Who will decide

[Deraless]

Paddy was asked if CG was a team mate.
Hedworth obviously knew he was and was being a tosser.
Being under oath Paddy said yes.
There are no other CGs on the squad.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Cockatrice]

The decision to make Gilroy ' unavailable' must have been taken by a committee without any Ulster input. Bryn wasn't part of it and Logan was on holiday.

Gilroy was clearly ID'd during the court hearing whether it was just CG or an unreported question seeking clarity over various names... UR had a rep at the court hearing and if anyone was doing their job I suspect some of that was to take note of anything that could come back to UR. As it was it wasn't until the much later news article before UR took the action suggesting they were responding to reporting... if not the Ops Director or the CEO I presume D4 made a call then again maybe it was some committee of blazers..

Not sure CG was clearly ID'd in court. He wasn't in the reporting. Unless that bit was unable to be reported or they just failed to do so.

CG had nothing to answer publicly until the news reports named him after the trial.

UR had a representative at court to listen in and report.. so when the CG thing came up they must have realised yet if not mistaken they allowed him to play and it was only after the news report that they were seen to take action.

[Snipe Watson]

The only way that Paddy’s statement on Friday makes sense is if it part of a scheduled and agreed sequence of moves that ends with Paddy, Stu and Craig returning to playing status with Ulster and Ireland.
The statement on Friday was to placate sponsors and public opinion.

Would they not have to start the review first before scheduling agreed sequences of moves that end with anyone going anywhere...

Are you saying the review hasn't started yet?

So it has started then? are you suggesting that Paddy's statement was in response to an IRFU directive as part of that review?

How the blazes would I know Cockers? But it makes sense.
I'm just speculating, I look at events and try to form the most plausible scenario. Occam's Razor if you like.

I'm guessing it started last week, If I had to take a punt, I'd say Wednesday with a road map agreed by Friday. There's no reason other than a strategic one to string this review out. The prep work and fact finding could have all been done during the trial with all ducks in a row ready to start once the verdict came out. The verdict was on a Tuesday and you can be sure Kevin Winters' firm will have had their HR people on it during the trial. Papers could easily have been lodged with the IRFU on the Wednesday morning. Consider positions Thursday and Friday and into discussions immediately after the Easter break.

[Cockatrice]

End of the day I think the sponsors will decide if they stay or not, if the IRFU gets threats of a drop of several million then they will just pay the lads off and we will have one of those "mutual agreement" press releases. It's not just the Ulster sponsors but because Paddy is liable to play for Ireland it will be them as well, any morality clauses and it is all over.

I don’t think so - key thing is that this is now a disciplinary issue between employee and employer, so the most any sponsors can do is try to whisper in ears offstage. They absolutely can’t intervene directly (and I would imagine KRW’s efforts to date will encourage them to tread very carefully...) I imagine there will be a range of views among sponsors, as in the wider population - so even if theIRFU has had a few off the record calls, I don’t expect they would be universally anti- the players.

So the only decisive actors here are the IRFU on the one hand and the players (plus lawyers, importantly) on the other. IMO the IRFU has limited room for manoeuvre - it seems clear that the messages aren’t in themselves grounds to terminate a contract, so if the IRFU really wants them gone, the players have them over a barrel, and it will be very expensive. Does the IRFU really have the money lying around to spend a fortune in order to send 2 or more of their better players to play abroad? By the sound of it the players want to stay - so I’d expect the IRFU to be working on a PR strategy to try to land this all in the next week or so, probably involving further press conferences/statements from the players and UR.

It just feels like the story has reached the point where most people are thinking, ok enough’s enough.. the whole outrage express just became a bandwagon - when an internet mob is just openly trying to ruin 2 guys future and livelihoods, no matter how unpleasant their messages may have been, I think it reaches a point where it offends people’s sense of fairness

Really the players have the IRFU over a barrel?

As for very expensive surely the IRFU just have to pay off the remaining year on the players contract .. and in the case of Olding I presume he doesn't have an Irish contract so is Ulster financial burden. If the IRFU want and need Paddy they will work to keep him if not then KRW won't get anyone into the Irish team.

[Deraless]

No idea, but would being sued for unfair dismissal not mean more than simply buying out a year of a contract?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Cockatrice]

No idea, but would being sued for unfair dismissal not mean more than simply buying out a year of a contract?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

What if not dismissed... I may be wrong but I am sure there are more than one or two footballers out there in the real big boy money game that have festered in the reserves because their clubs have seen fit... for the avoidance of doubt I am not suggesting that the IRFU will adapt any such approach...

[BR]

The decision to make Gilroy ' unavailable' must have been taken by a committee without any Ulster input. Bryn wasn't part of it and Logan was on holiday.

Gilroy was clearly ID'd during the court hearing whether it was just CG or an unreported question seeking clarity over various names... UR had a rep at the court hearing and if anyone was doing their job I suspect some of that was to take note of anything that could come back to UR. As it was it wasn't until the much later news article before UR took the action suggesting they were responding to reporting... if not the Ops Director or the CEO I presume D4 made a call then again maybe it was some committee of blazers..

Not sure CG was clearly ID'd in court. He wasn't in the reporting. Unless that bit was unable to be reported or they just failed to do so.

CG had nothing to answer publicly until the news reports named him after the trial.

UR had a representative at court to listen in and report.. so when the CG thing came up they must have realised yet if not mistaken they allowed him to play and it was only after the news report that they were seen to take action.

Unless the name 'Craig Gilroy' was used in court rather than the pseudonym 'CG', then I'm not sure an employer would be in a position to add 2 and 2 and come up with any more than 4.

While everyone may have been clear on who the person was, acting on that assumption (no matter how obvious) would have been unwarranted.

[BR]

Paddy was asked if CG was a team mate.
Hedworth obviously knew he was and was being a tosser.
Being under oath Paddy said yes.
There are no other CGs on the squad.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Don't be so feck precious! Hedworth was doing his job.

Assigned the moniker 'CG' and on the team is still assumption that it is Gilroy (albeit a very reasonable one).

[rumncoke]

what you are saying is that Hedworth -- realising the case was lost went on a mud sling .

Since the information had actually nothing to do with the charges faced by the defendants .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

[BR]

what you are saying is that Hedworth -- realising the case was lost went on a mud sling .

Since the information had actually nothing to do with the charges faced by the defendants .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

No. I am saying that it was Hedworth's job to emphasise the idea of a conspiracy within UR circles in line with the evidence given by his primary witness.

That's the sort of thing barristers do on our behalf.

[Tender]

Those altruistic barristards.

[Rooster]

what you are saying is that Hedworth -- realising the case was lost went on a mud sling .

Since the information had actually nothing to do with the charges faced by the defendants .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

No. I am saying that it was Hedworth's job to emphasise the idea of a conspiracy within UR circles in line with the evidence given by his primary witness.

That's the sort of thing barristers do on our behalf.

Gilroy admitted it was himself by putting out the statement

[Kofi Annan]

What exactly did Paddy text?

[Russ]

What exactly did Paddy text?

There was a lot of spit

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Deraless]

what you are saying is that Hedworth -- realising the case was lost went on a mud sling .

Since the information had actually nothing to do with the charges faced by the defendants .


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Exactly. His only weapon was character assassination, and in that it was one sided as the court ruled it was only possible for the prosecution to use this approach.
So actually he might have won after all.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk