The UAFC

He may have won, but the girl did't and nor did the defendants.

Why is Paddy's barrister contesting the lifting of reporting restrictions?

Cockatrice wrote: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.

Yes an employer needs to have good reason, and follow their own disciplinary procedures, to terminate someone's contract - as well as specific clauses (eg an employer usually has the right to terminate immediately in the event of an employee being convicted of a crime) there is typically a disrepute clause, which is what the IRFU will be leaning on here.

In terms of this situation - an employee can't be censured or sanctioned because they were charged with a crime and been found not guilty, so what can they look at here? The players admitted to excessive drinking - in mitigation they were in the off-season, and on holiday. The only thing left is the texts, and when you get into the detail, they are pretty thin gruel (i.e. the ones that the players themselves sent). So absolutely the IRFU can argue that they have brought their employer into disrepute - but any sanction has to be propotionate, and in line with past incidents. So given precedent (internally eg Murray/Zebo and external eg Bastareaud) I think they woul dbe hard-pressed to argue that terminating the players contracts on the basis of a couple of off-colour texts is proportionate.

If that's the case, then they can only do 3 things as far as I can see:
1) take the chance and terminate the contracts - this is risky, given the player's desire to stay (and therefore likelihood of appeal / tribunal etc - which would drag the whole thing out and risk skeletons coming out of closets etc etc) - I don't think this is on the table.
2) agree to terminate the contracts by mutual agreement - but knowing that the IRFU won't want to risk any of the risks in 1), this gives the players lots of leverage. If they ultimately agree to leave, I would say they will screw the IRFU for everything they can get - this may happen, but I really struggle to see how anyone at the IRFU can argue that this is a good use of their resources, it seems like a massive over-reaction to a social media storm (which is already dying down)
3) give the players a further slap on the wrist and get them back. This will require a bit of deft PR, but (assuming that they players actually do want to stay) seems the likeliest outcome to me. (Not unimportant - this is definitely what Schmidt and Nucifora will want, and they have a lot of influence...)

I wouldn't get too stressed about sponsors - if the IRFU play a good PR game, this should mollify any waverers. In any case Ireland will remain an attractive property - GS winners etc etc, ultimately money talks. Anyone who elects to bow out will be replaced... I'd say the earliest the players would be picked would be November, and 6 mths is a long time in the news! This will be ancient history

Just my view anyway (and assumes that no other nasties come out in the press as a result of the reporting embargo being lifted)

promenader 2 wrote:Why is Paddy's barrister contesting the lifting of reporting restrictions?

Probably because it is stuff that wasn't admissible in court but they will only get one side of it as a lot of the stuff inadmissible about the girl will still be embargoed because it could identify her.
Also remember they have the action against BBC to consider and it might affect that possibly

Rooster wrote:

BR wrote:

rumncoke wrote: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

AFTER the post-trial newspaper story. Hence my contention that he should not have been subject to any suspension before that point as CT was questioning.

I note that the Bellylaugh has finally mentioned the 10000 plus petition, the overwhelming support expressed to URSC, the URSC statement that Ulster risks losing ST holders and supporters not returning. Better late than never I suppose. Many fences to mend.

FOBT

Columbo wrote:

Cockatrice wrote: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.

Yes an employer needs to have good reason, and follow their own disciplinary procedures, to terminate someone's contract - as well as specific clauses (eg an employer usually has the right to terminate immediately in the event of an employee being convicted of a crime) there is typically a disrepute clause, which is what the IRFU will be leaning on here.

In terms of this situation - an employee can't be censured or sanctioned because they were charged with a crime and been found not guilty, so what can they look at here? The players admitted to excessive drinking - in mitigation they were in the off-season, and on holiday. The only thing left is the texts, and when you get into the detail, they are pretty thin gruel (i.e. the ones that the players themselves sent). So absolutely the IRFU can argue that they have brought their employer into disrepute - but any sanction has to be propotionate, and in line with past incidents. So given precedent (internally eg Murray/Zebo and external eg Bastareaud) I think they woul dbe hard-pressed to argue that terminating the players contracts on the basis of a couple of off-colour texts is proportionate.

If that's the case, then they can only do 3 things as far as I can see:
1) take the chance and terminate the contracts - this is risky, given the player's desire to stay (and therefore likelihood of appeal / tribunal etc - which would drag the whole thing out and risk skeletons coming out of closets etc etc) - I don't think this is on the table.
2) agree to terminate the contracts by mutual agreement - but knowing that the IRFU won't want to risk any of the risks in 1), this gives the players lots of leverage. If they ultimately agree to leave, I would say they will screw the IRFU for everything they can get - this may happen, but I really struggle to see how anyone at the IRFU can argue that this is a good use of their resources, it seems like a massive over-reaction to a social media storm (which is already dying down)
3) give the players a further slap on the wrist and get them back. This will require a bit of deft PR, but (assuming that they players actually do want to stay) seems the likeliest outcome to me. (Not unimportant - this is definitely what Schmidt and Nucifora will want, and they have a lot of influence...)

I wouldn't get too stressed about sponsors - if the IRFU play a good PR game, this should mollify any waverers. In any case Ireland will remain an attractive property - GS winners etc etc, ultimately money talks. Anyone who elects to bow out will be replaced... I'd say the earliest the players would be picked would be November, and 6 mths is a long time in the news! This will be ancient history

Just my view anyway (and assumes that no other nasties come out in the press as a result of the reporting embargo being lifted)

Agree cockers, succumbing to the will of sponsors sets a very dangerous present.
Irelands stock couldn't be higher right now particularly with a world cup on the horizon.
If Vodafone walk for example, it would be a case of thanks, cheery bye and form an orderly queue for the next one to name a price to.
If they had any minerals that is.

Liz Fraser wrote:

Columbo wrote:

Cockatrice wrote: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.

Yes an employer needs to have good reason, and follow their own disciplinary procedures, to terminate someone's contract - as well as specific clauses (eg an employer usually has the right to terminate immediately in the event of an employee being convicted of a crime) there is typically a disrepute clause, which is what the IRFU will be leaning on here.

In terms of this situation - an employee can't be censured or sanctioned because they were charged with a crime and been found not guilty, so what can they look at here? The players admitted to excessive drinking - in mitigation they were in the off-season, and on holiday. The only thing left is the texts, and when you get into the detail, they are pretty thin gruel (i.e. the ones that the players themselves sent). So absolutely the IRFU can argue that they have brought their employer into disrepute - but any sanction has to be propotionate, and in line with past incidents. So given precedent (internally eg Murray/Zebo and external eg Bastareaud) I think they woul dbe hard-pressed to argue that terminating the players contracts on the basis of a couple of off-colour texts is proportionate.

If that's the case, then they can only do 3 things as far as I can see:
1) take the chance and terminate the contracts - this is risky, given the player's desire to stay (and therefore likelihood of appeal / tribunal etc - which would drag the whole thing out and risk skeletons coming out of closets etc etc) - I don't think this is on the table.
2) agree to terminate the contracts by mutual agreement - but knowing that the IRFU won't want to risk any of the risks in 1), this gives the players lots of leverage. If they ultimately agree to leave, I would say they will screw the IRFU for everything they can get - this may happen, but I really struggle to see how anyone at the IRFU can argue that this is a good use of their resources, it seems like a massive over-reaction to a social media storm (which is already dying down)
3) give the players a further slap on the wrist and get them back. This will require a bit of deft PR, but (assuming that they players actually do want to stay) seems the likeliest outcome to me. (Not unimportant - this is definitely what Schmidt and Nucifora will want, and they have a lot of influence...)

I wouldn't get too stressed about sponsors - if the IRFU play a good PR game, this should mollify any waverers. In any case Ireland will remain an attractive property - GS winners etc etc, ultimately money talks. Anyone who elects to bow out will be replaced... I'd say the earliest the players would be picked would be November, and 6 mths is a long time in the news! This will be ancient history

Just my view anyway (and assumes that no other nasties come out in the press as a result of the reporting embargo being lifted)

Agree cockers, succumbing to the will of sponsors sets a very dangerous present.
Irelands stock couldn't be higher right now particularly with a world cup on the horizon.
If Vodafone walk for example, it would be a case of thanks, cheery bye and form an orderly queue for the next one to name a price to.
If they had any minerals that is.

C&C or Braid then ......



... they have the minerals

promenader 2 wrote:Why is Paddy's barrister contesting the lifting of reporting restrictions?

he wants them to remain in place because he has libel proceedings ongoing against the BBC..

pwrmoore wrote:

Liz Fraser wrote:

Columbo wrote:

Cockatrice wrote: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.

Yes an employer needs to have good reason, and follow their own disciplinary procedures, to terminate someone's contract - as well as specific clauses (eg an employer usually has the right to terminate immediately in the event of an employee being convicted of a crime) there is typically a disrepute clause, which is what the IRFU will be leaning on here.

