IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

14-02-2018 2:15pm

We still don't know what this mistake was, no?

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 2:18pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, I’m not really disagreeing with that at any point though.

I said exactly that. I just also said it’s an extremely bad thing if the free press is squeezed out to be replaced by Pravda.

That's a bit of a leap right there. Firstly, there is absolutely nothing the IRFU can do to prevent the press reporting on anything they feel is of importance to the rugby following public. They may curtail access to press 'huddles' or other 'exclusive' press opportunities, but that doesn't stop questions being asked in other fora. They are a governing body, not the government. Secondly, they rely on government funding as you rightly pointed out above and that funding may well dry up if any impropriety is discovered and subsequently stonewalled. It's not like Sport Ireland or the governmemnt doesn't wield the big stick when they feel like it.

Yeah_Right · 14-02-2018 2:21pm

This is not a freedom of the press issue. The press/RWI are free to report on whatever they want (legally) about rugby and the IRFU. It just now appears that they aren't going to be able to do it from a privileged position on the inside. They have to do it as outsiders looking in. So they should do things like cultivate sources on the inside, find whistleblowers, do research, find ways around the gatekeepers. You know, journalist stuff.

The IRFU can put out their PR stuff and I think most people will see it as that.

@IBF, do you think the story about the women's game would have been broken in the current climate without all the "inside" access that RWI writers had back then?

stephen_n · 14-02-2018 2:25pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You say that this is sports and not politics. But here are politics in sport. In a huge way.

And some people dedicate most of their time to the sport.

The IRFU are the NGB for the sport. Existing off subsidies, grants and tax-breaks. They are judge jury and executioner on some important issues that make genuinely important differences to some people’s lives.

So dismissing people’s concerns I think belies a misunderstanding of just how important some people in the IRFU are.

This weird thing about Kidney (who absolutely was criticised from some corners) is not nearly as relevant as actual reporting into issues where the people involved have very few other outlets or rights of reply. And very often when there is no coverage you end up with a very authoritarian stance that can often take the sport down the wrong path. In recent times I’ve seen a direct example where that has happened and was corrected following coverage in the press.

So you have to consider here that what you’re saying here is almost entirely wrong. Including the bit about ROC.

Yes there are politics in sport and in nearly every walk of life, that involves people working together. But those politics are not the same as the politics I’m sure you are aware of, that I was referring to.

Yes people do dedicate huge time to sports, not just rugby. But what you think that has to do with my point, I’m not sure at all.

So what hard questions are journalists asking about these decisions the IRFU are making, that affect people’s lives? Please give examples, since you clearly have them.

Criticism though and important part of allowing public opinion to be aired, does not equate to asking hard questions of either the coach or the organization. There are always critics, in this country we have no shortage of them. If the IRFU excluded every journalist the criticized the team, the coaches or the organization, Joe would be talking to himself.

So strawman, strawman, strawman, you’re wrong about ROC?

aloooof · 14-02-2018 2:27pm

I've just re-listened to that section of Second Captains again. Something stuck out to me.

Gerry Thornley:
In Paris, there was an incident which meant to daily huddle nearly didn't go ahead, and for a lot of legal reasons I can't really go into the details of that case, but anyway in the short of it all, we met with the IRFU Press Officer during the week in Carton House, and following that meeting they came back to us on Saturday morning to inform us that the daily huddle would be no more and no reason was given.

After the segment with Thornley on it, Eoin said they approached the IRFU for a statement and received the following:

IRFU statement:
Reasons for discontinuing the additional access post-match were clearly communicated to RWI Rugby Writers of Ireland during the week. All 5 days per week of media access to team are unaffected.

It seems to me like there's a contradiction there (unless the reasons were communicated separately after Saturday morning and before the Second Captains statement)?

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 2:35pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Had ROC already admitted to it when they were recording that interview? It would have been around the same time I don't know.

Also don't think it'd be a good idea to have gotten into anything like that.

Yeah. I was basing this on the Johnny Watterson column that you posted which was published on Monday morning. Since that was in the IT, Thornley would have been aware of it before he went on Second Captains (although we don't know exactly when that was recorded - it was released at half four on Monday afternoon). ROC admitted it was his article on OTB that evening.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 2:50pm

aloooof wrote: »

It seems to me like there's a contradiction there (unless the reasons were communicated separately after Saturday morning and before the Second Captains statement)?

