Ulster Rugby 2017-18

First topic message reminder :

Jeez - O’Donoghue eeled his way through that maul and caught Herring.

Totally forgot about Caldwell, didn't even realize he retired.

He looks a sorry sight.

Shocking picture of a man that looks to have partially destroyed himself but also, it seems, to have been a victim of the more cruel side of rugby.  Hip replacement, arthritis, 'concussive injuries'?

Sad to think that a man of only 33 years of age might already have seen the best years of his life gone and now all it seems he has to look forward to is pain and the medication that relieves it (or makes you forget it for a while)

I think rugby is a big enough business these days (club version and Union International version) to maybe look out for players like him a bit more and prove that they remember the sacrifices?  I'm not up on any of that stuff and whether or not there are systems that offer help to past players in need... but he does look a sorry sight, as rodders says.  Sad to think about the thoughts that must be in his head at so young an age.

Stuff starting to filter out now in the Jackson Olding trial.

They really are a pair of idiots. Both are finished even if they are cleared of criminal charges, no club will touch them.

marty2086 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Thats team not a squad but now you've shifted your complaint to the age profile which over the first XV is younger and probably the same over the squad

How much younger?

Nearly a years difference and thats if you take Jackson over McPhillips

Why would you take Jackson over McPhillips? Lealiifano (30) was picked over McPhillips in reality and Donald (34) would have been. Under a year's difference compared to a much more successful side hardly shows a commitment to youth in the current one.

Adam McBurney was almost as impressive as James Ryan at their JWC (and deputy captain), yet the latter has played in Europe for Leinster and already has a handful of caps for Ireland - and in comparison McBurney has...? Herring has been distinctly mediocre this season for Ulster, yet John Andrew has not been able to eclipse him as a starter and McBurney hardly given a look-in from the bench. Most would agree that Herring is a decent pro player but like so many others in the current setup is shy of Test class - yet those making the rugby decisions at Ulster seem to prefer a whole squad full of... well squad players.

rodders wrote:Stuff starting to filter out now in the Jackson Olding trial.

They really are a pair of idiots. Both are finished even if they are cleared of criminal charges, no club will touch them.

Nor should they. I wouldn't be renewing my ST if they were kept on that's even if they are proven innocent.

Standulstermen wrote:

rodders wrote:Stuff starting to filter out now in the Jackson Olding trial.

They really are a pair of idiots. Both are finished even if they are cleared of criminal charges, no club will touch them.

Nor should they. I wouldn't be renewing my ST if they were kept on that's even if they are proven innocent.

Irish Times reporting what they are charged with. Even if found innocent, they are finished as rugby players in this country. Might be picked up by a club in France down the leagues.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/graphic-description-of-alleged-r***-by-rugby-players-heard-in-court-1.3373702

You have to feel sorry for them really (having it all and making a total mess of it), but I feel a lot more sorry for the young woman involved (and she was only 19 at the time).

Ulster dressing room must be a really weird place - presumably the likes of Andrew Trimble, Rory, Pienaar, Tommy B) knew what they were up to and must have been disgusted by their behaviour.

Well, I think maybe ................. well what can you say until the full story is out.  A serious crime may have been committed by not one but two darlings of the Irish rugby fraternity.  You can't get much higher profile.

Like I said, I pity the timing.  My mother, who is a grand old age now, she really liked Paddy Jackson.  She follows rugby quite closely from International season to International season.  She knows all her favourites.  Rory would be a big one.  She loves Rory...he never looks like he hasn't given it his all. She appreciates that. "There's Rory" she'll sigh when he emerges from a big move with his face flushed and almost collapsing from the effort.  

But Paddy Jackson was another player she knew well.  I suppose he has that loveable little almost childishly innocent looking face.

But now, it's inevitable.... his name is going to be mentioned at some point during the hours of rugby coverage across all channels.  And if she knows nothing now, there'll come a time when I'll have to explain the basics to her.  She'll even know he's absent and will undoubtedly ask about him.

So there he'll be gone in her eyes.  Drink, hormones running rampant, maybe more than drink and heartless, bombastic stupidity has perhaps now destroyed a career only really getting into its stride.

Sickening.

Just read the full account on BBC news - obviously they are innocent until proven guilty but it really doesn't look good for them, especially considering the phone messages that were sent afterwards from both sides of the story.

The thing is, if the account is accurate but her account of resisting isn’t proven, it doesn’t exactly magically turn into an innocent night out. Maybe I’m an old fuddy duddy. Maybe this is just standard these days. On a par with ten pin bowling or something.
But for me, I’d prefer to never see them in any sort of role model position again at any club.
They are done in terms of pro rugby or even tv punditry. And nobody to blame but themselves and their insatiable desire for self gratification.

The whole thing sounds very, very different to what I'd been told happened. If it's remotely close to what has been alleged then they both deserve the book to be thrown them. They should also be banned from all forms of rugby for life, not that anyone would have touched them anyway.
That worldwide search for a temporary replacement 10 will have to be a permanent one now.

clivemcl wrote:The thing is, if the account is accurate but her account of resisting isn’t proven, it doesn’t exactly magically turn into an innocent night out. Maybe I’m an old fuddy duddy. Maybe this is just standard these days. On a par with ten pin bowling or something.
But for me, I’d prefer to never see them in any sort of role model position again at any club.
They are done in terms of pro rugby or even tv punditry. And nobody to blame but themselves and their insatiable desire for self gratification.

Both of them wouldn't be in any trouble if they only had a desire for self gratification.

You have got to be a little bit careful being judgemental when all you are hearing atm is the prosecution case, which by its nature is going to be damming. The defence case will likely put a very different slant on it.

It is still very very difficult to secure a conviction in a r*** case as juries are notoriously difficult to convince to the required level of proof.

If they are found innocent, Ulster may have no choice legally but to re-instate them, whatever peoples feeling about them may be. There are only two outcomes here and one of them will involve them going to jail, so rugby won't be a consideration.

My reaction is disdain even if no wrongdoing has taken place, and then if found guilty that disdain elevates to disgust.

Legally (if Jackson/Olding insisted) UR would simply have to pay their contracts off. There's no law that states we would have to continue playing them.

Pete330v2 wrote:That worldwide search for a temporary replacement 10 will have to be a permanent one now.

Ulster needed another 'permanent' 10 before Jackson's travails, the question now is whether they need two.

I would be very surprised if the stuff highlighted already (the facts like the WhatsApp messages) didnt already break some clause in their contracts that would enable UR and IRFU to let them go. Like BigGee says im not supposing their guilt or innocence but like Clive i think theres enough to not want them representing my team

Standulstermen wrote:I would be very surprised if the stuff highlighted already (the facts like the WhatsApp messages) didnt already break some clause in their contracts that would enable UR and IRFU to let them go. Like BigGee says im not supposing their guilt or innocence but like Clive i think theres enough to not want them representing my team

Given that an angry coach can be accused of bringing the game into disrepute simply because he might voice annoyance with the ref........ I'd assume 'bringing the game into disrepute' could be tried on these players at a heavier setting, with even tougher sanctions than fines.  But anyway, even if legality isn't on the side of Ulster or the IRFU, I don't think the players in question would want to hang around in a place where they're obviously going to be less popular than they might have been.

Did I not hear recently somewhere that Jackson doesn't want to continue on with Ulster now anyway, IF he is proven innocent and is allowed continue his career as a rugby player?

clivemcl wrote:My reaction is disdain even if no wrongdoing has taken place, and then if found guilty that disdain elevates to disgust.

Legally (if Jackson/Olding insisted) UR would simply have to pay their contracts off. There's no law that states we would have to continue playing them.

Jackson signed his current contract around March 2017. Ulster knew about these allegations before that (Jackson didn't travel with Ireland to the US in November 16 for 'personal reasons' as he was assisting the PSNI with their inquiries). Ulster should have put a clause into that 2017 contract to cover themselves either way, if they didn't then they deserve to be out of pocket and the suits should be held accountable.

clivemcl wrote:My reaction is disdain even if no wrongdoing has taken place, and then if found guilty that disdain elevates to disgust.

Legally (if Jackson/Olding insisted) UR would simply have to pay their contracts off. There's no law that states we would have to continue playing them.

This. No club would ever include a commitment to play any player. Not Piutau, not Sexton, not anyone will have a cast iron commitment to overrule the coaching staff and pick themselves. The deal is Ulster honors the contract for the length of it (provided the player doesn't breach the conditions) and in exchange the player makes themselves available to play and train.

If they're found not guilty, Ulster only have to pay off their contracts.

