Ulster 2014/2015

First topic message reminder :

Details of pre-season games to confirmed- we take on Exeter Chiefs at Ravenhill on Friday the 22nd August and then travel to Donnybrook to face Leinster on Friday the 29th August. On the transfer front, it seems like our business for the year is concluded. Second row looks strong and our back line is stronger than ever, but there are concerns about our depth in the front row and back row of the pack. A lot depends on Wiehahn Herbst turning out to be a hit and Chris Henry staying fit- our decision to spend a valuable NIQ spot on Louis Ludik and Sean Doyles departure leaves us exposed at open side with two new, extremely untested players in Reidy and Butterworth vying to be Henrys understudy. Rob Herring is another player who needs to avoid injury at all costs. Niall Annett has been allowed to leave along with Brady in recent seasons and the 3rd choice hooker is not obvious. With seedings in Europe determined by league performance, Ulster may very well rue their lack of depth in the forward pack come May.

Players Out
Johann Muller (retired), Paddy Wallace (retired), Stephen Ferris (retired), Chris Cochrane (retired), Chris Farrell (Grenoble), Niall Annett (Worcester), John Afoa (Gloucester), Tom Court (London Irish), James McKinney (Rotherham), David McIlwaine (Rotherham), Paddy McAllister (Aurillac), Sean Doyle (ACT Brumbies), Adam Macklin (Rotherham), Ian Porter (Connacht)

Players In
Franco van der Merwe (Golden Lions), Louis Ludik (Agen), Wiehahn Herbst (Natal Sharks), Ruaidhrí Murphy (ACT Brumbies), Dave Ryan (Zebre), Ian Humphreys (London Irish), Charlie Butterworth (Lansdowne), Sean Reidy (Counties Manukau)

Ulster don't do turbulent off seasons but if we did...

We've also been rocked with the seismic revelation David Humphreys is leaving the province- indeed has already left- for Gloucester. Anscombe was slated to be seeing out the last year of his contract before being quietly let go but the Humphreys bombshell left him as the odd man out, and he's been pushed out the door. The decision was partly because he was hired to work under a Director of Rugby and Ulster are looking for someone with more experience in the market to take on Humphreys role in addition to the coaching responsibilities. As usual, the rumour mill is on overdrive and opinions are polarised- but this is Ulster Rugby after all. Les Kiss is our interim Director of Rugby and it seems Allen Clarke is filling the role of forwards coach in the short term. More changes or appointments could be forthcoming.

If all that wasn't enough we've been dealt a real group of death in the new Champions Cup- double-winners Toulon will brave the Ravenhill roar along with old friends Leicester Tigers and old foes the Scarlets. All in all, this team should be capable of securing a Top 4 finish at the very least in the Pro12 and we need to target the top two, our prospects in Europe look more occluded- it might come down to best runners-up and our pool promises to be tight and competitive.

Opening fixtures

F; Exeter Chiefs (H)
F; Leinster (A)

Pro12; Scarlets (A)
Pro12; Zebre (H)
Pro12; Cardiff Blues (A)
Pro12; Zebre (A)
Pro12; Edinburgh (H)

Because the initial media piece he was asked if he tried to convince Humph to stay and he said no, the reason being he didn't want to stand in the way of his career.

Afterwards he admits he did ask him to reconsider and then when Humph wouldn't wait he then said he wouldn't release him until he'd worked his notice period.

These are two contradictory statements and when combined with numerous other comments from Logan which aren't factually correct makes me wonder if he is a trustworthy individual.

Another bizarre comment was that Glasgow and Edinburgh's shirt sponsorship was only worth 1 pence or some other nonsense. I think he didn't anticipate the backlash over the renaming of Ravenhill and has made some crazy claims about other teams to justify the deal.

rodders wrote:Because the initial media piece he was asked if he tried to convince Humph to stay and he said no, the reason being he didn't want to stand in the way of his career.

Afterwards he admits he did ask him to reconsider and then when Humph wouldn't wait he then said he wouldn't release him until he'd worked his notice period.

These are two contradictory statements and when combined with numerous other comments from Logan which aren't factually correct makes me wonder if he is a trustworthy individual.

Another bizarre comment was that Glasgow and Edinburgh's shirt sponsorship was only worth 1 pence or some other nonsense. I think he didn't anticipate the backlash over the renaming of Ravenhill and has made some crazy claims about other teams to justify the deal.

  
Do you have a link for that one?

