Ulster Rugby 2017-18

First topic message reminder :

Rory Best (hamstring)
Marcell Coetzee (knee)
Craig Gilroy (back)
Chris Henry (larynx)
Rob Lyttle (shoulder)
Al O'Connor (concussion)
Jared Payne (headaches)
Dave Shanahan (hamstring)
Nick Timoney (ankle)
Schalk van der Merwe (shoulder)

From what I know, none of the Christians are particularly pally with the each other. Then again, I don’t know who we are talking about. Some may be less outspoken about their beliefs.
For the record, Christians are a varied and unusual bunch of people. Just like all people. The idea that Christians all share the same personality, hobbies, sense of humour is daft.
Again I have to question the evidence if a ‘clique’ or ‘culture’.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
The question of the two players going to trial has of itself caused some rifts in the camp.

I have no doubt this is the root of this so-called "rift". On here, when I suggested in general terms that it would be wiser and much better if people retained traditional views on sex and relationships than the amoral mess we are in now, I was called self-righteous and judgemental. Yet it was a fair and legitimate point, to avoid situations like two extremely talented young men potentially destroying their careers. I'm sure they regret it now.

And, for those who haven't been living under a rock and watch the news, plenty of men have been happy enough to bring their beliefs and views about sex into the workplace. I know which side of this issue I prefer.

You're perfectly entitled to have a fair and legitimate viewpoint that traditional views on sex and relationships should be retained. What are you advocating when you say traditional, Rory? If you are 25 as your profile indicates, I can give you plenty examples of what traditional might mean as someone 30 years older than you. So what do you see as traditional?

Pot Hale wrote:The creation of cliques or perceived cliques in any organisation is always difficult to deal with it particularly if it's among powerful or influential people in the organisation.  It could be based around gender, religion, politics, or whatever that informs a culture or an influential culture within a group.

The difficultly is that those within may not intend to offend or exclude those without, but if it's allowed to persist, it can become very unhealthy.  

But it exists in each and every walk of life because it is not only human nature but essential human instinct IF we accept that evolution means what it says on the can.  
I think that it does.

So this ever growing idealistic concept that everyone in society should be 'equal' in terms of influence, power, authority, spiritual beliefs, political beliefs, cultural beliefs etc etc.... is just undoable in a world where evolutionary impulses rule.  Office/company/organisational/governmental and spiritual culture is a version of human impulse - the survival of the fittest.  ExInclusion of some at the expense of others is only part of the natural recipe.  

We can't help ourselves.... and all the PC controls/laws etc will work for a while in stifling the instincts... but the instincts will eventually prevail again, because man is man.  I want my version of humanity to conquer your version.  And that battle will never end.

Pot Hale wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
The question of the two players going to trial has of itself caused some rifts in the camp.

I have no doubt this is the root of this so-called "rift". On here, when I suggested in general terms that it would be wiser and much better if people retained traditional views on sex and relationships than the amoral mess we are in now, I was called self-righteous and judgemental. Yet it was a fair and legitimate point, to avoid situations like two extremely talented young men potentially destroying their careers. I'm sure they regret it now.

And, for those who haven't been living under a rock and watch the news, plenty of men have been happy enough to bring their beliefs and views about sex into the workplace. I know which side of this issue I prefer.

You're perfectly entitled to have a fair and legitimate viewpoint that traditional views on sex and relationships should be retained.  What are you advocating when you say traditional, Rory?   If you are 25 as your profile indicates, I can give you plenty examples of what traditional might mean as someone 30 years older than you.   So what do you see as traditional?

I think you know perfectly well what I mean, it's self-evident and one doesn't have to be old to understand history or tradition. Prior to the 1960s sexual revolution, sex was considered a much more private and sacred thing. I would much prefer that.

Why do you ask, out of interest?

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The creation of cliques or perceived cliques in any organisation is always difficult to deal with it particularly if it's among powerful or influential people in the organisation.  It could be based around gender, religion, politics, or whatever that informs a culture or an influential culture within a group.

The difficultly is that those within may not intend to offend or exclude those without, but if it's allowed to persist, it can become very unhealthy.  

But it exists in each and every walk of life because it is not only human nature but essential human instinct IF we accept that evolution means what it says on the can.  
I think that it does.

So this ever growing idealistic concept that everyone in society should be 'equal' in terms of influence, power, authority, spiritual beliefs, political beliefs, cultural beliefs etc etc.... is just undoable in a world where evolutionary impulses rule.  Office/company/organisational/governmental and spiritual culture is a version of human impulse - the survival of the fittest.  ExInclusion of some at the expense of others is only part of the natural recipe.  