BigGee wrote:You have got to be a little bit careful being judgemental when all you are hearing atm is the prosecution case, which by its nature is going to be damming. The defence case will likely put a very different slant on it.

It is still very very difficult to secure a conviction in a r*** case as juries are notoriously difficult to convince to the required level of proof.

If they are found innocent, Ulster may have no choice legally but to re-instate them, whatever peoples feeling about them may be. There are only two outcomes here and one of them will involve them going to jail, so rugby won't be a consideration.

This will undoubtedly happen.  It is the prosecution's job is to lay it on thick.  

Horrific as all of this is I am absolutely sure that the defense will push the consent piece to the bitter end.  

To Pete's point about the story being somewhat different to what was out there in the ether ...

The bits about Olding are broadly what I'd heard before.  He'll have to simply argue the consent piece.
The bits about Jackson are somewhat different and will be challenged hard I suspect.  

As I've said before, regardless of guilt or innocence, I want neither of them anywhere near an Ulster jersey ever again.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

clivemcl wrote:My reaction is disdain even if no wrongdoing has taken place, and then if found guilty that disdain elevates to disgust.

Legally (if Jackson/Olding insisted) UR would simply have to pay their contracts off. There's no law that states we would have to continue playing them.

Jackson signed his current contract around March 2017.  Ulster knew about these allegations before that (Jackson didn't travel with Ireland to the US in November 16 for 'personal reasons' as he was assisting the PSNI with their inquiries).  Ulster should have put a clause into that 2017 contract to cover themselves either way, if they didn't then they deserve to be out of pocket and the suits should be held accountable.

I argued this last week on the boards.

Either Ulster didn't ask or didn't care. The prevailing belief was that this would go away. I'm sure I heard it from multiple sources that Jackson's lawyers in particular were shocked when the charges came. Regardless the branch have failed miserably. They should never have been allowed to play in an Ulster jersey with this hanging over them.

It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

The Great Aukster wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Thats team not a squad but now you've shifted your complaint to the age profile which over the first XV is younger and probably the same over the squad

How much younger?

Nearly a years difference and thats if you take Jackson over McPhillips

Why would you take Jackson over McPhillips? Lealiifano (30) was picked over McPhillips in reality and Donald (34) would have been. Under a year's difference compared to a much more successful side hardly shows a commitment to youth in the current one.

Adam McBurney was almost as impressive as James Ryan at their JWC (and deputy captain), yet the latter has played in Europe for Leinster and already has a handful of caps for Ireland - and in comparison McBurney has...? Herring has been distinctly mediocre this season for Ulster, yet John Andrew has not been able to eclipse him as a starter and McBurney hardly given a look-in from the bench. Most would agree that Herring is a decent pro player but like so many others in the current setup is shy of Test class - yet those making the rugby decisions at Ulster seem to prefer a whole squad full of... well squad players.

So you've went from the signings are crap and Bryns clueless to the age profile has increased to the young players aren't getting a chance and compared a hooker to a second row? In a season where 9 academy players have made their debuts and Andrew has played 11 games and started 5 of them from 18 games so far this season

neilthom7 wrote:It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

Serious question I have to ask, why shouldn't they play for Ulster again? If they've done nothing illegal then being a complete ar$ehole isn't something that stops a lot of people from being gainfully employed and Im sure they aren't the only ones at the club and there have been others who have done potentially worse and not fired

Yet another player with links to Ulster being an absolute devil. Even spitting. I don't remember him spitting at Ravers? He's on a wreckless downward spiral to hooliganism I fear.

https://youtu.be/02iNQu87Yco

marty2086 wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

Serious question I have to ask, why shouldn't they play for Ulster again? If they've done nothing illegal then being a complete ar$ehole isn't something that stops a lot of people from being gainfully employed and Im sure they aren't the only ones at the club and there have been others who have done potentially worse and not fired

The others haven’t dragged Ulster’s name through the courts. How does Shane Logan say to his marketing team to encourage families to come through the gate, for fathers and mothers to bring their daughters to the games knowing that those players on display have such opinions about females. Whilst their behaviour may or may not be illegal (that’s up to the jury), it is ultimately disqualifying and dragging the name of your employer through the court is (possibly already) grounds for termination.

How do we encourage females to participate and let their children participate in a sport that espouses such a low attitude towards the opposite sex amongst the elite players? That’s why they shouldn’t play for ulster or Ireland again.

