The UAFC

Shane Lowry is sponsored by Kingspan and there is not a mention about it in the media.
Imagine if it was Rory!

Jetstream wrote:Shane Lowry is sponsored by Kingspan and there is not a mention about it in the media.
Imagine if it was Rory!

Leona maguire as well as cavan GAA.
Would have respected Sam mcbride in the past, but since joining the tele and hanging out with Nolan more he has gone down the route of sensationalism and click bait. Must be chosen way to keep the lights on at the telegraph.

The problem is for both parties the one year extension is really of little value because my money would be there will be a new sponsor next year - and a change of shirt etc rendering everything bought previously old hat .

Personally on that basis I wouldn’t buy any “named “ gear this year.

So let me get this straight... Kingspan were involved in a some dodgy but not necessarily illegal activity, upon investigation, text messages between main parties were found to be less than ideal, and in someways morally corrupt... but Kingspan at this point are not guilty of anything... so the relationship continues as nothing illegal has happened and therefore reputational damage is moot??

Consistency would be nice. I believe her (DF)... her being the only independent witness in the whole saga!

Not only did ( DF ) say she did not see anything I non - consensual but acted in accordance —waited —got in a taxi went home and left her friend in the safekeeping of — rapists !!???
Whereas the claimant went back to the bedroom having left the house — for her phone — and didn’t use it to phone the police or home or for help and then got in the taxi with the fourth potential rapist and thanked him by text

Something looks like it smells like it — don’t eat it or swallow it like the police and the prosecuting service — at least the jury recognised sh-te

Speaking of sponsors having excessive influence, ironic that Farage called out NatWest/ Coutts over debanking due to his political viewpoints being non aligned to theirs. Love or loathe him this is a line in the sand- 2 directors gone to no doubt save their board. Pity UR/ IRFU didn't stand up to sponsors in a similar way over PJ and SO. The irony that banks have some sort of moral authority. Shylocks

Lots of twisted logic there. Don't use a canute like Farage to make a point.

Jetstream wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:15 pm Lots of twisted logic there. Don't use a canute like Farage to make a point.

Forget the person involved, but whether you have an account with a certain bank or not should not be based on your political view points.

Big-al wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:18 am

Jetstream wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:15 pm Lots of twisted logic there. Don't use a canute like Farage to make a point.

Forget the person involved, but whether you have an account with a certain bank or not should not be based on your political view points.

I can Bank with whatever Bank I like or not. It is my decision. The Bank in my opinion should have a similar right on whether they want my business.

Jetstream wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:31 am

Big-al wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 7:18 am

Jetstream wrote: ↑Fri Jul 28, 2023 10:15 pm Lots of twisted logic there. Don't use a canute like Farage to make a point.

Forget the person involved, but whether you have an account with a certain bank or not should not be based on your political view points.

I can Bank with whatever Bank I like or not. It is my decision. The Bank in my opinion should have a similar right on whether they want my business.

BS- ask Asher's and the big gay cake case - your opinion doesn't count. The law does.

The banks were bailed in 2008 after their own avarice nearly toppled the global financial system. Millions unemployed etc.. lives destroyed by them. Repossessions after encouraging sub prime borrowers. Money laundering including dictators, Nazis etc and you take exception to Farage? BOI applied pressure as a major sponsor to have two innocent URC employees sacked, as a moral guardian/ playing to the woke gallery ( delete per viewpoint) - UK Gov and BOE calling in the banks to read the riot act on this sort of poison. Coutts were clear in their rules ref falling below a certain fiscal threshold, not however about discriminating against holding a perfectly legal political viewpoint. Businesses don't get to do that, especially if bailed by govt ergo public money.
And I have a twisted logic?

CIMANFOREVER wrote:Speaking of sponsors having excessive influence, ironic that Farage called out NatWest/ Coutts over debanking due to his political viewpoints being non aligned to theirs. Love or loathe him this is a line in the sand- 2 directors gone to no doubt save their board. Pity UR/ IRFU didn't stand up to sponsors in a similar way over PJ and SO. The irony that banks have some sort of moral authority. Shylocks

I don't see how this is different to how pj and olding were treated. Pressure came on from sponsors aka the British government and heads rolled. Just that the bank was on the receiving end this time and not calling the shots.

jean valjean wrote: ↑Sat Jul 29, 2023 6:03 pm

CIMANFOREVER wrote:Speaking of sponsors having excessive influence, ironic that Farage called out NatWest/ Coutts over debanking due to his political viewpoints being non aligned to theirs. Love or loathe him this is a line in the sand- 2 directors gone to no doubt save their board. Pity UR/ IRFU didn't stand up to sponsors in a similar way over PJ and SO. The irony that banks have some sort of moral authority. Shylocks

I don't see how this is different to how pj and olding were treated. Pressure came on from sponsors aka the British government and heads rolled. Just that the bank was on the receiving end this time and not calling the shots.

Not sure the two "sponsors" equate JVJ?
BOI and Coutts as commercial entities imposing their political viewpoints, in the case of Coutts probably discriminatory, versus the UK Govt/ BOE revoking such discriminatory practices? BOI got away with it as commercial sponsors leveraging threat of withdrawal of funding to another commercial entity, Coutts didn't because they discriminated against a customer despite him having a perfectly legally held political viewpoint.
The CEOs of Coutts/ NW resigned assenior executives cuplable for discriminatory policies applied by a commercial bank and its parent based on personal political bias not fiduciary rules made explicitly clear in their banking policies.
Worrying times- how "progressive" (the irony) this all is.

The how may differ but the motive is similar being the assumed right to be a moral judge without commercial justification .

Basically to Farage the bank was saying unless you change your politics you can’t bank with us

To the IRFU unless you sack two innocent men we will break our sponsorship contract

The first is discrimination the second was an acceptance of an excessive abusive of power by gutless men ( who if the truth be known have possibly been guilty of worse statements - than “there was a lot of spit roast”)

The moral of the story is those in power can abuse it due to the high cost of legal action .

Kingspan has signalled its intention to conclude its association with the club on a phased-basis by June 2025.

https://ulster.rugby/content/ulster-rug ... -off-point

Will be big financial hole to fill

rumncoke wrote: ↑Wed Jul 26, 2023 2:48 pm Not only did ( DF ) say she did not see anything I non - consensual but acted in accordance —waited —got in a taxi went home and left her friend in the safekeeping of — rapists !!???
Whereas the claimant went back to the bedroom having left the house — for her phone — and didn’t use it to phone the police or home or for help and then got in the taxi with the fourth potential rapist and thanked him by text

Something looks like it smells like it — don’t eat it or swallow it like the police and the prosecuting service — at least the jury recognised sh-te

My understanding is that the police and prosecuting service didn't buy it either and had decided not to charge. However, once the injunction naming the players was broken and the names were public, a trial was almost inevitable, not least to allow alleged suspects to clear their names.

It cleared them legally, but of course covered them in a lot of something else.

And of course those that broke the injunction got away with it because once the charges were brought, they could claim that they broke the injunction in the public interests. The fact that it was them breaking it that brought about everything else became a moot point.