We can't help ourselves.... and all the PC controls/laws etc will work for a while in stifling the instincts... but the instincts will eventually prevail again, because man is man.  I want my version of humanity to conquer your version.  And that battle will never end.

You assume that I have a version of humanity different to yours, fly. I'm simply pointing out that the creation of these kind of cliques can sometimes be unhealthy or destabilising. Whether people choose to do anything about it or not is a different matter. As recent events down south demonstrate, a culture of sexism, harassment and bullying can also occur within organisations and be allowed to persist by one group over another. Do you think this requires "PC controls" or just simple policies that state - 'this kind of behaviour is not acceptable - stop it. And it you persist, you're out.'

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:The creation of cliques or perceived cliques in any organisation is always difficult to deal with it particularly if it's among powerful or influential people in the organisation.  It could be based around gender, religion, politics, or whatever that informs a culture or an influential culture within a group.

The difficultly is that those within may not intend to offend or exclude those without, but if it's allowed to persist, it can become very unhealthy.  

But it exists in each and every walk of life because it is not only human nature but essential human instinct IF we accept that evolution means what it says on the can.  
I think that it does.

So this ever growing idealistic concept that everyone in society should be 'equal' in terms of influence, power, authority, spiritual beliefs, political beliefs, cultural beliefs etc etc.... is just undoable in a world where evolutionary impulses rule.  Office/company/organisational/governmental and spiritual culture is a version of human impulse - the survival of the fittest.  ExInclusion of some at the expense of others is only part of the natural recipe.  

We can't help ourselves.... and all the PC controls/laws etc will work for a while in stifling the instincts... but the instincts will eventually prevail again, because man is man.  I want my version of humanity to conquer your version.  And that battle will never end.

Exactly. When people say "equality" they really mean "the orthodox position of the day". Everyone is competing for the dominant set of beliefs or principles, but aren't willing to admit to it. Looks like the same is true at Ulster Rugby as with everywhere else. Shock.

When I was at uni 12 years ago. The Students Union threatened the Christian union with a ban. The reason being we (despite welcoming everybody to meetings) only allowed Christians to become members.

Was there any non Christians who tried, was unable to and complained? Of course not. It was simply a spiteful militant anti religion agenda.

There’s a lot being talked about here which frankly is irrelevant. I only want to know what exactly this Christian culture is and what things they’ve actually done which has supposedly annoyed people.

If you have info, speak up. If you don’t, then say so.

Someone comes on with a bit of hearsay and next thing there’s a discussion about some kind of toxic clique which is alienating and judging others.

All based on very very little from what I can tell.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
The question of the two players going to trial has of itself caused some rifts in the camp.

I have no doubt this is the root of this so-called "rift". On here, when I suggested in general terms that it would be wiser and much better if people retained traditional views on sex and relationships than the amoral mess we are in now, I was called self-righteous and judgemental. Yet it was a fair and legitimate point, to avoid situations like two extremely talented young men potentially destroying their careers. I'm sure they regret it now.

And, for those who haven't been living under a rock and watch the news, plenty of men have been happy enough to bring their beliefs and views about sex into the workplace. I know which side of this issue I prefer.

You're perfectly entitled to have a fair and legitimate viewpoint that traditional views on sex and relationships should be retained.  What are you advocating when you say traditional, Rory?   If you are 25 as your profile indicates, I can give you plenty examples of what traditional might mean as someone 30 years older than you.   So what do you see as traditional?

I think you know perfectly well what I mean, it's self-evident and one doesn't have to be old to understand history or tradition. Prior to the 1960s sexual revolution, sex was considered a much more private and sacred thing. I would much prefer that.

Why do you ask, out of interest?

I asked because my view of what would be traditional could be different to what you view as traditional. I grew up at a time where the view you have espoused was very much the order of the day during the sixties and seventies. Tradition changes with sufficient time passing and with changes in society and the influence of different orders or groups within that society . The Catholic Church wielded power over morals and thinking with an iron rod prior to the 1960s amongst its followers - the number who think all of their "traditions" should be retained is rapidly dwindling in a much more pluralist society. Do I think we have swung from one extreme to the other - in some cases, undoubtedly yes. In others, I would think better balanced and more tolerant views have been arrived at.

clivemcl wrote:When I was at uni 12 years ago. The Students Union threatened the Christian union with a ban. The reason being we (despite welcoming everybody to meetings) only allowed Christians to become members.

Was there any non Christians who tried, was unable to and complained? Of course not. It was simply a spiteful militant anti religion agenda.

There’s a lot being talked about here which frankly is irrelevant. I only want to know what exactly this Christian culture is and what things they’ve actually done which has supposedly annoyed people.

If you have info, speak up. If you don’t, then say so.

Someone comes on with a bit of hearsay and next thing there’s a discussion about some kind of toxic clique which is alienating and judging others.

All based on very very little from what I can tell.

Do you mean the discussion is frankly irrelevant to you? What's wrong with having a discussion about "toxic cliques"?

I just mean, by discussing other issues we are getting sidetracked and losing focus on the ridiculousness of the original comments.

clivemcl wrote:I just mean, by discussing other issues we are getting sidetracked and losing focus on the ridiculousness of the original comments.

Well perhaps the wider discussion on cliques is an indicator that most people don't pay much heed to the original comments since they are only hearsay. I deliberately didn't mention Ulster since I don't know any facts about it.

Pot Hale wrote:  The Catholic Church wielded power over morals and thinking with an iron rod prior to the 1960s amongst its followers - the number who think all of their "traditions" should be retained is rapidly dwindling in a much more pluralist society.   Do I think we have swung from one extreme to the other - in some cases, undoubtedly yes.  In others, I would think better balanced and more tolerant views have been arrived at.

There was no iron rod though.  The iron rod was the 'faith' of the people willing to enforce the ethos of the church themselves.  No Priest ever beat the schit out of me because I made up sins at confession.  They knew we were making up sins in order to have 'sins' to be forgiven.     It was pointless going into the confession box if you didn't feel you had any sins to tell, so you invented some to save the embarrassment for both you and the Priest.  No Priest ever whipped me or my mother or my grandmother to mass on Sunday.  You were left to your own conscience.  When you believed and when you stopped believing was your own affair.  It's the emotions within your own family that might have influenced how public you were about thoughts on religion, not the oppressive force of men in black.

It's a myth because it's an evaded truth.

The PEOPLE wielded power over morals and thinking.... the Priests were coming from families that influenced their own very beliefs.  Priests were only a symbolic manifestation of the beliefs and customs of the People.  The people now try to evade their own responsibilities of that past, the responsibilities of their own parents, grandparents who enforced the ideals of their Church within their own families.  No - it's easier to blame the big bad institution than it is to blame your own parents or grandparents for the society that allowed the excesses of the Church to exist.

And If Priests and religious were abusive, and if this is the biggest factor in the 'Iron rod' theory, then they were abusive because all through history Basterdes find outlets for their cruelty and perversions.  They use all strands of life to inject themselves into environments where they might thrive.  Basterdes joined the church because they were basterdes by nature and saw the opportunities.
Again, this has been proven to happen in all walks of life, from entertainment, to politics, to army, to schools, to sport.  Basterdes will find the professions that serve their purpose, whether that's physical abuse, sexual abuse etc etc.
Did Jimmy Savile rule with an Iron rod?  Nope, he just sleazed himself through the BBC where the greatest news collection entity on the planet simply ignored all the clues before them.  Jimmy Savile existed because the people that worked in the BBC allowed him to exist.  Their silent culture and indeed the excesses of presumed normal sexuality of the 70s - which was very raw compared to today's presumed standards, allowed him to exist.  Don't blame him alone.... blame all those who said they knew about him but....well... "That was Jimmy, wasn't it"

SecretFly wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:I don't know about our players having too much morality or how that affects the camp but I do know that there's 2 players who we could really use right now who didn't have enough off it

Allegedly neil..... allegedly.

Yes allegedly, I apologise, although what they have said they did do still seems pretty morally suspect.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:
The question of the two players going to trial has of itself caused some rifts in the camp.

I have no doubt this is the root of this so-called "rift". On here, when I suggested in general terms that it would be wiser and much better if people retained traditional views on sex and relationships than the amoral mess we are in now, I was called self-righteous and judgemental. Yet it was a fair and legitimate point, to avoid situations like two extremely talented young men potentially destroying their careers. I'm sure they regret it now.

And, for those who haven't been living under a rock and watch the news, plenty of men have been happy enough to bring their beliefs and views about sex into the workplace. I know which side of this issue I prefer.

My post has certainly stirred things up but I am taking this post from Rory to reply/summarise as it hits the salient points.
Rory is correct this case is at the heart of the current rift.
Some, and I say some, of the Christian element have made comments regarding the way of life of others which criticises more than just the two players in question.
The implication being these two have gone off the rails because they lack faith.
I would resent that myself as it goes a long way to suggesting that the people of faith have a higher moral standard.

Clive no attendance is not mandatory how could it be?
There is a lot of idol team during the week but as these meeting take place at work I think it is fair to say they take place in work time.
The issue is the CEO endorses it and has hinted, in the past, it is the right path to take.
That creates a certain atmosphere for non Christians.

I would like to add that Trimble is no part of this - he always keeps his thoughts to himself.

As a aside the other thing I heard was Coetzee gave his fellow players some fierce rockets both during and after games about their performances.

Some noses were put out of joint - Good

(As an aside he is a committed Christian)

geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

marty2086 wrote:geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

Other than the obvious fact that players will feel attracted to join a club where they will meet like-minded folk, what else could it be? There are some rather insidious conspiracies starting to emerge in this thread.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

Other than the obvious fact that players will feel attracted to join a club where they will meet like-minded folk, what else could it be? There are some rather insidious conspiracies starting to emerge in this thread.

FFS

Im asking if thats a directive is all, some coaches and managers etc in sport like players with different character traits all Im asking is that something Logan or anyone within the organisation has put forward. It could all be a coincidence but I mentioned South Africans but we also have Piutau too and Lealiifano in more ways than one.

Can you say for certain it's a coincidence Rory?

I wouldn't attempt any reasonable engagement with him Marty his ignorant attitude knows no bounds. This current debate is illustrating perfectly the divisive nature of any religious involvement.
Clive I'm not about to name any of my contacts within the Ulster setup but they've voiced concern about it years ago when Muller was gathering a 'flock'.
Your religious views are a personal thing. To believe you have any right to voice them in a professional workplace is simply arrogance. To try and run a professional workplace based on moral fairy tales is simply ridiculous and alienates those who cannot find it in themselves to take any of it seriously.

Anyway, that's me finished with this forum. I have too many arrogant pillocks blocked yet still see their bilge when quoted. Bye to all the fantastic posters, Geoff, Marty, Fly and even Dowlais who entertained etc etc. To the others......

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

Other than the obvious fact that players will feel attracted to join a club where they will meet like-minded folk, what else could it be? There are some rather insidious conspiracies starting to emerge in this thread.

Really what ?

In reply to Marty I think there is an obvious appeal to the guys from South Africa but in answer to your wider question I honestly don't know although the majority of recent NIQ signings have been practising christians

Pete330v2 wrote:Anyway, that's me finished with this forum. I have too many arrogant pillocks blocked yet still see their bilge when quoted. Bye to all the fantastic posters, Geoff, Marty, Fly and even Dowlais who entertained etc etc. To the others......

Pete things do get annoying here sometimes - I have left for periods myself.
These things blow over though.

I have to say I slightly amazed that simply pointing out there is a bit of a rift between some of the active Christians at the club, and those who are not, has provoked such a heated response.

Pete330v2 wrote:Anyway, that's me finished with this forum. I have too many arrogant pillocks blocked yet still see their bilge when quoted. Bye to all the fantastic posters, Geoff, Marty, Fly and even Dowlais who entertained etc etc. To the others......

Yes, it's everyone else's fault. Perhaps some time off will allow you a bit of introspection and how to debate reasonably with others.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

Other than the obvious fact that players will feel attracted to join a club where they will meet like-minded folk, what else could it be? There are some rather insidious conspiracies starting to emerge in this thread.

Really what ?

In reply to Marty I think there is an obvious appeal to the guys from South Africa but in answer to your wider question I honestly don't know although the majority of recent NIQ signings have been practising christians

Perhaps people object to one of (or all) of the following suggestions on this thread:

1) That there is a "Christian culture" that is divisive
2) That some people shouldn't be allowed those views at the club
3) That there might be a directive to sign Christian players over non-Christians

I can't work out which I think is the most ridiculous, but it is pretty bad.

Pete330v2 wrote:Anyway, that's me finished with this forum. I have too many arrogant pillocks blocked yet still see their bilge when quoted. Bye to all the fantastic posters, Geoff, Marty, Fly and even Dowlais who entertained etc etc. To the others......

Be sorry to see you go Pete especially over something like that

Pete330v2 wrote:I wouldn't attempt any reasonable engagement with him Marty his ignorant attitude knows no bounds. This current debate is illustrating perfectly the divisive nature of any religious involvement.
Clive I'm not about to name any of my contacts within the Ulster setup but they've voiced concern about it years ago when Muller was gathering a 'flock'.
Your religious views are a personal thing. To believe you have any right to voice them in a professional workplace is simply arrogance. To try and run a professional workplace based on moral fairy tales is simply ridiculous and alienates those who cannot find it in themselves to take any of it seriously.