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

Serious question I have to ask, why shouldn't they play for Ulster again? If they've done nothing illegal then being a complete ar$ehole isn't something that stops a lot of people from being gainfully employed and Im sure they aren't the only ones at the club and there have been others who have done potentially worse and not fired

The others haven’t dragged Ulster’s name through the courts. How does Shane Logan say to his marketing team to encourage families to come through the gate, for fathers and mothers to bring their daughters to the games knowing that those players on display have such opinions about females. Whilst their behaviour may or may not be illegal (that’s up to the jury), it is ultimately disqualifying and dragging the name of your employer through the court is (possibly already) grounds for termination.

How do we encourage females to participate and let their children participate in a sport that espouses such a low attitude towards the opposite sex amongst the elite players? That’s why they shouldn’t play for ulster or Ireland again.

Yes they did, Wilson and Herron both dragged through court for drink driving and what did the headlines say, 'Ulster rugby star...', wasn't Kyriacou in court too a number of years ago?

I'm not condoning their behaviour but how do you sell the club to families who could be run over by one of your drunken players?

In fairness I’ve been pretty outspoken about Wilson on here and felt Ulster should have dropped him over that. I understand your position by however about consistency for courts and theUlster name etc.

To be honest, it will be mutually agree between UR and the players behind closed doors. We will never be told the detail. They will not play for Ulster again. I’m sure of it.

marty2086 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

Serious question I have to ask, why shouldn't they play for Ulster again? If they've done nothing illegal then being a complete ar$ehole isn't something that stops a lot of people from being gainfully employed and Im sure they aren't the only ones at the club and there have been others who have done potentially worse and not fired

The others haven’t dragged Ulster’s name through the courts. How does Shane Logan say to his marketing team to encourage families to come through the gate, for fathers and mothers to bring their daughters to the games knowing that those players on display have such opinions about females. Whilst their behaviour may or may not be illegal (that’s up to the jury), it is ultimately disqualifying and dragging the name of your employer through the court is (possibly already) grounds for termination.

How do we encourage females to participate and let their children participate in a sport that espouses such a low attitude towards the opposite sex amongst the elite players? That’s why they shouldn’t play for ulster or Ireland again.

Yes they did, Wilson and Herron both dragged through court for drink driving and what did the headlines say, 'Ulster rugby star...', wasn't Kyriacou in court too a number of years ago?

I'm not condoning their behaviour but how do you sell the club to families who could be run over by one of your drunken players?

I couldnt agree with you more regarding Wilson. He should have been binned immediately. My ‘they havent’ bit Was in reference to players who might engage in the same boasting on WhatsApp etc btw. Technically I’m sure said boasting goes on in a lot of Rugby clubs after conquests. The difference this time is the allegation against the players regarding the consent and subsequently that the sordid details are in the public domain. I’d also contend that the profile of the case and the fact that the largest market for potential growth in the country (ie females) will go against them.

I’ll rephrase though. I will be massively surprised if Either player has an Irish contract at the end of this.

I understand that Jackson and Olding are sports stars but why do the media keep referring to them as Ulster and Irelands Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, what do the other two accused do for work? Can the authorities at Ulster and Ireland ban the media from referring to them in such a manner?

eirebilly wrote:I understand that Jackson and Olding are sports stars but why do the media keep referring to them as Ulster and Irelands Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, what do the other two accused do for work? Can the authorities at Ulster and Ireland ban the media from referring to them in such a manner?

That's the media for you, and there's probably not a lot Ulster can do about it as it's factual. And if they sacked them the headline would be 'former Ulster stars'!

RDW_Scotland wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I understand that Jackson and Olding are sports stars but why do the media keep referring to them as Ulster and Irelands Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, what do the other two accused do for work? Can the authorities at Ulster and Ireland ban the media from referring to them in such a manner?

That's the media for you, and there's probably not a lot Ulster can do about it as it's factual. And if they sacked them the headline would be 'former Ulster stars'!

At the end of the day, they are individuals. Their acts had nothing to do with Ulster or Ireland rugby, they were just their employers and in no way responsible for their off field indiscretions. Surely there can be a case made against the media for associating club and country for individual actions? They are not naming the companies where the other two are/were employed.

eirebilly wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

eirebilly wrote:I understand that Jackson and Olding are sports stars but why do the media keep referring to them as Ulster and Irelands Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, what do the other two accused do for work? Can the authorities at Ulster and Ireland ban the media from referring to them in such a manner?

