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

17-04-2018 09:53PM

awec wrote: »

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.

I'd say that was exactly the IRFU's approach, the disagreement stems from the notion that no compensation was required and the IRFU had a slam dunk argument for dismissal. I don't believe that they did, which is why rumours that a settlement close to contract value was reached make sense.

17-04-2018 09:54PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

I still don't know what you are talking about - do you want to PM me?

awec · 17-04-2018 09:54PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

Interesting.

Surely all those concerned about these events and the moral / role-model questions they pose would want to see all previous events that were buried for bad-PR reasons out in the open and those involved face the consequences.

Indeed I am surprised people are not up in arms about this, if what you say is true.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 09:56PM

awec wrote: »

Interesting.

Surely all those concerned about these events and the moral / role-model questions they pose would want to see all previous events that were buried for bad-PR reasons out in the open and those involved face the consequences.

Indeed I am surprised people are not up in arms about this, if what you say is true.

Well yeah of course, I'm sure they absolutely would. Can't imagine the IRFU would though.

17-04-2018 09:58PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

Can you re-explain? I've yet to hear anything which would indicate to me that the IRFU could dismiss Paddy Jackson and not be liable for his resulting losses.

I would go the other way. Absolutely everything I've heard and seen personally over the years would suggest that Paddy Jackson would have a particularly strong case for unfair dismissal.

Edit: apologies I may have misread, did you say the IRFU's case would have been defeated?

Former Former · 17-04-2018 10:04PM

Soooo.. we all seem to agree that:

1. Ulster/IRFU wanted them gone
2. There was no way either man was playing for Ulster again
3. They got a pay-off to go quietly and quickly

What are we arguing about?

awec · 17-04-2018 10:06PM

Former Former wrote: »

Soooo.. we all seem to agree that:

1. Ulster/IRFU wanted them gone
2. There was no way either man was playing for Ulster again
3. They got a pay-off to go quietly and quickly

What are we arguing about?

The price of milk.

irishbucsfan · 17-04-2018 10:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you re-explain? I've yet to hear anything which would indicate to me that the IRFU could dismiss Paddy Jackson and not be liable for his resulting losses.

I would go the other way. Absolutely everything I've heard and seen personally over the years would suggest that Paddy Jackson would have a particularly strong case for unfair dismissal.

Not particularly interested in going over it again, I've written it out multiple times and I really can't be arsed. His reputation took considerable damage, it's all they need to find, in conjunction with following fair procedure, the timing of the public statement which can be used as proof of exactly this is unlikely to be coincidental, etc. etc.

Try_harder · 17-04-2018 10:09PM

If his contract was bought out he has no case.

Burkie1203 · 17-04-2018 10:30PM

OFFTHEBALL had a guy on today who spoke at length about Rory Best attending the trial. Says the irfu need address that. Getting a small bit of a reaction on twitter.

17-04-2018 10:34PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry, now I get you. Just so I'm not wrong - are you saying that Paddy Jackson and Stewart Olding are privy to some information that could damage the IRFU which is not in the public domain, and as a result of this they were keen to reach a financial agreement sooner rather than later?

I wan't to spell this out just so I fully understand what you are implicating.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 10:39PM

Burkie1203 wrote: »

OFFTHEBALL had a guy on today who spoke at length about Rory Best attending the trial. Says the irfu need address that. Getting a small bit of a reaction on twitter.

Did he give a reason? Because I can't think of one.

tretorn · 17-04-2018 10:40PM

Of course Jackson and Olding have stuff on everyone in the IRFU, does anyone actually believe that they were the only rugby people to have threesomes or the only people to refer to women who have one night stands as sluts.

Please dont make me laugh out loud.

The rugby community has always been known for its wild parties, the hyprocrisy that has been going around since the trial was over is just incredible.

Hopefully Jackson and Olding will spill the beans.

I hope they appear on the Late Late to tell their story, what have they got to lose, I will be tuning in.

prawnsambo · 17-04-2018 10:43PM

tretorn wrote: »

Of course Jackson and Olding have stuff on everyone in the IRFU, does anyone actually believe that they were the only rugby people to have threesomes or the only people to refer to women who have one night stands as sluts.

Please dont make me laugh out loud.

The rugby community has always been known for its wild parties, the hyprocrisy that has been going around since the trial was over is just incredible.

Hopefully Jackson and Olding will spill the beans.

I hope they appear on the Late Late to tell their story, what have they got to lose, I will be tuning in.

I presume they have whatever settlement they received to lose.

MJohnston · 17-04-2018 10:45PM

tretorn wrote: »

Of course Jackson and Olding have stuff on everyone in the IRFU, does anyone actually believe that they were the only rugby people to have threesomes or the only people to refer to women who have one night stands as sluts.

I doubt they're as naive as some of the posters here to believe that those are the only reasons why they are no longer Ulster Rugby players.

Faugheen · 17-04-2018 10:48PM

Also the fact they have absolutely no proof and just look bitter.

If Jackson and Olding resort to whataboutery and threaten to tell tales then they become more unemployable than they are now.

Oh, and their story remains in the media. How on earth does that benefit them?

They are best advised to keep their heads down.

irishbucsfan · 18-04-2018 06:31AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry, now I get you. Just so I'm not wrong - are you saying that Paddy Jackson and Stewart Olding are privy to some information that could damage the IRFU which is not in the public domain, and as a result of this they were keen to reach a financial agreement sooner rather than later?

I wan't to spell this out just so I fully understand what you are implicating.

I'm sure they are, but for example they're also privy to information which is in the public domain, has even been briefly discussed in this thread by people trying to draw comparisons to the trial, but has never been publically dealt with or officially recognised by the IRFU. No one wants that sort of thing being dragged out, but that's the sort of thing the IRFU have to protect themselves against.

irishbucsfan · 18-04-2018 06:37AM

Faugheen wrote: »

Also the fact they have absolutely no proof and just look bitter.

If Jackson and Olding resort to whataboutery and threaten to tell tales then they become more unemployable than they are now.

Oh, and their story remains in the media. How on earth does that benefit them?

They are best advised to keep their heads down.

Ah to be fair I'd doubt they themselves would have even the slightest desire to get involved in that sort of thing anyway.

Squidgy Black · 18-04-2018 07:00AM

I was firmly in the camp that they should have remained part of the Ulster squad.

But jesus, wishing they'd go on the late late show is really hitting the bottom of the barrel.

molloyjh · 18-04-2018 07:06AM

What exactly is the issue here? The IRFU and UR both wanted the players gone. They almost certainly wanted them gone quickly and have this whole affair put to bed as soon as possible. So a pay off to ensure a quick and simple resolution is the standard practice in situations like this. It’s nothing to do with he lads having information about other damaging situations or anything else for that matter. The pay off just draws a line under the whole thing so that everyone can move on immediately. Simples.

And yes, that means that they were sacked.

irishbucsfan · 18-04-2018 07:10AM

molloyjh wrote: »

It’s nothing to do with he lads having information about other damaging situations or anything else for that matter.

I mean you're spot on apart form this, but it absolutely could be. That's exactly why they don't want to go anywhere near a tribunal which would be massively damaging for the IRFU.

That's just supposed to be an example of the type of the leverage that they may have against the IRFU when it comes to negotiate the payout. The point is that the IRFU may be absolutely unwilling to go to a tribunal for reasons that are not at all connected to their ability to win the case.

molloyjh · 18-04-2018 07:14AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

It’s nothing to do with he lads having information about other damaging situations or anything else for that matter.

I mean you're spot on apart form this, but it absolutely could be. That's exactly why they don't want to go anywhere near a tribunal which would be massively damaging for the IRFU.

That's just supposed to be an example of the type of the leverage that they may have against the IRFU when it comes to negotiate the payout. The point is that the IRFU may be absolutely unwilling to go to a tribunal for reasons that are not at all connected to their ability to win the case.

