Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
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…134135137139140…336

Comments

  • #4082
    launish116
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭launish116


    bilston wrote: »
    It seems the three main newspapers up here this morning are reflecting on the anger from some Ulster fans. It is real. I really expect some sort of protest this weekend. But then again what will it achieve? I think personally it will be a vent for the supporters.

    If it's done properly it could be used our advantage against Glasgow, but if done wrong, namely a boycott, then it will just be divisive and will have a negative effect on the team.
    Ironic isn't it since they pushed the other end of the anger and stoked the fire enough.


  • #4083
    damianmcr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 765 ✭✭✭damianmcr


    Speaking of backs do we know all who are leaving?

    What about Trimble?

    Cooney
    Out half
    Stockdale
    McCloskey
    Cave
    Gilroy
    Ludik

    Thats with Payne never returning.

    Addison is a welcome addition considering what we are losing. Can't say I'm a huge fan of McCloskey and Marshall currently.


  • #4084
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    errlloyd wrote: »
    My point is that there are two processes. One that gave an uncertain verdict that is favourable to most Ulster fans. They seem to be willing to stand over that verdict without fallibility. The other process gave a certain verdict that is negative to Ulster fans, that process they are critical of.

    But the verdicts are very definitely linked.

    I'm not sure if it's denial or it's misunderstanding what trial verdicts actually mean. People are acting like its a perfect process that had an infallible certain answer. Even in this thread posters have balked at the possibility that the players could still have committed rape and (correctly) got this very verdict.

    The IRFU process has to start at that point That's not to say the IRFU are re-judging guilt or innocence, I'd hope they are not. However the IRFU and their sponsors are reacting to a public who are judging guilt and innocence themselves. Even if we don't want amateurs reanalyzing trial evidence, we should at least aim to understand what the verdict means and what the verdict does not mean.

    If we are not allowed, or not willing to discuss the verdict of the trial, then there is no point in discussing the verdict of the review. They are inextricably linked, and if you don't think that is true, imagine this hypothetical. In court a convincing new piece of evidence presents itself that indicates the entire prosecution case was a conspiracy against Ulster Rugby. The 4 defendants get a not guilty verdict. There is a much stronger surge of public sympathy for them. In that case the IRFU review would very possibly have a different conclusion.
    What do you expect them to do about the verdict in the courtroom? Organise a protest outside the crown court? Why would they do that? Why would anyone listen to them? The URSC has nothing to do with the legal side of this case.

    It's the Ulster Rugby Supporters Club. They are affiliated with Ulster Rugby, they will let Ulster Rugby know of their feelings toward this decision.

    Same as IRUPA. They are reviewing the IRFU decision, they have nothing to do with the decision with the courts.

    They are two entirely different things.


  • #4085
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    awec wrote: »
    And?

    You're an angry man
    awec wrote: »
    The fact remains they are the only organised body representing any set of Ulster supporters. Their view is completely relevant.

    I didn't say it wasn't relevant, just that it would be an incredibly small sample size. You could run a poll on this board and it would be as relevant.


  • #4086
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Former Former wrote: »
    You're an angry man



    I didn't say it wasn't relevant, just that it would be an incredibly small sample size. You could run a poll on this board and it would be as relevant.
    This is just not true.


  • Advertisement
  • #4087
    damianmcr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 765 ✭✭✭damianmcr


    Ban him awec.


  • #4088
    launish116
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭launish116


    damianmcr wrote: »
    Speaking of backs do we know all who are leaving?

    What about Trimble?

    Cooney
    Out half
    Stockdale
    McCloskey
    Cave
    Gilroy
    Ludik

    Thats with Payne never returning.

    Addison is a welcome addition considering what we are losing. Can't say I'm a huge fan of McCloskey and Marshall currently.
    We've gone from having one of the best backlines in Europe to barely having a back line. Really can't see much of Trimble next season. Is he currently injured?


  • #4089
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    damianmcr wrote: »
    Ban him awec.

    Send them to the Thunderdome!


  • #4090
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    launish116 wrote: »
    We've gone from having one of the best backlines in Europe to barely having a back line. Really can't see much of Trimble next season. Is he currently injured?
    No, just not getting near the team.


  • #4091
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    awec wrote: »
    Indeed, it is not as if the URSC are affiliated with the UK legal system or hold any sway over court proceedings.

    It's a comparison of apples and oranges.

    Yeah it is in many ways. But there's also an element of validity to the point. The case was never going to go any other way given the evidence and burden of proof required, in the same way that the IRFU/UR review wasn't going to go any other way based on the details that came out and those organisations needs in terms of public support and sponsorship. Both verdicts were reached using standardised professional processes that refer back to legal requirements and precedent. Both are final. I'm not sure why some people should accept without question one and not the other, other than because it suits them.


