Ulster Rugby 2017-18

First topic message reminder :

I was thinkung similar McCloskey for me has been better than Arnold and Farrell and just isnt being picked. Hopefully a resurgent Ulster will make it all better

Kieran Campbell is a decent bloke and seems to be coming into his own working alongside Willie Anderson
I get the impression they are bringing the best out of each other

Ulster are believed to be weighing up signing Fijian utility back Metuisela Talebula from Bordeaux-Begles until the end of the season

marty2086 wrote:Ulster are believed to be weighing up signing Fijian utility back Metuisela Talebula from Bordeaux-Begles until the end of the season

He plays fullback, fly-half and wing according to Wiki which is more utility than most. Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic comes to mind though.

Pete330v2 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Ulster are believed to be weighing up signing Fijian utility back Metuisela Talebula from Bordeaux-Begles until the end of the season

He plays fullback, fly-half and wing according to Wiki which is more utility than most. Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic comes to mind though.

If he plays all three at once then Ulster are well away to getting the main constituents of a team up and running.

Sensible short term signing to help get us over the line with respect to the European Championship
To be honest that is what the last 5 or 6 games come down to now.

I am sensing a change of mood with respect to the trial at the club.
Ignoring actual proceeding which I feel should not be discussed when you do not get the full story through the media, two things seem to be swinging towards the players staying.
One reasonable, one more dubious.

The reasonable one seems to be a widely held view this should never have gone to court and an innocent verdict is almost certain.
We are not faced, which I think many feared, a Chad Evans scenario where they would be found innocent but still tainted.
Have they been idiots - Yes, Have they behaved in a reprehensible many - Yes, but if found innocent nothing more.

The more dubious line of thinking is we are a total mess and not having to sign a 10 or a 12 for next year will allow us to focus on getting 2/3 quality NIQ forwards for next year. Basically we are desperate

At the start of the trial the mood seemed to be they are finished.
Now I am far from sure.
Both contracted for next year, both may well hope to make the WC.
In the end what do they want ?

The issue with bringing them back into the fold will be the issues it's going to cause, every time they play there will be angry articles about Ulster Rugby and their culture and how it's anti-woman, which in turn will likely turn a few away and I bet you'll get at least one protest at a game

Not a good backdrop for sport and just another distraction to games

Ulster aren't exactly adept at dealing with PR problems

Absolutely and that is the biggest argument for them to go.

But they are contracted next year and if found innocent are legally entitled to be played and not discriminated against.
If they are forced out I think the Province will loose a fair few STs and will take a significant financial hit in compensation.

Ulster either need to sit them down and convince them their future lies elsewhere or put them through an image rehabilitation and maybe even publically put in a program for academy players to deal with their responsibilities as a professional and how they interact with people

So anyway Copeland went to Connacht.

It'll be the IRFUs call Geoff and if Ulster take a hit then so be it. I agree with you amongst reasonable people that ive talked to (fans not club representatives or anything) the view has softened. I'm still of the opinion that we are building a new culture and that having them there will be detrimental but it depends. I think a few things will come out after the trial which will influence public opinion one way or another. Judging from the other night the majority of STs that may be lost would fall into the older white male demographic. If you retain the two lads are you shutting the door to females? I dont know. I personally prefer a clean start.

Is it true Dave Kearney is off to Ulster?

Its a rumour doing the rounds - after years of no one coming up there has been a complete turn around

He'll be at home

Moore
Murphy
O'Connor
Timoney
Jones
Cooney
O'Hagan
Shanahan
Reagan

and that is just off the top of my head

Send Dooley up and we can put out a pack entirely of Leinster men and a couple of Lions

Dooley, Best, Moore
O'Connor, Henderson
Jones, Timoney, Murphy

None too shabby either

O'Hagan?

I wonder did we make any inquiries about Copeland? He would have been very useful depth for us next season.

In regards to Olding and Jackson, if they are found innocent and do decide the want to stay and IRFU want them to stay then Ulster need to try and do 2 things.

They need to find out if they have learned from this and changed their ways and they also need to set up a system to ensure all academy players can deal with any fame or influence they get properly so that nothing like this ever happens again.

If point 1 is satisfied maybe these guys could even speak to the academy players about what it was like to go through the trial and everything and help the academy players not make the same mistakes they have.