What a bitter and prejudiced individual you are. I hope that is just your online persona.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

Other than the obvious fact that players will feel attracted to join a club where they will meet like-minded folk, what else could it be? There are some rather insidious conspiracies starting to emerge in this thread.

Really what ?

In reply to Marty I think there is an obvious appeal to the guys from South Africa but in answer to your wider question I honestly don't know although the majority of recent NIQ signings have been practising christians

Perhaps people object to one of (or all) of the following suggestions on this thread:

1) That there is a "Christian culture" that is divisive
2) That some people shouldn't be allowed those views at the club
3) That there might be a directive to sign Christian players over non-Christians

I can't work out which I think is the most ridiculous, but it is pretty bad.

Rory you criticise others for their debating techniques and resort to making stuff up

Where did anyone suggest that Christian views shouldn't be allowed? That culture is one of the factors that allowed guys like Muller and Pienaar to buy into the organisation as they did

Why are you so defensive about the possibility of a directive existing that may say to give preference to Christians over non Christians? You yourself have stated that maybe some current situations mightn't exist if it was more prevalent, because apparently a Christian has never been involved in a sex scandal, so why couldn't a Logan or someone else hold that similar view and see it as beneficial to the organisation especially from a marketing/PR perspective?

As I've said, sports organisations the world over look to identify certain personality traits within potential signings, why should it be such an issue if faith was used as an indicator?

geoff999rugby wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Anyway, that's me finished with this forum. I have too many arrogant pillocks blocked yet still see their bilge when quoted. Bye to all the fantastic posters, Geoff, Marty, Fly and even Dowlais who entertained etc etc. To the others......

Pete things do get annoying here sometimes - I have left for periods myself.
These things blow over though.

I have to say I slightly amazed that simply pointing out there is a bit of a rift between some of the active Christians at the club, and those who are not, has provoked such a heated response.

It's not the first time there have been rifts though in the club, wasn't that part of the problem during Anscombes time at the club?

There will be cliques at every club, Leinster have their share but when it comes to game time it doesnt seem to be a problem.

For all the criticism of Kiss that Ive thought was rubbish, given a rift within the coaching setup derailed us last season and now if one among the players does the same this season, then maybe it would seem to be his man management ability that is his greatest flaw. Saying that though, after the Kings game I said we would have lost it in years gone by and I think the same can be said of the Treviso game. So for all the negativity that is going around, I think having a habit of winning games you should probably lose isn't a bad one to have, especially as it's one that has probably been lacking and hurt us in years gone by.

Also the Kings are 23-10 up against the Scarlets 45 mins in and should be further ahead, maybe our result wasn't as bad as it seemed at the time?

marty2086 wrote:

Rory you criticise others for their debating techniques and resort to making stuff up

Where did anyone suggest that Christian views shouldn't be allowed? That culture is one of the factors that allowed guys like Muller and Pienaar to buy into the organisation as they did

Why are you so defensive about the possibility of a directive existing that may say to give preference to Christians over non Christians? You yourself have stated that maybe some current situations mightn't exist if it was more prevalent, because apparently a Christian has never been involved in a sex scandal, so why couldn't a Logan or someone else hold that similar view and see it as beneficial to the organisation especially from a marketing/PR perspective?

As I've said, sports organisations the world over look to identify certain personality traits within potential signings, why should it be such an issue if faith was used as an indicator?

Maybe you can translate "it should never have been allowed to grow" for me then, since I'm making things up. How else could you prevent people from believing what they do other than banning it?

And - I really am asking this honestly - are you genuinely suggesting that there is possibly a directive at Ulster Rugby to sign Christians over non-Christians? If so, how else can I conclude other than people's prejudices are coming to the fore to create stories for which there is no evidence?

EDIT: I don't know who is or isn't a Christian at Ulster Rugby in most cases, nor do I really care, but isn't Bryn Cunningham the man behind the signings? Is he a Christian? Would he be okay with this directive if it existed? If so - why?

Rory, seriously you need to wind your neck in.

Peoples prejudices? Maybe you would like to elaborate on what exactly the prejudices are that you speak of?
I asked a question I didn't state it as a fact or opinion merely pondering based on the number of christians we have signed. I can do a rough list for you, that's pretty evident in my eyes.

geoff stated on here today that prominence was given to Piutau over a backrower to sell tickets, that was speculated plenty on here in the past. Was that speculation based on prejudice? I asked why it was such a horrible thought to think that that may be the case, yet you don't seem to be able to tell me so I'll ask again. Why is it such a horrible thought to think that someone might say, this is a good indicator that a guy won't screw up all the marketing deals we have in place yet its not a problem to give prominence to a guy who will sell more tickets?

Given the number of people in top roles in business and politics in NI who are christians why wouldn't it be an intelligent strategy?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

Other than the obvious fact that players will feel attracted to join a club where they will meet like-minded folk, what else could it be? There are some rather insidious conspiracies starting to emerge in this thread.

Really what ?

In reply to Marty I think there is an obvious appeal to the guys from South Africa but in answer to your wider question I honestly don't know although the majority of recent NIQ signings have been practising christians

Perhaps people object to one of (or all) of the following suggestions on this thread:

1) That there is a "Christian culture" that is divisive
2) That some people shouldn't be allowed those views at the club
3) That there might be a directive to sign Christian players over non-Christians

I can't work out which I think is the most ridiculous, but it is pretty bad.

1) There is a Christian culture at the club and there is to some extent some difference of opinion between the two sets of players
2) A particular viewpoint of the world should not be part of the workplace if it impacts upon the how the workplace operates
3) No one is saying there is a directive but it does remain a fact that a majority of the NIQ signings since Logan took charge have been practising Christians

Which one of those three statements is incorrect ?
I have to agree with others on this, your response has been over the top on this and indeed illuminating.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:geoff on the back of that, given the CEOs endorsement of the Christian culture and the prevalence of signing South Africans who are Christian. Is there any relationship between the two?

Other than the obvious fact that players will feel attracted to join a club where they will meet like-minded folk, what else could it be? There are some rather insidious conspiracies starting to emerge in this thread.

Really what ?

In reply to Marty I think there is an obvious appeal to the guys from South Africa but in answer to your wider question I honestly don't know although the majority of recent NIQ signings have been practising christians

Perhaps people object to one of (or all) of the following suggestions on this thread:

1) That there is a "Christian culture" that is divisive
2) That some people shouldn't be allowed those views at the club
3) That there might be a directive to sign Christian players over non-Christians

I can't work out which I think is the most ridiculous, but it is pretty bad.

1) There is a Christian culture at the club and there is to some extent some difference of opinion between the two sets of players
2) A particular viewpoint of the world should not be part of the workplace if it impacts upon the how the workplace operates
3) No one is saying there is a directive but it does remain a fact that a majority of the NIQ signings since Logan took charge have been practising Christians

Which one of those three statements is incorrect ?
I have to agree with others on this, your response has been over the top on this and indeed illuminating.

I've been over all of the points above and most interestingly, nobody have given any evidence as to what a) they mean by "Christian culture" other than the fact there are a large number of Christians at the club and b) what they have actually done wrong to create this so-called "rift".

You say it has been illuminating - how so? I have been balanced, not supporting a particular viewpoint, with the exception of the stuff I said above regarding the sex scandals. I was careful to do so. By contrast, others have had some pretty strong words to say about those with religious beliefs, and all sorts of snarky comments such as "Christians are never involved in sex scandals". What is that about? Has anyone said such a thing? Witch hunt was the word used above, and I think that is the correct term.

By illuminating, do you mean that I have been happy to catch people out who make baseless accusations about people not here to defend themselves? I actually did the same for Jackson/Olding with regards to presumption of innocence (at least, legally) you may recall. I'm glad it has been illuminating.

Anyway, you or anyone else can have the last word, this became a tedious discussion by the end (though it was quite interesting last night when Pot and Fly were involved). And for the record, I have no ill feelings towards any other poster involved here, I'm just disappointed by some of what has been said. Life goes on.

Most, if not all that I posted was rumours which were told directly to me or I overheard from people inside the club.
One of those rumours is a degree of resentment of some players towards others and the fact their belief system has a level of prominence in the club.
We can all choose to accept or dismiss those rumours.
I have not at a personal level, deliberately, blamed anyone for anything.

There have been some extrapolations on here, on both sides, that take those posted rumours that stretch those rumours into areas that my original posting does not support.

Kinda forgot about this since last night. Shocked to see it continue.

Still not sure if anything that has been claimed is justifiable.

There is only two ways in which the Christian thing could be a problem

a) it influences selection
b) it influences employment

So yea, is either of these likely? Any solid whispers on it?

Is the coaching team Christian? Is the team selector Kiss a man of faith?

As for the chat of some players disagreeing with lifestyles of others...

I’m not sure I believe it. And if true I doubt it’s happened in a very outspoken judgemental way.

Besides, I don’t see why their religious faith has the be blamed for their personal decision of what to share and what not too. People annoy each other , disagree and talk about each other in the workplace all the time.

