Ulster Rugby 2017-18

by Pot Hale Mon 01 Jan 2018, 6:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by **rodders** Tue 06 Feb 2018, 2:17 pm

Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

Sorry been offline for a few days.

Happy to apologize to Rory.

I still think the IRFU and Ulster should have thought about what the public perception would be and didn't handle it well in terms of the statements they made and didn't make around this but certainly Rory can only do what he was advised to.

by marty2086 Tue 06 Feb 2018, 2:33 pm

rodders wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

Sorry been offline for a few days.

Happy to apologize to Rory.

I still think the IRFU and Ulster should have thought about what the public perception would be and didn't handle it well in terms of the statements they made and didn't make around this but certainly Rory can only do what he was advised to.

They can't make statements on it though, they publically say players can't attend people ask do they think the accused are guilty, they say players can attend they are supporting violence against women which is an accusation that has been made

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 3:14 pm

So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Jackson has a top class QC - he will get him off because there is reasonable doubt about consent (its he says/she says).

by marty2086 Tue 06 Feb 2018, 3:30 pm

Anyone free on Friday night and got their own boots?

Craig Gilroy has recovered from a fractured cheekbone and is in contention to play against the Southern Kings on Friday night.

Andrew Trimble (back) and Peter Nelson (hamstring) have picked up injuries in training and are unavailable for selection this weekend.

The following players remain unavailable due to injury:
Callum Black (lower back)
Tommy Bowe (sternoclavicular joint)
David Busby (hamstring)
Marcell Coetzee (knee)
Robbie Diack (back)
Brett Herron (knee)
Jared Payne (migraines)
Johnny Simpson (wrist)
Schalk van der Merwe (ankle)

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 3:30 pm

Sin é wrote:So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Jackson has a top class QC - he will get him off because there is reasonable doubt about consent (its he says/she says).

?

I'm beginning to lose your train of thought, sin. If you look around you at not just rugby............ how many people have now been sacked, replaced, suspended, been made outcasts etc before any trial? It's the new or not so new way that businesses operate. As soon as there is suspicion, the rush to please public opinion is paramount. That's why this climate of 'assumed guilt' before being proven innocent is a contentious topic. The rule of law at times seems to be under duress from older, ironically more Biblical (in this anti-Religion/post-Christian age) codes - an eye for an eye. Let's lynch 'em, the basterdes!!!

And you continue to deny the I'm sure strong advice from Rory's legal representatives that he should attend to hear a side of the story you can only hear in court. You cannot get a full story from the print media or TV. You have to attend to get a full account.

by geoff999rugby Tue 06 Feb 2018, 3:33 pm

Sin é wrote:So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Jackson has a top class QC - he will get him off because there is reasonable doubt about consent (its he says/she says).

4 players attended - one is an old school mate, one is club captain, one is connected to the case (not at party), the 4th I haven't a clue.
Their attendance is specific to the case - to assume non attendance by the rest of the players is an assumption of guilt is codswallop

We don't know if they are innocent or guilty - the club took the sensible precaution of suspending them till the matter was resolved.
Playing in those circumstances would be bad news for them and the club

Rory may well be called as a character witness - my understanding if he is he will be required to attend.
He is no legal expert and probably felt obliged to attend.
The 'up against Ulster rugby' was just a prosecution ploy to enhance the status of the young lady as a victim.
Irrelevant to the correctness, or otherwise, of the players attending.
As an FYI as a CC players he is employed by the IRFU not Ulster

You don't know if he will get off , and neither do I.
I am aware of two pieces of evidence that have yet to be made public (one helping the players, the others just the opposite)
I assume they will be during the trial.
These cases, including this one, are rarely as simple as he says/she says - it is far more nuanced.

Seems to me your are simplifying the events for dramatic effect and a bit of sh!t stirring

by marty2086 Tue 06 Feb 2018, 3:34 pm

Sin é wrote:So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

No, if Ulster state publically they shouldn't attend that could be prejudicial. Not that complicated that public statements on the matter from high profile organisations carry weight hence why I personally had a big issue with Paula Bradshaws statement

Sin é wrote:I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Sin there's been some stupid sh!t posted about the matter and that's up there, so people saying the players should or shouldn't attend is a young woman going up against Ulster Rugby? Erm

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 3:44 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:
The 'up against Ulster rugby' was just a prosecution ploy to enhance the status of the young lady as a victim.

