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

Zzippy · 17-04-2018 08:25PM

Asus X540L wrote: »

Paddy Jackson reminds me of the nice quiet guy that gets easily led by badboys like Stuart Olding

Asus X540L wrote: »

Are you high or just simple?

Asus X540L wrote: »

Lol he said that like I should give a ****

You've racked up a couple of cards in this thread posting this kind of rubbish. DO NOT post anything related to Paddy Jackson or Stuart Olding again or you will be banned.

stephen_n · 17-04-2018 08:26PM

Donal Lenihan said last night that they went with a settlement, don’t know if he’s in the know on that or not though.

Zzippy · 17-04-2018 08:28PM

It seems people are starting to ignore mod warnings again. Please heed the below. Posts will be deleted and future posts ignoring this warning will be carded.

Zzippy wrote: »

Right, despite numerous warnings people continue to post rubbish that is defamatory or demeans victims testimony, neither of which can be permitted. Mods don't have time to moderate every post in real time, and some of you are way too tetchy with your PMs too.

For the above reasons, discussion of the case itself, the facts of the case, and the verdict are NOT PERMITTED on this forum. Discussion of the players' future will be permitted subject to the above. This will be posted in the Ireland thread as well and anyone ignoring this warning will be infracted/banned

bilston · 17-04-2018 08:33PM

What's the story with Bill Johnston down Munster way. I was very impressed with him at U20 level. I thought he looked a genuinely top prospect. Possibly a bit injury prone?

Foxtrol · 17-04-2018 08:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really, we won't know anything more on the matter. It makes sense that whatever was agreed will stay out of the public domain. If they were unilaterally sacked with no compensation then Jackson and Olding are free to continue talking about it as much as they want. Let's see if they do.

Yeah, you’d really need to have blinkers on to not see the huge difference in tone and content of what Jackson and Olding were saying before and after the ‘revocation’ was announced. It is naïve to think their stance changed so dramatically without a mutual agreement in place. The IRFU are banking on it looking like a loss for the lads so the mob will believe they got their ‘justice’ and move on.

Muahahaha · 17-04-2018 08:37PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You can call it being 'sacked' and there are those who want to think that.

But in reality it isn't, it is a mutually agreed cessation of the contract once a compensatory payment comes into it. A negotiation so to speak.

Conversely there are people who want to think they were not sacked.

I agree it was a negotiation between their lawyers but the only thing up for discussion was the amount they were going to be paid off.

Unless you are telling us that when they went into the negotiation they were given two options-

1) Take a pay off and leave, your contact is cancelled, ergo sacked
OR
2) Continue on playing for Ulster & Ireland, as you were

Do you honestly believe they were offered option no.2 Francie? And if so why did they not take it, after all Jackson is on record as wanting option no.2 which he also stated is his boyhood dream.

If you are saying they were not sacked then they must have had a choice in the matter. I dont believe this to be the case, otherwise why are they not staying like they wanted to?

As there is NDAs in place now none of us here will ever know with any 100% certainity. But on the balance of probabilities I am saying they were sacked because the possibility of playing for Ulster & Ireland again was never even on the table to begin with. Once the sponsors (who provide Ulster Rugby with 75% of running costs) piped up then the game was over for them.

FrancieBrady · 17-04-2018 08:44PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Conversely there are people who want to think they were not sacked.

I agree it was a negotiation between their lawyers but the only thing up for discussion was the amount they were going to be paid off.

Unless you are telling us that when they went into the negotiation they were given two options-

1) Take a pay off and leave, your contact is cancelled, ergo sacked
OR
2) Continue on playing for Ulster & Ireland, as you were

Do you honestly believe they were offered option no.2 Francie? And if so why did they not take it, after all Jackson is on record as wanting option no.2 which he also stated is his boyhood dream.

If you are saying they were not sacked then they must have had a choice in the matter. I dont believe this to be the case, otherwise why are they not staying like they wanted to?

