contracts don't. Obviously if you tackled someone in an office you would be sued for assault. Rugby players however would have an exemption to things that in other jobs would be considered assault. None of those exemptions apply to women.

Again it's probably just clumsy writing, but that is what I thought she was referencing.

So not such a good article then?

06-04-2018 03:21PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

So not such a good article then?

The law is sound. It's a good overview of the challenges facing the IRFU from a credible source. It's relevant to the case at hand because it is about the case at hand. If people want to diminish the article or deride the author over one passage that's their business.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 03:23PM

Anyway, it won’t come down to legal arguments. If the IRFU or Ulster don’t want them there, they’ll be gone.

errlloyd · 06-04-2018 03:25PM

I think this all a fairly futile line of argument btw.

We have one legal opinion of a lawyer in a different jurisdiction with a different employment law act and no constitution. We have an opinion of a laywer in the correct jurisdiction but with a convicted criminal and a different type of offense.

And we have a few different posters comparing their knowledge of non sporting employment contracts.

None of this legal speak is important, it is all just a distraction. We are not judges, we are not juries, the law is not important.

The question isn't "do you think the IRFU are legally allowed to sack them". The only question I am interested in is "Regardless of the law, do you think they should play for Ulster / Ireland again".

And my answer to that is no. I can't write "I think Paddy Jackson is probably a rapist on boards" because we might get in trouble. But I can write "I think Paddy Jackson is probably a rapist" on a piece of paper on my desk here and that shouldn't be a problem.

06-04-2018 03:27PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Anyway, it won’t come down to legal arguments. If the IRFU or Ulster don’t want them there, they’ll be gone.

Well it will. Jackson and Olding will want some recompense for making the IRFU's life easier and will achieve this by dangling the threat of a legal action. Why wouldn't they, they'll never be back so they can burn whatever bridges they want and they both most likely need the cash seeing as Olding ran out of money mid trial.

I wonder if there is a payment will there be a boycott effort against the IRFU. Any payment won't go down well with a lot of people.

OldRio · 06-04-2018 03:28PM

I hope they are back playing ASAP. Or it's mob rule.

06-04-2018 03:28PM

errlloyd wrote: »

We have one legal opinion of a lawyer in a different jurisdiction with a different employment law act and no constitution. We have an opinion of a laywer in the correct jurisdiction but with a convicted criminal and a different type of offense.

I considered the jurisdictional aspect, but depending on the nature of the contract (Ulster / IRFU) the jurisdiction is a bit blurred. When Jackson played for Ireland, where was his employment contract located?

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 03:31PM

OldRio wrote: »

I hope they are back playing ASAP. Or it's mob rule.

I could say the same in reverse tbh

Podge_irl · 06-04-2018 03:32PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Anyway, it won’t come down to legal arguments. If the IRFU or Ulster don’t want them there, they’ll be gone.

If the IRFU don't want them there they can only make them gone in a legal manner.

06-04-2018 03:35PM

errlloyd wrote: »

And my answer to that is no. I can't write "I think Paddy Jackson is probably a rapist on boards" because we might get in trouble. But I can write "I think Paddy Jackson is probably a rapist" on a piece of paper on my desk here and that shouldn't be a problem.

That's fair enough. I'd probably write "I don't know what happened because I wasn't there and don't know the people involved, but I've enough doubt from the independent female in the room and the swiftness of the jury's decision to hold tight on accusing anyone of something as serious rape".

I guess each to their own objectivity.

Sangre · 06-04-2018 03:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I considered the jurisdictional aspect, but depending on the nature of the contract (Ulster / IRFU) the jurisdiction is a bit blurred. When Jackson played for Ireland, where was his employment contract located?

As a whole, employment law is pretty harmonised in UK and Ireland due to vast number of employment related EU regulations and directives.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 03:36PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

If the IRFU don't want them there they can only make them gone in a legal manner.

Which would be incredibly easy to sort out in reality. They all know this.

We’re nowhere near that point yet though. Jackson’s statement genuinely makes me think they’re going to test the waters.

OldRio · 06-04-2018 03:38PM

MJohnston wrote: »

I could say the same in reverse tbh

You could but it would make no sense

06-04-2018 03:39PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

If the IRFU don't want them there they can only make them gone in a legal manner.

They can negotiate an agreement that is legally binding without either side demanding specific performance or enforcing their rights.

I'm just pointing out that if it did come to that they are restricted in what they can and can't do and all employees enjoy a bubble of privacy which a contract of employment cannot penetrate.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2018 03:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

They can negotiate an agreement that is legally binding without either side demanding specific performance or enforcing their rights.

Of course, which I expect is what would happen.

However, if they are asked/required to leave their Ireland careers are over so I have no idea why anyone would expect them to make it easy for the IRFU. There is no reason they shouldn't make it as legally (and financially) difficult as possible.

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 03:42PM

OldRio wrote: »

You could but it would make no sense

Why not? Plenty of men like yourself on social media getting angry about the idea of them being asked to leave.

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 03:43PM

Neither player was on a central contract, so I don't believe they would actually have any kind of employment contract with anyone other than Ulster.