Indeed. You have to be clinical and allow that reading of her words to be a possibility. Indeed, further, for the lady to suggest that she might be up against Ulster rugby is to accuse the organisation of some form of complicity in protecting guilty parties from justice. Unless she has real evidence that might suggest that Ulster Rugby as an organisation was out to demean her evidence or story then perhaps she might be cruising around libel.

Her grievance I assume was against the accused men that were in the house during the offence/activity. If she extends the grievance to Ulster Rugby then maybe she should have been openly cross examined (maybe she was, I'm not following the case so closely) on why she would say such a thing and what evidence she might feel that she has.

Because if she has no evidence and is only giving a general feeling that Ulster Rugby might be against her - then I think the jury should be advised that if they have heard such comments on the outside or in the media, they themselves should discount such comments from their considerations.

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 4:41 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Jackson has a top class QC - he will get him off because there is reasonable doubt about consent (its he says/she says).

?

I'm beginning to lose your train of thought, sin. If you look around you at not just rugby............ how many people have now been sacked, replaced, suspended, been made outcasts etc before any trial? It's the new or not so new way that businesses operate. As soon as there is suspicion, the rush to please public opinion is paramount. That's why this climate of 'assumed guilt' before being proven innocent is a contentious topic. The rule of law at times seems to be under duress from older, ironically more Biblical (in this anti-Religion/post-Christian age) codes - an eye for an eye. Let's lynch 'em, the basterdes!!!

And you continue to deny the I'm sure strong advice from Rory's legal representatives that he should attend to hear a side of the story you can only hear in court. You cannot get a full story from the print media or TV. You have to attend to get a full account.

I think the problem is in the British legal system. In matters like this, no one should know anything about them until after the court case has taken place. The Mils Muliaina arrest was just crazy stuff. I just don't understand why they do it this way. Is it so that the legal people can make a fortune out of the situation?

I think you are underestimating how difficult it is for the alleged victim to do what she is doing. And then when you see what went on in the past (Joanne Hayes/Kerry Babies) and the awful way she was treated by the justice system, I think its fairly understandable that it looks like history repeating itself again with this woman who has absolutely nothing to gain from this trial.

I think you don't understand the role of a character witness. It would only be relevant when it came to sentencing (if found guilty). He could probably even have given a written character reference that wouldn't have required him to attend. I'd imagine if Rory had his own legal advice, he would have been told to stay away from it.

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:06 pm

[quote="geoff999rugby"]

Sin é wrote:So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Jackson has a top class QC - he will get him off because there is reasonable doubt about consent (its he says/she says).

4 players attended - one is an old school mate, one is club captain, one is connected to the case (not at party), the 4th I haven't a clue.
Their attendance is specific to the case - to assume non attendance by the rest of the players is an assumption of guilt is codswallop

We don't know if they are innocent or guilty - the club took the sensible precaution of suspending them till the matter was resolved.
Playing in those circumstances would be bad news for them and the club

Since they are innocent until proven guilty, why would it be bad news for them and the club? Surely everyone understands that concept?

Rory may well be called as a character witness - my understanding if he is he will be required to attend.

People are asked to be character witnesses. They can decline if they don't want to. They are not forced to give evidence.

He is no legal expert and probably felt obliged to attend.

And hence why I think he was badly advised. Ulster/IRFU should have spoken to the players about it.

The 'up against Ulster rugby' was just a prosecution ploy to enhance the status of the young lady as a victim.

That 'up against Ulster rugby' comment was made in a text to her friends a few hours after the incidence. I doubt very much if it was a 'ploy' considering how soon it was made and before she had reported it to the police or got any legal advice.

Irrelevant to the correctness, or otherwise, of the players attending.
As an FYI as a CC players he is employed by the IRFU not Ulster

His line managers are in Ulster.

You don't know if he will get off , and neither do I.

I'll be very surprised if he doesn't. All they need is reasonable doubt about the consent and that is there.

I am aware of two pieces of evidence that have yet to be made public (one helping the players, the others just the opposite)
I assume they will be during the trial.
These cases, including this one, are rarely as simple as he says/she says - it is far more nuanced.

r*** is very difficult to prove - thats why very few come forward. Consent is very difficult to prove/disprove.