As there is NDAs in place now none of us here will ever know with any 100% certainity. But on the balance of probabilities I am saying they were sacked because the possibility of playing for Ulster & Ireland again was never even on the table to begin with. Once the sponsors (who provide Ulster Rugby with 75% of running costs) piped up then the game was over for them.

I think the players solicitors/agents went in there and cards were laid on the table.
The IRFU and the above negotiated an agreement and a form of words that would apply to that agreement.
Hence the oddness of 'revoke' and 'envisage'.

To me it bears the hallmarks of a classic fudge.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 08:49PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the players solicitors/agents went in there and cards were laid on the table.
The IRFU and the above negotiated an agreement and a form of words that would apply to that agreement.
Hence the oddness of 'revoke' and 'envisage'.

To me it bears the hallmarks of a classic fudge.

Revoke means to take away. It's unilateral. As in your licence is revoked.

Paul Smeenus · 17-04-2018 08:50PM

I'd probably take Donald in the short term.

Former Former · 17-04-2018 08:52PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Peculiar choice of word 'revoke'.

Not really. It's pretty unambiguous and it's very much a one-sided action.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 08:54PM

Former Former wrote: »

Not really. It's pretty unambiguous and it's very much a one-sided action.

I prefer unilateral. :P

launish116 · 17-04-2018 08:56PM

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

I'd probably take Donald in the short term.

Without knowing the details, but if he turned his nose up after no champions cup previously, I wouldn’t offer him the chance again.

FrancieBrady · 17-04-2018 08:57PM

Former Former wrote: »

Not really. It's pretty unambiguous and it's very much a one-sided action.

It is that unusual in a statement (I have been googling) that it strikes me as exactly the type of word that would be arrived at by people who don't want to use or allow the use of the word 'sacked'.

awec · 17-04-2018 08:58PM

Former Former wrote: »

Not really. It's pretty unambiguous and it's very much a one-sided action.

And yet here we are, with multiple reports of payoffs and confidentiality agreements.

Seems pretty far from "unambiguous" to me.

I am sure there are plenty of fixed-term contract workers who'd be absolutely delighted to have their contract "revoked" and have nearly their full contract value paid up. Sounds fantastic.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 09:03PM

awec wrote: »

And yet here we are, with multiple reports of payoffs and confidentiality agreements.

Seems pretty far from "unambiguous" to me.

I am sure there are plenty of fixed-term contract workers who'd be absolutely delighted to have their contract "revoked" and have nearly their full contract value paid up. Sounds fantastic.

I'm sure there are. Except when they go looking elsewhere there will be all those awkward questions as to why their last contract was revoked. :rolleyes:

17-04-2018 09:09PM

At this level the discussion isn't going to be a nervous sit down with HR.

An agreement like this is done under arbitration. Basic disclosure agreements are agreed at the outset and each party will set out their terms and after a frank discussion (under arbitration you can dispense with legal posturing and get into the desired agreed terms) things will move towards an initial agreement.

Each party will be represented so no one is speaking to anyone directly. After initial heads of terms are agreed, further and more long term disclosures are agreed and a unified communications strategy is drafted.

I can't say if professional sports adhere to the same strategy, but the above is a summarised version of what happens in other public facing positions where the relationship with the employer has broken down.

Former Former · 17-04-2018 09:28PM

awec wrote: »

And yet here we are, with multiple reports of payoffs and confidentiality agreements.

Seems pretty far from "unambiguous" to me.

I am sure there are plenty of fixed-term contract workers who'd be absolutely delighted to have their contract "revoked" and have nearly their full contract value paid up. Sounds fantastic.

Yeah, I'm sure Olding and Jackson were delighted. Careers in tatters a year out from a world cup, clubs falling over themselves to dismiss rumours of signing them. Sounds fantastic alright.

I've sacked people before and I've paid them out. It just makes it easier to get them out the door and usually it's cheaper than going to a tribunal or having to deal with a bolshie union rep. Doesn't mean I ask the guy if he's OK with it or get his feedback on where he sees this conversation going.

The situation is unambiguous; their contracts were revoked.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 09:35PM

Former Former wrote: »

It just makes it easier to get them out the door and usually it's cheaper than going to a tribunal or having to deal with a bolshie union rep. Doesn't mean I ask the guy if he's OK with it or get his feedback on where he sees this conversation going.

And this explanation is not even considering this specific scenario, where there are things that both parties are aware of that would be far more damaging to the IRFU than the cost of either player's contract, that could end up being discussed and pushed into the media spotlight if this situation became more complicated. The lawyers of course know that very well.

After the decision was made to sack them it was just a case of using their lawyers using that leverage to make sure the lads got everything they could out of the situation, and its completely fair enough that the same elements of the professional game which made their positions completely untenable would also soften their landing. It doesn't change the fact that they've been sacked, bizarre that's even up for debate.

17-04-2018 09:38PM

Former Former wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure Olding and Jackson were delighted. Careers in tatters a year out from a world cup, clubs falling over themselves to dismiss rumours of signing them. Sounds fantastic alright.

I've sacked people before and I've paid them out. It just makes it easier to get them out the door and usually it's cheaper than going to a tribunal or having to deal with a bolshie union rep. Doesn't mean I ask the guy if he's OK with it or get his feedback on where he sees this conversation going.

The situation is unambiguous; their contracts were revoked.

Look, this is just naive. Olding and Jackson could have been perfectly happy to move on, I'm sure they've gauged the reaction themselves.

No one is debating that the IRFU wanted them gone. The only discussion is whether they could dismiss them without compensation. Some believe they could, others suggested that compensation would be required.

The costs of going to a tribunal are actually quite favourable, the potential damages are where the costs stack up.

The swiftness of the 'review' and decision suggests to me that Jackson and Olding got what they wanted and quite quickly, it was the IRFU who stood to lose from this.

awec · 17-04-2018 09:38PM

Former Former wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure Olding and Jackson were delighted. Careers in tatters a year out from a world cup, clubs falling over themselves to dismiss rumours of signing them. Sounds fantastic alright.

I've sacked people before and I've paid them out. It just makes it easier to get them out the door and usually it's cheaper than going to a tribunal or having to deal with a bolshie union rep. Doesn't mean I ask the guy if he's OK with it or get his feedback on where he sees this conversation going.

The situation is unambiguous; their contracts were revoked.

Why would either of these things be a factor in a case that's as slam dunk, absolutely no ambiguity, no question marks whatsoever as has been made out in this case?

Reading this forum neither player had a chance of winning any contest against a sacking.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 09:39PM

awec wrote: »

Why would either of these things be a factor in a case that's as slam dunk, absolutely no ambiguity, no question marks whatsoever as has been made out in this case?

Reading this forum neither player had a chance of winning any contest against a sacking. They were bang to rights. No question marks at all, no ambiguity.

Because whether or not you want to go to trial is not only influenced by how likely you are to win the case.

awec · 17-04-2018 09:40PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Because whether or not you want to go to trial is not only influenced by how likely you are to win the case.

What other influences do you think were a factor then?

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 09:43PM

awec wrote: »

What other influences do you think were a factor then?

Could be all sorts. Could be the things that Shane Logan said were a factor that were not known to the trial. Could be previous, perhaps similar, disciplinary issues that the IRFU have had that did not lead to termination.

17-04-2018 09:43PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

And this explanation is not even considering this specific scenario, where there are things that both parties are aware of that would be far more damaging to the IRFU than the cost of either player's contract, that could end up being discussed and pushed into the media spotlight if this situation became more complicated. The lawyers of course know that very well.

After the decision was made to sack them it was just a case of using their lawyers using that leverage to make sure the lads got everything they could out of the situation, and its completely fair enough that the same elements of the professional game which made their positions completely untenable would also soften their landing. It doesn't change the fact that they've been sacked, bizarre that's even up for debate.

You are right, the IRFU stood to lose a lot more and an agreement was reached. It's probably fair to say 'they were sacked' but being sacked suggests that one party was unilaterally in the right. I don't believe this was the case legally, I believe that if the IRFU had dismissed Jackson with no compensation that they would have lost the resulting action on his behalf and paid out a good deal more.

I think the fairest way to describe their departure is that the IRFU wanted them gone, the players may well have been happy to go but there was no option to stay. Whatever it took to make them go with the least amount of hassle was optimal. The IRFU could have sacked them without an agreement, but the players would have had a legitimate action against them had they done this.

Are we actually disagreeing?

17-04-2018 09:45PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Could be all sorts. Could be the things that Shane Logan said were a factor that were not known to the trial. Could be previous, perhaps similar, disciplinary issues that the IRFU have had that did not lead to termination.

I amen't aware of what you are referencing here, could you clarify?

Muahahaha · 17-04-2018 09:45PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the players solicitors/agents went in there and cards were laid on the table.
The IRFU and the above negotiated an agreement and a form of words that would apply to that agreement.
Hence the oddness of 'revoke' and 'envisage'.

To me it bears the hallmarks of a classic fudge.

Francie do you believe that them playing again for Ulster & Ireland was an option available to them in this negotiation?

Former Former · 17-04-2018 09:47PM

awec wrote: »

Why would either of these things be a factor in a case that's as slam dunk, absolutely no ambiguity, no question marks whatsoever as has been made out in this case?

Reading this forum neither player had a chance of winning any contest against a sacking.

Sorry, you misread my post. Probably all that red mist.

There is no ambiguity about whether or not they were sacked.

I didn't say they had no chance of winning any contest against the sacking.

Employment law is so heavily weighted on the employee's side that there's a fair chance they'd have found something to let them stay on - but they'd have spent the season with the Ravens (if even) and only going to the Aviva to see Billy Joel, until their contracts expired, they're out of a job and and they're now completely unemployable.

So you:
a) go quietly with a wad of cash or
b) go noisily and throw another can of petrol on your career
but either way, you're going.

awec · 17-04-2018 09:49PM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Francie do you believe that them playing again for Ulster & Ireland was an option available to them in this negotiation?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

I think the options were:

1. Leave with the IRFU money as "silence" money, along with the confidentiality clause to avoid this becoming public and allow the IRFU to present it as an actual sacking. Perhaps with an old "if you do this you might come back in future" thrown in.

2. Don't take the money, IRFU give them the boot and they go to court and get a payout.

I think the idea the IRFU walked into the room and said "here's a few quid now see you later" is a bit far fetched.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 09:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

You are right, the IRFU stood to lose a lot more and an agreement was reached. It's probably fair to say 'they were sacked' but being sacked suggests that one party was unilaterally in the right. I don't believe this was the case legally, I believe that if the IRFU had dismissed Jackson with no compensation that they would have lost the resulting action on his behalf and paid out a good deal more.

I think the fairest way to describe their departure is that the IRFU wanted them gone, the players may well have been happy to go but there was no option to stay. Whatever it took to make them go with the least amount of hassle was optimal. The IRFU could have sacked them without an agreement, but the players would have had a legitimate action against them had they done this.

Are we actually disagreeing?

The reason the IRFU would be completely and totally unwilling to be taken out for their day is absolutely nothing to do with the strength of their case, which would have been defeated for the reasons that have been explained repeatedly.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 09:52PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I amen't aware of what you are referencing here, could you clarify?

I'm saying there are things that are not currently in the media spotlight that would be extremely damaging if they were and would be fair game for PJ and SO's lawyers in a tribunal.

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

Comments