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

irishbucsfan · 14-04-2018 03:51PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The mob has been silenced by an under the table deal.

An under the table deal that as of yet exists only in the minds and murmurings of the other mob.

jacothelad · 14-04-2018 03:52PM

Hadassah CoolS Backside wrote: »

All these nested quotes are getting confusing but is someone trying to suggest there is doubt over the existence of the injury?

I didn't think that was ever in dispute. The cause of it was in dispute - i.e. none of the expert witnesses could say for sure exactly how it occurred.

Or when it occurred.

jacothelad · 14-04-2018 03:55PM

determinations wrote: »

Who would be top of the wish list for Ulster supporters? I've seen Pollards name thrown about, anyone else?

Johnny Sexton.....:D He'd whip them into a frenzy and get them back on track.....:D

Failing that, I would almost rather Ulster stuck to the young guys and developed them. McPhillips, Lowry, Curtis, Fox etc.

prawnsambo · 14-04-2018 03:58PM

Synode wrote: »

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****.

Argue away. Meanwhile reality bites.
And where did the IRFU say they revoked their contracts for a few texts? Or the players in their statements?

Synode wrote: »

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?

How is it dodging the question? You've constructed a hypothetical future scenario and attributed an outcome in order to accuse the IRFU of hypocrisy. This is fantasy.

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?

OK, I'll indulge your whataboutery. You haven't a clue if the IRFU sanctioned the players concerned or not. Or whether they were in breach of their then contracts. And that was a far less public situation. Are you looking for them to be retroactively sacked?

Synode · 14-04-2018 04:25PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Synode wrote: »

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****.

Argue away. Meanwhile reality bites.
And where did the IRFU say they revoked their contracts for a few texts? Or the players in their statements?

Synode wrote: »

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?

How is it dodging the question? You've constructed a hypothetical future scenario and attributed an outcome in order to accuse the IRFU of hypocrisy. This is fantasy.

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?

OK, I'll indulge your whataboutery. You haven't a clue if the IRFU sanctioned the players concerned or not. Or whether they were in breach of their then contracts. And that was a far less public situation. Are you looking for them to be retroactively sacked?

So why were the contracts revoked?

jacothelad · 14-04-2018 04:28PM

Asus X540L wrote: »

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

It's Bank of Ireland U.K... It's not exactly the same as B.O.I. just as Ulster Bank is split in two separate businesses by R.B.S. They are another bunch of upstanding, whiter than white crooks and thieves. They disgustingly set up a special unit to take businesses that were in diffs and under the guise of helping them deliberately drove them into insolvency so that RBS could scoop them up for pennies. Just like the B.O.I. in the Republic with their mortgage theivery, some of their customers were driven to suicide over their filthy practices. RBS was also up to it's neck in the LIBOR rigging scandal. No organisation with any self respect or regard for morality sould have those vermin as sponsors. The IRFU should bin them if they had any moral fibre but then some people will do anything if the price is right.........now what's the word for that? It eludes me just at the moment.

irishbucsfan · 14-04-2018 04:35PM

Ah yes, the auld outrage at the sponsorship of rugby teams by banks continues.

Seems like forever that has been going on, when in fact you'll be amazed to believe it only started literally less than 24 hours ago.

Almost as if the reason people are upset with them has absolutely nothing to do with their past behaviour!

Synode · 14-04-2018 04:43PM

Dog Botherer wrote: »

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.

You'd have a very hard time finding a bank to switch to if you were looking for one based on their conduct before during and after the crash

14-04-2018 04:46PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ah yes, the auld outrage at the sponsorship of rugby teams by banks continues.

Seems like forever that has been going on, when in fact you'll be amazed to believe it only started literally less than 24 hours ago.

Almost as if the reason people are upset with them has absolutely nothing to do with their past behaviour!

Bank of Ireland's online banking platform makes me hate them more than any bad publicity could.

I think people pointing out that they have no moral high ground is fair enough, maybe if 70,000 people demand they review their sponsorship policy they'll take action.

Hands Like Flippers · 14-04-2018 04:47PM

jacothelad wrote: »

determinations wrote: »

Who would be top of the wish list for Ulster supporters? I've seen Pollards name thrown about, anyone else?

Johnny Sexton.....:D He'd whip them into a frenzy and get them back on track.....:D

Failing that, I would almost rather Ulster stuck to the young guys and developed them. McPhillips, Lowry, Curtis, Fox etc.

And Huston. Rebuild

jm08 · 14-04-2018 04:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No, just no.

Having a threesome is not a cause for termination, in any role, ever. People's sexual preferences can not be a reason to fire someone (as long as no crime committed).

They are being fired for their Group conversations of which Gilroy instigated the "Spit-roast" comment.

So why is he only suspended

Because he wasn't out and about, downing 22 drinks and picking up women outside a nightclub and then getting involved in a sexual encounter where there was question marks over whether there was consent or not.

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2018 04:50PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

An under the table deal that as of yet exists only in the minds and murmurings of the other mob.

Yeh, true. But I listened to a BBC journalist who had sources say there was a financial settlement.

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2018 04:52PM

jm08 wrote: »

Because he wasn't out and about, downing 22 drinks and picking up women outside a nightclub and then getting involved in a sexual encounter where there was question marks over whether there was consent or not.

Jackson nor Olding 'picked' her up. She came back to the party with somebody else after leaving her friends.

Stick to the facts as we know them.

prawnsambo · 14-04-2018 04:53PM

Synode wrote: »

So why were the contracts revoked?

I know no more about that than you do or has been stipulated in press releases. Namely that they were in breach of their contracts.

Synode · 14-04-2018 05:07PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I know no more about that than you do or has been stipulated in press releases. Namely that they were in breach of their contracts.

A silly argument. Anyway, I'm off to the Leinster game

prawnsambo · 14-04-2018 05:08PM

Synode wrote: »

A silly argument. Anyway, I'm off to the Leinster game

Indeed. Enjoy the match.

jm08 · 14-04-2018 05:24PM

Asus X540L wrote: »

I guess the Munster lads are lucky their phone messages aren't read it in court eh?

The thing is that they didn't join in the WhatsApp. chat. Also, they didn't film it, it was someone from one of the AIL clubs who did and circulated it to his friends, including the woman's brother.

jm08 · 14-04-2018 05:37PM

Was listening early to RTE Sports show where it came up for discussion. They had a legal expert who used to lecture in Queens on and who is now in Australia who had been watching the case. He said it was fairly close to an AFL case where after a big win, a player ended up getting accused of rape but wasn't prosecuted.

Even before the trial started he said the AFL decided to review their whole organisation and developed a code of practice for players. He said this has now been adapted by some other sports in Australia as well. He said it would be a good template for the IRFU to follow.

They also had Eddie O'Sullivan, who when asked how club players were reacting too it, he said that they were unhappy about rugby/players being tarred with the same brush and were glad it was all over.

They also had a PR guru on who said that Bank of Ireland did the right thing to take a strong stand on it. He said the other sponsors might not have been so vocal but they would not have been happy about the situation either.

It was also said that they might have a problem with their new club's sponsors.

mfceiling · 14-04-2018 05:54PM

Former Former wrote: »

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.

That's all true but let's not pretend that they are fully behind Ulster in all of this.
Sponsors are there for exposure. If a couple of thousand people decided not to bother with matches for a while and the same cohort moved to a different bank, I'd imagine when it comes to resigning it would be bye bye Ulster.

Doesn't bother me as I don't bank with them or have any dealings with them.

mfceiling · 14-04-2018 05:56PM

jm08 wrote: »

The thing is that they didn't join in the WhatsApp. chat. Also, they didn't film it, it was someone from one of the AIL clubs who did and circulated it to his friends, including the woman's brother.

Do we know they didn't join in the whatsapp chat? Was their private messages broadcast to the public?

errlloyd · 14-04-2018 06:00PM

jm08 wrote: »

They also had a PR guru on who said that Bank of Ireland did the right thing to take a strong stand on it. He said the other sponsors might not have been so vocal but they would not have been happy about the situation either.

It was also said that they might have a problem with their new club's sponsors.

Pure speculation on my part. But it's reported the decision was communicated to the players on Wednesday. BofI only came down hard on Thursday. So it's possible BofI actually already knew the outcome when they made their comments.

FrancieBrady · 14-04-2018 06:03PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Pure speculation on my part. But it's reported the decision was communicated to the players on Wednesday. BofI only came down hard on Thursday. So it's possible BofI actually already knew the outcome when they made their comments.

I'd say that as reported by the BBC journalist, they all sat down around a table and came up with a way of saving face for everyone.

Financial settlement in return for being allowed to say their contracts were revoked.

14-04-2018 06:08PM

errlloyd wrote: »

Pure speculation on my part. But it's reported the decision was communicated to the players on Wednesday. BofI only came down hard on Thursday. So it's possible BofI actually already knew the outcome when they made their comments.

Makes sense. The swiftness of Olding's response was telling in this regards.

14-04-2018 06:24PM

jm08 wrote: »

Because he wasn't out and about, downing 22 drinks and picking up women outside a nightclub and then getting involved in a sexual encounter where there was question marks over whether there was consent or not.

So an unfounded accusation is enough to get you fired?

As of the verdict there was no uncertainty as to consent

Brewster · 14-04-2018 06:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Makes sense. The swiftness of Olding's response was telling in this regards.

The words ‘decisions made’ in statement said it all. There is no doubt this is the chronology of events. Some feminista on twitter expressing concern that the lads may have got a pay off! FFS. What’s next? Protest to clubs in UK and France not to sign them??

prawnsambo · 14-04-2018 06:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

So an unfounded accusation is enough to get you fired?

Do you really believe that this is the reason? Because it's been posted here time and again what the issue undoubtedly was. Even on this page.

Squatter · 14-04-2018 06:35PM

jm08 wrote: »

It was also said that they might have a problem with their new club's sponsors.

Hence they should and probably will end up signing for a club owned by a very rich man who doesn't really give a toss about what sponsors think!

And yes, I have a few clubs in mind!

14-04-2018 06:40PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Do you really believe that this is the reason? Because it's been posted here time and again what the issue undoubtedly was. Even on this page.

Well it was either the texts (in which case Gilroy should be gone)
Or it was the threesome, an act in which there is nothing wrong in and of itself.

Or its was for being accused of a crime and found "Not Guilty"

IRFU and Ulster Rugby must really have been hoping for a guilty verdict

Former Former · 14-04-2018 06:48PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So an unfounded accusation is enough to get you fired?

As of the verdict there was no uncertainty as to consent

There is nothing that says the accusation was unfounded and nowhere is it said there was no uncertainty about consent.

I'm genuinely worried at how many presumably grown adults have absolutely no understanding of the basic principles of the justice system.

prawnsambo · 14-04-2018 06:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well it was either the texts (in which case Gilroy should be gone)
Or it was the threesome, an act in which there is nothing wrong in and of itself.

Or its was for being accused of a crime and found "Not Guilty"

IRFU and Ulster Rugby must really have been hoping for a guilty verdict

Are you serious? They were in breach of their contracts. That's almost crystal clear at this stage. Contract revocation only happens when there's a breach. So you can guess all you like as to what constituted that breach, but it was nothing to do with the list you've provided.

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

Comments