Jackson & Olding: were UR/IRFU right or wrong to terminate?

[El Diablo]

Obviously this is a very simplistic poll but I am curious.......

[Xanthippe]

Ah come on El Diablo - if you ask a double sided question you make it very difficult to answer

[Oldschool]

At this point it's done and dusted and it's only going to generate more negativity so I won't be voting.
The Ulster fans and STH are the ones that are going to do the real voting in any event.
BTW being pedantic a 'yes' vote means they were both right and wrong.
A 'no' means they were both wrong and right.
Ooops

[tomthefan]

They've been run out of the country for scandalising the moral majority.
SSDD

[El Diablo]

Ah come on El Diablo - if you ask a double sided question you make it very difficult to answer

[RAILWAY1]

The termination of the contracts was a necessary but very unfortunate consequence of the fallout from the court case and it's publicity. I am not saying the IRFU was right morally to revoke the contracts but in the professional era they have to be seen to act in order to placate sponsors who are vital to our game unfortunately.

[leinsterforever]

Sold down the river based on perception rather than reality would be my view on the overall situation.

It's hard to have a definitive opinion on how the IRFU acted because we don't know precisely what sponsors said behind closed doors, but I would hope they fought the players' corner strongly

[artaneboy]

Sold down the river based on perception rather than reality would be my view on the overall situation.

It's hard to have a definitive opinion on how the IRFU acted because we don't know precisely what sponsors said behind closed doors, but I would hope they fought the players' corner strongly

Not voting either- for the same reason as Old School.

But just one question- do you really believe that IRFU “fought the player’s corner strongly”? The departure may have been inevitable based on the realpolitik- but unfair as I think it was, the Unions could have facilitated that without the implication of guilt being radiated out...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[leinsterforever]

Sold down the river based on perception rather than reality would be my view on the overall situation.

It's hard to have a definitive opinion on how the IRFU acted because we don't know precisely what sponsors said behind closed doors, but I would hope they fought the players' corner strongly

Not voting either- for the same reason as Old School.

But just one question- do you really believe that IRFU “fought the player’s corner strongly”? The departure may have been inevitable based on the realpolitik- but unfair as I think it was, the Unions could have facilitated that without the implication of guilt being radiated out...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no reason to believe that the IRFU did all they could to retain the two players

[olaf the fat]

Sold down the river based on perception rather than reality would be my view on the overall situation.

It's hard to have a definitive opinion on how the IRFU acted because we don't know precisely what sponsors said behind closed doors, but I would hope they fought the players' corner strongly

Not voting either- for the same reason as Old School.

But just one question- do you really believe that IRFU “fought the player’s corner strongly”? The departure may have been inevitable based on the realpolitik- but unfair as I think it was, the Unions could have facilitated that without the implication of guilt being radiated out...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very good point there, the irfu actions do (and wrongly so) implicate guilt. This could of been handled a lot better to give fairness for all.

[Ruckedtobits]

Very difficult to vote on this stark question.

IRFU almost certainly would have suffered sponsor loss and a very pressured environment with media and protesters for a 6-12 month period if players were retained. Players would also have had a very difficult time if they had stayed.

Key question for me is how long the exile will last. I would support their return to Ireland AND the green jersey, say after 3 years. Anything else would be extreme and wrong

[blockhead]

Very difficult to vote on this stark question.

IRFU almost certainly would have suffered sponsor loss and a very pressured environment with media and protesters for a 6-12 month period if players were retained. Players would also have had a very difficult time if they had stayed.

Key question for me is how long the exile will last. I would support their return to Ireland AND the green jersey, say after 3 years. Anything else would be extreme and wrong

Logan (The War Hero), implied it was for good. I assume that when the IRFU, pressurised by BOI, insisted on them being fired they had to agree that it was for Ireland too.
We will never see them back.
Think about that, Bank of Ireland, a company without morals, passing judgement on someone else. When you here of the testimony's of people who had money and home's stolen by that organisation. Could we not associate ourselves with someone better.

[tomthefan]

Very difficult to vote on this stark question.

IRFU almost certainly would have suffered sponsor loss and a very pressured environment with media and protesters for a 6-12 month period if players were retained. Players would also have had a very difficult time if they had stayed.

