General Rugby Discussion II

stephen_n

sydthebeat wrote: »

what troubles me is that all this hassle seems to be over the contents of the text messages on the whatsapp group....

yet paddy jacksons sum total in that whats app chat regarding that night is 8 words "there was a lot of spit roast last night".
so his career is basically being destroyed and his name completely blackened due to those 8 words.

the texts from the others in that group were way way worse, but jackson is guilty by association.

The twitterati are convinced he was guilty of rape, they have never accepted the decision of the court. Those 8 words don’t really matter. He was tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty. Those are the voices on twitter and the change.org platforms that Diageo are listening to.

salmocab

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Bringing it back to to rugby. Just stumbled on a story of a very unusual offer from the Tonga national team that if Folau doesn't play for Australia for 3 years, they'd happily have him switch allegiance to represent them.

Folau would have to sit out international rugby for three years before taking part in an Olympic sevens qualifying tournament, which in turn would allow him to compete in the 2023 Rugby World Cup.

I really didn't think it was possible to switch international teams??

http://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/48619944

This was discussed a good while back, if I remember right there is a loophole to do with playing 7s. Not sure if it’s still there.

RobbieRuns

Amazed that Diageo are letting a few people on Twitter decide who they sponsor? Whatever about the case, not one jot would have been noticed by anyone if they kept involved with London Irish. Could not see one pint less being sold here due to them sponsoring LI. Strange Decision.

irishbucsfan

RobbieRuns wrote: »

Amazed that Diageo are letting a few people on Twitter decide who they sponsor? Whatever about the case, not one jot would have been noticed by anyone if they kept involved with London Irish. Could not see one pint less being sold here due to them sponsoring LI. Strange Decision.

It would be noticed by their staff anyway

irishbucsfan

salmocab wrote: »

This was discussed a good while back, if I remember right there is a loophole to do with playing 7s. Not sure if it’s still there.

Yeah it’s a bit of an odd one. If Folau uses it I wouldn’t be surprised to see it scrapped, it’s therr originally to help players get eligible for the Olympics iirc

Exclamation Marc

salmocab wrote: »

This was discussed a good while back, if I remember right there is a loophole to do with playing 7s. Not sure if it’s still there.

I genuinely never knew you could. I remember discussing it with a friend over Isa and his one fated International appearance and how he was locked in.

Would be some development if he did go down that route.

Former Coach

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I'm fully legally trained so I know exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe my mistake was speaking about it colloquially as I'm not writing formal emails from work and honestly, didn't think I needed to.

And jesus christ, your questions? Are you high or something?

If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank, it means he didn't rob the bank. If a guy is acquitted of murder, it means he didn't murder the victim. In this case, the men did not sexually assault the woman (or whatever the exact charge was per plaintiff).

If a jury acquits, it means that no crime was committed by the person accused and put on trial, that's fairly indicative by using the old common sense. If someone else is charged for it, that's for another trial (such as a murder or theft as you oddly referenced). In the case of a bank being robbed, if it was robbed it remains robbed. It just means the person on trial did not do it - crime not committed (by them - as I seem to need to spell it out).

Jesus, do you read the utter nonsense that you're writing.

If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank , it means that there isn’t enough evidence to convict him. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it!

is_that_so

RobbieRuns wrote: »

Amazed that Diageo are letting a few people on Twitter decide who they sponsor? Whatever about the case, not one jot would have been noticed by anyone if they kept involved with London Irish. Could not see one pint less being sold here due to them sponsoring LI. Strange Decision.

No, it's a call based on protecting their brand. In their view the continued association was no longer in their interest. Nothing unusual there. Remember that Tiger Woods lost a whole lot of sponsors at the time of his car accident and the extra-marital stuff, around 25% of his endorsements.

Former Former

RobbieRuns wrote: »

Amazed that Diageo are letting a few people on Twitter decide who they sponsor? Whatever about the case, not one jot would have been noticed by anyone if they kept involved with London Irish. Could not see one pint less being sold here due to them sponsoring LI. Strange Decision.

Whether you agree with them or not, it's a lot more than a few people on Twitter.

The other thing is that Diageo doesn't want to be associated with the sort of excessive drinking and laddish behaviour that went on that night, sort of undermines the "always drink responsibly" message...

Bazzo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah it’s a bit of an odd one. If Folau uses it I wouldn’t be surprised to see it scrapped, it’s therr originally to help players get eligible for the Olympics iirc

I could be wrong but I thought it was some sort of requirement for 7s to become an Olympic sport/as a consequence of it becoming an Olympic sport so not sure if they could scrap it.

Buer

I genuinely never knew you could. I remember discussing it with a friend over Isa and his one fated International appearance and how he was locked in.

It has been done already. Tim Nanai Williams played 7s for NZ which locks him down to NZ. However, he is now playing full test rugby for Samoa after going through the required measures.

PMC83

RobbieRuns wrote: »

Amazed that Diageo are letting a few people on Twitter decide who they sponsor? Whatever about the case, not one jot would have been noticed by anyone if they kept involved with London Irish. Could not see one pint less being sold here due to them sponsoring LI. Strange Decision.

Could well be as much to do with the messages himself and the other players were exchanging. He wasn't found guilty of the crime, but his behaviour would exactly be something you want attached to your brand.

Christy42

RobbieRuns wrote: »

Amazed that Diageo are letting a few people on Twitter decide who they sponsor? Whatever about the case, not one jot would have been noticed by anyone if they kept involved with London Irish. Could not see one pint less being sold here due to them sponsoring LI. Strange Decision.

Sponsorship costs money. If they feel they won't lose many sales they will happily drop LI as LI are not offering value if they are not helping to sell beer.

It isn't whether or not they would lose sales by sponsoring. It is whether or not they will gain enough sales to make it worth while. They came down on the no in their judgement.

mfceiling

Former Former wrote: »

The other thing is that Diageo doesn't want to be associated with the sort of excessive drinking and laddish behaviour that went on that night, sort of undermines the "always drink responsibly" message...

Didn't hear their opinion on SOB p*ssing on a lads leg after being full of their produce. Didn't seem to annoy them rowing in behind Gareth Thomas who was tipping lads behind his wife's back. Didn't pull any funding after Marler made racist comments about Samson Lee.
Seems a lad that wasn't found guilty of any charges by a court of law "doesn't fit in with their values".

Obviously their tax dodging was grand. As was their war against Brewdog winning a competition that they weren't happy with.

salmocab

Lads Diageo don’t give a toss about PJ or the girl. They wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if social media hadn’t got up about it. The brand is now getting more attention without having to pay for it. They won’t sell more or less pints either way but they are gaining the free brand recognition.

PMC83

salmocab wrote: »

Lads Diageo don’t give a toss about PJ or the girl. They wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if social media hadn’t got up about it. The brand is now getting more attention without having to pay for it. They won’t sell more or less pints either way but they are gaining the free brand recognition.

They definitely do give a toss, they stated as much and then pulled sponsorship.

swiwi_

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I'm fully legally trained so I know exactly what I'm talking about. Maybe my mistake was speaking about it colloquially as I'm not writing formal emails from work and honestly, didn't think I needed to.

And jesus christ, your questions? Are you high or something?

If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank, it means he didn't rob the bank. If a guy is acquitted of murder, it means he didn't murder the victim. In this case, the men did not sexually assault the woman (or whatever the exact charge was per plaintiff).

If a jury acquits, it means that no crime was committed by the person accused and put on trial, that's fairly indicative by using the old common sense. If someone else is charged for it, that's for another trial (such as a murder or theft as you oddly referenced). In the case of a bank being robbed, if it was robbed it remains robbed. It just means the person on trial did not do it - crime not committed (by them - as I seem to need to spell it out).

Jesus, do you read the utter nonsense that you're writing.

Yeah nah. Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean definitively innocent. That’s law 101 I would have thought.