Seems to me your are simplifying the events for dramatic effect and a bit of sh!t stirring

Seems to me there is a bit of defense of the indefensible.

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:20 pm

Sin é wrote:

I think the problem is in the British legal system. In matters like this, no one should know anything about them until after the court case has taken place. The Mils Muliaina arrest was just crazy stuff. I just don't understand why they do it this way. Is it so that the legal people can make a fortune out of the situation?

I think you are underestimating how difficult it is for the alleged victim to do what she is doing. And then when you see what went on in the past (Joanne Hayes/Kerry Babies) and the awful way she was treated by the justice system, I think its fairly understandable that it looks like history repeating itself again with this woman who has absolutely nothing to gain from this trial.

I think you don't understand the role of a character witness. It would only be relevant when it came to sentencing (if found guilty). He could probably even have given a written character reference that wouldn't have required him to attend. I'd imagine if Rory had his own legal advice, he would have been told to stay away from it.

Rory wanted to inform himself of the detail and so do the people that advised him to go.

I agree with you as regards the system that identifies the accused in such a serious set of charges and allows the accuser anonymity (understandably for the accuser under such accusations). Surely, an innocent person must be protected - both the accused and the accuser? When you get named, nobody forgets the accusation - even if you are found innocent. The eyes of the disbelieving will follow you all your life.

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:23 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

No, if Ulster state publically they shouldn't attend that could be prejudicial. Not that complicated that public statements on the matter from high profile organisations carry weight hence why I personally had a big issue with Paula Bradshaws statement

Sin é wrote:I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Sin there's been some stupid sh!t posted about the matter and that's up there, so people saying the players should or shouldn't attend is a young woman going up against Ulster Rugby?

Ulster Rugby/IRFU should have got someone in to advise them how to deal with this (such as crisis PR person). For the record, I saw a quote from the MLA Paula Bradshaw that she had been contacted by local rugby club members and rugby fans to disassociate themselves from Ulster/IRFU over this.

I see also that there is a women's campaign up and running to send flowers to the court every day in solidarity with the woman from tomorrow.

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:26 pm

Sin é wrote:

I see also that there is a women's campaign up and running to send flowers to the court every day in solidarity with the woman from tomorrow.

Is that not as potentially influential as a Rory visitation?

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:27 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:

I think the problem is in the British legal system. In matters like this, no one should know anything about them until after the court case has taken place. The Mils Muliaina arrest was just crazy stuff. I just don't understand why they do it this way. Is it so that the legal people can make a fortune out of the situation?

I think you are underestimating how difficult it is for the alleged victim to do what she is doing. And then when you see what went on in the past (Joanne Hayes/Kerry Babies) and the awful way she was treated by the justice system, I think its fairly understandable that it looks like history repeating itself again with this woman who has absolutely nothing to gain from this trial.

I think you don't understand the role of a character witness. It would only be relevant when it came to sentencing (if found guilty). He could probably even have given a written character reference that wouldn't have required him to attend. I'd imagine if Rory had his own legal advice, he would have been told to stay away from it.

Rory wanted to inform himself of the detail and so do the people that advised him to go.

I agree with you as regards the system that identifies the accused in such a serious set of charges and allows the accuser anonymity (understandably for the accuser under such accusations). Surely, an innocent person must be protected - both the accused and the accuser? When you get named, nobody forgets the accusation - even if you are found innocent. The eyes of the disbelieving will follow you all your life.

Why did he need to inform himself on the detail. He was asked to be a character witness, not a jury member.

As for the anonimity of the accuser - I read that there is a photo of someone who is meant to be her floating around the internet.

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:28 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:

I see also that there is a women's campaign up and running to send flowers to the court every day in solidarity with the woman from tomorrow.

Is that not as potentially influential as a Rory visitation?

I believe it is a response to the Rory visitation.

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:38 pm

Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:

I see also that there is a women's campaign up and running to send flowers to the court every day in solidarity with the woman from tomorrow.

Is that not as potentially influential as a Rory visitation?

I believe it is a response to the Rory visitation.

So the women with the flowers are turning the situation back to being women...with flowers..... against the big bad Ulster Rugby and big bad Rory Best.... who had a right to be in court and more reason to be in court than I'm sure some of the other members of the public that might be in attendance?

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:42 pm

Sin é wrote:

Why did he need to inform himself on the detail. He was asked to be a character witness, not a jury member.

Because it's his right... his right to be in court.... his right to inform himself.... and the right of his advisor(s) to recommend that he did attend.

Like I say, is the presumption STILL that Rory was there to intimidate the accuser or influence the jury? And maybe you shouldn't even answer that as serious accusations are serious accusations. The judge was clear in what he said to the court about Rory's attendance

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:47 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:

I see also that there is a women's campaign up and running to send flowers to the court every day in solidarity with the woman from tomorrow.

Is that not as potentially influential as a Rory visitation?

I believe it is a response to the Rory visitation.

So the women with the flowers are turning the situation back to being women...with flowers..... against the big bad Ulster Rugby and big bad Rory Best.... who had a right to be in court and more reason to be in court than I'm sure some of the other members of the public that might be in attendance?

Thats about it Fly. You can donate! (or read what they say) here. So far they have raised about 3.5K.

https://www.gofundme.com/solidarity-flowers

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:54 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:

Why did he need to inform himself on the detail. He was asked to be a character witness, not a jury member.

Because it's his right... his right to be in court.... his right to inform himself.... and the right of his advisor(s) to recommend that he did attend.

Like I say, is the presumption STILL that Rory was there to intimidate the accuser or influence the jury? And maybe you shouldn't even answer that as serious accusations are serious accusations. The judge was clear in what he said to the court about Rory's attendance

All I will say is that I think Rory was ill advised to go. The judge should not have to say anything about anyone's attendance (and its a she not a he).

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:55 pm

Jesus!

Well, they've already convicted, haven't they!

I wonder do any of the Mná na hÉireann have sons or husbands or brothers? Or do they belong to the very precious set of women that seem never to have had any dealings with a man, even in their very own conception.

So much Hate - so wide a target area.

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 5:57 pm

Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:

Why did he need to inform himself on the detail. He was asked to be a character witness, not a jury member.

Because it's his right... his right to be in court.... his right to inform himself.... and the right of his advisor(s) to recommend that he did attend.

Like I say, is the presumption STILL that Rory was there to intimidate the accuser or influence the jury? And maybe you shouldn't even answer that as serious accusations are serious accusations. The judge was clear in what he said to the court about Rory's attendance

All I will say is that I think Rory was ill advised to go. The judge should not have to say anything about anyone's attendance (and its a she not a he).

Thank God for that or the Mna na Militia would be sending the offended missives about male Judges being in the pocket of the Evil Ulster Rugby. I'm wondering now what the jury makeup is like

by Sin é Tue 06 Feb 2018, 6:06 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
Sin é wrote:

Why did he need to inform himself on the detail. He was asked to be a character witness, not a jury member.

Because it's his right... his right to be in court.... his right to inform himself.... and the right of his advisor(s) to recommend that he did attend.

Like I say, is the presumption STILL that Rory was there to intimidate the accuser or influence the jury? And maybe you shouldn't even answer that as serious accusations are serious accusations. The judge was clear in what he said to the court about Rory's attendance

All I will say is that I think Rory was ill advised to go. The judge should not have to say anything about anyone's attendance (and its a she not a he).

Thank God for that or the Mna na Militia would be sending the offended missives about male Judges being in the pocket of the Evil Ulster Rugby. I'm wondering now what the jury makeup is like

The jury of nine men and three women was empanelled in front of Judge Patricia Smyth on Monday. The trial is scheduled to formally open on Tuesday and is expected to last five weeks, the judge said.

by neilthom7 Tue 06 Feb 2018, 6:38 pm

I think I am done with here, at least until the trials over and we can get back to actually talking about Ulster rugby and not about this trial. See you all soon.

by SecretFly Tue 06 Feb 2018, 6:52 pm

neilthom7 wrote:I think I am done with here, at least until the trials over and we can get back to actually talking about Ulster rugby and not about this trial. See you all soon.