ETA: IRFU can very easily say that a central contract is off the table, which I would guess wouldn't breach any kind of rights or laws. I can't imagine either of them staying around without that safety net.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2018 03:51PM

MJohnston wrote: »

Neither player was on a central contract, so I don't believe they would actually have any kind of employment contract with anyone other than Ulster.

ETA: IRFU can very easily say that a central contract is off the table, which I would guess wouldn't breach any kind of rights or laws. I can't imagine either of them staying around without that safety net.

All contracts are ultimately with the IRFU (or so I've heard).

Why wouldn't they stay around to finish out their contracts in that scenario? Both players are contracted for another year and neither sound all that willing to leave silently.

06-04-2018 03:54PM

MJohnston wrote: »

Why not? Plenty of men like yourself on social media getting angry about the idea of them being asked to leave.

Is this the attitude you bring to the debate?

I'm not angry about them being asked to leave, I just think it should be done in a way that is fair and in respect of their rights and not a knee jerk reaction to the various online campaigns and marches. That's mob rule and it's extremely dangerous.

I also think that people need to be objective, and let the benefit of the doubt flow both ways. The complainant was given the benefit of the doubt and her accusation was tested by a court and a jury. There seems to be absolutely no willingness to consider that the defendants deserve any similar benefit of the doubt.

When I heard about the accusation I presumed there was truth to it, I felt it was more likely the accusation was true than someone would go through the ordeal of taking a case like this over a lie.

Having seen the same evidence as everyone else here, I find it very difficult not to have doubt, so I give equal doubt both ways and equal benefit both ways. I don't accuse her of lying, I don't accuse them of rape.

prawnsambo · 06-04-2018 03:54PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

All contracts are ultimately with the IRFU (or so I've heard).

Why wouldn't they stay around to finish out their contracts in that scenario? Both players are contracted for another year and neither sound all that willing to leave silently.

I wonder is that the case with Ulster contracts though. Just in the sense that they are in two different legal jurisdictions.

Zzippy · 06-04-2018 03:55PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

All contracts are ultimately with the IRFU (or so I've heard).

Why wouldn't they stay around to finish out their contracts in that scenario? Both players are contracted for another year and neither sound all that willing to leave silently.

It's all about posturing. If the players appear happy to leave the IRFU will be able to lowball them with a settlement offer to terminate their contracts early. If they play hardball and make it clear they're not leaving, the IRFU would have to pay off the full value left on the contracts in order to get rid.

Podge_irl · 06-04-2018 03:57PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I wonder is that the case with Ulster contracts though. Just in the sense that they are in two different legal jurisdictions.

No idea, its an interesting question though. You would think there might be some kind of legal machinations (IRFU UK subsidiary?). Ulster Rugby and the IRFU are not really separate entities anyway - it's a facile distinction.

I agree it's all about posturing. I doubt any of the mob would be too happy to see the lads completely paid off for their contracts.

06-04-2018 04:00PM

Podge_irl wrote: »

No idea, its an interesting question though. You would think there might be some kind of legal machinations (IRFU UK subsidiary?). Ulster Rugby and the IRFU are not really separate entities anyway - it's a facile distinction.

I agree it's all about posturing. I doubt any of the mob would be too happy to see the lads completely paid off for their contracts.

Generally speaking with a 'branch' style setup employment contracts are often harmonised bar where a jurisdictional or regulatory impediment occurs.

I see it a lot with US - Ireland organisations. The one commonality is that the subordinate entity will comply with the norms of the superior bodies wherever possible.

prawnsambo · 06-04-2018 04:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Generally speaking with a 'branch' style setup employment contracts are often harmonised bar where a jurisdictional or regulatory impediment occurs.

I see it a lot with US - Ireland organisations. The one commonality is that the subordinate entity will comply with the norms of the superior bodies wherever possible.

Yes, but the question was whether the contract was with the IRFU or not. They may be similar contracts, but are they with Ulster or the IRFU?

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 04:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

Why not? Plenty of men like yourself on social media getting angry about the idea of them being asked to leave.

Is this the attitude you bring to the debate?

I'm not angry about them being asked to leave, I just think it should be done in a way that is fair and in respect of their rights and not a knee jerk reaction to the various online campaigns and marches. That's mob rule and it's extremely dangerous.

I also think that people need to be objective, and let the benefit of the doubt flow both ways. The complainant was given the benefit of the doubt and her accusation was tested by a court and a jury. There seems to be absolutely no willingness to consider that the defendants deserve any similar benefit of the doubt.

When I heard about the accusation I presumed there was truth to it, I felt it was more likely the accusation was true than someone would go through the ordeal of taking a case like this over a lie.

Having seen the same evidence as everyone else here, I find it very difficult not to have doubt, so I give equal doubt both ways and equal benefit both ways. I don't accuse her of lying, I don't accuse them of rape.

Why are you replying to my response to a completely different poster in a way that suggests I was responding to you?

I'll tell you my opinion - no matter what the actual truth was, it was a near absolute certainty that there was going to be a not guilty verdict.

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

Comments