Big difference being disappointed with the outcome and being disappointed with the process or the people who completed the process. As well you know.
On a work phone
It looks like there was an agreement but I’m surprised the phrase “mutual agreement” wasn’t in there somewhere.
A suspension probably wasn’t on the cards because it would already have been served, it would have been more appropriate imho
Are you being deliberately awkward here? The difference in the cases are night and day. There was no public naming of the other lads. No court case. No female complaining that it wasnt consensual. No marches.
Also, it is likely/certain that the codes of conduct were made significantly more robust after 2015
Why dont just accept the almost overwhelming likelihood they just did a deal?
They’re not all that dissimilar, if you take off the red goggles.
It was 2013 when the Munster Two got up to their antics in The Shelbourne, not 2015.
Because of the absence anywhere of mutual consent in any of the statements.
Put it a different way Dan, do you think they should have been fired?
Cmere Art. Dont be a dickhead about it now and try to say its a munster bias here on my part is making this situation different. Im out of this discussion with you now.
No. And I dont think they were. Which is the point iv made to you about 15 times.
Em, it’s the exact same in the Republic of Ireland, mate.
To convict in a criminal trial, a jury must be sure beyond all reasonable doubt.
It’s frankly staggering that you don’t know this.
I suspect that if the phrase "mutual agreement " was used then it would imply that there was some concession/s made by the IRFU. This could possibly lead to more awkward questions being asked.
If there was a deal done (and I suspect there was) , the IRFU had to be seen (publiclu at least)
to be taking a no nonsenee approach
Its frankly staggering youre posting this when it wasn’t even what came up.
It’s also frankly staggering that you continue to ignore your hypocritical misogynistic post. Have you told the girl yet what you intended to do?
That suited the employers, but the players also held a few cards.
The BBC had led with rugby players fired now changed to contract revoked. But the language, indicates to all intents and purposes no payoff. Guess we’ll have to wait for annual accounts or lawsuit
If you wanted to be extreme about ithe, you could argue the fact that the players had fuck all to lose. They knew they were never going to play rugby in this country again and could drag the IRFU through the coals for the next six months while any current /potential sponsors look on and withdraw one by one
IRFU retain them then and refuse to play them. Lose another 12 months of career. They will earn just as much in france.
You’re hopping like a mushroom in a frying pan, mate.
Why can’t you just admit you were wrong and that I caught you out on it?
Your deflection efforts are embarrassing for you.
I was wrong. But it’s not deflection pointing that you’re a hypocit
It’s not deflection pointing out your hypocrisy on this of all threads. Anyway. I’m done with you now, I’ve bigger shrooms to fry