You're right. I tried it for a day or two. Didn't last. I'll try again.

by Don Alfonso Tue 06 Feb 2018, 7:32 pm

McCall
Andrew
Herbst
AOC
Treaders
Rea
Henry
Timoney
Coobey
McPhillips
Gilroy
McCloskey
Marshall
Piutau
Ludik

Warwick
McBurney
O'Hagan
Browne
Reidy
Marshall
Lyttle

The rumour was that O'Hagan was to start - quite possibly a better idea with Herbst on the bench in case.

by Pot Hale Wed 07 Feb 2018, 2:08 am

Sin é wrote:

I think you don't understand the role of a character witness. It would only be relevant when it came to sentencing (if found guilty). He could probably even have given a written character reference that wouldn't have required him to attend. I'd imagine if Rory had his own legal advice, he would have been told to stay away from it.

You misunderstand the term. A character witness may be called to give evidence about a person’s character during a trial i.e. before a jury reaches its verdict.

Furthermore, it’s quite likely that a defence character witness would be cross-examined by the prosecution in this case. On cases I have been indirectly involved with previously (involving both r*** and murder) through my work, the use of a character witness can sometimes backfire due to statements made by the witness who think they are being helpful by revealing the ‘true’ or ‘we’re all human’ nature of someone under cross-examination and end up sowing seeds of doubt or confirming existing doubts in a juror’s mind.

Being aware of the case and the story from both sides is a regular question area and which the prosecution would have sought. There was nothing to be gained by the defence asking Best to attend given the inevitable public opprobrium that would ensue.

by carpet baboon Wed 07 Feb 2018, 8:58 am

Don Alfonso wrote:McCall
Andrew
Herbst
AOC
Treaders
Rea
Henry
Timoney
Coobey
McPhillips
Gilroy
McCloskey
Marshall
Piutau
Ludik

Warwick
McBurney
O'Hagan
Browne
Reidy
Marshall
Lyttle

The rumour was that O'Hagan was to start - quite possibly a better idea with Herbst on the bench in case.

Decent looking team. I take it lyttle will be covering the back 3 and scrum half?

by marty2086 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 9:20 am

Sin é wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:So if the rest of the Ulster squad don't attend, the rest of the Ulster squad think they are guilty? Ulster/IRFU suspended the players involved until after the trial verdict. If they are innocent why were they suspended from playing (training?) with Ulster?

No, if Ulster state publically they shouldn't attend that could be prejudicial. Not that complicated that public statements on the matter from high profile organisations carry weight hence why I personally had a big issue with Paula Bradshaws statement

Sin é wrote:I think Rory (and his good reputation) was used by the defence counsel. He should not have had anything to do with the case, particularly after what the young woman said about 'going up against Ulster rugby'. All I can see here is diehard fans and Ulster rugby doing exactly what she predicted would happen in her first text messages.

Sin there's been some stupid sh!t posted about the matter and that's up there, so people saying the players should or shouldn't attend is a young woman going up against Ulster Rugby?

Ulster Rugby/IRFU should have got someone in to advise them how to deal with this (such as crisis PR person). For the record, I saw a quote from the MLA Paula Bradshaw that she had been contacted by local rugby club members and rugby fans to disassociate themselves from Ulster/IRFU over this.

I see also that there is a women's campaign up and running to send flowers to the court every day in solidarity with the woman from tomorrow.

You're assuming they could do anything more than they have already down, as I keep telling you, legally their hands are tied.

Idiots who work against actual facts can't be controlled, I've seen people accuse the defence/Ulster/Rory of trying to intimidate the young woman by him being in court. All despite her being hidden from public view and the public being hidden from her. Rory and the judge have both said why he was there but apparently it's a cover up.

All those who were part of the #notmycaptain campaign have assumed guilt while attacking anyone who dares say innocent until proven guilty and are in need of some serious help and I feel sorry for anyone who ends up with them on a jury of their peers

by marty2086 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 10:59 am

After a tumultuous week, Ulster Operations Manager Bryn Cunningham addressed the assembled media at Kingspan Stadium yesterday to outline how the province will move forward following Director of Rugby Les Kiss' departure.

The former Ireland defence coach was relieved of his duties last Wednesday, with Cunningham confirming that more than change in the coaching box is required.

A strategic review of the organisation at all levels is already under way, and the former full-back and European Cup winner offered a dose of realism after previous proclamations from Chief Executive Shane Logan in 2010 that any plan put in place "has to deliver Ulster (to) being top of the pile in Ireland, Europe and indeed the world".