Exclamation Marc

swiwi_ wrote: »

Yeah nah. Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean definitively innocent. That’s law 101 I would have thought.

It means legally innocent. That's "law 101".

Exclamation Marc

Any idea how big Diageo are in terms of sponsorship of LI?

They're obviously a giant company but are they heavily sponsoring LI? You'd wonder if they will be able to replace them if they're a key sponsor.

Squidgy Black

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Any idea how big Diageo are in terms of sponsorship of LI?

They're obviously a giant company but are they heavily sponsoring LI? You'd wonder if they will be able to replace them if they're a key sponsor.

Not sure on financial details, but they've sponsored the club since 1989, which is a long relationship to end.

Powerade is the LI's marquee sponsor, followed by Keltbray.

molloyjh

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

swiwi_ wrote: »

Yeah nah. Not guilty beyond reasonable doubt does not mean definitively innocent. That’s law 101 I would have thought.

It means legally innocent. That's "law 101".

Yes, but not actually innocent. Which is, of course, the point being made.

As I said elsewhere, I do wonder if this was a politician or a banker being found not guilty of misconduct regarding the recession would all the same people be of the same opinion? I'd suggest not.

Exclamation Marc

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes, but not actually innocent. Which is, of course, the point being made.

As I said elsewhere, I do wonder if this was a politician or a banker being found not guilty of misconduct regarding the recession would all the same people be of the same opinion? I'd suggest not.

Actually innocent of the crime he was charged with. Not innocent (or even guilty in a non-legal sense) of very poor behaviour which I've already said.

molloyjh

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes, but not actually innocent. Which is, of course, the point being made.

As I said elsewhere, I do wonder if this was a politician or a banker being found not guilty of misconduct regarding the recession would all the same people be of the same opinion? I'd suggest not.

Actually innocent of the crime he was charged with. Not innocent (or even guilty in a non-legal sense) of very poor behaviour which I've already said.

So nobody was ever found not guilty of something that they did? That's a.......naive idea.

AbusesToilets

molloyjh wrote: »

So nobody was ever found not guilty of something that they did? That's a.......naive idea.

And how many were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit?

sydthebeat

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And how many were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit?

plenty

the histories are full of miscarriages of justice

just look at the A team.......

irishbucsfan

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And how many were found guilty of a crime they didn't commit?

So your point is that skepticism of the legal process is sometimes warranted?

Exclamation Marc

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So your point is that skepticism of the legal process is sometimes warranted?

Based on what though? People are sceptic in this instance based on information that the jury was presented with which they reviewed and came to a conclusion on. The jury which had substantially more information than any of us have seen.

Former Former

mfceiling wrote: »

Didn't hear their opinion on SOB p*ssing on a lads leg after being full of their produce. Didn't seem to annoy them rowing in behind Gareth Thomas who was tipping lads behind his wife's back. Didn't pull any funding after Marler made racist comments about Samson Lee.
Seems a lad that wasn't found guilty of any charges by a court of law "doesn't fit in with their values".

Obviously their tax dodging was grand. As was their war against Brewdog winning a competition that they weren't happy with.

None of those are remotely comparable though. All those incidents made the sports news for a few days and we all moved on. The Jackson thing has been rumbling for nearly two years now, it was headline news for weeks, people literally took to the streets in protest about it.

Businesses spend money on sponsorship for positive associations. When the balance tips the other way, then sponsorship gets pulled. Tiger Woods, Lance Armstrong, Wayne Rooney, Dan Carter... This isn't unique to Jackson.

stephen_n

Former Coach wrote: »

If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank , it means that there isn’t enough evidence to convict him. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it!

Neither does it mean he did. It means there isn’t enough evidence alright, without which it’s impossible to make judgements and yet here we are.

Former Coach

stephen_n wrote: »

Neither does it mean he did. It means there isn’t enough evidence alright, without which it’s impossible to make judgements and yet here we are.

You've just agreed with what I said! I didn't make any judgment one way or the other.