That's the media for you, and there's probably not a lot Ulster can do about it as it's factual. And if they sacked them the headline would be 'former Ulster stars'!

At the end of the day, they are individuals. Their acts had nothing to do with Ulster or Ireland rugby, they were just their employers and in no way responsible for their off field indiscretions. Surely there can be a case made against the media for associating club and country for individual actions? They are not naming the companies where the other two are/were employed.

That's because it doesn't make headlines! If you think of any story about sports stars in trouble over the years the team they play for is always mentioned - particularly if it is a big one. This is in no way unique to Ulster. Glasgow and the SRU had to deal with this a few years ago when 'Glasgow and Scotland stars assault man in kebab shop' was making the headlines.

I get what you're coming from but we'd be verging on restricting the press and freedom of speech if Ulster were to ban the press from mentioning a factual statement. I don't know how they'd go about doing that or how they'd get a judge to approve it!

It was mentioned that they were Ulster and Ireland rugby stars, everyone knows that now. My point is why keep mentioning it in every article? Ulster and Ireland rugby's name is being brought into disrepute by these constant headlines when they are not responsible for the individuals behaviour.

I noticed in one of the earlier articles (maybe Monday) it had a picture of Craig Gilroy, who apparently was in the public gallery.

Obviously to show support for his mates.

I think that is a big mistake. I don't think any current Ulster player should be in attendance.

eirebilly wrote:It was mentioned that they were Ulster and Ireland rugby stars, everyone knows that now. My point is why keep mentioning it in every article? Ulster and Ireland rugby's name is being brought into disrepute by these constant headlines when they are not responsible for the individuals behaviour.

Again, headlines! No self respecting editor would ever think to himself 'you know what, I mentioned that these lads play for Ulster a year ago so I won't bother saying it again'. And it's not like the press are claiming that Ulster encouraged this behaviour or tried to cover it up, which would certainly bring the club into disrepute, they are just making a factual statement about the players.

Sorry to keep going on about this - I feel for you Ulster fans who are obviously appalled by the actions that two of your players are accused of, but the sad fact is that Ulster will be tarnished by this and it is in no way their fault. How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage.

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

Serious question I have to ask, why shouldn't they play for Ulster again? If they've done nothing illegal then being a complete ar$ehole isn't something that stops a lot of people from being gainfully employed and Im sure they aren't the only ones at the club and there have been others who have done potentially worse and not fired

The others haven’t dragged Ulster’s name through the courts. How does Shane Logan say to his marketing team to encourage families to come through the gate, for fathers and mothers to bring their daughters to the games knowing that those players on display have such opinions about females. Whilst their behaviour may or may not be illegal (that’s up to the jury), it is ultimately disqualifying and dragging the name of your employer through the court is (possibly already) grounds for termination.

How do we encourage females to participate and let their children participate in a sport that espouses such a low attitude towards the opposite sex amongst the elite players? That’s why they shouldn’t play for ulster or Ireland again.

Yes they did, Wilson and Herron both dragged through court for drink driving and what did the headlines say, 'Ulster rugby star...', wasn't Kyriacou in court too a number of years ago?

I'm not condoning their behaviour but how do you sell the club to families who could be run over by one of your drunken players?

I couldnt agree with you more regarding Wilson. He should have been binned immediately. My ‘they havent’ bit Was in reference to players who might engage in the same boasting on WhatsApp etc btw. Technically I’m sure said boasting goes on in a lot of Rugby clubs after conquests. The difference this time is the allegation against the players regarding the consent and subsequently that the sordid details are in the public domain. I’d also contend that the profile of the case and the fact that the largest market for potential growth in the country (ie females) will go against them.

I’ll rephrase though. I will be massively surprised if Either player has an Irish contract at the end of this.

Can someone be held responsible for a third party? Whether that be the media or someone potentially making a false accusation?

eirebilly wrote:It was mentioned that they were Ulster and Ireland rugby stars, everyone knows that now. My point is why keep mentioning it in every article? Ulster and Ireland rugby's name is being brought into disrepute by these constant headlines when they are not responsible for the individuals behaviour.