This is weird. Even for an Ulster thread

Come for the rugby , stay for the theological/work chat

If it helps I hear Leinster have a very strict recruitment policy, unless your stock portfolio is a strong mix of blue chip stock and internet start ups you have no chance.
Also there is a rift between the lads with a strong social media game, and those who just use Facebook to keep in touch with freindly and family.
Also I hear Munster had to bring in a blanket ban on all tractor discussion after John Hayes nearly killed Doug howlet for suggesting Massy Furgerson weren't "reppin the arable farmer no more"

clivemcl wrote:Kinda forgot about this since last night. Shocked to see it continue.

Still not sure if anything that has been claimed is justifiable.

There is only two ways in which the Christian thing could be a problem

a) it influences selection
b) it influences employment

So yea, is either of these likely? Any solid whispers on it?

Is the coaching team Christian? Is the team selector Kiss a man of faith?

As for the chat of some players disagreeing with lifestyles of others...

I’m not sure I believe it. And if true I doubt it’s happened in a very outspoken judgemental way.


Besides, I don’t see why their religious faith has the be blamed for their personal decision of what to share and what not too. People annoy each other , disagree and talk about each other in the workplace all the time.

Clive did you not read the post above yours ?

My post started it off and in it I clearly stated it was rumours and that one those rumours was

'a degree of resentment of some players towards others and the fact their belief system has a level of prominence in the club' .

You are shocked to see it continue and then you go on and make some fantastical extrapolations which fuel the fire.
If you want it to stop - stop making things up and throwing out comments about observations that were never made

In truth Geoff, I did not. I was writing my comment for some time, amidst distraction and yours was posted during that time.

My issue is not so much with the fact that you stated the rumours initially, but with the follow up from Pete that

The religious culture should never have been allowed to grow within Ulster rugby IMO. It's all well and fine having your beliefs but when it spills over into your professional life it can become poisonous.

For starters, you don't have to be christian to be self-righteous, and you can disapprove of all sorts of lifestyle choices whilst being an atheist.

Like was mentioned, Trimble isn't overly outspoken, and that just shows you, people are all individuals with different personalities.

If somebody decides they want to loudly discuss their opinions about the lifestyle of others while at the gym, then that should be a reflection of that singular person and not a group of people.

My Tuppence worth:

If Ulster rugby is representative of Northern Ireland as a whole it is not surprising that you might find more 'committed Christians' in the Ulster dressing room than in other parts of the UK because Northern Ireland has more 'committed Christians' relative to population size than other parts of the UK.

For some people this is a good thing, others don't like it, most are probably neutral. Don't forget the fan base is also representative of Northern Ireland as a whole.

I don't know if Ulster rugby sets out to recruit Christians from abroad, but Ulster is obviously an attractive destination for Christian players. I doubt if Pienaar would have chosen Ulster otherwise.

clive, the thing with a culture though is that it can encourage behaviour and players attend religious themed events on behalf of the club etc. If they feel their faith and beliefs is more representative of the club it may create the problems Geoff has heard rumours off, especially if presented the way Rory did on here.

marty2086 wrote:clive, the thing with a culture though is that it can encourage behaviour and players attend religious themed events on behalf of the club etc. If they feel their faith and beliefs is more representative of the club it may create the problems Geoff has heard rumours off, especially if presented the way Rory did on here.

Exactly

For starter prayer meetings on company premises - really.
Why not meetings for Climate Change action groups, or the Socialist Workers Party or an Irish language class.
Where would it end.
No group should have an special status in a rugby club - the active Christians in our club have that status
They are indulged in a way others would not be

marty2086 wrote:clive, the thing with a culture though is that it can encourage behaviour and players attend religious themed events on behalf of the club etc. If they feel their faith and beliefs is more representative of the club it may create the problems Geoff has heard rumours off, especially if presented the way Rory did on here.

What a slimy and backhanded comment this is. I did not call censorship for any view, nor did I spread baseless rumours about others and their beliefs, nor did I make snarky comments about people with different views from me. Plenty of others did, which anyone can read, such as "my friend told me Muller was trying to grow his flock at Ulster". To me, those rumours are just derogatory smears, nothing more.

How you can possibly blame me for creating problems I do not know. This isn't an argument about religion, which is a red herring, but people who are intolerant of opinions they dislike, and I challenged those people. Now, stop mentioning me in this silly debate.

Rory I think it is only one person, as far as I can see, who has posted in the way you describe.
It would be helpful if that was made clear.
You may well not agree with the likes of myself but the arguments are not so stark and far more nuanced.