Key question for me is how long the exile will last. I would support their return to Ireland AND the green jersey, say after 3 years. Anything else would be extreme and wrong

Logan (The War Hero), implied it was for good. I assume that when the IRFU, pressurised by BOI, insisted on them being fired they had to agree that it was for Ireland too.
We will never see them back.
Think about that, Bank of Ireland, a company without morals, passing judgement on someone else. When you here of the testimony's of people who had money and home's stolen by that organisation. Could we not associate ourselves with someone better.

The Church of Money

[Lar]

Very good point there, the irfu actions do (and wrongly so) implicate guilt. This could of been handled a lot better to give fairness for all.

Guilty of what? Not the crimes they were charged with as a Court found the players (rightly to my mind) not guilty. But that does not mean that the players were not guilty of bringing the name of Ulster and Irish Rugby into disrepute. Or at the very least that on a subjective view that is not an unreasonable position to take. Look at the manner in which opinion is divided here on a Rugby forum. Clearly opinion is very divided in Belfast with protests outside Ravenhill on the one hand and threats of season ticket boycotts as a result of the contract revocations on the other. And regardless of the morals (or lack thereof) of the team sponsor it is still the team sponsor, someone any sporting organisation ignores at its peril.

I have no firm view on whether the IRFU/UR were right or wrong but I think they had little option but to take the decision they did.

Aside from a few lawyers who were presumably well compensated for their time there are no winners from the whole saga. Including Irish Rugby which has had to deal with this issue at a time when the sport should be at its most popular in the wake of an incredibly successful international season and one where at least two of its provincial sides are performing at a very high level and may also end the season on another high. The fact that I highlight Irish Rugby does not mean that I feel it is most damaged by the whole thing, that would be plainly wrong. But I think the IRFU and Ulster Rugby were left with little choice, and to that extent they were right to end the players' contracts.

[Peg Leg]

It's like having one of Osama Bin Laden's 53 brothers or sisters (22 wives, before you ask) as your head of PR. She/He might be cool, great at her/his job etc. But you just don't want him or her representing your company.

[Oldschool]

It's like having one of Osama Bin Laden's 53 brothers or sisters (22 wives, before you ask) as your head of PR. She/He might be cool, great at her/his job etc. But you just don't want him or her representing your company.

Would they be IQ tho'?

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I'd be more worried about her being AQ.

[rooster]

All I know for sure is there was not actually a hearing in the end but they just were offered to take their wages and go or sit it out under contract and not play for a year then their contracts not renewed
As far as BOI is concerned they may not renew sponsorship anyway in line with their corporate decisions to cut back on sports affiliated sponsorship anyway.
On the protests at Ravenhill there were between 50 and 100 there for 30 minutes, they had roughly the same number of reporters and photographers there as well and vast majority of the crowd was in the ground before they appeared.

[janeymac08]

Bank of Ireland has fairly recently extended their jersey sponsorship of both Leinster & Munster to 2023, so I don't see that as cutting back on sports sponsorship. They recruited David Wallace as well as some sort of a Business Development Manager for the Munster region.

Kingspan also had some concerns (according to PA anyway), but let Bank of Ireland do the public running. It was reported initially that Bank of Ireland was going to pull out of all rugby sponsorship, not just Ulster and that is probably why the IRFU/Ulster needed to get rid of the two lads and quick.

[Ruckedtobits]

Bank of Ireland has fairly recently extended their jersey sponsorship of both Leinster & Munster to 2023, so I don't see that as cutting back on sports sponsorship. They recruited David Wallace as well as some sort of a Business Development Manager for the Munster region.

Kingspan also had some concerns (according to PA anyway), but let Bank of Ireland do the public running. It was reported initially that Bank of Ireland was going to pull out of all rugby sponsorship, not just Ulster and that is probably why the IRFU/Ulster needed to get rid of the two lads and quick.

Heard strong indication that 6N main sponsor made their views clear to IRFU indirectly, prior to the final Court Verdict. Sacrifical lambs were required, one way or the other, because of content of undisputed evidence. These were the opinions offered by media advisers / brands managers & crisis consultants.