If there was bad behaviour before that went unaddressed then are Ulster responsible for a continuing pattern?

rapidsnowman wrote:I noticed in one of the earlier articles (maybe Monday) it had a picture of Craig Gilroy, who apparently was in the public gallery.

Obviously to show support for his mates.

I think that is a big mistake. I don't think any current Ulster player should be in attendance.

While potentially going to put him in a bad light especially if they are found guilty, standing with friends when the world may be against them is something to be applauded

I was thinking more of how it looked for Ulster Rugby.

He can let them know he is supporting them without going to the court.

We are assuming he was there supporting them

"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

marty2086 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

Serious question I have to ask, why shouldn't they play for Ulster again? If they've done nothing illegal then being a complete ar$ehole isn't something that stops a lot of people from being gainfully employed and Im sure they aren't the only ones at the club and there have been others who have done potentially worse and not fired

The others haven’t dragged Ulster’s name through the courts. How does Shane Logan say to his marketing team to encourage families to come through the gate, for fathers and mothers to bring their daughters to the games knowing that those players on display have such opinions about females. Whilst their behaviour may or may not be illegal (that’s up to the jury), it is ultimately disqualifying and dragging the name of your employer through the court is (possibly already) grounds for termination.

How do we encourage females to participate and let their children participate in a sport that espouses such a low attitude towards the opposite sex amongst the elite players? That’s why they shouldn’t play for ulster or Ireland again.

Yes they did, Wilson and Herron both dragged through court for drink driving and what did the headlines say, 'Ulster rugby star...', wasn't Kyriacou in court too a number of years ago?

I'm not condoning their behaviour but how do you sell the club to families who could be run over by one of your drunken players?

I couldnt agree with you more regarding Wilson. He should have been binned immediately. My ‘they havent’ bit Was in reference to players who might engage in the same boasting on WhatsApp etc btw. Technically I’m sure said boasting goes on in a lot of Rugby clubs after conquests. The difference this time is the allegation against the players regarding the consent and subsequently that the sordid details are in the public domain. I’d also contend that the profile of the case and the fact that the largest market for potential growth in the country (ie females) will go against them.

I’ll rephrase though. I will be massively surprised if Either player has an Irish contract at the end of this.

Can someone be held responsible for a third party? Whether that be the media or someone potentially making a false accusation?

Not sure i understand what you're referring to here marty.

In addition to your later posts about Ulster bearing some responsibility. Its a fine line. They certainly cant be held in any way accountable for the alleged crime. That said cant any organisation do more to instil proper behaviours in their players/employees. I recall reading about the extensive training the young Man Utd lads got when they were coming through (the Nevilles, Giggs, Scholes etc) and the fact they weren't allowed to near a tv camera to give interviews even until Fergie was satisfied. That and the old story about Lee Sharpe having a young Giggs out at a party which ultimately went towards Fergie selling him in the next window. You need someone at the top driving standards but its a fine line imo.

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:It should be pointed out this was the prosecution laying out their case, essentially an opening statement, I can tell you that there are times when the prosecution lays out a case then the defence lays out the same case and they sound like 2 entirely different cases.
However it doesn't sound good and regardless of whether they are found guilty or not they should not play for Ulster again

Serious question I have to ask, why shouldn't they play for Ulster again? If they've done nothing illegal then being a complete ar$ehole isn't something that stops a lot of people from being gainfully employed and Im sure they aren't the only ones at the club and there have been others who have done potentially worse and not fired

The others haven’t dragged Ulster’s name through the courts. How does Shane Logan say to his marketing team to encourage families to come through the gate, for fathers and mothers to bring their daughters to the games knowing that those players on display have such opinions about females. Whilst their behaviour may or may not be illegal (that’s up to the jury), it is ultimately disqualifying and dragging the name of your employer through the court is (possibly already) grounds for termination.

How do we encourage females to participate and let their children participate in a sport that espouses such a low attitude towards the opposite sex amongst the elite players? That’s why they shouldn’t play for ulster or Ireland again.

Yes they did, Wilson and Herron both dragged through court for drink driving and what did the headlines say, 'Ulster rugby star...', wasn't Kyriacou in court too a number of years ago?

I'm not condoning their behaviour but how do you sell the club to families who could be run over by one of your drunken players?