It’s possible, but highly unlikely IMO. This is just a case of “let’s just get this over with” I reckon. Jackson in particular was very vocal about wanting to play for Ulster and Ireland again. The longer this carried on the bigger an impact it was going to have on Irish rugby. And Ulster really have enough to be worrying about on the rugby front over the next couple of weeks too. Having anything like this hanging over them was bound to be counter productive. Make it quick and clean and move on.

irishbucsfan · 18-04-2018 07:19AM

molloyjh wrote: »

It’s possible, but highly unlikely IMO. This is just a case of “let’s just get this over with” I reckon. Jackson in particular was very vocal about wanting to play for Ulster and Ireland again. The longer this carried on the bigger an impact it was going to have on Irish rugby. And Ulster really have enough to be worrying about on the rugby front over the next couple of weeks too. Having anything like this hanging over them was bound to be counter productive. Make it quick and clean and move on.

I don't see why it is unlikely. In fact I think accounting for only the things we know, I think it has to be seen as very likely, let alone things we may not know. As has been pointed out, if they were paid out almost the full value of their contracts then it's a serious price to pay for convenience alone.

sydthebeat · 18-04-2018 07:24AM

Known unknowns, and unknown unknowns....

prawnsambo · 18-04-2018 08:04AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't see why it is unlikely. In fact I think accounting for only the things we know, I think it has to be seen as very likely, let alone things we may not know. As has been pointed out, if they were paid out almost the full value of their contracts then it's a serious price to pay for convenience alone.

I'd agree with that. The only thing that should give them pause is that bringing up past indiscretions of team mates and (presumably) friends would make them pariahs for ever more.

18-04-2018 08:10AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't see why it is unlikely. In fact I think accounting for only the things we know, I think it has to be seen as very likely, let alone things we may not know. As has been pointed out, if they were paid out almost the full value of their contracts then it's a serious price to pay for convenience alone.

So let me get this straight. You don't want to engage in any debate that their employment rights might restrict the IRFU from summarily dismissing them without compensation, but you do think that the players have some secret that apparently everyone knows and at risk of them using this as blackmail, the IRFU has reluctantly handed over a few quid?

I'd love to go and train in the same mental gymnastics gym IBF - can you pm me the address, place sounds like a hoot.

I'd say contract negotiations with the IRFU have been great the last few years, "hey .. pay me more or I'll tell our pal Thornley about you know what.."

foxyladyxx · 18-04-2018 08:10AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'd agree with that. The only thing that should give them pause is that bringing up past indiscretions of team mates and (presumably) friends would make them pariahs for ever more.

Indiscretions by not only single guys in the Irish Squad and not including the threesome already alluded too .

IRFU needed to drop Jackson and Olding mainly because of pressure from sponsors and to clean up their act so that no other squad players' antics would make it into the public domain,.

irishbucsfan · 18-04-2018 08:12AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You don't want to engage in any debate that their employment rights might restrict the IRFU from summarily dismissing them without compensation, but you do think that the players have some secret that apparently everyone knows and at risk of them using this as blackmail, the IRFU has reluctantly handed over a few quid?

I'd love to go and training in the same mental gymnastics gym IBF - can you pm me the address, place sounds like a hoot.

I'd say contract negotiations with the IRFU have been great the last few years, "hey .. pay me more or I'll tell our pal Thornley about you know what.."

You don't understand. And we did talk about their employment rights but you didn't listen then either. What you said is not remotely what I meant. So we'll leave it there.

irishbucsfan · 18-04-2018 08:13AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'd agree with that. The only thing that should give them pause is that bringing up past indiscretions of team mates and (presumably) friends would make them pariahs for ever more.

Oh yeah absolutely, but that's where these things always descend into brinksmanship.

awec · 18-04-2018 09:29AM

There’s a serious bit of ticket marketing going on by Ulster on Twitter. Three tweets trying to sell tickets for Saturday and counting.

Hopefully nobody is buying them.

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

Comments