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

awec · 17-04-2018 10:55AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think it's important. Someone, completely incorrectly, said I was wrong to say the amount of money they were paid is a rumour. Of course it is.

Doesn't actually change anything, people who've been given the boot get a payoff all the time.

And tell us ibf, why do you think they get a payoff?

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 10:57AM

awec wrote: »

And tell us ibf, why do you think they get a payoff?

The obvious answer is to avoid a court case. And that's not an indication of anything. It's a well established fact that nobody wins in those cases. So the payoff is seen as the cheaper and more expedient option.

Edit: Not exactly the same situation but quite similar, Angela Kerins' costs in taking the PAC to court were estimated at €700,000.

17-04-2018 10:58AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think it's important. Someone, completely incorrectly, said I was wrong to say the amount of money they were paid is a rumour. Of course it is.

Doesn't actually change anything, people who've been given the boot get a payoff all the time.

Paying people off to sack them is done on a risk assessment basis. People get the boot with no payoff way, way more often.

If the risk is high, you pay more.

Again, we've no idea what if anything was paid and we'll never hear because all parties will have agreed to non disclosure if there was a payment.

I don't know what has or hasn't been paid, but given my familiarity with disciplinary actions I would tend to believe the anonymous media reports that close to full contract value was paid.

You disagree with this and I'm sure you think you know better.

awec · 17-04-2018 10:59AM

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jackson-and-olding-sacking-furious-fan-demands-answers-from-ulster-36813998.html

This guy is fairly indicative of the reaction I have seen.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 11:00AM

awec wrote: »

And tell us ibf, why do you think they get a payoff?

Because they have good lawyers and the IRFU know that there's an important difference between having a case decided in your favour and winning.

17-04-2018 11:03AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

The obvious answer is to avoid a court case. And that's not an indication of anything. It's a well established fact that nobody wins in those cases. So the payoff is seen as the cheaper and more expedient option.

People win these cases all the time? Employers avoid them sometimes to avoid reputational damage and some times they pay out even when they think they could win the case.

No one is debating that, however the amount that is paid outside of the court is negotiated and agreed by two sides with a vested interest in getting or paying the least.

The greater the sum paid is generally a reflection of the negotiating position of both parties.

If the rumours are true that Jackson received close to full value then it's fair to say that he had a strong position (and I believe on a legal basis that he did).

The fact that he was sacked for his remarks and Gilroy wasn't sacked for his should really be a lot more illustrative to people on here.

errlloyd · 17-04-2018 11:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This absolutely isn't the case. Some people, men and women enjoy this discourse. That is freedom of speech. If their actions on foot of this discourse break laws that's different, but how people chose to interact with their peers in private is entirely down to them.

That is not how freedom of speech works. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no repercussions, it means you can say whatever you want and the state can't prosecute you. (Unless it's hate speech, or inciting violence, or false advertising, or a claim to be a protected class [ie doctor, dietitian, priest, policeman])

However freedom of speech does not mean others can't judge you or react to you. You can't just be misogynist and then say "freedom of speech" when you lose your job. That is actually ridiculous.

Anyway, this is all irrelevant. The whatsapp messages are not why they are getting fired.

tretorn · 17-04-2018 11:06AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, my argument is simply that if they act in public the way they do in private then by all accounts hold them to account. But I don't believe regardless of the publicity of their role that they automatically give up any right to privacy that they enjoy with the rest of society.

I also agree that if their private attitudes hurt someone there should be consequences. Such as a trial to establish if that hurt was criminal in nature.

I think it's great that the IRFU publicly take a stand against certain types of behaviour, they do this all the time with their various PR campaigns. I think using private communications as a means to make these kinds of statements however is dangerous. It's reactive and inconsistent. They've sent mixed messages in how they've dealt with Jackson, Olding and Gilroy.

Yes, it looks like they gave into a feminist ranting mob, a bit like George Hook all over again.

The feminists and their pals in the media persecuted Hook to the bitter end, the media wouldnt let it die down and the threat about the sponsorship was used too. Does that mean in future the feminists are to be party to decisions where sponsors are to spend their money, this seems to be the case.

If the sponsors really have an issue with the whatsapp messages then Gilroy has to go too. If the feminists have a problem with the whatsapp messages then they to be true to their principles need to hound Gilroy too, they may very well do this, some womens group or other, there are so many of them all raising money through charity donations or Government funding, have been given a committment by Ulster rugby that they will be invited to a meeting about rugby going forward. This means in effect men are not to be trusted with the running of rugby clubs. At this meeting Gilroys head may be sought too, by the time the feminists are finished there will be no one left to play rugby, they will then turn to GAA and the Soccer clubs.

What they will do about the women who actually want to get into VIP tents and want to have one night stands with famous sportsplayers is anyones guess. You can hardly stop famous sports players and willing women having sex unless you station the morality police inside night clubs and outside individuals homes.

bilston · 17-04-2018 11:08AM

awec wrote: »

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/jackson-and-olding-sacking-furious-fan-demands-answers-from-ulster-36813998.html

This guy is fairly indicative of the reaction I have seen.

I still maintain a boycott or not renewing season tickets is counter productive. A protest should be designed to get the point across that doesn't hurt the very people the fans support.

bilston · 17-04-2018 11:08AM

Shane Logan did himself no favours at all yesterday. At least he came out and spoke rather than hiding behind Bryn so that's progress. But the questions that he got from Mark Simpson were hardly the toughest, and this is from a guy who has been the BBC's NI political correspondent for years, so asking difficult questions is hardly unusual for him. Does that suggest he was given the questions to ask?

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 11:11AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, my argument is simply that if they act in public the way they do in private then by all accounts hold them to account. But I don't believe regardless of the publicity of their role that they automatically give up any right to privacy that they enjoy with the rest of society.

Just to be clear, I don't think they should lose their right to privacy either. But as I said before, once something is known it cannot become unknown. Now that the behaviour is in the public domain it has to be acted on appropriately.

awec · 17-04-2018 11:12AM

bilston wrote: »

I still maintain a boycott or not renewing season tickets is counter productive. A protest should be designed to get the point across that doesn't hurt the very people the fans support.

Hard to know what to do really. I think other protests would just be ignored by UR and the IRFU, and hitting them in the pocket is probably the best way to make them stand up and take notice.

Part of me hopes the stadium is empty next weekend, but then it's Bowe and Piutau's last home game so I'm conflicted.

17-04-2018 11:13AM

errlloyd wrote: »

That is not how freedom of speech works. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want with no repercussions, it means you can say whatever you want and the state can't prosecute you. (Unless it's hate speech, or inciting violence, or false advertising, or a claim to be a protected class [ie doctor, dietitian, priest, policeman])

However freedom of speech does not stop mean others can't judge you or react to you. You can't just be misogynist and then say "freedom of speech" when you lose your job. That is actually ridiculous.

Anyway, this is all irrelevant. The whatsapp messages are not why they are getting fired.

I agree. You should be judged for things you say. I told my wife last night that I think a client of mine is an absolute wa*ker. I wouldn't say that to them as they'd pull their account and would judge me for that. So I didn't say it to them, I said it to my wife. In private.

Should I be at risk of losing my job because of something that I said to my wife in private?

What's ridiculous to me is how quick people disregard the need for privacy and the need to be able to hold certain opinions in private because they want to see others receive a punishment.

errlloyd wrote: »

Anyway, this is all irrelevant. The whatsapp messages are not why they are getting fired.

Technically they are.

tretorn · 17-04-2018 11:14AM

molloyjh wrote: »

Just to be clear, I don't think they should lose their right to privacy either. But as I said before, once something is known it cannot become unknown. Now that the behaviour is in the public domain it has to be acted on appropriately.

Exactly, so why wasnt Gilroy sacked too.

17-04-2018 11:16AM

molloyjh wrote: »

Just to be clear, I don't think they should lose their right to privacy either. But as I said before, once something is known it cannot become unknown. Now that the behaviour is in the public domain it has to be acted on appropriately.

By sacking two of the three and retaining the services of the author of the worst messages?

It's completely inconsistent.

Gilroy's apology was accepted because he is not considered to be party to a potential rape. Jackson and Olding were not given this benefit of the doubt because they were.

If the IRFU were worried about sending a message they'd have gotten rid of all three along with anyone else whose ever muttered a similar word in any of the provinces.

awec · 17-04-2018 11:16AM

bilston wrote: »

Shane Logan did himself no favours at all yesterday. At least he came out and spoke rather than hiding behind Bryn so that's progress. But the questions that he got from Mark Simpson were hardly the toughest, and this is from a guy who has been the BBC's NI political correspondent for years, so asking difficult questions is hardly unusual for him. Does that suggest he was given the questions to ask?

