Ulster 2017 - 2018

[rooster]

You guys any spare players that don't have a mobile phone ? We are getting pretty low on a squad up here.

[paddyor]

How/Why did Gilroy get dragged into this? What exactly was the point of identifying him?

[Dave Cahill]

How/Why did Gilroy get dragged into this? What exactly was the point of identifying him?

The Union/Branch have to have a review.
They need to find someone guilty of something.
Jackson is in the clear.
So they need another lamb.


In reality though, if they want the players to go away, then they are going to have to hand over a huge bag of cash to do so. The players have employment law on their side.

[darkside lighteside]

In reality though, if they want the players to go away, then they are going to have to hand over a huge bag of cash to do so. The players have employment law on their side.

The more I think about this, the more I think that the IRFU are actually pretty boxed in here – and that the two players are in a fairly strong position

First of all, starting from here, what is the main thing that everyone wants here? My guess is:

A) IRFU off-field (Browne et al) & sponsors/commercial partners – to draw a line under this and put it cleanly to bed, as quickly and cheaply as possible. Importantly, in a way that doesn’t risk back-firing and causing further proceedings, skeletons to come out of closets, big pay-outs etc etc.
B) IRFU on-field (Schmidt, Nucifora, Cunningham, incoming Ulster HC currently shortlisted) – PJ & SO back playing for Ulster ASAP. Given the state Ulster are in, losing 2 of their best player in advance of another new season is a real headache, and there will be a strong desire to have Jackson in the mix for Ireland for 2019 RWC.
C) The players – AFAIK they want to stay at Ulster
D) Their team-mates – there will presumably be a range of opinions, but I would say overwhelmingly they will want them to stay
E) Ulster rugby supporters – there may be some in favour of running the players out of the place, but I haven’t met any. In fact given the current disillusionment with the state that Ulster has got into, and a general feeling that the haranguing of the players has gone a bit far, I think in general people’s desire for the players to come back is hardening, and I think Ulster supporters, non-paranoid and balanced as they are, will be very sensitive to any perception of a kangaroo court and unfair treatment.
F) Twitterati with high profiles/lots of assets – not to get sued
G) Twitterati with low profile/not lots of assets – irrelevant

So broadly constituencies B) to E) will favour a fair disciplinary process which sees a proportionate sanction, in line with historical precedents, and gets the players back playing ASAP.

Constituency A) will be focused on boxing this whole thing off, and will be more alive to how the manner of boxing off is perceived in the media etc. There may be some members of this constituency who might like to think that the best approach is to throw the book at the players and cut them loose (per some commentators in the media etc) – IMO this course of action is fraught with risks, and doesn’t survive any kind of analysis. For example, a terrible outcome for the IRFU would be to end up in an employment tribunal, getting their asses kicked, dragging this out for another year and potentially all kinds of muck raked over etc etc. So I think an adversarial approach to the players and their advisers is off the table.

What this leaves is the outcome desired by constituencies B) to E), or a parting of ways by mutual agreement. The problem for the IRFU is that if they elect to go down the latter route, it has to be all carrot, no stick – the players advisers, no slouches, will appreciate that, and will press for very favourable terms. If this option is on the table, at some stage that someone will say ‘ok we’ve just won the GS, but are we really saying that we want to throw a load of money at these two guys – to go and play for someone else???’ Also – how does this play in the media etc? I can’t imagine the players solicitors signing off on any statement which sticks the boot into them – so there’s a risk that it looks like the IRFU wimping out. And of course into the bargain, they will be pissing off constituencies B) to E).

If I was involved, I’d be looking for agreement from the players to a sanction which is meaningful – given the loss of earnings, effective suspension etc etc a ‘time already served’ perhaps plus a further modest sanction. Then I would ask the players to agree to appear at a press conference, and make a public statement expressing their regret for their language etc, and their commitment to changing and putting things right. Then I would say the matter is now closed and move on.

[CiaranIrl]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 73969.html

It'll be very interesting if the reporting restrictions get lifted. There's more to this case than people realise.

[Jackie Brown]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 73969.html

It'll be very interesting if the reporting restrictions get lifted. There's more to this case than people realise.

If rumours are to be believed the prosecution won't be wanting this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Lar]

How/Why did Gilroy get dragged into this? What exactly was the point of identifying him?

The Union/Branch have to have a review.
They need to find someone guilty of something.
Jackson is in the clear.
So they need another lamb.


In reality though, if they want the players to go away, then they are going to have to hand over a huge bag of cash to do so. The players have employment law on their side.

Is it not more likely that if the Union/Ulster Rugby want to consider disciplinary action they have no grounds to do so based on criminal activity as the former accused players have both been acquitted. Therefore they have to look at what was not in dispute, namely the whatsapp messages and the possibility that these may bring Irish/Ulster Rugby into disrepute. However if they are reviewing the messages of the former accused they cannot avoid CG's messages as otherwise they are reviewing some players' messages and not others. That would be hard to justify. Hence CG gets dragged into the review.