  • Advertisement
  • #4092
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Yeah it is in many ways. But there's also an element of validity to the point. The case was never going to go any other way given the evidence and burden of proof required, in the same way that the IRFU/UR review wasn't going to go any other way based on the details that came out and those organisations needs in terms of public support and sponsorship. Both verdicts were reached using standardised professional processes that refer back to legal requirements and precedent. Both are final. I'm not sure why some people should accept without question one and not the other, other than because it suits them.
    Because one is a court case and the other is not. Ulster Supporters can actually "protest" (and I use that term loosely) one in a meaningful way and not the other. They are apples and oranges.

    What is most amusing about this argument is the two lads were sacked on the back of public outrage because people didn't accept the outcome of the court case.


  • #4093
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,156 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    damianmcr wrote: »
    Speaking of backs do we know all who are leaving?

    What about Trimble?

    Cooney
    Out half
    Stockdale
    McCloskey
    Cave
    Gilroy
    Ludik

    Thats with Payne never returning.

    Addison is a welcome addition considering what we are losing. Can't say I'm a huge fan of McCloskey and Marshall currently.

    I hope you have better luck than me trying to instigate this debate!

    We can obviously hope about Jared, but it seems unlikely. In which case we are seriously short of backs.

    I can't see Trimble offering a lot (talk about falling of a cliff), so basically it's the players you've named above plus Addison, Luke Marshall and Rob Lyttle. The rest will be from the Academy, such as Curtis and Hume.


  • #4094
    errlloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    awec wrote: »
    What do you expect them to do about the verdict in the courtroom? Organise a protest outside the crown court? Why would they do that? Why would anyone listen to them? The URSC has nothing to do with the legal side of this case.

    It's the Ulster Rugby Supporters Club. They are affiliated with Ulster Rugby, they will let Ulster Rugby know of their feelings toward this decision.

    All I am saying is that before they go and complain to Ulster Rugby they should try their best to understand the circumstances that UR made the decision in. I don't see any evidence online of anyone doing that, in fact I see the exact opposite. I see posters (here, reddit, UAFC and fb) intentionally trying to misrepresent the meaning of the verdict in order to make the decision of the IRFU / UR review group seem more unfair on Ulster. It just isn't helpful.

    Chances are very strong that the IRFU, UR and fans have perfectly aligned long term interests on this. And that the opposite decision to the one the review group made, would have hurt Ulster more in the long run.


  • #4095
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    On another note, we have no idea whatsoever what process the IRFU used in their review.


  • #4096
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    awec wrote: »
    This is just not true.

    No, it's objectively the same. An unknown number of anonymous people representing an unknown proportion of an unknown population, giving a tick-box opinion on an incredibly nuanced question to which there is no "right answer".

    I'll be interested to see what URSC publish, but as the basis for any course of action by Ulster Rugby, it's not particularly useful.


  • #4097
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    awec wrote: »
    Because one is a court case and the other is not. Ulster Supporters can actually "protest" (and I use that term loosely) one in a meaningful way and not the other. They are apples and oranges.

    What is most amusing about this argument is the two lads were sacked on the back of public outrage because people didn't accept the outcome of the court case.

    Yeah, you're not really making any effort to understand what the point is. It isn't that the URSC could have done A, B or C. It is that there is a group of people (not specifically the URSC necessarily) who want one verdict to remain unquestioned and refuse to do anything but question another. Yes they are different things, but the logic at arriving to both conclusions could be seen as contradictory. If you don't want to make the effort to understand that point then we might as well just leave it there.

    And the IRFU and UR didn't just make their call on public outrage. I'd like to think that they'd have made that call regardless, because it was the right one for the game in Ulster and in Ireland. I'm not posting what I did on social media here, but in short I think they made the only morally acceptable decision. And I say that while also being of the opinion that the court case also got it right.


  • #4098
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,779 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    awec wrote: »
    On another note, we have no idea whatsoever what process the IRFU used in their review.

    Well it was hardly eeney-meeney-miney-mo.


  • #4099
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Former Former wrote: »
    No, it's objectively the same. An unknown number of anonymous people representing an unknown proportion of an unknown population, giving a tick-box opinion on an incredibly nuanced question to which there is no "right answer".

    I'll be interested to see what URSC publish, but as the basis for any course of action by Ulster Rugby, it's as relevant as what's stuck to the underside of my shoe.
    Is the boards.ie rugby forum affiliated with Ulster Rugby? Is it made up of fee-paying Ulster rugby supporters?

    They are not the same.

    Being representative of a subset of Ulster fans > being representative of nothing whatsoever.

    I see where this is going though. People suspect the URSC view will not be the one they want to hear so:

    1. People have been pressured into having a certain viewpoint
    2. They're actually irrelevant

    It couldn't possibly be that people are actually pissed off.


  • #4100
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Yeah, you're not really making any effort to understand what the point is. It isn't that the URSC could have done A, B or C. It is that there is a group of people (not specifically the URSC necessarily) who want one verdict to remain unquestioned and refuse to do anything but question another. Yes they are different things, but the logic at arriving to both conclusions could be seen as contradictory. If you don't want to make the effort to understand that point then we might as well just leave it there.

    And the IRFU and UR didn't just make their call on public outrage. I'd like to think that they'd have made that call regardless, because it was the right one for the game in Ulster and in Ireland. I'm not posting what I did on social media here, but in short I think they made the only morally acceptable decision. And I say that while also being of the opinion that the court case also got it right.

    It's not contradictory.

    You cannot say the logic to arrive at two different conclusions to two entirely different things is contradictory. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your entire argument is based on something that just doesn't add up.

    "If you refuse to argue against the court case then you can't argue against the IRFU decision because that's a contradiction" is rubbish.


  • #4101
    launish116
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭launish116


    bilston wrote: »
    damianmcr wrote: »
    Speaking of backs do we know all who are leaving?
    I hope you have better luck than me trying to instigate this debate!

    We can obviously hope about Jared, but it seems unlikely. In which case we are seriously short of backs.

    I can't see Trimble offering a lot (talk about falling of a cliff), so basically it's the players you've named above plus Addison, Luke Marshall and Rob Lyttle. The rest will be from the Academy, such as Curtis and Hume.
    Nelson to cover wing/fullback? he has pace. Isn't fullback his natural position?
    Lyttle has spark, but can never string two games in a row with injuries. He always scores.
    Curtis is a very good 12, just not sure physically he'll be ready at this level this season.
    Hume has been playing wing for U20's but I think he was mentioned as outhalf/centre?
    Cairns has played scrum half for us, but is a wing also i think? is very fast also.

    We do have a good core of academy players coming through, but don't think we'll fully see their benefit for another season or two sadly.
    Ridiculous to think we could potentially went from struggling to produce forwards to now lacking backs.


  • Advertisement
  • #4102
    bilston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,156 ✭✭✭✭bilston


    launish116 wrote: »
    bilston wrote: »
    damianmcr wrote: »
    Speaking of backs do we know all who are leaving?
    I hope you have better luck than me trying to instigate this debate!

    We can obviously hope about Jared, but it seems unlikely. In which case we are seriously short of backs.

    I can't see Trimble offering a lot (talk about falling of a cliff), so basically it's the players you've named above plus Addison, Luke Marshall and Rob Lyttle. The rest will be from the Academy, such as Curtis and Hume.
    Nelson to cover wing/fullback? he has pace. Isn't fullback his natural position?
    Lyttle has spark, but can never string two games in a row with injuries. He always scores.
    Curtis is a very good 12, just not sure physically he'll be ready at this level this season.
    Hume has been playing wing for U20's but I think he was mentioned as outhalf/centre?
    Cairns has played scrum half for us, but is a wing also i think? is very fast also.

    We do have a good core of academy players coming through, but don't think we'll fully see their benefit for another season or two sadly.
    Ridiculous to think we could potentially went from struggling to produce forwards to now lacking backs.

    I forgot about Nelson.

    A post season and pre season will hopefully help Curtis get ready physically. He seems to cope ok at U20 level in attack.

    Angus (?) Kernohan is another possible wing option who will probably get a chance next season with Stockdale away and Lyttle being injury prone.

    Is David Busby still in the squad?

    Poor Aaron Cairns seems to have been forgotten about.


  • #4103
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,814 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    Exeter are denying any contact with Olding as of date, be interesting to see if anything does come out of it.

    https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2018/0415/954702-exeter-dismiss-reports-linking-them-to-stuart-olding/


  • #4104
    damianmcr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 765 ✭✭✭damianmcr


    Nelson just isn't good enough imo. Hearts there though.

    Big fan of Lyttle but injuries are a concern.

    Can't speak much about Hume and Curtis. Hume is a centre though. Plays 13 for Banbridge.


  • #4105
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    To clarify further:

    The court case was Complainant vs Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. A legal process against the two men as individuals. Nothing to do with Ulster Rugby whatsoever. Nothing to do with the URSC whatsoever. Nothing to do with Ulster Supporters whatsoever (when it comes to the court case, someone's rugby affiliation is irrelevant).