Do you agree that no meetings of sectional interests should take place in the workplace ?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:clive, the thing with a culture though is that it can encourage behaviour and players attend religious themed events on behalf of the club etc. If they feel their faith and beliefs is more representative of the club it may create the problems Geoff has heard rumours off, especially if presented the way Rory did on here.

What a slimy and backhanded comment this is. I did not call censorship for any view, nor did I spread baseless rumours about others and their beliefs, nor did I make snarky comments about people with different views from me. Plenty of others did, which anyone can read, such as "my friend told me Muller was trying to grow his flock at Ulster". To me, those rumours are just derogatory smears, nothing more.

How you can possibly blame me for creating problems I do not know. This isn't an argument about religion, which is a red herring, but people who are intolerant of opinions they dislike, and I challenged those people. Now, stop mentioning me in this silly debate.

Rory, seriously you are going full on Fox News on this whole issue. You had the cheek to call yourself balanced yet continually fly off the handle over the smallest comments.

At no point did I blame you for anything, I said if players at Ulster presented comments the way you did then I can see where there would be an issue, you have been pretty pious over lifestyles and pretty much said if Jackson and Olding had lived a more religious life they wouldn't be in the situation they are in, which is cowpat at its finest.

No one here has called foe censorship, what Pete did say was that a Christian culture should not have been allowed to develop which is a fair comment. That's not censorship, that's equality as no other faith or culture is given a prominent place in the club which should Christianity be favoured?

Rory, you seem to be the intolerant one, any mention of Christianity and you fly off the handle and attack people and usually while taking things and blowing them out of proportion. Maybe actually try reading what people say rather than taking them and making them into something else.

marty2086 wrote:

Rory, seriously you are going full on Fox News on this whole issue. You had the cheek to call yourself balanced yet continually fly off the handle over the smallest comments.

At no point did I blame you for anything, I said if players at Ulster presented comments the way you did then I can see where there would be an issue, you have been pretty pious over lifestyles and pretty much said if Jackson and Olding had lived a more religious life they wouldn't be in the situation they are in, which is cowpat at its finest.

No one here has called foe censorship, what Pete did say was that a Christian culture should not have been allowed to develop which is a fair comment. That's not censorship, that's equality as no other faith or culture is given a prominent place in the club which should Christianity be favoured?

Rory, you seem to be the intolerant one, any mention of Christianity and you fly off the handle and attack people and usually while taking things and blowing them out of proportion. Maybe actually try reading what people say rather than taking them and making them into something else.

That is just an utter lie, amidst a post full of lies, and you know it. Goodbye.

If Stockdale reads all this stuff, he's a gonna stay put in Leinster where he was at the weekend...

Now, we'd do our best to try to encourage him to go back home, that the boys will calm down eventually...but.................... well......................... we won't force him to go home or nothing....

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Rory, seriously you are going full on Fox News on this whole issue. You had the cheek to call yourself balanced yet continually fly off the handle over the smallest comments.

At no point did I blame you for anything, I said if players at Ulster presented comments the way you did then I can see where there would be an issue, you have been pretty pious over lifestyles and pretty much said if Jackson and Olding had lived a more religious life they wouldn't be in the situation they are in, which is cowpat at its finest.

No one here has called foe censorship, what Pete did say was that a Christian culture should not have been allowed to develop which is a fair comment. That's not censorship, that's equality as no other faith or culture is given a prominent place in the club which should Christianity be favoured?

Rory, you seem to be the intolerant one, any mention of Christianity and you fly off the handle and attack people and usually while taking things and blowing them out of proportion. Maybe actually try reading what people say rather than taking them and making them into something else.

That is just an utter lie, amidst a post full of lies, and you know it. Goodbye.

So you didn't at any point criticise their lifestyle and say they wouldn't be in the situation if they lived better lives?

marty 2086 wrote:clive, the thing with a culture though is that it can encourage behaviour and players attend religious themed events on behalf of the club etc. If they feel their faith and beliefs is more representative of the club it may create the problems Geoff has heard rumours off, especially if presented the way Rory did on here.

If there is a Christian culture at the club, it will just be one of many. Teetotal players are often under extreme pressure to join the drinking culture at club and even schools level.

geoff999 wrote:For starter prayer meetings on company premises - really.
Why not meetings for Climate Change action groups, or the Socialist Workers Party or an Irish language class.
Where would it end.

Maybe they should consider closing the bar at Kingspan, it only encourages the drinking culture.


Rugby globally has had a long history of Christian players. Some pacific islander teams still pray before and after games. And from Mike Gibson through to Ruan Peinaar Ulster have their own legacy.

The only reason why this is coming up now is because Ulster are in disarray, on and (according to some) off the pitch.