I couldnt agree with you more regarding Wilson. He should have been binned immediately. My ‘they havent’ bit Was in reference to players who might engage in the same boasting on WhatsApp etc btw. Technically I’m sure said boasting goes on in a lot of Rugby clubs after conquests. The difference this time is the allegation against the players regarding the consent and subsequently that the sordid details are in the public domain. I’d also contend that the profile of the case and the fact that the largest market for potential growth in the country (ie females) will go against them.

I’ll rephrase though. I will be massively surprised if Either player has an Irish contract at the end of this.

Can someone be held responsible for a third party? Whether that be the media or someone potentially making a false accusation?

Not sure i understand what you're referring to here marty.

In addition to your later posts about Ulster bearing some responsibility. Its a fine line. They certainly cant be held in any way accountable for the alleged crime. That said cant any organisation do more to instil proper behaviours in their players/employees. I recall reading about the extensive training the young Man Utd lads got when they were coming through (the Nevilles, Giggs, Scholes etc) and the fact they weren't allowed to near a tv camera to give interviews even until Fergie was satisfied. That and the old story about Lee Sharpe having a young Giggs out at a party which ultimately went towards Fergie selling him in the next window. You need someone at the top driving standards but its a fine line imo.

If someone makes a false accusation, why should innocent parties be punished? Thats what Im getting at, if they are being dragged through the mud because of their profile then should they be punished? Im not trying to infer that's the case but that is one of the potential findings that could come out just like they could be caught bang to rights

During the 2015-16 season then Glasgow prop, Roussow De Klerk pled guilty to a breach of the peace in relation to inappropriate behaviour towards a 15 year old girl. He was immediately dismissed from his contract at GWs and ended up in the French second tier. He is now with the Southern Kings. The Warriors took immediate action but that was after a guilty plea by De Klerk. Ulster now find themselves in a very awkward position re the players on trial but also the other playing staff. There is a real need for them to limit the damage to their good name but how they do that whilst the trial is on is extremely difficult.

They wont be punished for the actual accusation though (if found innocent). Im not going to go into it again because the trial is ongoing and because you will probably hear so much mud slinging in the next week/weeks that opinions will go back and forth. I will simply restate that i would be massively surprised if either player wears the white jersey again.

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Because even based on their own accounts and what they have admitted to, they should be fired.

21st Century Schizoid Man wrote:During the 2015-16 season then Glasgow prop, Roussow De Klerk pled guilty to a breach of the peace in relation to inappropriate behaviour towards a 15 year old girl.   He was immediately dismissed from his contract at GWs and ended up in the French second tier.    He is now with the Southern Kings.    The Warriors took immediate action but that was after a guilty plea by De Klerk.     Ulster now find themselves in a very awkward position re the players on trial but also the other playing staff.     There is a real need for them to limit the damage to their good name but how they do that whilst the trial is on is extremely difficult.    

I think the SRU have been very good in how it has dealt with incidents over the years (and there have been a few) - they have been able to walk the fine line between appropriately condoning the individual but also making the right decision about the future of the person involved so that the persons life wasn't ruined.

They haven't had to deal with anything as serious as this, with the closest being De Klerk who was rightly sacked immediately once he pleaded guilty. As you say Ulster are in a difficult position as (I'm assuming) their players have pleaded not guilty.

The most difficult one was Ryan Wilson lamping a Glasgow Hawks player in a kebab shop and causing some real damage to the guy - that was a real difficult one as Glasgow Hawks are one of Glasgow Warrior's local club sides, and I know people who knew the victim and there was a lot of anger at Glasgow Warriors at the time within the amateur rugby community for how they handled it. Glasgow docked a significant amount of Wilson's pay and banned him for several months, but kept him on as a player and ultimately made him captain! They could easily have sacked him but that would have put Wilson at real difficulty in life for him and his young family - it seems to have worked as since the incident Wilson was a changed man and has gone on to become a well respected player in the Glasgow and Scotland.

rodders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Because even based on their own accounts and what they have admitted to, they should be fired.

The problem with that rodders is do we refuse to sell match day tickets to those we believe are morally suspect?
Do we refuse sponsorships from company's whos directors are not wholesome?
Who of us sets the moral benchmark?
The multiple partners is not new, it's been happening for hundreds of years. Whether you or I agree with it or think it's morally right does not matter, if the people involved are 100% happy to engage then that's up to them.
The issue here is consent and if it was explicitly given.
Do I think they will ever play for us again? Not a chance.
Do I agree with there views on how they spend there free time. No