Cunningham, who joined the side as Team Manager in 2014, four years after calling time on a playing career that encompassed 150 outings for the province, admitted a changing landscape means it's time for a different approach.

"I came into a strategy (that was) then a couple of years in, and was largely based around a group of players which was very strong," he said.

"That strategy was placed around being the world's best. I think you've got to have a lot of ambition and that can occasionally be misinterpreted that we needed to be literally the best club side in the world.

"That's not really what that was about, it was about being the best (we could be) in every facet of the game both on and off the field.

"I think we've had a chance to sit back and look at what's important now and where we are, take stock and almost have a bit of realism about exactly where we are.

"We've got to be optimistic and positive about moving forward but also appreciate where we are, the restrictions we have, and the player pull that we've got in comparison to a Leinster for example.

"We've got to mark ourselves about where we are right now and what we need to do going forward and that's taking a bird's eye view of the whole place and not just about the pro team and what's not right there.

"It's about looking at how we can get more school players of a high enough quality through into the academy and develop the academy to make them even better."

While one would hope the plans are not quite so simplistic, a large aspect of what Cunningham spoke of yesterday, while admitting that it was too soon to go into more specific detail, amounted to restoring pride in the Ulster jersey.

"There is a change now and as far as we are concerned it is an opportunity. I think the way we are looking at it is a chance to almost start from the foundations again and build back up again," he said.

"It is an opportunity to kind of look at our traditions, our history and what is important to Ulster Rugby, what is important for supporters and stakeholders to see on the pitch.

"We have got to start trying to deliver a level of consistency week in and week out. We have shown that we can play particularly well in patches but sometimes our performances have really let ourselves down.

"It is making sure we get those fundamental things in place and the type of characteristics we had to see in players, that competitiveness, that energy, enthusiasm and with that comes performances. That is what we are really focusing on moving forward."

Moving forward without Kiss too of course, with head coach Jono Gibbes now set to take on more responsibility. Is it safe to assume then that three roles - those of Director of Rugby, Operations Director and Head Coach - will be merged back into two, as they were last in the days of David Humphreys and Mark Anscombe?

"I am definitely not David Humphreys," Cunningham joked before agreeing with the broader assessment.

"I suppose in some ways, yes, the structure will fall more like that and will allow Jono Gibbes the opportunity to focus on the rugby.

"I will effectively oversee the professional game but we will very much carve it into those two distinct parts. I will look after all off-field matters and Jono will be very much in charge of team selection, training, on-field performance."

Confirming that if another coach is sought in the summer it will be to fill a defensive brief rather than assume the mantle of Kiss, he continued: "I think that is where we are right now at this moment. It is important Jono does not have to worry about a lot of other off-field things."

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/cunningham-outlines-ulsters-path-to-progress-in-opportunity-of-a-fresh-start-36576352.html

by **rodders** Wed 07 Feb 2018, 11:02 am

marty2086 wrote:
rodders wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

Sorry been offline for a few days.

Happy to apologize to Rory.

I still think the IRFU and Ulster should have thought about what the public perception would be and didn't handle it well in terms of the statements they made and didn't make around this but certainly Rory can only do what he was advised to.

They can't make statements on it though, they publically say players can't attend people ask do they think the accused are guilty, they say players can attend they are supporting violence against women which is an accusation that has been made

Well First they refused to comment at all.

Then after much media speculation and negative public response the IRFU and Ulster issued a joint statement to distance them selves stating any player attending was doing so in a personal capacity - so pretty much hung Best out to dry before the Ireland game.

Then after the #NotMyCaptain backlash grew, it was then made public knowledge that Rory was asked to attend because he was a character witness.

I understand there are legal sensitivities around this and that it new territory for everyone involved but they have made a pigs ear of the whole thing in my opinion.

I do feel sorry for Best though, I don't think he could do much else in the circumstance and he should be getting better advice.

Anyway I'm not commenting any further on it, it's already taken too much away from what is going on on the field.

by Don Alfonso Wed 07 Feb 2018, 11:20 am

carpet baboon wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:McCall
Andrew
Herbst
AOC
Treaders
Rea
Henry
Timoney
Coobey
McPhillips
Gilroy
McCloskey
Marshall
Piutau
Ludik

Warwick
McBurney
O'Hagan
Browne
Reidy
Marshall
Lyttle

The rumour was that O'Hagan was to start - quite possibly a better idea with Herbst on the bench in case.

Decent looking team. I take it lyttle will be covering the back 3 and scrum half?

D'oh! Left a player off the bench! P. Marshall covers scrum-half. But we have no-one to cover ten but Cooney. Nelson is injured, Herron is injured, Curtis is with U20s and even Lowry is injured.

So... Who knows? Maybe Cave on the bench as well. Also, O'Hagan is LH - he starts, McCall on benxh

by Pete330v2 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 11:29 am

carpet baboon wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:McCall
Andrew
Herbst
AOC
Treaders
Rea
Henry
Timoney
Coobey
McPhillips
Gilroy
McCloskey
Marshall
Piutau
Ludik

Warwick
McBurney
O'Hagan
Browne
Reidy
Marshall
Lyttle

The rumour was that O'Hagan was to start - quite possibly a better idea with Herbst on the bench in case.

Decent looking team. I take it lyttle will be covering the back 3 and scrum half?

Piutau on the wing, Ludik at fullback, just how I like things to be. Should Piutau and Gilroy not swap wings or is it just me ?

by Pete330v2 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 11:39 am

"I think the problem is in the British legal system. In matters like this, no one should know anything about them until after the court case has taken place."

The prize for the dumbest comment, amongst many dumb comments goes to the above.
There's no arguing with stupid.

by geoff999rugby Wed 07 Feb 2018, 11:56 am

Sin é

I have to pick you up on a number of points.
Firstly you say Rory should just walk away and have nothing to do with the case.
He cannot do that if he is summoned to attend he must attend

A person can be compelled (forced) to attend court and give evidence if they have been deemed competent to do so. The exceptions to this rule are the accused themselves, the accused’s spouse or civil partner and those not deemed competent to give evidence

Being a character witness has no special status in British law.

Secondly you criticise his, and others, attendance, because it may intimidate or influence the case and then in the same breath actively promote a campaign to provide support to the young lady.
A campaign which can, quite reasonably be viewed as justifying her action.
The word hypocrite comes to mind.

Lastly and most seriously you have on two occasions talked of people here defending the undefendable.
What is it that is undefendable ?
No one here, that I can see, has in any way sort to justify the actions of the two players in question.
If it is something else please elucidate.
If it is the action of the players then I think you are beholden to withdraw that slur on this forum.

by toml Wed 07 Feb 2018, 12:09 pm

Sin appears to have a bee in his bonnet about Rory, concencus seems to be he behaved appropriately but that doesnt help O'Mahoney become captain

by toml Wed 07 Feb 2018, 12:16 pm

http://www.the42.ie/bryn-cunningham-reaction-3838189-Feb2018/

Not that hopeful of change in Ulster, but lets get on and support them.

Maybe we could leave the trial chat of this thread and open it a new one if necessary.

Hopeful of a performance this weekend. Hopefully we play our players in their best positions and see some structure.

by Pete330v2 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 12:29 pm

toml wrote:Sin appears to have a bee in his bonnet about Rory, concencus seems to be he behaved appropriately but that doesnt help O'Mahoney become captain

He has a bee in his bonnet about anyone who resides north of the border (by bee in his bonnet I mean misinformed hatred).

by Pete330v2 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 12:35 pm

"Confirming that if another coach is sought in the summer it will be to fill a defensive brief rather than assume the mantle of Kiss, he continued: "I think that is where we are right now at this moment. It is important Jono does not have to worry about a lot of other off-field things."

Kurt McQuilkin had been mentioned to me but I've seen nothing else about him either here or the other place. Anyone heard anything similar?

by Don Alfonso Wed 07 Feb 2018, 4:11 pm

Dalton and Stewart called up to Ulster from U20s

by Sin é Wed 07 Feb 2018, 4:16 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:"I think the problem is in the British legal system. In matters like this, no one should know anything about them until after the court case has taken place."

The prize for the dumbest comment, amongst many dumb comments goes to the above.
There's no arguing with stupid.

So, go on ... explain why it would not be in everyone's interest if the identity of people accused of very personal crimes like r***, incest, child abuse etc. were kept out of the public domain until after a verdict was reached?

by marty2086 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 4:32 pm

Sin é wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:"I think the problem is in the British legal system. In matters like this, no one should know anything about them until after the court case has taken place."

The prize for the dumbest comment, amongst many dumb comments goes to the above.
There's no arguing with stupid.

So, go on ... explain why it would not be in everyone's interest if the identity of people accused of very personal crimes like r***, incest, child abuse etc. were kept out of the public domain until after a verdict was reached?

Because it enables other potential victims to come forward, not that hard to figure out

by Pete330v2 Wed 07 Feb 2018, 4:52 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:"I think the problem is in the British legal system. In matters like this, no one should know anything about them until after the court case has taken place."

The prize for the dumbest comment, amongst many dumb comments goes to the above.
There's no arguing with stupid.

So, go on ... explain why it would not be in everyone's interest if the identity of people accused of very personal crimes like r***, incest, child abuse etc. were kept out of the public domain until after a verdict was reached?

Because it enables other potential victims to come forward, not that hard to figure out

Also it's hardly a problem in the British legal system when the British and Irish media are all over it like flies on a steaming pile telling every sordid detail they can get their hands on.
Nothing is outside the public domain anymore, the legal system has no control over a thing in these cases. Only today for example, a colleague was showing me screenshots of the instagram account of the girl involved.

by Don Alfonso Wed 07 Feb 2018, 6:15 pm

ANYWAY... you know under Allen Clarke and Doak we'd be playing Shanahan and Browne. Whatever else, our attitude to bringing youngsters through is unrecognisable.

by geoff999rugby Wed 07 Feb 2018, 10:42 pm

Stewart and DAlton have been withdrawn from the Irish aged squad as they will probably be required for the 1st XV

by Redman Wed 07 Feb 2018, 11:24 pm

Don Alfonso wrote:ANYWAY... you know under Allen Clarke and Doak we'd be playing Shanahan and Browne. Whatever else, our attitude to bringing youngsters through is unrecognisable.

It's a singular positive but also a massive and obvious one. Really says that Gibbs, and not Kiss, understands the need to build a squad and he's been pushing this in the 2017/2018 season.

by Redman Wed 07 Feb 2018, 11:32 pm

Redman wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:ANYWAY... you know under Allen Clarke and Doak we'd be playing Shanahan and Browne. Whatever else, our attitude to bringing youngsters through is unrecognisable.

It's a singular positive but also a massive and obvious one. Really says that Gibbs, and not Kiss, understands the need to build a squad and he's been pushing this in the 2017/2018 season.

Oh but for the record I quite like Browne. A breakdown threat which so few of our players are, and performs consistently at a Pro14 level. Isn't a ECC player though. Shanahan however is 24/25 and would be actively holding Stewart and O'Donnell back (where has he got to).

But I agree with the youth point entirely.

by Pete330v2 Thu 08 Feb 2018, 9:20 am

Redman wrote:
Redman wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:ANYWAY... you know under Allen Clarke and Doak we'd be playing Shanahan and Browne. Whatever else, our attitude to bringing youngsters through is unrecognisable.

It's a singular positive but also a massive and obvious one. Really says that Gibbs, and not Kiss, understands the need to build a squad and he's been pushing this in the 2017/2018 season.

Oh but for the record I quite like Browne. A breakdown threat which so few of our players are, and performs consistently at a Pro14 level. Isn't a ECC player though. Shanahan however is 24/25 and would be actively holding Stewart and O'Donnell back (where has he got to).

But I agree with the youth point entirely.

Yeah I reckon Browne's a solid enough squad player who does at least get stuck in. Shanahan......this forum doesn't allow the words I'd use to describe him. I know he has his fans but I'm simply not one of them. Break glass option only.

by geoff999rugby Thu 08 Feb 2018, 9:34 am

Neither Marshall or Shanahan will be here after 18/19
I expect one to go this summer and the other to go the following summer

Safe to assume Stewart is now considered the no2 scrum half
O'Donnell should come through to be no3 for 19/20

by Don Alfonso Thu 08 Feb 2018, 10:17 am

You know what? Just thinking about it, when Marshall goes, his highlights montage will be something else.

by carpet baboon Thu 08 Feb 2018, 10:21 am

Don Alfonso wrote:You know what? Just thinking about it, when Marshall goes, his highlights montage will be something else.

He will have to have two.
One for the sublime
And one for the ridiculous

by Sponsored content