Nope but heard he said it at the meeting a few weeks ago.

Wasn't their previous sponsorship worth something like 1P? I'm pretty sure "Response" was tied in some way to "Murray" that sponsored the national team.
I think I remember reading once that they got a cheap sponsorship of Glasgow as a term of sponsoring the national team, as they were basically bailing out Scotland after their previous sponsor ended their deal. (Can't say I remember the exact details)

Only thing Logan said was about Scotland I thought was the naming rights to murrayfield not being half as much as was reported. Can't be certain. Rodders I think you are reading too much into what he says.

I don't think we need to question his integrity over any of it. If you consider our financials (as I'm sure the irfu do look into) we seem to be in rude health. That's a massive part of his job ticked off at the start.

ReadBetweenthePosts wrote:Wasn't their previous sponsorship worth something like 1P? I'm pretty sure "Response" was tied in some way to "Murray" that sponsored the national team.
I think I remember reading once that they got a cheap sponsorship of Glasgow as a term of sponsoring the national team, as they were basically bailing out Scotland after their previous sponsor ended their deal. (Can't say I remember the exact details)

Not too far away.

1. Ligind businessman David Murray helped out his former employee Gordon McKie (then SRU CEO) in 2008 when Famous Grouse withdrew its decade long sponsorship and left our Gords in the poop somewhat. This was in the middle of a recession remember.

2. Murray said that he would take over the national shirt sponsorship for something approach market rate - one of the conditions of this was that Murray's new outsourcing business RESPONSE would take over as principal shirt sponsor for Glasgow, as Warriors' current shirt deal had just expired.

3. The Scotland shirt deal was for a respectable sum in the circumstances (only a little less than the Grouse deal, which in the middle of the downturn was considered a pretty good achievement) but the Glasgow shirt deal was at nominal value only (although not 1p or anything like that).

Things have changed a lot since then and the SRU have ultimately played their hand well:

(a) Macron was desperate to get into rugby union and the exclusivity of being shirt provider to both club sides and the national team was very attractive to them. Result? In January 2013, Macron signed the most lucrative sponsorship deal in the history of Scottish rugby.

(b) BT were also delighted with the breadth of their potential reach. In addition to being main shirt sponsor to all three teams, BT also sponsor Scotland 7s, Scotland’s club league and cup competitions and Scottish Rugby’s four new academies. Result? Most financially rewarding direct clothing sponsorship ever in the Scottish game and in fact only a couple of Rangers and Celtic sponsors have brought more.

(c) The BT Murrayfield deal is pretty well known. Result? About €24 million over 4 years.

Speaking personally, I don't know where Logan gets the brass testicles to try and suggest that this is not the true figure. Given that the SRU accounts are (i) made public and (ii) formally audited, it would be a strange thing to lie about.

Perhaps I would give Logan more credit if he hadn't just lost the two executive jewels in his crown over the space of a few weeks.

rodders wrote:Because the initial media piece he was asked if he tried to convince Humph to stay and he said no, the reason being he didn't want to stand in the way of his career.

Afterwards he admits he did ask him to reconsider and then when Humph wouldn't wait he then said he wouldn't release him until he'd worked his notice period.

These are two contradictory statements and when combined with numerous other comments from Logan which aren't factually correct makes me wonder if he is a trustworthy individual.

Another bizarre comment was that Glasgow and Edinburgh's shirt sponsorship was only worth 1 pence or some other nonsense. I think he didn't anticipate the backlash over the renaming of Ravenhill and has made some crazy claims about other teams to justify the deal.

Not strictly true Rodders. On the BBCNI interview Logan was asked what did Ulster do to try and keep David Humphreys, and he replied "I don't think we tried to do anything". Asking someone if they're prepared to reconsider a decision is very different status to actively trying to convince them to change that decision. Logan accepted that once Humphreys' mind was made up it would not be changed, because they know each other inside out.

I've no idea why you feel the need to cast aspersions on the integrity of Logan, because I still haven't seen any evidence to support that.

The Great Aukster wrote:

rodders wrote:Because the initial media piece he was asked if he tried to convince Humph to stay and he said no, the reason being he didn't want to stand in the way of his career.

Afterwards he admits he did ask him to reconsider and then when Humph wouldn't wait he then said he wouldn't release him until he'd worked his notice period.

These are two contradictory statements and when combined with numerous other comments from Logan which aren't factually correct makes me wonder if he is a trustworthy individual.

Another bizarre comment was that Glasgow and Edinburgh's shirt sponsorship was only worth 1 pence or some other nonsense. I think he didn't anticipate the backlash over the renaming of Ravenhill and has made some crazy claims about other teams to justify the deal.

Not strictly true Rodders. On the BBCNI interview Logan was asked what did Ulster do to try and keep David Humphreys, and he replied "I don't think we tried to do anything". Asking someone if they're prepared to reconsider a decision is very different status to actively trying to convince them to change that decision. Logan accepted that once Humphreys' mind was made up it would not be changed, because they know each other inside out.

I've no idea why you feel the need to cast aspersions on the integrity of Logan, because I still haven't seen any evidence to support that.

That what I was thinking. Possibly big difference between 'would you take a few days to think about it before giving me your final notice' and 'we'll make a you a counter-offer that might change your mind'.

George Carlin wrote:Speaking personally, I don't know where Logan gets the brass testicles to try and suggest that this is not the true figure. Given that the SRU accounts are (i) made public and (ii) formally audited, it would be a strange thing to lie about.

Perhaps I would give Logan more credit if he hadn't just lost the two executive jewels in his crown over the space of a few weeks.

Exactly my point and this isn't the only outlandish claim he's made recently. Unfortunately he is beyond reproach on here it seems.

No, thats not true. Just hard to have an opinion either way when I haven't heard first hand.

George Carlin wrote:

ReadBetweenthePosts wrote:Wasn't their previous sponsorship worth something like 1P? I'm pretty sure "Response" was tied in some way to "Murray" that sponsored the national team.
I think I remember reading once that they got a cheap sponsorship of Glasgow as a term of sponsoring the national team, as they were basically bailing out Scotland after their previous sponsor ended their deal. (Can't say I remember the exact details)

Not too far away.

1. Ligind businessman David Murray helped out his former employee Gordon McKie (then SRU CEO) in 2008 when Famous Grouse withdrew its decade long sponsorship and left our Gords in the poop somewhat. This was in the middle of a recession remember.

2. Murray said that he would take over the national shirt sponsorship for something approach market rate - one of the conditions of this was that Murray's new outsourcing business RESPONSE would take over as principal shirt sponsor for Glasgow, as Warriors' current shirt deal had just expired.

3. The Scotland shirt deal was for a respectable sum in the circumstances (only a little less than the Grouse deal, which in the middle of the downturn was considered a pretty good achievement) but the Glasgow shirt deal was at nominal value only (although not 1p or anything like that).

Things have changed a lot since then and the SRU have ultimately played their hand well:

(a) Macron was desperate to get into rugby union and the exclusivity of being shirt provider to both club sides and the national team was very attractive to them. Result? In January 2013, Macron signed the most lucrative sponsorship deal in the history of Scottish rugby.

(b) BT were also delighted with the breadth of their potential reach. In addition to being main shirt sponsor to all three teams, BT also sponsor Scotland 7s, Scotland’s club league and cup competitions and Scottish Rugby’s four new academies. Result? Most financially rewarding direct clothing sponsorship ever in the Scottish game and in fact only a couple of Rangers and Celtic sponsors have brought more.

(c) The BT Murrayfield deal is pretty well known. Result? About €24 million over 4 years.

Speaking personally, I don't know where Logan gets the brass testicles to try and suggest that this is not the true figure. Given that the SRU accounts are (i) made public and (ii) formally audited, it would be a strange thing to lie about.

Perhaps I would give Logan more credit if he hadn't just lost the two executive jewels in his crown over the space of a few weeks.

Is it Muller and Ferris we're taking about here. If you're thinking about Anscombe, that's too much of a stretch!

toml wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

ReadBetweenthePosts wrote:Wasn't their previous sponsorship worth something like 1P? I'm pretty sure "Response" was tied in some way to "Murray" that sponsored the national team.
I think I remember reading once that they got a cheap sponsorship of Glasgow as a term of sponsoring the national team, as they were basically bailing out Scotland after their previous sponsor ended their deal. (Can't say I remember the exact details)

Not too far away.

1. Ligind businessman David Murray helped out his former employee Gordon McKie (then SRU CEO) in 2008 when Famous Grouse withdrew its decade long sponsorship and left our Gords in the poop somewhat. This was in the middle of a recession remember.

2. Murray said that he would take over the national shirt sponsorship for something approach market rate - one of the conditions of this was that Murray's new outsourcing business RESPONSE would take over as principal shirt sponsor for Glasgow, as Warriors' current shirt deal had just expired.

3. The Scotland shirt deal was for a respectable sum in the circumstances (only a little less than the Grouse deal, which in the middle of the downturn was considered a pretty good achievement) but the Glasgow shirt deal was at nominal value only (although not 1p or anything like that).

Things have changed a lot since then and the SRU have ultimately played their hand well:

(a) Macron was desperate to get into rugby union and the exclusivity of being shirt provider to both club sides and the national team was very attractive to them. Result? In January 2013, Macron signed the most lucrative sponsorship deal in the history of Scottish rugby.

(b) BT were also delighted with the breadth of their potential reach. In addition to being main shirt sponsor to all three teams, BT also sponsor Scotland 7s, Scotland’s club league and cup competitions and Scottish Rugby’s four new academies. Result? Most financially rewarding direct clothing sponsorship ever in the Scottish game and in fact only a couple of Rangers and Celtic sponsors have brought more.

(c) The BT Murrayfield deal is pretty well known. Result? About €24 million over 4 years.

Speaking personally, I don't know where Logan gets the brass testicles to try and suggest that this is not the true figure. Given that the SRU accounts are (i) made public and (ii) formally audited, it would be a strange thing to lie about.

Perhaps I would give Logan more credit if he hadn't just lost the two executive jewels in his crown over the space of a few weeks.

Is it Muller and Ferris we're taking about here. If you're thinking about Anscombe, that's too much of a stretch!

  It's a fair point.

Notch wrote:No, thats not true. Just hard to have an opinion either way when I haven't heard first hand.

That's fair enough but I suppose my grievance is that people are happy to have an opinion on David Humphrey's based on second hand information, much if it from a source - i.e. Logan - who has a recent history of making false and inaccurate statements in public.

I don't know exactly what happened with Humph and Anscombe but I do think they have been treated with a lack of professionalism by the club, and I don't trust Logan with regards the reasons behind their departures mainly because I know he's lied in public about other things.

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:No, thats not true. Just hard to have an opinion either way when I haven't heard first hand.

That's fair enough but I suppose my grievance is that people are happy to have an opinion on David Humphrey's based on second hand information, much if it from a source - i.e. Logan - who has a recent history of making false and inaccurate statements in public.

I don't know exactly what happened with Humph and Anscombe but I do think they have been treated with a lack of professionalism by the club, and I don't trust Logan with regards the reasons behind their departures mainly because I know he's lied in public about other things.

Rodders you are assuming people are basing their opinions on second hand information but what level of information is that based on!

You have said again that Logan "has a recent history of making false and inaccurate statements", but have failed to back that up with evidence i.e. links to media. You say above that you "know he''s lied in public about other things", but if you don't have any evidence perhaps you should think carefully about making such libelous statements.

Whatever about the comments about Leinster & Munster being unable to sell the naming rights to the stadia, why did he have to discuss that at an Ulster supporters meeting. (and for the record, Munster did sell the naming rights for Musgrave Park).

Sin it's a throwaway comment at a supporters meeting. He was asked and I would be surprised if he didn't say something in response to specific details regarding Ulsters naming rights by mentioning that Munster (as a for instance) hadn't found the right sponsor yet for selling off Thomond park. (No point in selling the rights if it ain't worth it)

I don't know the exact performance indicators for Logan but I still fail to see how he has done poorly

- he has got us our full funding from the IRFU
- we have had on field success (without the silverware)
- I'm not sure the percentage increase in ST sales but it must be massive (10k + this year)
- more uptake and focus at schools level. The IFA have reportedly mentioned how they are losing age grade kids to rugby
- tried to tap into more of the community
- much more sponsorship
- as a consequence we aren't under financial pressure and indeed it seems we are due to make serious profit
- increased representation in the Ireland set up and many of said internationals are young

I'm not saying the man can take sole credit for the above but I don't see how some dubious remarks (and I'm still to see crystal clear evidence of lying from the man) can balance off against where Ulster have come from or indeed why they should change

Maybe because of the reaction from some Ulster fans at the selling of the naming rights? It could simply be Logan defending the selling of the rights by suggesting the only reason Munster (Thomand), and Leinster, haven't done so is because they can't? 

rodders, accusations of lying should really be supported with hard evidence.

The Great Aukster wrote:

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:No, thats not true. Just hard to have an opinion either way when I haven't heard first hand.

That's fair enough but I suppose my grievance is that people are happy to have an opinion on David Humphrey's based on second hand information, much if it from a source - i.e. Logan - who has a recent history of making false and inaccurate statements in public.

I don't know exactly what happened with Humph and Anscombe but I do think they have been treated with a lack of professionalism by the club, and I don't trust Logan with regards the reasons behind their departures mainly because I know he's lied in public about other things.

Rodders you are assuming people are basing their opinions on second hand information but what level of information is that based on!

You have said again that Logan "has a recent history of making false and inaccurate statements", but have failed to back that up with evidence i.e. links to media. You say above that you "know he''s lied in public about other things", but if you don't have any evidence perhaps you should think carefully about making such libelous statements.

Oh, settle down. Rodders may be discussing second hand information, but he's only discussing things that have been said in the public supporter meetings he has held. These are events for the fans only; no press equals no links to media. There may be a Chinese Whispers effect but its hardly libellous.

Standulstermen wrote:Sin it's a throwaway comment at a supporters meeting. He was asked and I would be surprised if he didn't say something in response to specific details regarding Ulsters naming rights by mentioning that Munster (as a for instance) hadn't found the right sponsor yet for selling off Thomond park. (No point in selling the rights if it ain't worth it)

I don't know the exact performance indicators for Logan but I still fail to see how he has done poorly

- he has got us our full funding from the IRFU
- we have had on field success (without the silverware)
- I'm not sure the percentage increase in ST sales but it must be massive (10k + this year)
- more uptake and focus at schools level. The IFA have reportedly mentioned how they are losing age grade kids to rugby
- tried to tap into more of the community
- much more sponsorship
- as a consequence we aren't under financial pressure and indeed it seems we are due to make serious profit
- increased representation in the Ireland set up and many of said internationals are young

I'm not saying the man can take sole credit for the above but I don't see how some dubious remarks (and I'm still to see crystal clear evidence of lying from the man) can balance off against where Ulster have come from or indeed why they should change

Yeah, all of that is why I broadly approve of him. Not that I trust him. But he continues to make a positive impact based on what I can see. He's had a lot of help of course. He has had the support of the IRFU in providing funding to sign some marquee players and the support of the NI Executive in redeveloping Ravenhill, so you have to take that into account, but even still he seems to have been able to attract lucrative sponsorship deals to the province i.e. Kukri, Kingspan.

I, of course, detest the renaming of our home ground but it may be sadly necessary to avoid falling behind the PRL mob. So if he had to sell it, at least he's sold it for a large amount.

Notch - you don't think accusing the chief executive of Ulster Rugby of being a liar is libelous?

... with no evidence - really?

No, on the basis of fair comment.

Not sure it's as simple as that, Notch. 

Anywho, we should park this one unless some 'facts' come to the fore, methinks  

I didn't want to elaborate because the next thing you know this will be twenty pages of debate on Uk libel law   

That's exactly what will happen!   

Just chuck an "allegedly" in there, Notch. Simples.

God, what an allegedly sensitive bunch!  I remember the word 'liar' was allegedly used liberally by me and all my classmates right through alleged childhood.  Now it's another word consigned to a PC-bin-for-non-conformist-thought-words.

Being allegedly called a 'liar' does not allegedly make you an alleged 'liar', but the person has a right to allegedly think it and therefore allegedly say it.  Just like someone calling you an asswhole doesn't automatically make you one but the accuser has the right to think it and say it.

Seems before long we'll all allegedly have to hire alleged lawyers to follow us and our words around 24 hours a day (yes, many of us do allegedly grumble in our sleep!) lest we offend or libel our neighbours by calling them what we think of them as they dump their grass cuttings across their alleged hedge into our alleged yard!

Allegedy true Fly

Lol

 

The Great Aukster wrote:Notch - you don't think accusing the chief executive of Ulster Rugby of being a liar is libelous?

... with no evidence - really?

The comments he made are publically known and people can use their own judgement to determine whether they are factually accurate or not. Based on my own knowledge and research several of them are false - so either Logan is a liar, ill informed or he is bluffing the public. If that is libellous on my behalf, we may as well shut the forum down.

http://www.pro12rugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures_list.php

LKast 4 games are
away to Connacht,
then Leinster, Munster at home and away to glasgow.


Why do we always seam to have such a difficult end of season???

I understand that the derbies are arranged around Christmas and new year,
But 3 derbies in the last 4 games year on year really doesn't help anyone.

For comparison Leinster get
Dragons, Ulster, treviso, Edinburgh

Munster get
Edinburgh, Treviso, Ulster, Dragons

Glasgow get
Blues, Connacht, Ospreys Ulster

Ospreys get
Treviso, Blues, Glasgow Ulster

it seams the Calender does not alter much year on year, and we are stuck with the hardest run in.

Yes, another nightmare run-in! Very frustrating.

I'll tell you one good thing though. Finally, finally, we have Connacht at Christmas. That was always harsh on us, Munster and Leinster avoiding each other every year.

Kingshu wrote:http://www.pro12rugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures_list.php

LKast 4 games are
away to Connacht,
then Leinster, Munster at home and away to glasgow.


Why do we always seam to have such a difficult end of season???

Look we all play the same teams - thing is, instead of sitting at April/May thinking 'Right lets make sure we beat Edinburgh/Dragons/Treviso etc...', we need to have that mentality at every point in the calendar! We have to learn from past mistakes.

It's no good waiting to the season run in to decide to nail performances. EVERY game matters. Scarlets in september is just as critical as Munster in May.

No excuses.

Feck sake lads- what were you thinking of?   

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28259305#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

I'm so confused these days.

Are ethiopian people mostly black? - yes
If you dress up for fancy dress as representatives of this country and dress up as black people, is it accurate? - yes
Is saying 'Ethiopians are mostly black' a negative thing to say? - No

Can someone tell me how saying 'here's what a black person looks like' is racist? They do have a certain look?

Next thing we won't be calling black people black, because apparantly we aren't allowed to acknowledge that their skin is a different colour.

If we arent allowed to acknowledge stereotypes, then fancy dress may as well be banned.

Remember this incredibly racist film?



All that said, if Paddy had chains round his neck pointing towards slavery - then thats a different matter and certainly I'm not happy that he felt that was humour - it's not.

Thes rest maybe was though. Ok maybe not the leopard print...

Paddy had black and white minstrel make up, handcuffs and a chain around his neck. He's got a lot of apologising to do.

It wasn't black body make up that is the problem there, he has that, and then he deliberately has the darker tone blackface as well. Then he has chains on. Irresponsible and hurtful to put that in the public domain.

Don't really have a problem with anyone else in the photo.

Fair point regarding his face makeup. Surely they aren't the only ulster players in that though...

Standulstermen wrote:Fair point regarding his face makeup. Surely they aren't the only ulster players in that though...

This is why the media show how they know so little of the guys involved. The picture itself is a couple of years old and there are more than 2 Ulster players, in fact they are all players. Chris Henry, Andy Trimble, Paddy Jackson, Michael Allen and Mike McComish if memory serves me right.

Paddy McAllister.

Oh dear.

A bit naive of Paddy.

I have to say that I don't see anything much to worry me apart from the ? chain around PJ's neck and hands.

I don't think it is fair to bring the Black and White Minstrels into this. Would he even have heard of the show? I barely remember it and none of my kids would have any notion what it was and they are only a bit younger than PJ.

Insensitive? Yes.
Stupid? Probably.
Indication that anyone in that photo is racist? No!

Leaving aside the content of the photograph, what on earth did Jackson think would happen when he made this profile picture on a public social media account? It still staggers me that players are not far more careful over what they make public. He's certainly not the first in that regard but surely should be more savvy he's from the social media generation.

I suppose he had no idea it would be viewed as racist.

He was there when the picture was taken and it could be that because he KNOWS that there was absolutely nothing of a racist nature occuring that he could not conceive of anyone else viewing it as inappropriate. I suppose it could be one of those times when context is everything?

Just say.....just say that out of shot was a group of Ethiopian Olympic athletes dressed up as Ulster Rugby players, or a mixture of Orangemen and IRA men?

Not saying there was but context is important.

I just don't think it is remotely fair to label this kid as racist on the basis of that photo.

MrsP if there was a lon, cultural history of Ethiopians using fancy dress as a way of demeaning Ulstermen and promoting demeaning racial stereotypes that point might have some weight. But there isn't really- we'd be delighted to see support for UR wherever it came from. But if you're black you're so used to this as a tool of oppression that if you see white guys dressing up in blackface that is going to be your immediate response. Now, I have no argument whatsoever that that was never the intention but the people involved have a responsibility to think about that if they are basically celebrities because they have a lot of respect in this community, and what they do on social media carries weight. The respectful and sensible thing to do is to avoid areas of potential offence altogether.