There's a Q+A in the BelTel from him and it's still not great.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/shane-logan-interview-in-full-i-wont-step-down-i-will-help-ulster-move-on-36814509.html

Seems the approach of Ulster rugby is just to waffle about not becoming fractured. Fcuk him.

17-04-2018 11:17AM

awec wrote: »

There's a Q+A in the BelTel from him and it's still not great.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/shane-logan-interview-in-full-i-wont-step-down-i-will-help-ulster-move-on-36814509.html

Seems the approach of Ulster rugby is just to waffle about not becoming fractured. Fcuk him.

Read everything he is saying in the context of Ulsters relationship with the IRFU and the pressure he is under to retain his job. It starts to make more sense that way.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 11:17AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree. You should be judged for things you say. I told my wife last night that I think a client of mine is an absolute wa*ker. I wouldn't say that to them as they'd pull their account and would judge me for that. So I didn't say it to them, I said it to my wife. In private.

Should I be at risk of losing my job because of something that I said to my wife in private?

What's ridiculous to me is how quick people disregard the need for privacy and the need to be able to hold certain opinions in private because they want to see others receive a punishment.

Technically they are.

If that message became public knowledge and that client represented the majority of your employer's income and that client pulled their business, then yes you would almost certainly be fired unless there are extremely good reasons. No idea why you wouldn't be fired?

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 11:18AM

Deleted User wrote: »

By sacking two of the three and retaining the services of the author of the worst messages?

It's completely inconsistent.

Gilroy's apology was accepted because he is not considered to be party to a potential rape. Jackson and Olding were not given this benefit of the doubt because they were.

If the IRFU were worried about sending a message they'd have gotten rid of all three along with anyone else whose ever muttered a similar word in any of the provinces.

But the messages weren't the only thing to have happened, regardless of the accusations. I'm not sure am I just expressing this badly or what. They are being fired for the whole affair, including the text messages. Gilroy is being suspended for the text messages (well, message in his case). He wasn't party to any of the other stuff, which is exactly why he's being treated differently.

awec · 17-04-2018 11:20AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Read everything he is saying in the context of Ulsters relationship with the IRFU and the pressure he is under to retain his job. It starts to make more sense that way.

Well I certainly think Logan is saying what the IRFU tell him to say, which is just further fueling the fire of the fans. The only way Ulster fans could possibly respect Logan less is if it became obvious that he's nothing more than an IRFU lapdog.

I think the frustration among Ulster fans is significant. If Shane Logan or the IRFU think waffling on about needing a strong end to the season, or the academy, or not becoming fractured is going to solve anything they are deluded.

errlloyd · 17-04-2018 11:22AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Should I be at risk of losing my job because of something that I said to my wife in private?

Technically they are.

1: As IBF says, if it becomes public your client would be entitled to drop you for sure.
2: If your private views are that black people are a lesser race, and you express that to your wife it is not just words, it is an opinion that you hold that clearly shapes the way you act consciously or unconsciously.
3: If your private views are that women are just there to be used by you and your friend, that similarly shows an underlying opinion that shapes the way you act, consciously or subconsciously. It is clearly an indication of a set of biases that are damaging.

As for "technically they are". I thought your opinion was technically they aren't being sacked? Sure he's getting paid almost his entire contract.

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 11:23AM

awec wrote: »

Well I certainly think Logan is saying what the IRFU tell him to say, which is just further fueling the fire of the fans. The only way Ulster fans could possibly respect Logan less is if it became obvious that he's nothing more than an IRFU lapdog.

I think the frustration among Ulster fans is significant. If Shane Logan or the IRFU think waffling on about needing a strong end to the season, or the academy, or not becoming fractured is going to solve anything they are deluded.

Logan is saying exactly what he needs to as the head of an organisation that relies wholly on public support and private sponsorship. Calling him an IRFU lapdog is just petty tbh.

17-04-2018 11:26AM

molloyjh wrote: »

But the messages weren't the only thing to have happened, regardless of the accusations. I'm not sure am I just expressing this badly or what. They are being fired for the whole affair, including the text messages. Gilroy is being suspended for the text messages (well, message in his case). He wasn't party to any of the other stuff, which is exactly why he's being treated differently.