As I said above, the Second Captains podcast was released on Monday afternoon, so 'during the week' couldn't really be interpreted as referring to that day (the first of this week).

Zzippy · 14-02-2018 2:58pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You seemed to think they were at the outset of the thread. Has something caused you to reign back on that opinion?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Why don't you quote the entire post instead of taking me out of context?

I agreed with a long post, not that sentence. This is fairly childish stuff.

Deleted User wrote: »

I apologise. You quoted the entire post by Former Former and said "spot on" as the entirety of your reply.

I took this to mean that you agreed with the entire post but it's quite clear now that you only agreed with the parts that weren't going to be quoted back at you at a later date.

So silly of me, won't happen again!

Deleted User wrote: »

That could just as easily be taken as Thornley putting words in the IRFU's mouth..

Who is it on here that hates when people do that?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Another suggestion of people lying. Still never a bit of proof. While accepting stuff with absolutely no source as truth.

Who was it who was waiting for some concrete facts before making their mind up?

Will the two of you cop on and start acting like the adults you supposedly are. Thread will be locked if this keeps up

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 3:00pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

As I said above, the Second Captains podcast was released on Monday afternoon, so 'during the week' couldn't really be interpreted as referring to that day (the first of this week).

I think they meant it was the week before.

To be fair they might have told RWI and then the members might not have found out. Could be completely down to communcation between RWI themselves. I do believe the journalists who said they only found out on the day of the match (because of the tweets they sent), but that doesn't necessarily mean the IRFU didn't tell anyone. Brendan O'Brien did say that it had been an issue the whole week.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 3:11pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think they meant it was the week before.

To be fair they might have told RWI and then the members might not have found out. Could be completely down to communcation between RWI themselves. I do believe the journalists who said they only found out on the day of the match (because of the tweets they sent), but that doesn't necessarily mean the IRFU didn't tell anyone. Brendan O'Brien did say that it had been an issue the whole week.

True. But all of the journalists who've said anything on the subject have maintained that no reason was given. Starting with the video clip in the OP and continuing with Gerry Thornley. The IRFU have gone on record that they gave reasons. Has anyone from the RWI since come out and acknowledged this?

Guy:Incognito · 14-02-2018 3:12pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Which also happened to be when Grobler started turning out for Munster A.

Why is it surprising that they were talking about it when he started playing for Munster? It was reported on when he signed as well, by the way, as has been pointed out many times. It just became controversial when he got close to the actual Munster team.

They went for it all frothy mouthed when he started to play. The excuses that the lions was on when he signed doesn't wash and clearly smacks of "we can save this and blow it up when we need to".people need to move on and stop a ring like they are the keepers of all the universes morals. If they wanted to the could have kept at it when he signed or at any stage in the 5 months before they decided it was a story again.

They can jog on with the Rory best stuff too. He went to a day in court. If they hadn't made a big deal of it no one would have noticed.

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 3:17pm

Yeah_Right wrote: »

This is not a freedom of the press issue. The press/RWI are free to report on whatever they want (legally) about rugby and the IRFU. It just now appears that they aren't going to be able to do it from a privileged position on the inside. They have to do it as outsiders looking in. So they should do things like cultivate sources on the inside, find whistleblowers, do research, find ways around the gatekeepers. You know, journalist stuff.

The IRFU can put out their PR stuff and I think most people will see it as that.

@IBF, do you think the story about the women's game would have been broken in the current climate without all the "inside" access that RWI writers had back then?

Never said it was a freedom of the press issue. The IRFU don't have that kind of power, but they do have other responsibilities.

I do think that the story about the women's game would have broken today. In fact it broke during the period that the relationship has been bad. I don't think it's turned into Russia overnight. I am worried about the feasibility of running those stories if things continue where it looks like they're going.

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 3:19pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

True. But all of the journalists who've said anything on the subject have maintained that no reason was given. Starting with the video clip in the OP and continuing with Gerry Thornley. The IRFU have gone on record that they gave reasons. Has anyone from the RWI since come out and acknowledged this?

No, haven't seen any acknowledgement of this. I actually hadn't seen the statement. Then again, haven't actually really seen any talk of it at all since that Thornley interview, its possible there's mediation going on (hopefully).

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 3:22pm

stephen_n wrote: »

Yes there are politics in sport and in nearly every walk of life, that involves people working together. But those politics are not the same as the politics I’m sure you are aware of, that I was referring to.

Yes people do dedicate huge time to sports, not just rugby. But what you think that has to do with my point, I’m not sure at all.

So what hard questions are journalists asking about these decisions the IRFU are making, that affect people’s lives? Please give examples, since you clearly have them.

Criticism though and important part of allowing public opinion to be aired, does not equate to asking hard questions of either the coach or the organization. There are always critics, in this country we have no shortage of them. If the IRFU excluded every journalist the criticized the team, the coaches or the organization, Joe would be talking to himself.

So strawman, strawman, strawman, you’re wrong about ROC?

No strawman at all.

You dismissed people's concerns because "it's not politics". I explained to you that for some people the IRFU's management of rugby in this country has the same impact as politics. I've given examples in this thread, you don't want to read them.

Just because it's not important to you doesn't mean its not important to others.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 3:33pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, haven't seen any acknowledgement of this. I actually hadn't seen the statement. Then again, haven't actually really seen any talk of it at all since that Thornley interview, its possible there's mediation going on (hopefully).

It's also possible that the RWI have been economical with the truth and aren't willing to own up to it.

If they sort out their differences, then well and good. But pushing an agenda in public whilst holding back or misrepresenting salient facts is exactly why we need to hold the press accountable. They can't just shuffle their feet, look at the ground and mutter "well it's all sorted out now anyway".

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 3:42pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's also possible that the RWI have been economical with the truth and aren't willing to own up to it.

If they sort out their differences, then well and good. But pushing an agenda in public whilst holding back or misrepresenting salient facts is exactly why we need to hold the press accountable. They can't just shuffle their feet, look at the ground and mutter "well it's all sorted out now anyway".

I mean, Joe Schmidt could be hiding under Gerry Thornley's bed with a machete. But there's no evidence of that either so I'll personally stick to the things I've got some for.

I'd imagine that if there is a resolution there'll be not a word from either party, because neither of them seem particularly keen on reporting on reporters.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 3:54pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I mean, Joe Schmidt could be hiding under Gerry Thornley's bed with a machete. But there's no evidence of that either so I'll personally stick to the things I've got some for.

I'd imagine that if there is a resolution there'll be not a word from either party, because neither of them seem particularly keen on reporting on reporters.

This is flat out reductio ad absurdum. You'd be quick to jump on anyone who tried that tactic on you and call it for what it is.

This is not an absurd leap of logic. The IRFU have gone on the record to directly contradict what at least two journailsts have said, also on the record. There's not been a peep from either of the two journalists (one of whom was hardly out the door of the studio the statement was read out on) in the days since that statement was released.

But they get a pass because (a) it was miscommunication or (b) they're in kiss and make up mode so it's all good.

Do we have a different set of standards for the fourth estate?

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 4:01pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is flat out reductio ad absurdum. You'd be quick to jump on anyone who tried that tactic on you and call it for what it is.

This is not an absurd leap of logic. The IRFU have gone on the record to directly contradict what at least two journailsts have said, also on the record. There's not been a peep from either of the two journalists (one of whom was hardly out the door of the studio the statement was read out on) in the days since that statement was released.

But they get a pass because (a) it was miscommunication or (b) they're in kiss and make up mode so it's all good.

Do we have a different set of standards for the fourth estate?

It was a little joke. Apologies!

Is it a direct contradiction? Perhaps, perhaps not. It’s not clear. If it is, someone is being untruthful. You only mentioned one potential party. Certainly from my own experiences I’d be more likely to believe it’s the other party as I’ve seen it before, but with that kind of contradiction I’d be even more likely to put it down to Hanlon’s Razor.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 4:36pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It was a little joke. Apologies!

Is it a direct contradiction? Perhaps, perhaps not. It’s not clear. If it is, someone is being untruthful. You only mentioned one potential party. Certainly from my own experiences I’d be more likely to believe it’s the other party as I’ve seen it before, but with that kind of contradiction I’d be even more likely to put it down to Hanlon’s Razor.

Thanks. Though Joe would never use a machete, it would be a mere.

I think we have to accept that the IRFU statement was accurate. Why? They were asked a direct question by a broadcaster and answered it directly and gave a timeframe as well. If that's not true, they'd be called on it pdq. But there's been nothing. It's possible some of the journalists concerned may not have been aware of the reasons given, but surely Thornley had to be aware? He said he was at a meeting and seems to have seen the 'short' email as well. And is he not chairman of the RWI?

If I was told that something I participated in regularly was being unilaterally stopped, the first question I would be asking is why? You can apply Hanlon's razor to one person, even a few people. But a large group?

And finally, these are journalists. The uppermost thoughts in their heads should always be verify and then report. Are they all shooting from the hip without checking first...?

Yeah_Right · 14-02-2018 4:38pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Never said it was a freedom of the press issue. The IRFU don't have that kind of power, but they do have other responsibilities.

I do think that the story about the women's game would have broken today. In fact it broke during the period that the relationship has been bad. I don't think it's turned into Russia overnight. I am worried about the feasibility of running those stories if things continue where it looks like they're going.

You may not have said freedom of the press but Pravda and "a free and impartial" press have been mentioned in this thread. I'm too lazy to go back and find who said it.

You have brought up the story about what was happening in the women's game and how important it was for that story to be told and for the IRFU to be held accountable for what was going on and I agree. Now you say that relations were already bad/strained at the time that story broke and even now in the current climate, those journos would still get that story out. Therefore I wonder why is it a problem if the RWI and the IRFU are adversarial?

If you want the IRFU to be held accountable for rugby in Ireland, surely its better that the journalists are independent and adversarial rather than being on the inside and all chummy.

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 4:43pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

Thanks. Though Joe would never use a machete, it would be a mere.

I think we have to accept that the IRFU statement was accurate. Why? They were asked a direct question by a broadcaster and answered it directly and gave a timeframe as well. If that's not true, they'd be called on it pdq. But there's been nothing. It's possible some of the journalists concerned may not have been aware of the reasons given, but surely Thornley had to be aware? He said he was at a meeting and seems to have seen the 'short' email as well. And is he not chairman of the RWI?

If I was told that something I participated in regularly was being unilaterally stopped, the first question I would be asking is why? You can apply Hanlon's razor to one person, even a few people. But a large group?

And finally, these are journalists. The uppermost thoughts in their heads should always be verify and then report. Are they all shooting from the hip without checking first...?

I absolutely don't accept it has to be accurate. I've seen similar things answered directly in explicit detail in the past that have turned out to be misunderstandings, miscommunications or subsequently swept under the rug. It may be it'll turn out they were talking about different things, maybe conveniently for either party. That's why I suggested Hanlon's razor is most likely for that one. You can assume the journalists were being untruthful if you like, I don't see it.

Although I'm surprised noone has asked who at the IRFU has said this, that was the standard that was set before!

aloooof · 14-02-2018 4:47pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Although I'm surprised noone has asked who at the IRFU has said this, that was the standard that was set before!

I would assume their PR department, but why would that matter in this case? We've a credible source saying it's an official statement from the IRFU.

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 4:52pm

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You may not have said freedom of the press but Pravda and "a free and impartial" press have been mentioned in this thread. I'm too lazy to go back and find who said it.

Sorry, that was me in reference to Brendan O'Brien's comments on Off The Ball. He wasn't really referring to an issue of free press, he was referring to the standard of reporting you'd get out them if they were the ones to be relied on for information. Should have referenced it.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

You have brought up the story about what was happening in the women's game and how important it was for that story to be told and for the IRFU to be held accountable for what was going on and I agree. Now you say that relations were already bad/strained at the time that story broke and even now in the current climate, those journos would still get that story out. Therefore I wonder why is it a problem if the RWI and the IRFU are adversarial?

To be fair I've never suggested I think that it wouldn't break today. You're kind of changing what I meant.

I brought it up as an example to the type of people who say rugby writers aren't important. I'm explaining examples of why they are.

My worry in that regard would be that if the IRFU are capable of getting away with singling out and bullying a single journalist for printing something they don't like (which they are being accused of having done multiple times) then journalists would see it as too big a risk to cover minority areas of the game (which they don't get paid much for doing anyway). For example imagine the Northern Irish TV rights were to not be made available free to air, and imagine the journalists were to get the impression that if they criticised that decision too openly they'd lose access to the Irish team (which are the stories they need).

Yeah_Right wrote: »

If you want the IRFU to be held accountable for rugby in Ireland, surely its better that the journalists are independent and adversarial rather than being on the inside and all chummy.

Yeah that is a concern, sure. Good point. It's been something they've been accused of in the past, there were tweets along this line sent to Brendan O'Brien after he was on Off The Ball.

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 4:53pm

aloooof wrote: »

I would assume their PR department, but why would that matter in this case? We've a credible source saying it's an official statement from the IRFU.

I was asking the same question that was asked earlier in order to discredit Thornley when he said he was told by the IRFU that they considered themselves in competition to him.

Trojan · 14-02-2018 4:55pm

My first take on all of this was that the IRFU had thrown toys out of the pram because they've been found wanting when asked hard questions about multiple major f*ckups on their part (women's coach, zero tolerance doping, RB appearance in Belfast). If it's not that and is more about new vs print media, well that's interesting and reflects very poorly on RWI.

What was the mistake in an article that was subsequently corrected? Is that now known?

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 4:58pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I absolutely don't accept it has to be accurate. I've seen similar things answered directly in explicit detail in the past that have turned out to be misunderstandings, miscommunications or subsequently swept under the rug. It may be it'll turn out they were talking about different things, maybe conveniently for either party. That's why I suggested Hanlon's razor is most likely for that one. You can assume the journalists were being untruthful if you like, I don't see it.

Although I'm surprised noone has asked who at the IRFU has said this, that was the standard that was set before!

It wasn't a standard set by me.

By the same token, I've seen (and experienced) the press saying one thing and doing the other despite prior agreement not to. There's talk on another thread of Luke Fitz being similarly blindsided by Paul Kimmage.

We seem to accept that when a journalist says relations with the IRFU have broken down, that the fault lies, without question with the IRFU. Nobody's asked if the relationship has broken down because of bad faith by the journalists or the news organs that employ them. Relationships aren't a one way street.

aloooof · 14-02-2018 5:14pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I was asking the same question that was asked earlier in order to discredit Thornley when he said he was told by the IRFU that they considered themselves in competition to him.

I accept that with regards the "competition" part of the conversation, it's completely fair that we have no grounds to assume Thornley's comments were incorrect.

But with regards whether a reason was given for cancelling the huddle, we have conflicting accounts from both parties, so I feel it's a different situation. By definition one of them has to wrong.

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 5:20pm

aloooof wrote: »

I accept that with regards the "competition" part of the conversation, it's completely fair that we have no grounds to assume Thornley's comments were incorrect.

But with regards whether a reason was given for cancelling the huddle, we have conflicting accounts from both parties, so I feel it's a different situation. By definition one of them has to wrong.

Yes, someone could well be wrong. I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth. Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

aloooof · 14-02-2018 5:36pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, someone could well be wrong.

By definition, one party is wrong (unless there's a timeline issue and something was disclosed later, but there doesn't seem to be).

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth.

I'm not suggesting this. Just that we have conflicting accounts.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

Agreed.

14-02-2018 5:50pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, someone could well be wrong. I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth. Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

This somewhat brings us back to the start of this discussion. I don't think we should at all automatically accept what the IRFU are saying, I'm not doing that and I don't think anyone else is. I think it's also fair to suggest that the media or elements within the media are capable of spin and we shouldn't automatically accept their version either.

What has potentially caused frustration is that some extremely strong language was directed from the outset at the IRFU. Posters took exception at this in the absence of concrete and corroborative information. That there now appears to be a number of feasible explanations and still a lack of clarity underpins precisely why a lot of people waited before sticking the oar in.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

it’s not necessarily malicious.

I think a lot of this debate would have been spared had this kind of 'benefit of the doubt' approach been afforded to the IRFU at the outset.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 5:51pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, someone could well be wrong. I take issue with the idea that we have to accept that what the IRFU said is the truth. Im also saying that even if they’ve made a false statement, it’s not necessarily malicious.

Does this mean that the reverse could also be true?

If someone could well be wrong and if the IRFU are wrong and it's not necessarily malicious, if the RWI are wrong, it necessarily is?

irishbucsfan · 14-02-2018 5:51pm

aloooof wrote: »

By definition, one party is wrong (unless there's a timeline issue and something was disclosed later, but there doesn't seem to be).

I'm not suggesting this. Just that we have conflicting accounts.

Agreed.

Ah yes sorry I wasn't saying you were suggesting that, prawnsambo said we have to accept what the IRFU said was the truth was just referring to that.

But yeah, I'm getting at something like a timeline issue. Or perhaps one person at the IRFU told one journalist in private and they are using that to justify their statement. If it's not something like that, someone is wrong. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it is, they've done this in the recent past.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 6:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This somewhat brings us back to the start of this discussion. I don't think we should at all automatically accept what the IRFU are saying, I'm not doing that and I don't think anyone else is. I think it's also fair to suggest that the media or elements within the media are capable of spin and we shouldn't automatically accept their version either.

I am. And for the following reasons:

1. This was a statement issued to a sports news company. That they knew would be broadcast. No organisation makes those kinds of official statements without internal discussion. Whether that internal discussion happened at the time of the enquiry or was pre-agreed as a response to the possibility of the question being asked is moot. Nobody is going out on a limb when the can could be kicked down the road just as easily with a 'no comment' or a 'we'll get back to you'.

2. This was a live and hot topic. The 'huddle' was cancelled on Saturday, was discussed on OTB on Sunday and in the IT and Indo on Monday. If you're being portrayed as the guilty party, you make damn sure you don't dig yourself deeper into the mire by issuing a false statement.

3. There's a suggestion that this could have been a cock-up in communication from the IRFU to the RWI. That's quite possible. But the RWI is not a massive organisation. The chairman (GT) has said that there was a meeting during the week. The IRFU said they gave their reasons during the week. It's not a stretch to suggest that the reasons were given at that meeting because (again according to GT) there was nothing more until an email on Saturday confirming that the 'huddle' was off.

Neil3030 · 14-02-2018 6:35pm

Waaaayyyy too many pages to wade through since last night - has there been any developments outside of the debate going on in here?

14-02-2018 6:37pm

Neil3030 wrote: »

Waaaayyyy too many pages to wade through since last night - has there been any developments outside of the debate going on in here?

No.

Neil3030 · 14-02-2018 6:40pm

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

No.

prawnsambo · 14-02-2018 6:42pm

Neil3030 wrote: »

Waaaayyyy too many pages to wade through since last night - has there been any developments outside of the debate going on in here?

There was this:

aloooof wrote: »

I've just re-listened to that section of Second Captains again. Something stuck out to me.

Gerry Thornley:
In Paris, there was an incident which meant to daily huddle nearly didn't go ahead, and for a lot of legal reasons I can't really go into the details of that case, but anyway in the short of it all, we met with the IRFU Press Officer during the week in Carton House, and following that meeting they came back to us on Saturday morning to inform us that the daily huddle would be no more and no reason was given.

After the segment with Thornley on it, Eoin said they approached the IRFU for a statement and received the following:

IRFU statement:
Reasons for discontinuing the additional access post-match were clearly communicated to RWI Rugby Writers of Ireland during the week. All 5 days per week of media access to team are unaffected.

It seems to me like there's a contradiction there (unless the reasons were communicated separately after Saturday morning and before the Second Captains statement)?

stephen_n · 14-02-2018 8:56pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No strawman at all.

You dismissed people's concerns because "it's not politics". I explained to you that for some people the IRFU's management of rugby in this country has the same impact as politics. I've given examples in this thread, you don't want to read them.

Just because it's not important to you doesn't mean its not important to others.

I didn't see you post anything about any media articles asking questions about how the IRFU's management of rugby in Ireland impacts on members of the organisation. Can you give the post numbers? I'll go back and read them with interest. After all that is what we are talking about here, not the axe you have to grind with some of the IRFU's decisions.

irishbucsfan · 15-02-2018 7:30am

prawnsambo wrote: »

I am. And for the following reasons

The IRFU have been caught twisting the truth in public statements before. Like when they denied they were replacing full-time Tom Tierney with a part-time head coach, despite having already advertised for a part time replacement. Eventually when they were called on this, they explained that they had said this because Tierney had some some other jobs around the IRFU (7s, specifically) so technically he wasn't full-time. They wouldn't answer how this logic makes sense when they describe Anthony Eddie as full-time in the same statement despite the exact same thing being true. So no, we absolutely don't have to accept what they're saying as gospel truth, that department have lost the benefit of the doubt.

prawnsambo · 15-02-2018 9:39am

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The IRFU have been caught twisting the truth in public statements before. Like when they denied they were replacing full-time Tom Tierney with a part-time head coach, despite having already advertised for a part time replacement. Eventually when they were called on this, they explained that they had said this because Tierney had some some other jobs around the IRFU (7s, specifically) so technically he wasn't full-time. They wouldn't answer how this logic makes sense when they describe Anthony Eddie as full-time in the same statement despite the exact same thing being true. So no, we absolutely don't have to accept what they're saying as gospel truth, that department have lost the benefit of the doubt.

That's not in the same league as a categorical denial of something so specific. Especially since it contradicts statements made by journalists. None of those involved hasve come forward to specifically refute that statement in, what is it now? three days?

Of course, if they do, that's a different matter. But if it were me, I'd be all over it like a cock on a raspberry.

irishbucsfan · 15-02-2018 9:46am

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not in the same league as a categorical denial of something so specific. Especially since it contradicts statements made by journalists. None of those involved hasve come forward to specifically refute that statement in, what is it now? three days?

Of course, if they do, that's a different matter. But if it were me, I'd be all over it like a cock on a raspberry.

It is in the same league.

You're also referring to something that did not actually happen to be fair to the IRFU. There was never a categorical denial of anything. There are just two conflicting statements. Just as in the above example, and the same sort of inconsistent mental gymnastics could be at play.

15-02-2018 9:58am

I don't remember them denying it was a part-time position. They came out with various hand-wavy statements about how they were fitting in with strategic this-or-that, and I also think I recall they apparently couldn't find a decent full-time coach so went looking for a part-time one instead.

irishbucsfan · 15-02-2018 10:10am

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

I don't remember them denying it was a part-time position. They came out with various hand-wavy statements about how they were fitting in with strategic this-or-that, and I also think I recall they apparently couldn't find a decent full-time coach so went looking for a part-time one instead.

They denied that they were replacing a full-time head coach with a part-time one when asked by media. Confused a lot of people and the outcry prompted a full statement, turns out he was not a full time head coach, he was "a shared resource across the Women's XVs and Sevens programmes". Of course this was made all the more confusing because in the very same statement they said: "The Women's programme has received a significant increase in investment in recent years, with a full-time Director of Rugby"... despite the fact that DoR is also a shared resource across women's rugby and the full 7s program. So as it turns out, they're full-time when they want credit for it but part-time when they don't.

They never took applications for a full-time coach, this was the first position advertised and it was the first time people involved in the game knew about the downgrading of the position.

But this is straying into off-topic territory. The point is I wouldn't take their statement as proof against anyone else.

molloyjh · 15-02-2018 10:23am

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm trying to understand where your outrage is coming from but I'm struggling. Some journalists from the RWI wrote some pieces that the IRFU didn't like and now they're reducing the access that the RWI has to the employees of the IRFU. Correct?

I don't see what the issue is. That's what I would expect any organisation to do. Why would you give your harshest critics free access to your people so they can write more critical pieces about you? It would be stupid. Of course the IRFU want to put out fluff pieces and use their own PR instruments to make themselves look good.

What this means is that the RWI are going to have get off their holes and go do some work. They absolutely should keep writing indepth, critical stories about the IRFU and keep asking them hard, uncomfortable questions. They shouldn't expect the IRFU to give them the keys to the building and the combo to the safe. If these guys want to be rugby's answer to Woodward and Bernstein, then put the work in.

Best post on the thread IMO.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I've been following this with interest for a while and have made some enquiries. Some of what's been said here is pretty wide of the mark and some has been a bit closer to what I've been told.

Relations between the IRFU and the print media are at an all-time low, that's a fact. It's interesting reading how this is being reported because although it's not very clear, there are areas of conflict that are apparent. Firstly that this is affectinig print media only. There's no discussion on other media such as TV or online outlets. The mention of the 'huddle' is particularly relevant since this is a print media only privilege. As are apparently facilities within the Aviva for print journalists to compile and file their copy.

The IRFU want to expand those 'privileges' to the online media, who are very much the poor relation on match days. I assume this is the likes of Balls.ie and The 42 etc. The print media don't want this and have been fighting hard to resist it. I don't know how it escalated (possibly the ROC thing) but an ultimatum was given to the IRFU that they'd boycott the huddle if this proposal didn't go away. The IRFU then cancelled the 'huddle'.

So in essence it's print vs online. The IRFU can be considered part of that online presence, so the presentation of this being the IRFU pushing their online activities is accurate if you squint a bit and look through your fingers.

I obviously can't verify any of this, but you're all open to making enquiries as I did.

This is not the first time I have heard this myself. I have no idea as to the veracity of it, but can at least make sense of it which I'm struggling to do with the variety of stories we're hearing elsewhere.

prawnsambo · 15-02-2018 10:59am

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It is in the same league.

You're also referring to something that did not actually happen to be fair to the IRFU. There was never a categorical denial of anything. There are just two conflicting statements. Just as in the above example, and the same sort of inconsistent mental gymnastics could be at play.

That's semantics imo.

The RWI said they hadn't been given the reasons, the IRFU said they had. If you want to charactarise that as 'not a denial', you can, but it's pretty difficult imo.

The essence of the matter is "they didn't" versus "we did". That's pretty categorical and can't really be waved away as a difference of interpretation. I'm not at all sure how you could shoehorn any other explanation into two pretty bald statements of contradictory fact.

Edit: Just to add that the individual from the IRFU side of things has been identified by GT as the press officer. That's who GT said they met with 'during the week'. So if there's inconsistency in the IRFU statement, the responsible individual is already identified.

irishbucsfan · 15-02-2018 11:05am

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's semantics imo.

The RWI said they hadn't been given the reasons, the IRFU said they had. If you want to charactarise that as 'not a denial', you can, but it's pretty difficult imo.

It's not semantics. The IRFU made a statement. You're changing that into a denial. They're very, very different things. You are assuming the question they were asked and assuming they were given context we do not have access to, its not fair on them to assume that's the way they were asked.

prawnsambo wrote: »

The essence of the matter is "they didn't" versus "we did". That's pretty categorical and can't really be waved away as a difference of interpretation. I'm not at all sure how you could shoehorn any other explanation into two pretty bald statements of contradictory fact.

There's no shoehorning. You're changing the IRFU's statement into a "categorical denial" and they never once made reference to any other statement whatsoever.

15-02-2018 11:07am

This is definitely the most pointless discussion in 14 pages of fairly pointless discussion. Dance around it all we like but the RWI said one thing (no reasons given) and the IRFU said another (reasons given). They have contradicted each other.

irishbucsfan · 15-02-2018 11:09am

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

This is definitely the most pointless discussion in 14 pages of fairly pointless discussion. Dance around it all we like but the RWI said one thing (no reasons given) and the IRFU said another (reasons given). They have contradicted each other.

Yes. The RWI said one thing, the IRFU said another. Exactly.

The statements seem contradictory. I've a feeling it'd turn out they're just not fully representative of what happened, but we'll never know.

What did not happen is that the RWI said one thing and the IRFU denied it.

15-02-2018 11:12am

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes. The RWI said one thing, the IRFU said another. Exactly.

The statements seem contradictory. I've a feeling it'd turn out they're just not fully representative of what happened, but we'll never know.

Or else the IRFU gave their reasons a day later. Or Gerry hadn't opened his emails for the day. Or he's fibbing.

What did not happen is that the RWI said one thing and the IRFU denied it.

Who cares?

irishbucsfan · 15-02-2018 11:29am

Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »

Or else the IRFU gave their reasons a day later. Or Gerry hadn't opened his emails for the day. Or he's fibbing.

Who cares?

Absolutely all possible, agreed. Or one person in the IRFU told one member of RWI who didn't tell anyone else. And prawnsambo does.

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Comments