In terms of this situation - an employee can't be censured or sanctioned because they were charged with a crime and been found not guilty, so what can they look at here? The players admitted to excessive drinking - in mitigation they were in the off-season, and on holiday. The only thing left is the texts, and when you get into the detail, they are pretty thin gruel (i.e. the ones that the players themselves sent). So absolutely the IRFU can argue that they have brought their employer into disrepute - but any sanction has to be propotionate, and in line with past incidents. So given precedent (internally eg Murray/Zebo and external eg Bastareaud) I think they woul dbe hard-pressed to argue that terminating the players contracts on the basis of a couple of off-colour texts is proportionate.

If that's the case, then they can only do 3 things as far as I can see:
1) take the chance and terminate the contracts - this is risky, given the player's desire to stay (and therefore likelihood of appeal / tribunal etc - which would drag the whole thing out and risk skeletons coming out of closets etc etc) - I don't think this is on the table.
2) agree to terminate the contracts by mutual agreement - but knowing that the IRFU won't want to risk any of the risks in 1), this gives the players lots of leverage. If they ultimately agree to leave, I would say they will screw the IRFU for everything they can get - this may happen, but I really struggle to see how anyone at the IRFU can argue that this is a good use of their resources, it seems like a massive over-reaction to a social media storm (which is already dying down)
3) give the players a further slap on the wrist and get them back. This will require a bit of deft PR, but (assuming that they players actually do want to stay) seems the likeliest outcome to me. (Not unimportant - this is definitely what Schmidt and Nucifora will want, and they have a lot of influence...)

I wouldn't get too stressed about sponsors - if the IRFU play a good PR game, this should mollify any waverers. In any case Ireland will remain an attractive property - GS winners etc etc, ultimately money talks. Anyone who elects to bow out will be replaced... I'd say the earliest the players would be picked would be November, and 6 mths is a long time in the news! This will be ancient history

Just my view anyway (and assumes that no other nasties come out in the press as a result of the reporting embargo being lifted)

Agree cockers, succumbing to the will of sponsors sets a very dangerous present.
Irelands stock couldn't be higher right now particularly with a world cup on the horizon.
If Vodafone walk for example, it would be a case of thanks, cheery bye and form an orderly queue for the next one to name a price to.
If they had any minerals that is.

C&C or Braid then ......



... they have the minerals

do we still have the Maine man delivering ..

Brown lemonade on tap... Mmmmmm

Liz Fraser wrote:Brown lemonade on tap... Mmmmmm

and Kali Water with rum

From Planet Rugby website today...

Loose Pass is less impressed with those who continue to castigate Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, not least those who would have them dropped and booted out of Ulster and Ireland rugby forever.

Both players – and two others – were tried by a court of their peers. Both were cleared of illegal wrongdoing. Both have had their private conversations plastered all over the media as a result of the trial, private conversations now being used to permanently tarnish their characters. But it has to be stressed: these conversations were private, not public, like Folau’s.

Both have expressed remorse and regret. And we’ll say again, both were cleared of illegality. Bad behaviour they are undoubtedly guilty of, but they have been cleared of any crime. They should be given the chance to improve their behaviour now, to learn from their bad decisions, not to be further pilloried because of conversations that, under normal circumstances, would never have been public.

Both have been, and still are, suspended for their stupidity and can surely expect further reprimand from their employers, but it cannot be in anyone’s interests for either to have their freedom to work and ability with a rugby ball compromised permanently because they did something stupid.

So to take out an ad in a paper calling for their employment to be terminated is a little much – tantamount to persecution, in fact. A lot more so than the ARU asking Folau to tone his social media down anyway.

Loose Pass compiled by former Planet Rugby Editor Danny Stephens

Is the tide turning?

bangorboy wrote:From Planet Rugby website today...

Loose Pass is less impressed with those who continue to castigate Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, not least those who would have them dropped and booted out of Ulster and Ireland rugby forever.

Both players – and two others – were tried by a court of their peers. Both were cleared of illegal wrongdoing. Both have had their private conversations plastered all over the media as a result of the trial, private conversations now being used to permanently tarnish their characters. But it has to be stressed: these conversations were private, not public, like Folau’s.

Both have expressed remorse and regret. And we’ll say again, both were cleared of illegality. Bad behaviour they are undoubtedly guilty of, but they have been cleared of any crime. They should be given the chance to improve their behaviour now, to learn from their bad decisions, not to be further pilloried because of conversations that, under normal circumstances, would never have been public.

Both have been, and still are, suspended for their stupidity and can surely expect further reprimand from their employers, but it cannot be in anyone’s interests for either to have their freedom to work and ability with a rugby ball compromised permanently because they did something stupid.

So to take out an ad in a paper calling for their employment to be terminated is a little much – tantamount to persecution, in fact. A lot more so than the ARU asking Folau to tone his social media down anyway.

Loose Pass compiled by former Planet Rugby Editor Danny Stephens

Is the tide turning?

Yup.