Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…124125127129130…336

Comments

  • #3782
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Synode wrote: »
    I doubt there'll be any legal cases if they've been paid off with substantial amounts. No doubt they just want to get new clubs and move on with their lives.

    I'm still in shock to be honest. Really leaves a sour taste. But hypocrites are going to hypocrite. I'd seriously consider renewing my season ticket if I was an Ulster fan. Personally, I'm seriously considering dumping Bank of Ireland and Vodafone

    Who are the hypocrites??

    The most hypocritical thing possible would be for Ulster and IRFU to be promoting rugby as an inclusive and accessible sport, while doing nothing about this fiasco.

    They had to go. They deserved it and they have no one to blame but themselves. The sponsors, the IRFU, protestors, Twitter hashtaggers, feminists: none of the above forced them to do or say anything that night.

    You take a job in the public eye, you reap the benefits of that - but you have to accept the obligations and responsibilities that come with it. That's where the two players fell down.

    If they wanted to be free to do whatever they wanted within the bounds of the law, then there's plenty of jobs out there where no one cares what you do or say. International rugby player is not one of them.


  • #3783
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,722 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Former Former wrote: »
    Who are the hypocrites??

    The most hypocritical thing possible would be for Ulster and IRFU to be promoting rugby as an inclusive and accessible sport, while doing nothing about this fiasco.

    They had to go. They deserved it and they have no one to blame but themselves. The sponsors, the IRFU, protestors, Twitter hashtaggers, feminists: none of the above forced them to do or say anything that night.

    You take a job in the public eye, you reap the benefits of that - but you have to accept the obligations and responsibilities that come with it. That's where the two players fell down.

    If they wanted to be free to do whatever they wanted within the bounds of the law, then there's plenty of jobs out there where no one cares what you do or say. International rugby player is not one of them.


    They didn't have to go.
    The brave thing would have been to sanction them and then allow them to redeem themselves. By so doing face down a hysterical mob who decided these men were guilty from the start.
    That would be the decent human thing to do.

    But no, what we got was a squalid little deal under the table and the sponsors can stay on the high moral ground.


  • #3784
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    Who are the hypocrites??

    The most hypocritical thing possible would be for Ulster and IRFU to be promoting rugby as an inclusive and accessible sport, while doing nothing about this fiasco.

    They had to go. They deserved it and they have no one to blame but themselves. The sponsors, the IRFU, protestors, Twitter hashtaggers, feminists: none of the above forced them to do or say anything that night.

    You take a job in the public eye, you reap the benefits of that - but you have to accept the obligations and responsibilities that come with it. That's where the two players fell down.

    If they wanted to be free to do whatever they wanted within the bounds of the law, then there's plenty of jobs out there where no one cares what you do or say. International rugby player is not one of them.

    This is no less victim blaming than what George Hook got in trouble for.


  • #3785
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    Former Former wrote: »
    Who are the hypocrites??

    The most hypocritical thing possible would be for Ulster and IRFU to be promoting rugby as an inclusive and accessible sport, while doing nothing about this fiasco.

    They had to go. They deserved it and they have no one to blame but themselves. The sponsors, the IRFU, protestors, Twitter hashtaggers, feminists: none of the above forced them to do or say anything that night.

    You take a job in the public eye, you reap the benefits of that - but you have to accept the obligations and responsibilities that come with it. That's where the two players fell down.

    If they wanted to be free to do whatever they wanted within the bounds of the law, then there's plenty of jobs out there where no one cares what you do or say. International rugby player is not one of them.

    So the IRFU will be sacking other players who've let the side down yes? Otherwise it's complete hypocrisy.

    As for the sponsors, sure they're white as white. Anyone taking them seriously as guardians of morality should be laughed at


  • #3786
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    They didn't have to go.
    The brave thing would have been to sanction them and then allow them to redeem themselves. By so doing face down a hysterical mob who decided these men were guilty from the start.
    That would be the decent human thing to do.
    How does this benefit anyone? They do what you're suggesting and it never stops. The lads can't get away from it and it's a constant that gets in the way of everything they, Ulster rugby and the IRFU do.


  • Advertisement
  • #3787
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is no less victim blaming than what George Hook got in trouble for.

    Gas. It's the exact opposite of victim blaming. It's perpetrator blaming.


  • #3788
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Gas. It's the exact opposite of victim blaming. It's perpetrator blaming.

    Of course, I forgot they were guilty.


  • #3789
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Of course, I forgot they were guilty.

    Noone said that, not guilty of a crime anyway and thats what you're getting at here.


  • #3790
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Synode wrote: »
    So the IRFU will be sacking other players who've let the side down yes? Otherwise it's complete hypocrisy.
    This is worse than speculation. You're predicting an outcome for an unspecified future unspecificity. It's not even hypothetical. And it assumes that the IRFU have never sactioned players before.
    Synode wrote: »
    As for the sponsors, sure they're white as white. Anyone taking them seriously as guardians of morality should be laughed at. But money talks
    You're confusing business with morals. The sponsors may (as individuals in management) have or not have morals. The business requires that they are not associated with individuals or organisations that might reflect badly on their business.

    If it's good to get behind and sponsor a successful sports star, it's bad for business to remain associated with them if they become persona non grata in the public eye. cf Tiger Woods and many others.


  • #3791
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,722 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    How does this benefit anyone? They do what you're suggesting and it never stops. The lads can't get away from it and it's a constant that gets in the way of everything they, Ulster rugby and the IRFU do.

    Ah, it is all gonna stop now is it?
    :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #3792
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,722 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    This is worse than speculation. You're predicting an outcome for an unspecified future unspecificity. It's not even hypothetical. And it assumes that the IRFU have never sactioned players before.


    You're confusing business with morals. The sponsors may (as individuals in management) have or not have morals. The business requires that they are not associated with individuals or organisations that might reflect badly on their business.

    If it's good to get behind and sponsor a successful sports star, it's bad for business to remain associated with them if they become persona non grata in the public eye. cf Tiger Woods and many others.

    Funny, I saw the golf last week and Tiger (even though he was 4 over and out out out of contention) was front and centre of the coverage. With all his sponsored gear on him.

    He has successfully redeemed himself, in other words.


  • #3793
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Ah, it is all gonna stop now is it?
    :rolleyes:
    No. It's not going to stop now. But assuming the rumours are true, the lads will be in a different environment and not facing it every day of their lives. They'll be able to move on with their lives and not be in the spotlight for the wrong reasons. And things will move on here too.


  • #3794
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Funny, I saw the golf last week and Tiger (even though he was 4 over and out out out of contention) was front and centre of the coverage. With all his sponsored gear on him.

    He has successfully redeemed himself, in other words.
    Nine years later and after a good few years in and out of the game.


  • #3795
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Funny, I saw the golf last week and Tiger (even though he was 4 over and out out out of contention) was front and centre of the coverage. With all his sponsored gear on him.

    He has successfully redeemed himself, in other words.

    Yes he did. Great example from prawnsambo.

    After losing many, many contracts (far more than Olding/Jackson) and taking a prolonged time out of the game, he was able to start again and rehabilitate himself and now has new contracts and new partnerships and has largely rebuilt his image (although certainly not fully).

    Nothing stopping Olding or Jackson from following in his footsteps.


  • #3796
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,722 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Nine years later and after a good few years in and out of the game.

    As he dealt with his own demons, not because golf threw him out. Anytime he appeared in a tournament he was news and focussed on and not about what he had done, he was news because of what he might do in the golf.

    He is an example of a human centred approach to professionals making mistakes.


  • #3797
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Nine years later and after a good few years in and out of the game.

    With millions upon millions of lost sponsorship along the way.

    I'm not sure what he's proof of at all tbh but a blueprint for Ulster he ain't.


  • #3798
    mfceiling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,089 ✭✭✭✭mfceiling


    Sponsors.

    How many different logos have appeared on jerseys over the years?

    They don't give a shìte about the court's decision. In a year or 2 it will be a stroke of a pen and they'll be off to "be proud" to sponsor xyz.


  • #3799
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    As he dealt with his own demons, not because golf threw him out. Anytime he appeared in a tournament he was news and focussed on and not about what he had done, he was news because of what he might do in the golf.

    He is an example of a human centred approach to professionals making mistakes.

    Rugby isn't throwing these guys out. This is a false equivalency.


  • #3800
    joseywhales
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    If I get this straight, because boi have been guilty of immoral mortgage fraud they should not have a right to choose whether to sponsor Ulster rugby or not over pr concerns?

    It's not an amateur sport they are playing.


  • #3801
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    As he dealt with his own demons, not because golf threw him out. Anytime he appeared in a tournament he was news and focussed on and not about what he had done, he was news because of what he might do in the golf.

    He is an example of a human centred approach to professionals making mistakes.
    Not sure if you follow golf, but the same kind of social media storm surrounded him for years after the revealations about his doings. There are many in the USA who still haven't 'forgiven' him. Articles online about him that have comment sections have a fair number of very negative comments about him still.