Standulstermen wrote:O'Hagan?

Young LH prop (24) - highly thought off
He is on a full contract.
Nearly played against Kings or Edinburgh but dropped out at last minute not sure why.
You will be seeing him next year

Is O'Hagan not from Swatragh though Geoff?

He is a Rainey OB but
Born in Dublin according to the website

Further updates from last night. Will not repeat what already posted from Thursday

- The Scarlet Pimpernel didn't show - surprise, surprise
- Said below the Academy some really talent backs coming through (mention Aaron Sexton)
- Suggested too many youngsters on board. We should concentrate on quality rather than quantity
- Happy to pick up quality Leinster youngsters if the opportunity arises. It is the attitude of the player that counts not his place of birth
- no immediate prospect of Steenson, Whitten, Farrell coming back
-  Metuisela Talebula - Who ?. Paper talk
- No immediate plans to sign Dave Kearney. Interesting he said immediate though
- The trial has been so disruptive. Got the feeling he thinks it is a nightmare he just wants to end and he doesn't know how it will end.
Basically lets get it over, dealt with and move on with what every the outcome is. Reading between the lines we wont sign a 10 until we know if Jackson is staying or not
- Payne no sign of returning. In theory we are waiting but I felt Bryn doesn't believe it will happen.
Still think he will retire this summer. There is no way we can give him a contract for next year.
- Looking to sign a LH, Lock and backrower
That alone tells you VdeMerwe is effectively getting kicked out, and possibly Deysel as well
That is 3 new players - either all NIQ in which case Deysel is toast, or 1 is Irish qualified, which brings us back to the question of Dooley again.


Insurance alone would prevent it

I still say an innocent verdict only implies a lack of evidence. What would help the boys would be if it became blatantly obvious it was fabricated, but that’s not the case yet. It also goes against them thatctheir stories don’t match. But they can excuse the haziness due to alcohol they would argue.

By the law though, an innocent verdict means you should not be treated in any way as though you are guilty. So... if the boys want to stay, UR probably have to allow it. A mutual agreement to leave would suit well. But any approach from UR to the boys to try convince them to leave could be dangerous and leave them open to legal action for discrimination or something.

Bryn also mentioned Curtis as someone to be, potentially, side tracked.
Given Lowry was picked out for special mention on Thursday that implies they have high hopes at 10,12
McPhillips, Lowry, Curtis

Also said Deysel was forced out of Munster by IRFU - doesn't mean we had to take him though

Regarding my pack full of Leinstermen earlier we could have a brand new pack next year, with the exception of Best and Henderson
New player, Best, Moore
New player, Henderson
Coetzee (effectively new player), New Player, Murphy

That is a pretty damning acceptance of our 'soft' (his words not mine) pack this year

I actually don't mind that provided these back up players get plenty of game time
O'Hagan, McBurney, O'Toole
Treadwell, Regan, O'Connor, Dalton
Hall, Jones, Timoney, Dunleavy, Rea

They are our future
Ok with others playing like Herring but hopefully the likes of
Henry, Ross, Diack, Warwick, Ah You, Browne, Reidy, Simpson get limited game time
At least four of those should be leaving

Some players like Reidy and Treadwell will hopefully get back to their form of last season rather than this. Foe me Reidy had a future in Ulsters back row when we play a more expansive game.

Treadwell could be a big player if he can kick on, he has the power and pace that can really cause problems

Big difference between Treadwell 23 and Reidy 29 but then again if Reidy was to get back to the player of a couple of years ago then sure.
He needs to improve though players are passing him by at the moment and he is in danger of not being a certainty for the 2nd string let alone the 1st XV

clivemcl wrote:I still say an innocent verdict only implies a lack of evidence. What would help the boys would be if it became blatantly obvious it was fabricated, but that’s not the case yet. It also goes against them thatctheir stories don’t match. But they can excuse the haziness due to alcohol they would argue.

By the law though, an innocent verdict means you should not be treated in any way as though you are guilty. So... if the boys want to stay, UR probably have to allow it. A mutual agreement to leave would suit well. But any approach from UR to the boys to try convince them to leave could be dangerous and leave them open to legal action for discrimination or something.

Is 'innocent' a verdict option for the jury? Or is it not guilty, not proven and guilty as the three options open to them?

Not guilty is innocence? No?

I didn't know 'not proven' was an option.

SecretFly wrote:Not guilty is innocence?  No?

Nope, just means that the case wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I think a judge can give further instruction in rare cases if evidence proves it categorically

geoff999rugby wrote:Big difference between Treadwell 23 and Reidy 29 but then again if Reidy was to get back to the player of a couple of years ago then sure.
He needs to improve though players are passing him by at the moment and he is in danger of not being a certainty for the 2nd string let alone the 1st XV

I thought has been Reidy one of our better players this season whereas Treadwell has been dire.

clivemcl wrote:I didn't know 'not proven' was an option.

I think thats only an option in Scotland, isnt it?

rodders wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Big difference between Treadwell 23 and Reidy 29 but then again if Reidy was to get back to the player of a couple of years ago then sure.
He needs to improve though players are passing him by at the moment and he is in danger of not being a certainty for the 2nd string let alone the 1st XV

I thought has been Reidy one of our better players this season whereas Treadwell has been dire.

Don't think either have been dire but their output has dropped considerably, Reidy doesn't seem interested at the breakdown and doesn't seem as quick or dynamic when carrying and Treadwell just looks lightweight compared to where he was at a year ago

Can you tell a 'not guilty' man/woman that he/she is not innocent either?
Given that the law says he's innocent until 'proven' guilty, if guilt hasn't been proved, he's in the same state as he was before the trial - innocent.

SecretFly wrote:Can you tell a 'not guilty' man/woman that he/she is not innocent either?
Given that the law says he's innocent until 'proven' guilty, if guilt hasn't been proved, he's in the same state as he was before the trial - innocent.

Agreed unless of course your name is OJ Simpson.

In British law (expect Scotland) you are either guilty or not guilty
To somehow suggest there is some grey area in between is solely a personal opinion and has no legal basis.
If found not guilty an individual has exactly the same rights as anybody else
Cant see how you can interpret that as anything other than innocent

marty2086 wrote:

rodders wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Big difference between Treadwell 23 and Reidy 29 but then again if Reidy was to get back to the player of a couple of years ago then sure.
He needs to improve though players are passing him by at the moment and he is in danger of not being a certainty for the 2nd string let alone the 1st XV

I thought has been Reidy one of our better players this season whereas Treadwell has been dire.

Don't think either have been dire but their output has dropped considerably, Reidy doesn't seem interested at the breakdown and doesn't seem as quick or dynamic when carrying and Treadwell just looks lightweight compared to where he was at a year ago

Agree with that Marty - both have been poor this year and both have gone backwards - not alone so have McCall, Kane, Henry

From 4 to 8 Henderson has been good when he plays, AOC can hold his head up and some youngsters have done well.
Notably Timoney who has been very good, Rea has made a decent fist, Jones done ok (and outstanding against Munster), one credible performance by Hall
Also one class game from Coetzee - and that is it

Treadwell, Reidy, Ross, Diack, Henry, Deysel, Browne - all well below what is required

There are far too many that will have already made up their minds that the lads are guilty simply because of their actions after having more than a few drinks rather than their intentions (The 'I Believe Her' contingent come to mind'). I've a wee shock for such folk, most young lads are either doing it, trying their damnedest to do it or wishing they could do it.

I often hear the cries of 'The difference here is that these lads are role models'.
If you need to look to the rugby, soccer or GAA pitches for role models for your kids then perhaps you need to reassess things a little. Be a role model yourself first and foremost, if you fail to do so then don't throw stones from that glass house at those who've also failed.

Anyway, I digress. If the verdict is 'not guilty' then the lads are just that, not guilty a.k.a. innocent. It doesn't matter whether there was enough evidence to convict them or not, that is irrelevant as it's up to the prosecution to provide said evidence, if they didn't then everyone goes back to the default setting of innocent. It's the foundation of the western justice system.

Pete, they are role models for their own generation. A parent can instill standards, but these guys are put on a pedestal by young people and think its cool to emulate them. What shocked me is the amount of alcohol they took on board that night. Its all well for them to do that because they will be back in strict training after a month with Ulster with no alcohol allowed. Young people who think its alright (even cool) to consume that much alcohol won't have the same constraints put on them.

Presuming they are innocent, most sporting organisation would have a morality clause in contracts. The NZ Rugby Union were none to happy with Aaron Smith (and that was consensual sex which he was pretending not to have had). Doug Howlett had to make a public apology to the people of NZ for jumping on a few cars while drunk after being knocked out of the rugby world cup. I think you are making light of the seriousness of the whole thing and how seriously it will be viewed by the IRFU as it bring rugby into disrepute.

As an aside, did anyone notice the prominence of the Ireland Under 5s all over the newspapers at the weekend?

I do not believe the no alcohol rule still applies at Ulster.
At work yes but not after work anymore.

It was a lot of alcohol but don't kid yourself there are rugby players in all professional teams and in all nations who
can shift a significant amount.

I think an apology is definitely going to be required but I cannot see how Ulster or the IRFU can legitimately break the contract themselves. I feel certain they would have to buy out the contracts

From what Bryn said I don't think Ulster will do that, as they are already taking a hit with the reduction of CCs from 4 to 2, and wasted NIQ contracts on Deysel and VdeMerwe. They need, as he has said 3 new forwards and they have 2 spare NIQ contracts - they will want to save the cash for top dollar players

In truth you can tell Bryn is heartly sick of the whole thing and just wants it over

So yea, like I said, if found not guilty, they cannot be discriminated against. Even if UR try to coerce them to leave, the lads could probably take legal action.
Morality clause? is that a thing? At most the club might ask them to make a public statement or something but I doubt it.
If the lads decide thy want to stay and are found not guilty I can't see how the club could legally force them out.

But what the club could do, even in keeping them, is to release a statement about the players extra curricular activities falling below their expectations or something.

Be very very careful - easily construed as constructive dismissal.

Don't think, publically, they would make such a statement.
Anything will be behind close doors and a compromise

"I think you are making light of the seriousness of the whole thing and how seriously it will be viewed by the IRFU as it bring rugby into disrepute."

No Siné I'm not making light of anything. I'm saying that these 2 lads aren't alone in taking a pile of drink and making the beast with 2 backs on a weekly basis. It's what most young lads do and I fully believe it's all Paddy and Stu were doing. I believe they are innocent of what they're being accused of but guilty of being a little too hedonistic with the wrong person.

clivemcl wrote:So yea, like I said, if found not guilty, they cannot be discriminated against. Even if UR try to coerce them to leave, the lads could probably take legal action.
Morality clause? is that a thing? At most the club might ask them to make a public statement or something but I doubt it.
If the lads decide thy want to stay and are found not guilty I can't see how the club could legally force them out.

But what the club could do, even in keeping them, is to release a statement about the players extra curricular activities falling below their expectations or something.

Morality clauses are a thing in sports contracts, if not by the sport, you bet your bottom dollar that sponsors will have them. It might be just as simple as not bringing the sport involved into disrepute. Think of all the sponsorship contracts that Tiger Woods lost! IRFU/Ulster might have to buy out their contracts or simply not play them for the year.

Pete330v2 wrote:"I think you are making light of the seriousness of the whole thing and how seriously it will be viewed by the IRFU as it bring rugby into disrepute."

No Siné I'm not making light of anything. I'm saying that these 2 lads aren't alone in taking a pile of drink and making the beast with 2 backs on a weekly basis. It's what most young lads do and I fully believe it's all Paddy and Stu were doing. I believe they are innocent of what they're being accused of but guilty of being a little too hedonistic with the wrong person.

They are not alone doing it, but when you bring your club and sport into disrepute, its a problem.

As for what they did - their stories don't match up. They were so pissed its hard to to know if they knew what they were doing (though I think they will get off because its basically her word against their word).

If they're innocent of the serious crimes they are accused of then their capers in the bedrooms together and pi-ssed well................ not my kind of party but Pete is right.  Most young people now are liberal in lots of things - excess being one of them when 'leisure' activities are the topic.

Anyway IF innocent of crimes on the night - that would be it and I'd certainly still have my opinions of them but the rest would be none of my business - except! - the texts.

The texts are sordid stuff and show a crass low value opinion of the women that make/made the same choices on party night as the guys themselves.  But they are spoken about always in lesser, meat-market contemptuous ways.  Things to be played with, soiled and then sneered at in the aftermath.

That behaviour - the texting - that for whatever reason was made public - that stuff that was done when people were sobering up or were fully sobered or indeed was done by people that weren't at the party at all ..... no, I don't think that behaviour, when known about by Ulster Rugby, should be tolerated.  

That kind of verbal, written and recorded traffic from Ulster Rugby/IRFU employees must be stamped out strongly.  And if that means players are told they get the sack if any such social media allusion/attitudes are made known to Ulster Rugby/IRFU then so be it.

while there may not be a specific 'morality' clause every contract of employment has a sh1t tonne of pages dealing with policies which will (if breached) constitute minor, major or gross misconduct. It is not a stretch to suggest the whatsapp messages fall into the latter category. Its how any employer protects itself against unruly employees.

Most workplaces will also have a specific social media policy which will cover this. Geoff is certainly 100% right that there is now i think within the public a swell of support for these lads (possibly due to the lack of actual evidence) and a lot of Ulster fans now believe they should return if acquitted. I still think the IRFU wont go for that but who knows. My own opinion is that if we are serious about bringing in a new order and a new culture at Ulster then its best to clean house and that would include those two lads.

Guys,

Are they not contracted workers? They aren't permanent employees. Ulster are tied to the contract not the people. Some employment lawyers I'm sure will be able to give you more detail but there will be nothing in the contact which guarantees that they play. No contract for any professional sports star anywhere will guarantee that (sans Ronaldo maybe). Ulster can not-pick them for any reason they see fit, they only need to pay the balance on the contract.

Different circumstances but ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/17184429

Tevez didn't come back to say he was discriminated against, he got himself into a mess and Man City backed Mancini and dropped him. They owned his contract and decided he wasn't going to play. He hadn't broken any laws, he'd just pissed them off and spent 5 months on his arse.

If Ulster play McPhillips and have Jackson/Olding sweeping the floors then so be it. It's Ulster's call.

Oh and for the record. For me nothing has changed.

I said at the start the trial, regardless of guilt or innocence, I didn't want them back. I haven't changed my assessment.

If they do return you can count me out..

Redman wrote:Oh and for the record.  For me nothing has changed.  

I said at the start the trial, regardless of guilt or innocence, I didn't want them back.  I haven't changed my assessment.  

If they do return you can count me out..  

I love this, people with such a strong moral compass that nobody else is allowed to make a mistake or live a different lifestyle.

"regardless of guilt or innocence"

That bit is hilarious.
If they are found innocent then you don't want them to play because they have a drink at the weekend and do naughty things with women?
Do you work for Ashers Baking Company?

I will now be hoping even more that they can return and play because people like you will be counting themselves out!!!

Ach Pete theres hardly a need to go down that route. It isnt being too old fashioned to believe the way they spoke about women in general is disqualifying and immature in the extreme. Evidence perhaps of the culture change that is needed within the organisation at that level?

It could also be that Redman believes their lack of judgement (and not the acts they were engaging in) has cost Ulster dear and as such they shouldn't just be welcomed back with open arms.

Standulstermen wrote:Ach Pete theres hardly a need to go down that route. It isnt being too old fashioned to believe the way they spoke about women in general is disqualifying and immature in the extreme. Evidence perhaps of the culture change that is needed within the organisation at that level?

It could also be that Redman believes their lack of judgement (and not the acts they were engaging in) has cost Ulster dear and as such they shouldn't just be welcomed back with open arms.

Stand what lack of judgement though? If they believe everything to have been consensual and all messages were private exchanges then should they have factored in the possibility of being accused of r*** and everything becoming public?

For me, the worst and most disrespectful message came from a player who's position seemingly isn't under threat

whenever you have literally no clue (not even a name) of the person at the end of your prick Marty, then yes, im afraid that does constitute a risk and a lack in judgement on any number of levels. Im not going to say more than that. Im not condemning these guys for engaging in a threesome or anything (and how they spoke about it was disrespectful and humiliating for the girl) but if you dont ask any questions dont be surprised with the outcomes.

I was just hypothesising as to what Redman believed btw but the reality is they have been unavailable to Ulster in a time of genuine crisis at the club through their choices and their decision making.