I agree and I can be a bit of a purist about legal norms which is where I think the division in our opinion is coming from.

As far as I'm concerned, what happened in that house was a private affair between those involved. As there was a question of consent a case was held and that issue of consent did not reach a criminal standard.

Everything that stems from that is in my opinion 'fruit of the poisoned tree'. We know it but we shouldn't. We make decisions and form opinions on it but we shouldn't be aware of it.

I think it's worth pointing out and I could be wrong, but had this trial been held in Ireland we wouldn't know the content of those messages nor the details of the trial and in my opinion it's likely that Jackson and Olding would still be playing for Ulster and Ireland.

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 11:33AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree and I can be a bit of a purist about legal norms which is where I think the division in our opinion is coming from.

As far as I'm concerned, what happened in that house was a private affair between those involved. As there was a question of consent a case was held and that issue of consent did not reach a criminal standard.

Everything that stems from that is in my opinion 'fruit of the poisoned tree'. We know it but we shouldn't. We make decisions and form opinions on it but we shouldn't be aware of it.

That's the difference between the criminal justice system and real life though, isn't it? It's like a guy getting away with theft on a technicality. He's no less of a thief for it. Real people in the real world can't, and shouldn't, think otherwise.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's worth pointing out and I could be wrong, but had this trial been held in Ireland we wouldn't know the content of those messages nor the details of the trial and in my opinion it's likely that Jackson and Olding would still be playing for Ulster and Ireland.

In theory that is correct. You'd imagine their names would get leaked though. They did in the UK ahead of when they should have.

17-04-2018 11:35AM

errlloyd wrote: »

As for "technically they are". I thought your opinion was technically they aren't being sacked? Sure he's getting paid almost his entire contract.

The IRFU's statement was silent on the primary reasons for the dismissal. With Gilroy they said it was relating to text messages he sent. From a legal point of view, in my opinion, the messages were the only actionable transgressions against Olding and Jackson.

17-04-2018 11:36AM

molloyjh wrote: »

In theory that is correct. You'd imagine their names would get leaked though. They did in the UK ahead of when they should have.

They did and yet they continued to play for Ireland and Ulster.

molloyjh · 17-04-2018 11:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

They did and yet they continued to play for Ireland and Ulster.

Well yes, but the details of the case weren't known at that stage so there was nothing to action.

As for the texts being the only actionable thing, that's not actually true. IBF had a post pointing that out to me specifically last week some time on this thread.

errlloyd · 17-04-2018 11:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

From a legal point of view, in my opinion, the messages were the only actionable transgressions against Olding and Jackson.

I am just clarifying my understand here, but I thought there were no legally actionable transgressions in your opinion? You've made that abundantly clear for weeks now. Initially when you linked Solicitor Opinions saying the messages were in their own home, and subsequently when you demonstrated that a full pay off was the same deal as they would have got even with no grounds for dismissal.

So, in summary. We can't conclude it was just the text messages based on Jackson or Olding alone, but given Gilroy is not fired, we can conclude it was more than just the text messages.

17-04-2018 11:41AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

If that message became public knowledge and that client represented the majority of your employer's income and that client pulled their business, then yes you would almost certainly be fired unless there are extremely good reasons. No idea why you wouldn't be fired?

This is wrong.

If the publication of that opinion was outside of my control, then my employer would have absolutely no grounds to sack me.

If I made the statement in public, or I made it in private and subsequently was responsible for publicising that statement then there would be grounds for dismissal.

Causation in law has been around a long time, did we get rid of this legal norm while I was looking in the other direction?

17-04-2018 11:43AM

awec wrote: »

Well I certainly think Logan is saying what the IRFU tell him to say, which is just further fueling the fire of the fans. The only way Ulster fans could possibly respect Logan less is if it became obvious that he's nothing more than an IRFU lapdog.

I think the frustration among Ulster fans is significant. If Shane Logan or the IRFU think waffling on about needing a strong end to the season, or the academy, or not becoming fractured is going to solve anything they are deluded.

I don't envy the situation they are in. It's unprecedented. They've made mistakes but it's a very challenging situation to resolve under immense public scrutiny and that's aside from the other stuff going on at the club.

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

Comments