    The IRFU review was IRFU/UR vs Two Ulster players. A PR process against the two players. Everything to do with Ulster Rugby. Of relevance to the URSC as a representative body of a section of the Ulster Support. Of relevance to Ulster Supporters as it involves two players at their club.


    They are two entirely different things. Legal vs PR. The former was the result of a well defined process legal process as set out in law, the later a behind-closed-doors review with no defined process at all. We have no idea what the IRFU looked at, no idea what they took into account, indeed it seems that despite what the IRFU said the two men were not sacked at all. They are two different things entirely. Apples and oranges. There is no contraction.


  • #4106
    Paul Smeenus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,120 ✭✭✭Paul Smeenus


    molloyjh wrote: »
    awec wrote: »
    Indeed, it is not as if the URSC are affiliated with the UK legal system or hold any sway over court proceedings.

    It's a comparison of apples and oranges.

    Yeah it is in many ways. But there's also an element of validity to the point. The case was never going to go any other way given the evidence and burden of proof required, in the same way that the IRFU/UR review wasn't going to go any other way based on the details that came out and those organisations needs in terms of public support and sponsorship. Both verdicts were reached using standardised professional processes that refer back to legal requirements and precedent. Both are final. I'm not sure why some people should accept without question one and not the other, other than because it suits them.

    If the case was never going to go any other way, it should never have been taken to trial.


  • #4107
    Buer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    Exeter are denying any contact with Olding as of date, be interesting to see if anything does come out of it.

    It's interesting that the denial was so forceful. I think we'll see this happen with one or two other teams and wouldn't be surprised if they're leaking a story to test the waters on the public reaction.


  • #4108
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Buer wrote: »
    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    Exeter are denying any contact with Olding as of date, be interesting to see if anything does come out of it.

    It's interesting that the denial was so forceful. I think we'll see this happen with one or two other teams and wouldn't be surprised if they're leaking a story to test the waters on the public reaction.
    I wouldn't be surprised if the two lads sign deals elsewhere very soon but it's not announced for a few months


  • #4109
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    awec wrote: »
    Is the boards.ie rugby forum affiliated with Ulster Rugby? Is it made up of fee-paying Ulster rugby supporters?

    Is the URSC affiliated with Ulster Rugby?
    awec wrote: »
    They are not the same.

    Being representative of a subset of Ulster fans > being representative of nothing whatsoever.

    I see where this is going though. People suspect the URSC view will not be the one they want to hear so:

    1. People have been pressured into having a certain viewpoint
    2. They're actually irrelevant

    It couldn't possibly be that people are actually pissed off.

    Oh I don't doubt for a second that people are pissed off. You're very, very angry and you're not alone. That's why (as per my first post on this), I'd much rather these lads had taken their poll next week or beyond when people have had a chance to calm down and reflect a bit more. I honestly think that you'd get a more considered position that is less likely to pour petrol on the flames and end up burning everyone.


  • #4110
    errlloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,636 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    awec wrote: »
    What is most amusing about this argument is the two lads were sacked on the back of public outrage because people didn't accept the outcome of the court case.

    I believe it is actually many of the enraged Ulster supporters who do not accept the outcome of the court case. They do not accept that the outcome does not confirm innocence. If your position is "the lads are definitely innocent", then of course you're going to disagree with Paddy and Stuart being forced to leave. If your position is "actually they might not be innocent am I comfortable taking that risk" it changes the equation.

    Put it this way, if your neighbour had just got a "not guilty" verdict on a pedophilia charge you would not let your children play in front of their house.

    Someone posted earlier that the only way the men return is if the complainant apologises to them. But there are other ways, I believe if they took a case against the Crown Prosecution Service for malicious prosecution it would go a long way to establishing their full innocence. If the original complainant takes a civil case against them under the law of tort, and she fails on that too it would also go a long way to establishing their innocence (due to a much lower burden of proof).


  • Advertisement
  • #4111
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Former Former wrote: »
    Is the URSC affiliated with Ulster Rugby?



    Oh I don't doubt for a second that people are pissed off. You're very, very angry and you're not alone. That's why (as per my first post on this), I'd much rather these lads had taken their poll next week or beyond when people have had a chance to calm down and reflect a bit more. I honestly think that you'd get a more considered position that is less likely to pour petrol on the flames and end up burning everyone.
    Actually, it's not any more it seems. They have a working relationship with UR.

    However, still more relevant than boards.ie or any other random poll, and still the only representative body of any section of the Ulster Support.

    On a side note, it seems season ticket holders used to become member by default (like at Leinster), but that stopped.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement