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

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Yeah of course there is that but both the IRFU and Ulster have backed players up for worse behaviour in the past, worse having a drunken 3some and involving themselves in a bit of bravado filled locker room chat. I think these lads should be allowed the chance to put this all behind them and that includes the lifestyle. People are all for giving second chances (but only if it fits their strict moral policies).

There must be some snow in hell, as I agree with pete 100% on this.

These boys have been found not guilty, now lets move on. Let them play rugby again. Why should Ulster not keep them ?

I would also like to think that these young boys, who started to believe their own hype, and give themselves ego's the size of a planet, will have now learned from this, become a lot more humble and make them better people.

None of us know what happened that night, none of know what the females intentions were. But we do know that these guys are innocent, proven in a court of law.

Time to move on.

No, we don't know that. We know that there is reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Either way is irrelevant. They are legally protected in life under the verdict. Their life should have no negative effect. Some have mentioned 'morality clauses', but to me, I can't see how you wouldn't be able to sue UR or the IRFU if they dropped you or tried to pay off your contract against your will.

Also, interesting that Jackson said 'Out of respect to my employer I will not be commenting further', and yet Olding went into a fairly heartfelt apology about the night in question despite remaining adamant that no crime was broken.

Olding wrote:
"Though I committed no criminal offence, I regret deeply the events of that evening.

"I am sorry for the hurt that was caused to the complainant.

Wonder which plays better or if the different approaches say anything about different futures?

Oldings statement was better but then Jackson was perhaps the centre of the investigation (being accused on two counts).

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Yeah of course there is that but both the IRFU and Ulster have backed players up for worse behaviour in the past, worse having a drunken 3some and involving themselves in a bit of bravado filled locker room chat. I think these lads should be allowed the chance to put this all behind them and that includes the lifestyle. People are all for giving second chances (but only if it fits their strict moral policies).

There must be some snow in hell, as I agree with pete 100% on this.

These boys have been found not guilty, now lets move on. Let them play rugby again. Why should Ulster not keep them ?

I would also like to think that these young boys, who started to believe their own hype, and give themselves ego's the size of a planet, will have now learned from this, become a lot more humble and make them better people.

None of us know what happened that night, none of know what the females intentions were. But we do know that these guys are innocent, proven in a court of law.

Time to move on.

No, we don't know that. We know that there is reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Either way is irrelevant. They are legally protected in life under the verdict. Their life should have no negative effect. Some have mentioned 'morality clauses', but to me, I can't see how you wouldn't be able to sue UR or the IRFU if they dropped you or tried to pay off your contract against your will.

So a player who gets dropped can sue?

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Yeah of course there is that but both the IRFU and Ulster have backed players up for worse behaviour in the past, worse having a drunken 3some and involving themselves in a bit of bravado filled locker room chat. I think these lads should be allowed the chance to put this all behind them and that includes the lifestyle. People are all for giving second chances (but only if it fits their strict moral policies).

There must be some snow in hell, as I agree with pete 100% on this.

These boys have been found not guilty, now lets move on. Let them play rugby again. Why should Ulster not keep them ?

I would also like to think that these young boys, who started to believe their own hype, and give themselves ego's the size of a planet, will have now learned from this, become a lot more humble and make them better people.

None of us know what happened that night, none of know what the females intentions were. But we do know that these guys are innocent, proven in a court of law.

Time to move on.

No, we don't know that. We know that there is reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Either way is irrelevant. They are legally protected in life under the verdict. Their life should have no negative effect. Some have mentioned 'morality clauses', but to me, I can't see how you wouldn't be able to sue UR or the IRFU if they dropped you or tried to pay off your contract against your will.

So a player who gets dropped can sue?

An employee who get's sacked despite being not guilty I imagine can sue. I didn't mean dropped in the team selection sense.

I would have thought even attempting to convince an employee it would be best if they left could get them in hot water.