I don't think its fair to label anybody involved in this as racist but the fact that can be posted up by a relatively normal, well adjusted, intelligent person (which I know Paddy is, he's not a bad egg) without it setting many alarm bells flashing in his head just shows how far behind the rest of the UK Northern Ireland is when it comes to basic race relations.

People need education, because like it or not certain actions have a weightier cultural context behind them and being ignorant of that will lead to misunderstandings and offence being given. I definitely have to agree it's not at all appropriate and its embarrassing for him and for Ulster Rugby.

The danger of what people call, for want of a better term, political correctness is it only encourages people to edit their external behaviour and not learn the lessons of why that behaviour is potentially hurtful and damaging- it would be good if Ulster Rugby used this as an opportunity to actively promote good race relations in NI through sport as opposed to just trying to sweep it under the rug as quickly as possible.

I'm quite disappointed as an Ulster fan, that this wasn't flagged up before it hit the media. I know that players have a social media code of conduct and if it was a sectarian comment they would have been down on it like a ton of bricks. Disappointing this slipped under the radar. Either someone at the club saw it and deemed it acceptable or it was misses. Thats not really good enough. If I was black and living in Belfast I'd already be thoroughly intimidated with the amount of racist rhetoric that permeates our society- with its sincere and thorough efforts to reach across the sectarian divide, you'd hope Ulster is earning a reputation as an inclusive organisation. But incidents like this do not promote the image of Ulster Rugby as being a safe place for NI residents of every colour and creed. Rugby should be an inclusive force, not an exclusive one.

MrsP wrote:I suppose he had no idea it would be viewed as racist.

He was there when the picture was taken and it could be that because he KNOWS that there was absolutely nothing of a racist nature occuring that he could not conceive of anyone else viewing it as inappropriate. I suppose it could be one of those times when context is everything?

Just say.....just say that out of shot was a group of Ethiopian Olympic athletes dressed up as Ulster Rugby players, or a mixture of Orangemen and IRA men?

Not saying there was but context is important.

I just don't think it is remotely fair to label this kid as racist on the basis of that photo.

Agree Mrs P.

It was stupid to post the picture because there is NO context, so all the people looking for offence can easily find it.

Paddy may be the worst racist on the planet...

... or maybe he is trying to increase his profile with a bit of publicity

... then again that could have been a group of guys who had just been to Africa building houses in their off season and were having a bit of fun with their hosts

... or Johnny Davis might have told them they had to build the stamina of an Ethopian so they're having a joke on him (slaves to his regime?)

... or some of the Ethiopian Olympic team were over in NI in 2012 and they were having a visual joke with them. Boxer, swimmer, runner - maybe Paddy is tug of war and has just posed that way...

... or any number of other scenarios

To suggest Paddy is attempting to look like a "black & white" minstrel is frankly ridiculous, because he simply doesn't look like that, (never mind that they were consigned to history years before he was born).

What PJ needs to learn (and fast) is that anything he puts out on social media will be dissected and interpreted in ways he has no control over. Whatever his motives he was stupid in the extreme to post the picture, and should apologise immediately and denounce racism.

Agree fully with the last paragraph there GA. Not so sure about the rest of it. Different cultures I suppose but had a Tigers player posted that then he'd be in serious trouble and in public apology territory. I accept that's not the norm given Leicester's community is extremely diverse but when you make something like that public using social media you cannot control the context of it's interpretation.

Aukster - its casual racism. You and a few others here need to read up about it and stop making excuses for him because it is inexcusable.

To personalise it a bit - I'd imagine David Rudisha (who is a Munster fan and has been to Thomond Park - his coach is from Munster) and all Munster supporters would be horrified if some of the Munster players dressed up like Kenyans with chains around their necks and tweeted their photograph.

I think they should (and would) be severely disciplined.

Now stop making excuses for the inexcusable.

You're absolutely right Sin é, there can be absolutely no mitigating circumstances. All five should be banned for life for bringing the game into disrepute - those black comedy wigs are obviously casual racism (Allen probably has his under the swim cap).

If you guys can't discuss this maturely its going to end up like the other thread. Please keep it on point.

Notch wrote:If you guys can't discuss this maturely its going to end up like the other thread. Please keep it on point.

What is immature about my comment and how is it off the point?