[rooster]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 73969.html

It'll be very interesting if the reporting restrictions get lifted. There's more to this case than people realise.

Yes there is a huge amount more to it and the more of it you know the worse it becomes for the PSNI and PPS , from people who attended I have not heard anything that can damage the accused any more, in fact some of it would clear up some of the stuff about the texts, some of which were not even relevant to the case.
It may well be though that some witnesses could get outed and then be the subjects of abuse from various factions as well. I can really see why the press are digging and the courts are doing this.

[darkside lighteside]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 73969.html

It'll be very interesting if the reporting restrictions get lifted. There's more to this case than people realise.

Interesting.. certainly AFAIK the bulk, if not all, of evidence ruled inadmissable in this case was submitted by the defence

[Jackie Brown]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 73969.html

It'll be very interesting if the reporting restrictions get lifted. There's more to this case than people realise.

Yes there is a huge amount more to it and the more of it you know the worse it becomes for the PSNI and PPS , from people who attended I have not heard anything that can damage the accused any more, in fact some of it would clear up some of the stuff about the texts, some of which were not even relevant to the case.
It may well be though that some witnesses could get outed and then be the subjects of abuse from various factions as well. I can really see why the press are digging and the courts are doing this.

Too much has been given to the press already.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[paddyor]

How/Why did Gilroy get dragged into this? What exactly was the point of identifying him?

The Union/Branch have to have a review.
They need to find someone guilty of something.
Jackson is in the clear.
So they need another lamb.


In reality though, if they want the players to go away, then they are going to have to hand over a huge bag of cash to do so. The players have employment law on their side.

I meant the trial.

[Oldschool]

In reality though, if they want the players to go away, then they are going to have to hand over a huge bag of cash to do so. The players have employment law on their side.

The more I think about this, the more I think that the IRFU are actually pretty boxed in here – and that the two players are in a fairly strong position

First of all, starting from here, what is the main thing that everyone wants here? My guess is:

A) IRFU off-field (Browne et al) & sponsors/commercial partners – to draw a line under this and put it cleanly to bed, as quickly and cheaply as possible. Importantly, in a way that doesn’t risk back-firing and causing further proceedings, skeletons to come out of closets, big pay-outs etc etc.
B) IRFU on-field (Schmidt, Nucifora, Cunningham, incoming Ulster HC currently shortlisted) – PJ & SO back playing for Ulster ASAP. Given the state Ulster are in, losing 2 of their best player in advance of another new season is a real headache, and there will be a strong desire to have Jackson in the mix for Ireland for 2019 RWC.
C) The players – AFAIK they want to stay at Ulster
D) Their team-mates – there will presumably be a range of opinions, but I would say overwhelmingly they will want them to stay
E) Ulster rugby supporters – there may be some in favour of running the players out of the place, but I haven’t met any. In fact given the current disillusionment with the state that Ulster has got into, and a general feeling that the haranguing of the players has gone a bit far, I think in general people’s desire for the players to come back is hardening, and I think Ulster supporters, non-paranoid and balanced as they are, will be very sensitive to any perception of a kangaroo court and unfair treatment.
F) Twitterati with high profiles/lots of assets – not to get sued
G) Twitterati with low profile/not lots of assets – irrelevant

So broadly constituencies B) to E) will favour a fair disciplinary process which sees a proportionate sanction, in line with historical precedents, and gets the players back playing ASAP.

Constituency A) will be focused on boxing this whole thing off, and will be more alive to how the manner of boxing off is perceived in the media etc. There may be some members of this constituency who might like to think that the best approach is to throw the book at the players and cut them loose (per some commentators in the media etc) – IMO this course of action is fraught with risks, and doesn’t survive any kind of analysis. For example, a terrible outcome for the IRFU would be to end up in an employment tribunal, getting their asses kicked, dragging this out for another year and potentially all kinds of muck raked over etc etc. So I think an adversarial approach to the players and their advisers is off the table.

What this leaves is the outcome desired by constituencies B) to E), or a parting of ways by mutual agreement. The problem for the IRFU is that if they elect to go down the latter route, it has to be all carrot, no stick – the players advisers, no slouches, will appreciate that, and will press for very favourable terms. If this option is on the table, at some stage that someone will say ‘ok we’ve just won the GS, but are we really saying that we want to throw a load of money at these two guys – to go and play for someone else???’ Also – how does this play in the media etc? I can’t imagine the players solicitors signing off on any statement which sticks the boot into them – so there’s a risk that it looks like the IRFU wimping out. And of course into the bargain, they will be pissing off constituencies B) to E).

If I was involved, I’d be looking for agreement from the players to a sanction which is meaningful – given the loss of earnings, effective suspension etc etc a ‘time already served’ perhaps plus a further modest sanction. Then I would ask the players to agree to appear at a press conference, and make a public statement expressing their regret for their language etc, and their commitment to changing and putting things right. Then I would say the matter is now closed and move on.

