The most embarrassing article I've read for a while

Please tell me this man doesn't get paid to write this tripe for a living?

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champions-cup/revealed-french-clubs-to-fork-out-10-times-more-in-player-wages-than-the-irfu-this-season-35003994.html

The entire basis of the article is inaccurate, disparaging and completely wrong.

I expect some will actually believe it too! Utterly embarrassing.

You must write in and complain, Dai

Munchkin wrote:You must write in and complain, Dai

Any opinion on the topic? Or just snide remarks?

I really find it incredible that this misinformed rubbish can still be spouted in 2016. Unless there is a reason why it's been published of course.

I would say you mustn't read the Fail very much if you think that's incredible.

Oh yes, there has to be a reason. It must be a conspiracy! o0.

A poorly thought out piece. I wouldn't get too vexed about it, although maybe you enjoy being vexed...

Munchkin wrote:

I would say you mustn't read the Fail very much if you think that's incredible.

Oh yes, there has to be a reason. It must be a conspiracy! o0.

A poorly thought out piece. I wouldn't get too vexed about it, although maybe you enjoy being vexed...

The fail is mostly just poorly thought opinion pieces. Terrible stuff.

This however, is based on a premise that is so wholly inaccurate that you'd think it was April 1st. It's beyond belief.

An article written by someone who has been involved in the game for some time.

Nonetheless, the bottom line is hardly revelatory despite the sub-editor's attempts to make it so.

The French clubs have a lot more money to spend than Irish provinces.  Who'd have thunk?

Next.

Dai Llewod wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I would say you mustn't read the Fail very much if you think that's incredible.

Oh yes, there has to be a reason. It must be a conspiracy! o0.

A poorly thought out piece. I wouldn't get too vexed about it, although maybe you enjoy being vexed...

The fail is mostly just poorly thought opinion pieces. Terrible stuff.

This however, is based on a premise that is so wholly inaccurate that you'd think it was April 1st. It's beyond belief.

Well it's not that far removed from the claims of you, and your fellow nutjobs, of seeing everything as an Irish conspiracy. If anything, the article is much more credible.

Pot Hale wrote:

The French clubs have a lot more money to spend than Irish provinces.  Who'd have thunk?

So we need to get with the program

Munchkin wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I would say you mustn't read the Fail very much if you think that's incredible.

Oh yes, there has to be a reason. It must be a conspiracy! o0.

A poorly thought out piece. I wouldn't get too vexed about it, although maybe you enjoy being vexed...

The fail is mostly just poorly thought opinion pieces. Terrible stuff.

This however, is based on a premise that is so wholly inaccurate that you'd think it was April 1st. It's beyond belief.

Well it's not that far removed from the claims of you, and your fellow nutjobs, of seeing everything as an Irish conspiracy. If anything, the article is much more credible.

Thanks for the banal insult. You're a lovely piece of work.

Still on form, eh Chunk? I wonder how long it will be before you get yourself banned for trolling again.

Dai Llewod wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Dai Llewod wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

I would say you mustn't read the Fail very much if you think that's incredible.

Oh yes, there has to be a reason. It must be a conspiracy! o0.

A poorly thought out piece. I wouldn't get too vexed about it, although maybe you enjoy being vexed...

The fail is mostly just poorly thought opinion pieces. Terrible stuff.

This however, is based on a premise that is so wholly inaccurate that you'd think it was April 1st. It's beyond belief.

Well it's not that far removed from the claims of you, and your fellow nutjobs, of seeing everything as an Irish conspiracy. If anything, the article is much more credible.

Thanks for the banal insult. You're a lovely piece of work.

An insult, yes, but no less the truth for it.

Love the comment on the rte article about this..

"Connacht's Supermac's bill for last May was 876 euros"

OK, for whatever it's worth, taking the article at face value, wouldn't every team be over the Top 14 salary cap? And then why was Toulon singled out to be fined? If each French team was over the cap, the Toulon owner would have fuming more than he was. Something doesn't add up for me.

Yet again, another utterly pointless post by the Chuck/LD axis.
Really Chunk, who cares how inaccurate some journo's figures are, stop reading the Irish papers if it hurts you so deeply.

It seems like he has his opinion and has shaped the facts to suit his argument, nice to see you got a new job Dai Norwich

So what we have here is a circle jerk attacking the poster rather than a consensus that the article is complete nonsense.

How nice.

Plus, of course, this one has now topped the nonsense about French wage budgets:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/37216786

"We don't really want a model that copies [the English and French], because we want to be here in 10 or 20 years time.

"I don't think it is sustainable. You look at Biarritz and clubs who have overspent in France regardless of whether they have a 98 million euro deal from Canal Plus," Anayi continued.

"That wealthy benefactor model is only as good as that wealthy benefactor wanting to be there and carry on spending."

PhilBB wrote:So what we have here is a circle jerk attacking the poster rather than a consensus that the article is complete nonsense.

How nice.

If it was put forward by another reasonable poster who wasn't previously banned for rather malicious trolling of a specific country (and most extensively with the province of Ulster) then perhaps it would be easier to have a discussion. Instead the responses are to be expected when the poster in question has purposefully derailed many threads and antagonised many posters over the course of a few seasons, leading to a number of Ulster fans leaving the site.

I see no evidence that this poster (Chunky) has suddenly shown an interest in a legitimate discussion. Only another attempt to push forward their bitter agenda.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

PhilBB wrote:So what we have here is a circle jerk attacking the poster rather than a consensus that the article is complete nonsense.

How nice.

If it was put forward by another reasonable poster who wasn't previously banned for rather malicious trolling of a specific country (and most extensively with the province of Ulster) then perhaps it would be easier to have a discussion. Instead the responses are to be expected when the poster in question has purposefully derailed many threads and antagonised many posters over the course of a few seasons, leading to a number of Ulster fans leaving the site.

I see no evidence that this poster (Chunky) has suddenly shown an interest in a legitimate discussion. Only another attempt to push forward their bitter agenda.

Awesome. So you had an issue with his behaviour so, to show your disgust, you copied it and fired it back at him. I can see the logic in that.

Now that's out of the way, let's all agree that the article is completely misleading and unprofessional.

If I had "copied" Chunky then I would be involved in derailing every Welsh thread on here trying to antagonise the fans for my own bitter agenda (thankfully I don't have one).

What I am happy to do is draw attention to Chunky early on so that when he inevitably does begin the same antics as last season that the moderators may act accordingly. These threads aren't intended for civil debate as they weren't last year. I'm also happy for Chunky to know that some are well aware that he is using a different username.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:If I had "copied" Chunky then I would be involved in derailing every Welsh thread on here trying to antagonise the fans for my own bitter agenda (thankfully I don't have one).

What I am happy to do is draw attention to Chunky early on so that when he inevitably does begin the same antics as last season that the moderators may act accordingly. These threads aren't intended for civil debate as they weren't last year. I'm also happy for Chunky to know that some are well aware that he is using a different username.

In fairness, you do seem to have an agenda with Chunky. You know, sorry to disprove your first sentence.

I'm not sure who could be wound up by somebody highlighting this article as utter nonsense, however.

I said that I don't have a bitter agenda, which I don't. However, I am happy enough to say that I can't be bothered engaging with an intentionally hostile WUM such as Chunky on every Ulster match thread for another season.

You're missing the point, but I guess you weren't a member of these forums last season to experience Chunky's slippery antics. Not that there would be any complaint coming from you were that the case.

Lastly, operating under different usernames after being permanently banned is against the rules.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I said that I don't have a bitter agenda, which I don't. However, I am happy enough to say that I can't be bothered engaging with an intentionally hostile WUM such as Chunky on every Ulster match thread for another season.

You're missing the point, but I guess you weren't a member of these forums last season to experience Chunky's slippery antics. Not that there would be any complaint coming from you were that the case.

Lastly, operating under different usernames after being permanently banned is against the rules.

Well, I can see two agendas in that but there we go. I've moved the more stupid article into its own thread so maybe we can all move there to discuss its merits, rather than the merits of 'Chunky'

Isn't accusing somebody of being a previously banned user against the rules too? It wasn't allowed when grey ghost was about.

RiscaGame wrote:Isn't accusing somebody of being a previously banned user against the rules too? It wasn't allowed when grey ghost was about.

I'm not sure why drawing attention to a previously banned troll who has driven decent posters away from these forums would be against the rules. If it is then I shall no longer do so. I think the moderators are starting to get an idea of who this poster probably is anyway.

I suspect so. I'm not sure why it was, but it certainly was the case when people used to do the Ghost smiley when certain posters would pop up.

RiscaGame wrote:Isn't accusing somebody of being a previously banned user against the rules too? It wasn't allowed when grey ghost was about.

Mate, I haven't thought about that little dude in a long time. In hindsight, don't you think it took a unique personality to come up with some of the mind bending stuff he did? Imagine if all that energy and creativity could be harnessed for good and not evil? Damn, I'm almost becoming wistful...............

You make a good point