Just imagine its not rugby, but your own job. You've just returned from a 10week horrendous trial with the juries declaration you are not guilty. And your employer tries even to suggest you should part ways.
You aren't going to take that well, are you?

clivemcl wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Yeah of course there is that but both the IRFU and Ulster have backed players up for worse behaviour in the past, worse having a drunken 3some and involving themselves in a bit of bravado filled locker room chat. I think these lads should be allowed the chance to put this all behind them and that includes the lifestyle. People are all for giving second chances (but only if it fits their strict moral policies).

There must be some snow in hell, as I agree with pete 100% on this.

These boys have been found not guilty, now lets move on. Let them play rugby again. Why should Ulster not keep them ?

I would also like to think that these young boys, who started to believe their own hype, and give themselves ego's the size of a planet, will have now learned from this, become a lot more humble and make them better people.

None of us know what happened that night, none of know what the females intentions were. But we do know that these guys are innocent, proven in a court of law.

Time to move on.

No, we don't know that. We know that there is reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Either way is irrelevant. They are legally protected in life under the verdict. Their life should have no negative effect. Some have mentioned 'morality clauses', but to me, I can't see how you wouldn't be able to sue UR or the IRFU if they dropped you or tried to pay off your contract against your will.

So a player who gets dropped can sue?

An employee who get's sacked despite being not guilty I imagine can sue. I didn't mean dropped in the team selection sense.

Thanks for the clarity clive, given we don't know whats in their contract we don't know what the IRFU/UR can and can't do. Given that coaches have release clauses would it be so far fetched to think there might be options for the IRFU to have one in players under circumstances or at a cost

clivemcl wrote:I would have thought even attempting to convince an employee it would be best if they left could get them in hot water.

Just imagine its not rugby, but your own job. You've just returned from a 10week horrendous trial with the juries declaration you are not guilty. And your employer tries even to suggest you should part ways.
You aren't going to take that well, are you?

The woman that was mixed up in a threesome with a couple of Lions a few years back was an audit accountant with one of the big accountancy firms. Bearing in mind that no crime was committed, her business media profile was taken down from Linked in by the company and she moved (or was moved) to the UK.

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Yeah of course there is that but both the IRFU and Ulster have backed players up for worse behaviour in the past, worse having a drunken 3some and involving themselves in a bit of bravado filled locker room chat. I think these lads should be allowed the chance to put this all behind them and that includes the lifestyle. People are all for giving second chances (but only if it fits their strict moral policies).

There must be some snow in hell, as I agree with pete 100% on this.

These boys have been found not guilty, now lets move on. Let them play rugby again. Why should Ulster not keep them ?

I would also like to think that these young boys, who started to believe their own hype, and give themselves ego's the size of a planet, will have now learned from this, become a lot more humble and make them better people.

None of us know what happened that night, none of know what the females intentions were. But we do know that these guys are innocent, proven in a court of law.

Time to move on.

No, we don't know that. We know that there is reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Either way is irrelevant. They are legally protected in life under the verdict. Their life should have no negative effect. Some have mentioned 'morality clauses', but to me, I can't see how you wouldn't be able to sue UR or the IRFU if they dropped you or tried to pay off your contract against your will.

So a player who gets dropped can sue?

An employee who get's sacked despite being not guilty I imagine can sue. I didn't mean dropped in the team selection sense.

Thanks for the clarity clive, given we don't know whats in their contract we don't know what the IRFU/UR can and can't do. Given that coaches have release clauses would it be so far fetched to think there might be options for the IRFU to have one in players under circumstances or at a cost

It would be just something like 'not bringing the IRFU/Ulster Rugby into ill repute. Daily references for 9 weeks to the Ulster Rugby r*** trial could be described as bring IRFU/Ulster Rugby into ill repute.

clivemcl wrote:
An employee who get's sacked despite being not guilty I imagine can sue. I didn't mean dropped in the team selection sense.

Found not guilty of any criminal offence.

Whether or not they are in breach of contractual obligations to their employer is a completely separate matter which is what the internal review is for.

rodders wrote:

clivemcl wrote:
An employee who get's sacked despite being not guilty I imagine can sue. I didn't mean dropped in the team selection sense.

Found not guilty of any criminal offence.

Whether or not they are in breach of contractual obligations to their employer is a completely separate matter which is what the internal review is for.

I wonder does it matter that the 'bringing into ill repute' folks talk about was not the players' doing. Surely they have to be the ones who created the public problem? There were not. It was all brought out because of a claim that in the end was not proven.

The boys were trying to do something privately in their own home. Just playing devils advocate here, I'm not sure it's relevant.

clivemcl wrote:Also, interesting that Jackson said 'Out of respect to my employer I will not be commenting further', and yet Olding went into a fairly heartfelt apology about the night in question despite remaining adamant that no crime was broken.

Olding wrote:
"Though I committed no criminal offence, I regret deeply the events of that evening.

"I am sorry for the hurt that was caused to the complainant.

Wonder which plays better or if the different approaches say anything about different futures?

Fair play making that statement, hopefully he meant it

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Yeah of course there is that but both the IRFU and Ulster have backed players up for worse behaviour in the past, worse having a drunken 3some and involving themselves in a bit of bravado filled locker room chat. I think these lads should be allowed the chance to put this all behind them and that includes the lifestyle. People are all for giving second chances (but only if it fits their strict moral policies).

There must be some snow in hell, as I agree with pete 100% on this.

These boys have been found not guilty, now lets move on. Let them play rugby again. Why should Ulster not keep them ?

I would also like to think that these young boys, who started to believe their own hype, and give themselves ego's the size of a planet, will have now learned from this, become a lot more humble and make them better people.

None of us know what happened that night, none of know what the females intentions were. But we do know that these guys are innocent, proven in a court of law.

Time to move on.

No, we don't know that. We know that there is reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Either way is irrelevant. They are legally protected in life under the verdict. Their life should have no negative effect. Some have mentioned 'morality clauses', but to me, I can't see how you wouldn't be able to sue UR or the IRFU if they dropped you or tried to pay off your contract against your will.

So a player who gets dropped can sue?

An employee who get's sacked despite being not guilty I imagine can sue. I didn't mean dropped in the team selection sense.

Thanks for the clarity clive, given we don't know whats in their contract we don't know what the IRFU/UR can and can't do. Given that coaches have release clauses would it be so far fetched to think there might be options for the IRFU to have one in players under circumstances or at a cost

It would be just something like 'not bringing the IRFU/Ulster Rugby into ill repute. Daily references for 9 weeks to the Ulster Rugby r*** trial could be described as bring IRFU/Ulster Rugby into ill repute.

Still a slippery slope though if it's legally through no fault of their own you are holding them responsible for the actions of what they could claim was someone accusing them falsely

clivemcl wrote:I would have thought even attempting to convince an employee it would be best if they left could get them in hot water.

Just imagine its not rugby, but your own job. You've just returned from a 10week horrendous trial with the juries declaration you are not guilty. And your employer tries even to suggest you should part ways.
You aren't going to take that well, are you?

And just imagine it's your employee who's come back and brings a cloud with them and female employees in particular may feel uncomfortable. They can suggest that given the media scrum and crap around it all that they might be best suited taking time away from the area to rebuild their reputation

clivemcl wrote:

rodders wrote:

clivemcl wrote:
An employee who get's sacked despite being not guilty I imagine can sue. I didn't mean dropped in the team selection sense.

Found not guilty of any criminal offence.

Whether or not they are in breach of contractual obligations to their employer is a completely separate matter which is what the internal review is for.

I wonder does it matter that the 'bringing into ill repute' folks talk about was not the players' doing. Surely they have to be the ones who created the public problem? There were not. It was all brought out because of a claim that in the end was not proven.

The boys were trying to do something privately in their own home. Just playing devils advocate here, I'm not sure it's relevant.

I think the review will be not be looking at the claims made by the prosecution, they have been cleared of that, rather be more concerned will be the general conduct of the players in the night in question and also in the period after the claims were made and until they were officially charged.

So whether or not the trial itself brought the club into disrepute I think is probably irrelevant.

What if the events of the night were not brought to light by a trial, but by somebody attempting blackmail. Complete hypothetical argument. But do you still say it's irrelevant how the events came to light?

clivemcl wrote:What if the events of the night were not brought to light by a trial, but by somebody attempting blackmail. Complete hypothetical argument. But do you still say it's irrelevant how the events came to light?

I don't follow?

If the players willingly took part in activities or actions that are deemed in breach of contractual standards and obligations then it doesn't matter how they came to light.

"There must be some snow in hell, as I agree with pete 100% on this."

Now surely we've agreed on the odd thing in the past LD???

But hold on, I didn't think we were talking about their actions being against rules, I thought we were talking about bring the club into disrepute or whatever the term was.

I doubt the contract goes into how much alcohol they can drink on holiday or how many sexual partners at any one time.

If the contract deals with 'bringing the club into disrepute', then surely it has to have been the boys themselves that brought these events into the public light.

It was not. They did not wilfully bring the club into disrepute. The trial did, based on claims unproven.

clivemcl wrote:But hold on, I didn't think we were talking about their actions being against rules, I thought we were talking about bring the club into disrepute or whatever the term was.

I doubt the contract goes into how much alcohol they can drink on holiday or how many sexual partners at any one time.

If the contract deals with 'bringing the club into disrepute', then surely it has to have been the boys themselves that brought these events into the public light.

It was not. They did not wilfully bring the club into disrepute. The trial did, based on claims unproven.

I'm pretty sure that the contract Tiger Woods had didn't stipulate that he could only sleep with his wife, yet he lost a load of endorsements.

Women (approx. 50% of your customer base) will be revulsed by this. The IRFU/Ulster Rugby need to be very careful as to how they deal with it, considering they are trying to get more women and young girls into the game.

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:But hold on, I didn't think we were talking about their actions being against rules, I thought we were talking about bring the club into disrepute or whatever the term was.

I doubt the contract goes into how much alcohol they can drink on holiday or how many sexual partners at any one time.

If the contract deals with 'bringing the club into disrepute', then surely it has to have been the boys themselves that brought these events into the public light.

It was not. They did not wilfully bring the club into disrepute. The trial did, based on claims unproven.

I'm pretty sure that the contract Tiger Woods had didn't stipulate that he could only sleep with his wife, yet he lost a load of endorsements.

Women (approx. 50% of your customer base) will be revulsed by this. The IRFU/Ulster Rugby need to be very careful as to how they deal with it, considering they are trying to get more women and young girls into the game.

Bit different. Tiger lost sponsorships not employment. Slightly different

carpet baboon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:But hold on, I didn't think we were talking about their actions being against rules, I thought we were talking about bring the club into disrepute or whatever the term was.

I doubt the contract goes into how much alcohol they can drink on holiday or how many sexual partners at any one time.

If the contract deals with 'bringing the club into disrepute', then surely it has to have been the boys themselves that brought these events into the public light.

It was not. They did not wilfully bring the club into disrepute. The trial did, based on claims unproven.

I'm pretty sure that the contract Tiger Woods had didn't stipulate that he could only sleep with his wife, yet he lost a load of endorsements.

Women (approx. 50% of your customer base) will be revulsed by this. The IRFU/Ulster Rugby need to be very careful as to how they deal with it, considering they are trying to get more women and young girls into the game.

Bit different. Tiger lost sponsorships not employment. Slightly different

He lost some sponsors but gained others. Golf manufacturing companies such as Taylormade were lining up to sponsor him once Nike stoped making clubs.

Haven't commented on the case and all I know is what I read. For me as they were found not guilty I have no problem with them being retained by ulster. None in the slightest.

Funny how the other forum seem almost unanimous that the players should be straight back to duty. Some even saying they will not renew their ST if UR don’t back their players.

They seem completely unaware that many many fans are saying the opposite and that they will tear up the STs if the players pull on the white shirt again.

I don’t envy the club on this at all.

The other forum is a circlejerk coordinated by about 3 leaders that they all blindly follow. I wouldn't read much into most of them. There are many reasons ST holders are not renewing, the court case is one small reason.
If Ulster do retain the players who are exactly what we need on the pitch I'll be delighted.

I want them both to stay. They are quality players despite what people think of them. Plus ulster can use a NIQ elsewhere.

They are entitled to a second chance just like anyone else would get in these circumstances. It doesn't matter what the #ibelieveher fems think or what the morality warriors say, any level headed person believes in second chances for people.

carpet baboon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:But hold on, I didn't think we were talking about their actions being against rules, I thought we were talking about bring the club into disrepute or whatever the term was.

I doubt the contract goes into how much alcohol they can drink on holiday or how many sexual partners at any one time.

If the contract deals with 'bringing the club into disrepute', then surely it has to have been the boys themselves that brought these events into the public light.

It was not. They did not wilfully bring the club into disrepute. The trial did, based on claims unproven.

I'm pretty sure that the contract Tiger Woods had didn't stipulate that he could only sleep with his wife, yet he lost a load of endorsements.

Women (approx. 50% of your customer base) will be revulsed by this. The IRFU/Ulster Rugby need to be very careful as to how they deal with it, considering they are trying to get more women and young girls into the game.

Bit different. Tiger lost sponsorships not employment. Slightly different

Tiger is self employed. I'm referring to the effect on sponsorship - for example, how would Bank of Ireland (50% customer base is probably women) like their logo displayed on Paddy Jackson/Stuart's chest?

I'm a bit torn about wheter or not they should stay at Ulster. As so many people have said on social media "not guilty is not guilty", but even Olding admitted he deeply regretted what happened, so there is a case for discussing mutual termination.
Like it or not, sports stars are heros to our children and therefore major role models, and it wouldnt be a bad thing to have standards that they should adhere to whilst under contract.
If the boys have sense they will try and turn this around and work with organisations to promote respecting women and consent.

Ulster IRFU are in a lose lose situation here. Keep the boys on and have the negative PR drag on for years, or not back up the players and have ill will from another sizable chunk of the community.

In a perfect world there wouldnt be so many shades of grey, but in these times of extremely polarised opinions the decision is pretty much going to piss off a massive amount of people.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:But hold on, I didn't think we were talking about their actions being against rules, I thought we were talking about bring the club into disrepute or whatever the term was.

I doubt the contract goes into how much alcohol they can drink on holiday or how many sexual partners at any one time.

If the contract deals with 'bringing the club into disrepute', then surely it has to have been the boys themselves that brought these events into the public light.

It was not. They did not wilfully bring the club into disrepute. The trial did, based on claims unproven.

I'm pretty sure that the contract Tiger Woods had didn't stipulate that he could only sleep with his wife, yet he lost a load of endorsements.

Women (approx. 50% of your customer base) will be revulsed by this. The IRFU/Ulster Rugby need to be very careful as to how they deal with it, considering they are trying to get more women and young girls into the game.

Bit different. Tiger lost sponsorships not employment. Slightly different

He lost some sponsors but gained others. Golf manufacturing companies such as Taylormade were lining up to sponsor him once Nike stoped making clubs.

He lost sponsorship. This is what his sponsors lost.

Investors in the three sports-related companies (Tiger Woods PGA Tour Golf, Gatorade, and Nike) fared the worst, the study found. They experienced a 4.3-percent scandal-generated drop in stock value, equivalent to about $6 billion.

https://gsm.ucdavis.edu/news-release/tiger-woods-scandal-cost-shareholders-12-billion

I can understand it a bit from sponership reasons etc but I think we have to think about where we are as a society if we didnt want them back.

What they did or where up to may have been immoral but what others like Wilson and his drink driving have done is illegal and has come back in the fold.

What is worse immoral or illegal?

If Wilson after actually breaking the law can come back then these two who haven't broken any laws shouldnt have a worry.

Unless immoral behaviour is worse than illegal behaviour?

Sin é wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:But hold on, I didn't think we were talking about their actions being against rules, I thought we were talking about bring the club into disrepute or whatever the term was.

I doubt the contract goes into how much alcohol they can drink on holiday or how many sexual partners at any one time.

If the contract deals with 'bringing the club into disrepute', then surely it has to have been the boys themselves that brought these events into the public light.

It was not. They did not wilfully bring the club into disrepute. The trial did, based on claims unproven.

I'm pretty sure that the contract Tiger Woods had didn't stipulate that he could only sleep with his wife, yet he lost a load of endorsements.

Women (approx. 50% of your customer base) will be revulsed by this. The IRFU/Ulster Rugby need to be very careful as to how they deal with it, considering they are trying to get more women and young girls into the game.

Bit different. Tiger lost sponsorships not employment. Slightly different

Tiger is self employed. I'm referring to the effect on sponsorship - for example, how would Bank of Ireland (50% customer base is probably women) like their logo displayed on Paddy Jackson/Stuart's chest?

You are guessing here though Sin that all women will be against this verdict and that is simply a generalisation.
For example I have had 5 women today in my work talk to me about this case, 1 was an ulster fan the other 4 had no particular interest in rugby.
All of them displayed no issue with the lads and felt the verdict itself was fair, the supporter was hoping to have them back for the start of next season.
Now this is only 5 women and I am sure there are plenty of people out there who are still against the 2 guys but it at least shows that we cannot generalise and say all women will not want to be associated with Ulster or their sponsors because of this.

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/22941129/ireland-ulster-teammates-paddy-jackson-stuart-olding-cleared-r***

If they're cleared then why is Ulster/IRFU reviewing the matter further and continuing to relieve both players of their duties? That doesn't seem very supportive. I'm glad to hear that they were cleared of any charges though.

I'm not saying anyone is against the verdict. Its their attitude and total lack of respect to women (from text messaging) is more the problem. Rugby sets itself up as a sport with family values. The lifestyle of those lads don't fit that image.

As for Roger Wilson - wasn't he shipped out of Ulster the first time of his drink driving charge?

And Neil, let’s not forget the whole men of the jury who having front tow seats and all the info voted for the unanimous verdict.

When there is not enough evidence and yet some say ‘definitely r***’ , that is just 100% bias and discrimination. On the other side we have a few saying it was a ‘false claim’ but the majority are just saying that the judicial system is fair and verdict should be respected.

To be honest, I’ve no time for anyone who disagrees with a jury verdict, and I’d say the same thing if the verdict had went the other way. Or judicial system is the envy of much of the world.

Like I said earlier there is surely no worse thing than false imprisonment. I’m glad we don’t take it lightly.

Ulster and the IRFU do not come out of this well.

Allegedly the bibulous and licentious behaviour of the acquitted was neither unique nor unknown. It is hypocritical of the IRFU and Ulster to now call for a review, having ignored it previously. If rules have been broken in the past then why wasn't the review carried out before now? Enforcing rules depending on the strength of the media voice shows no backbone and is neither serving rugby nor those who play it.

The IRFU have fuelled the media frenzy by denying Ulster the expedient route of re-signing Pienaar, thus leaving the province with no recognised outhalf. Stupidly Ulster made no contingency by developing McPhillips last season, preferring to cry 'poor me' to the media and scouring the globe to hide their mistake. All of which clearly poured pertrol on the fires of indignation lit on social media, to roast the accused.

The players will undoubtedly be hung out to dry for their perceived idiotic behaviour, by the very organisations that have acted idiotically by condoning such idiocy.

Sin é wrote:I'm not saying anyone is against the verdict. Its their attitude and total lack of respect to women (from text messaging) is more the problem. Rugby sets itself up as a sport with family values. The lifestyle of those lads don't fit that image.

As for Roger Wilson - wasn't he shipped out of Ulster the first time of his drink driving charge?

Sin you may want to go back through the Whatsapp messages. I think you’ll find Paddy didn’t say much at all, Olding described a sexual act with a slang term. The derogatory comments towards females came from McIlroy and others in the group.

So what did Jackson do that we can be sure of? Had s sexual encounter with a girl and didn’t tell his mate to go away when he came in.

I think most rational people will accept that they done nothing out of the ordinary. The last thing I want to see is Irish rugby pandering to some snowflakes, even if it means a financial hit. I think the IRFU are wisely just waiting for the hype around it to die down.

Thats a fair point Sin however i'm not sure it was them with those messages. I think i might have read somewhere that it was the others who had wrote disgusting messages but not jackson and olding. I could be wrong though.
What i am trying to say is i would not presume all women will turn against ulster because of this. The evidence i have seen so far from women i know would suggest that would not be the case.

neilthom7 wrote:Thats a fair point Sin however i'm not sure it was them with those messages.  I think i might have read somewhere that it was the others who had wrote disgusting messages but not jackson and olding. I could be wrong though.
What i am trying to say is i would not presume  all women will turn against ulster because of this.  The evidence i have seen so far from women i know would suggest that would not be the case.

FFS, they were spit roasting a teenager. Concensual or not, that is a long way from family values. The chief executive of Bank of Ireland lost his job for looking at porn at work a few years ago.

LordDowlais wrote:Let's get them back to playing rugby again, and let's hope they have all learned a valuable lesson from all this.

I agree - and I hope it happens soon.

Pete330v2 wrote:I'd have said most people would have expected that outcome, it was always up to the prosecution to prove the case beyond any doubt and to be honest, they were extremely poor at their attempt to do so.
I don't see how Ulster and Ireland's talent pool at 10 is good enough to go into a RWC without Jackson but maybe shooting on the foot is their thing. If that ends up being the case and we remove players because we don't agree with their lifestyles or morals then we'd end up down more than a few bodies. I think a lot of people should look at their own perfect past before passing judgement on a couple of guys who will have learned a hell of a lot about how to behave when you're in the public eye over the last year.

We will wait and see, something we're used to at Ulster

Well said. If every Irish player was picked on the basis of their private behaviour then Conor Murray and Simon Zebo wouldn't have been anywhere near the team for the last 5yrs.

Sin é wrote:
The woman that was mixed up in a threesome with a couple of Lions a few years back was an audit accountant with one of the big accountancy firms. Bearing in mind that no crime was committed, her business media profile was taken down from Linked in by the company and she moved (or was moved) to the UK.

That is wrong.

I previously worked for the Company where the girl involved was also employed at the time of the incident. I can confirm that the employer DID NOT force the employee to remove her LinkedIn profile or move her to another business unit. It was much more nuanced than that.

You shouldn't post comment as fact if it is just your opinion or unconfirmed rumour.

Let's just stick to the rugby talk.

Sin é wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:Thats a fair point Sin however i'm not sure it was them with those messages.  I think i might have read somewhere that it was the others who had wrote disgusting messages but not jackson and olding. I could be wrong though.
What i am trying to say is i would not presume  all women will turn against ulster because of this.  The evidence i have seen so far from women i know would suggest that would not be the case.

FFS, they were spit roasting a teenager. Concensual or not, that is a long way from family values. The chief executive of Bank of Ireland lost his job for looking at porn at work a few years ago.

Key Phrase in that sentence is 'at work' I doubt he would have if he had done it at home.
It is a long way from family values for sure however I did not say it wasn't what I said is you cannot generalise and say all women will turn away from Ulster rugby because frankly given the women who have talked to me about it and a couple of others who i know who have posted on facebook since my last post none of them have turned there back on Ulster rugby, in fact the ones who actually support Ulster Rugby have been calling for them to be back in the team.
I'm not saying every person feels that way, clearly there will be a lot who don't but given all the women I have talked to or posted to social media feel that way it is not likely they are alone.

Sin é wrote:I'm not saying anyone is against the verdict. Its their attitude and total lack of respect to women (from text messaging) is more the problem. Rugby sets itself up as a sport with family values. The lifestyle of those lads don't fit that image.

As for Roger Wilson - wasn't he shipped out of Ulster the first time of his drink driving charge?

The messages looked bad alright but I'm not going to pretend that sort of chat doesn't go on all the time.

If its not for public consumption I reckon it would be harsh for the IRFU or anyone else to judge them on it. I'm sure most people say and do things out of work they wouldn't do in work.

I doubt they have a "total" lack of respect for women. I'd imagine in most day to day encounters with women they are as respectful to women as much as everyone else but in the context of the messages yes they were very disrespectful to one particular woman.

The Great Aukster wrote:Ulster and the IRFU do not come out of this well.

Allegedly the bibulous and licentious behaviour of the acquitted was neither unique nor unknown. It is hypocritical of the IRFU and Ulster to now call for a review, having ignored it previously. If rules have been broken in the past then why wasn't the review carried out before now? Enforcing rules depending on the strength of the media voice shows no backbone and is neither serving rugby nor those who play it.

The IRFU have fuelled the media frenzy by denying Ulster the expedient route of re-signing Pienaar, thus leaving the province with no recognised outhalf. Stupidly Ulster made no contingency by developing McPhillips last season, preferring to cry 'poor me' to the media and scouring the globe to hide their mistake. All of which clearly poured pertrol on the fires of indignation lit on social media, to roast the accused.

The players will undoubtedly be hung out to dry for their perceived idiotic behaviour, by the very organisations that have acted idiotically by condoning such idiocy.

Rumours and innuendo are different than evidence that forms a part of a criminal trial, Ulster may have heard about their behaviour before but actually proving it is a whole other matter

Sin é wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:Thats a fair point Sin however i'm not sure it was them with those messages.  I think i might have read somewhere that it was the others who had wrote disgusting messages but not jackson and olding. I could be wrong though.
What i am trying to say is i would not presume  all women will turn against ulster because of this.  The evidence i have seen so far from women i know would suggest that would not be the case.

FFS, they were spit roasting a teenager. Concensual or not, that is a long way from family values. The chief executive of Bank of Ireland lost his job for looking at porn at work a few years ago.

Looking at porn in work isn't the same as a consensual act in the privacy of your own home

Look, I cannot understand some people on here. Perhaps this topic needs a thread of it's own as to not take over this Ulster thread.

But, I have a teenage daughter, she is 17, I would be absolutely horrified and downright disappointed if my daughter let herself get into that situation. I have brought my daughter, and her sister up with morals.

This girl was not drugged, she was not man handled into a car and forcibly taken to the residence, she got drunk and went back there, what did she think was happening ? A game of scrabble ?

What these boys most likely did was take advantage of a young girl who allowed herself to get into that situation. The boys should be punished for that, for taking advantage, although, how only the boys have been dragged through the mire on this is just a testament to today's society.

You can tell by the way the boys left the court, were all emotional and hugging their parents, that they know, beyond doubt, that they have learned a lesson here.

Why do people want to heap more punishment on them ? Also, we need to have faith in our judicial system here in the UK, we are not run like North Korea, or Russia. These boys were found not guilty of r...

What they are guilty of is being stupid, big headed, believing their own hype and egotistical numpties. Too much too young. That is their problem. What they have gone through, and the fact that Ulster have suspended them is punishment enough for this.

I just hope, that the parents of this girl wipe the floor with her in private, for letting herself get into this situation as well.

Can I just point out that all women will be offended if they stay just like all men would be if they go. People do not follow the line because of their gender.

I think if they did a stint in Japan or somewhere outside of Ireland and then come back it will be different. Even just for 6 months.

Does anyone know what happened with Ched Evans I know the situation was different. His first contract after had massive blowback but the media and people moved on. Wiki says he is at Shefield United but don't know if he is.

LD, I said the scrabble line not 5 minutes ago to my wife.

Yea, it's kicking out time. It's normally home time. She somehow didn't stick with her friends. She decided that instead of going home, she would go back to a house with 4 guys she didnt know. Once at the house, by her own account she willfully went upstairs after paddy jackson (not at his request).

Of course, a NO is a NO at any stage in the events. 100%, she does not have to do anything. But I can't believe she would be just that naive about what going back to a guys house in the early hours might involve or what going up to a bedroom might involve.

The lack of consent has not been proven. An eye witness (who had as much link to the boys as the girl in question) stated she did not seem under any distress. I think the reading of that is that she looked to be as equally involved in the acts as anyone in the room.

Now, I'm not biased. I'm not standing here declaring they DEFINITELY didn't. I'm just asking that the decision of 12 verdicts at the end of a very robust judicial system be respected.

And yet when I scroll my social media feeds I see a total lack of respect for the verdict and an insisting that this was DEFINITELY r*** regardless of evidence or jury.

Sad times we live in.

These folk should go to some other countries and try dealing with judicial systems there and they might be a bit more respectful of ours.