The problem for all the rugby parties is that the grass is very long in the South and this is an All Ireland (IRFU) issue.
As soon as PJ shows up down south there will be plenty of protestor wielded placards and don't doubt that for one minute.
Having perhaps survived that particular retrial his captain, who will face a difficult post match interview anyway,
will no doubt be praying that PJ doesn't get the MOM award. PJ should make certain that he doesn't btw.
Even the pre match interviews for the coach could be difficult.
I'll leave you to join up the pieces on how those TV interview might go.

As for a solution
Well the lads are protected by employment legislation.
So reinstate the them and give them a run out at home first, preferably, before the end of the season.
That will test local sentiment.
DON'T bring them to Australia, there's no need, we won the GS without them, basically let the dust settle.
The strongest card in this affair is future employment.
The IRFU are not obliged to renew contracts and that should carry a lot of influence in coming to a resolution.
Pragmatism on all sides needs to be the order of the day even if that includes undisclosed sweeteners.
The lads have to be aware that this is a damage limitation exercise, it's not an Ulster only issue, it's and IRFU issue too.
Despite the fact that the guys have been found not guilty you wouldn't think it down south.
And PJ is being singled out in some quarters eg "PJ and three others" is one headline I've seen.
PJ and SO best card is that they have been tried and found innocent and are therefore employable in the eyes of the law.
It's down to how well they manage that card in their own best interests.

Everyone would be best served by being solution driven.

That is just a broad stroke overview.

[rooster]

How/Why did Gilroy get dragged into this? What exactly was the point of identifying him?

There was a text read out in court as part of the timeline that was named CG the prosecution then asked was he a member of the current UR squad to which the answer was yes, press immediately jumped on it and published it as Gilroy, others were named as letters but none corresponded with players initials and the prosecution never passed any remarks on those.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Can anyone tell me what reporting restrictions are in place? The only one I remember reading about was that the complainant couldn't be named, and I certainly wouldn't want that to change, but I'm guessing there's a lot more.

[BlueBlue]

I think people are missing a very major point here, the 4 defendants were found not guilty. That does not mean that society has found their behaviours and attitudes acceptable. In fact I think society finds these lads repugnant in the highest order. There have been comments on here that in times past this and that was said, but it wasn't written down so it didn't come back to haunt us, well maybe, but that again misses the point. Society has moved on, it always does. What was said in the past is not at issue, what's at issue is that society no longer has a tolerance for this stuff. There is a world wide movement based on society being vocal about no accepting this stuff and being vocal about it not being acceptable, in fact being silent and letting it pass is not an acceptable course of action and men in particular are being called out to be part of the solution not the problem.

If you agree or not, makes no difference. The majority / the prevailing attitude of society have made the decision. There are many examples of this, the best probably being marriage equality in Ireland. We went from it being unthinkable to being unthinkable not to have it in a blink of an eye. This is another inflection point, and it no different. Its not about sport and Ulster Rugby's need and we'd like to have some player for the world cup.

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

[paddyor]

Can anyone tell me what reporting restrictions are in place? The only one I remember reading about was that the complainant couldn't be named, and I certainly wouldn't want that to change, but I'm guessing there's a lot more.

Apparently there's several motions to have evidence dismissed or the trial dismissed which were embargoed during the trial. At least one of them is I think still on going. There's some suggeztion that the judge saw the trial thru because it had gone on so long and was so high profile.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I see, thanks.

[rooster]

Can anyone tell me what reporting restrictions are in place? The only one I remember reading about was that the complainant couldn't be named, and I certainly wouldn't want that to change, but I'm guessing there's a lot more.

There is all the stuff that jury didn't hear due to legal issues, assumptions about things with no real grounding, accusations which may or may not be true brought by either side. General inadmissible cr@p that had nothing really to do with case.
There were a lot of written statements also, I have no idea if writer was named or just given a letter or number but they could name them and some of those people may not want named for all sorts of personal or work reasons.
Then there is the point the press could build a story biased against one side or the other depending on what would get them the most online hits or sales.
It's the general stuff traditionally of the red tops that the broadsheets are now delving into.

[Dave Cahill]

Is it not more likely that if the Union/Ulster Rugby want to consider disciplinary action they have no grounds to do so based on criminal activity as the former accused players have both been acquitted. Therefore they have to look at what was not in dispute, namely the whatsapp messages and the possibility that these may bring Irish/Ulster Rugby into disrepute. However if they are reviewing the messages of the former accused they cannot avoid CG's messages as otherwise they are reviewing some players' messages and not others. That would be hard to justify. Hence CG gets dragged into the review.

They're going to find it almost impossible to punish the players for the whatsapp messages anyway. They were private messages sent to a private, closed group. They only were exposed due to the trial process during which the defendants were acquitted. They or the general public would not normally have sight of theses messages.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Yeah I was actually just wondering if there's genuinely a story to tell or if they just want to sell papers/get clicks. From what CiaranIRL said I was assuming it was the former.