    But in many respects, his battles with fitness and injury and rehab have been as much part of his public rehabilitation as have his contrition. The Americans love a good redemption story. Not sure we're any different tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #3802
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    mfceiling wrote: »
    Sponsors.

    How many different logos have appeared on jerseys over the years?

    They don't give a shìte about the court's decision. In a year or 2 it will be a stroke of a pen and they'll be off to "be proud" to sponsor xyz.

    BOI have been sponsoring Ulster for 20 years, even if not always on the shirt. They're the only ones to say anything publicly but I'll bet Kingspan had a few choice words about it too and their name is attached to the stadium.

    Ulster can survive without Jackson and Olding. They can't survive without sponsors.


  • #3803
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    This is worse than speculation. You're predicting an outcome for an unspecified future unspecificity. It's not even hypothetical. And it assumes that the IRFU have never sactioned players before.


    You're confusing business with morals. The sponsors may (as individuals in management) have or not have morals. The business requires that they are not associated with individuals or organisations that might reflect badly on their business.

    If it's good to get behind and sponsor a successful sports star, it's bad for business to remain associated with them if they become persona non grata in the public eye. cf Tiger Woods and many others.

    I'd call any company that illegally takes tracker mortgages off home owners while at the same time putting pressure on the IRFU to sack players over a few texts hypocrisy, plain and simple. I'm sure you'll argue it's just business. And I'd say that's bull****.

    Your 'unspecified future unspecificity' is just dodging the question. If the IRFU are going to start sacking players over a few words spoken privately in texts, then they must sack any players who let the side down in the future. Or can we just take it that they'll only sack players when forced to do so by sponsors?

    Also, people saying the Munster 2 case is different - why weren't the same conduct rules applied to the two of them? Was the only difference the sponsors didn't put pressure on?


  • #3804
    Gregory Mushy Lightning
    Posts: 13,104 ✭✭✭✭ Gregory Mushy Lightning


    Synode wrote: »
    Also, people saying the Munster 2 case is different - why weren't the same conduct rules applied to the two of them? Was the only difference the sponsors didn't put pressure on?

    There was no issue of consent and no sort of #ibelieveher internet mob
    There was no humiliating trial that aired the dirty laundry of two prominent players, and by extension the professional sport in this country

    I don't find the situations similar at all really.


  • #3805
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Synode wrote: »
    Also, people saying the Munster 2 case is different - why weren't the same conduct rules applied to the two of them? Was the only difference the sponsors didn't put pressure on?

    This keeps coming up.

    1. Isn't it possible that the rules were brought in or strengthened precisely because of the previous incident?
    2. The incidents were three years apart. Plenty of time for things (including attitudes) to change.
    3. A lot of the more unpleasant aspects of the Ulster case simply didn't apply to the other one.


  • #3806
    joseywhales
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    The bank of Ireland give sponsorship, ur is not entitled to it, the can choose to not extend without any justification.

    There's no such thing as free money, it come with control


  • #3807
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    Former Former wrote: »
    This keeps coming up.

    1. Isn't it possible that the rules were brought in or strengthened precisely because of the previous incident?
    2. The incidents were three years apart. Plenty of time for things (including attitudes) to change.
    3. A lot of the more unpleasant aspects of the Ulster case simply didn't apply to the other one.

    As far as I can see, the policy appears to be we'll sack players over conduct if it affects our bottom line. Otherwise, as you were


  • #3808
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/gerry-thornley-sorry-saga-of-jackson-and-olding-should-serve-as-salutary-warning-1.3462244


  • #3809
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,722 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Synode wrote: »
    As far as I can see, the policy appears to be we'll sack players over conduct if it affects our bottom line. Otherwise, as you were

    ^ This.

    As cynical as it gets.

    The mob has been silenced by an under the table deal. The story is now about the great morally upstanding sponsors and the IRFU and their programmes going forward and in the pipeline etc etc. :)


  • #3810
    Asus X540L
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭Asus X540L


    Wouldn't Ulster Bank be a better sponsor for Ulster than BOI anyway lol.


  • Advertisement
  • #3811
    Dog Botherer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,641 ✭✭✭Dog Botherer


    People's outrage over BOI and Vodafone is hilarious. All the sketchy stuff they did with the tracker mortgages, driving people to suicide, running the country into the ground, dodging taxes, that's bad craic, but getting a couple of rugby players fired? Boycott time lads.

    Obviously both companies are scum, but the logic of some posters on here is absolutely hilarious.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement