Will the real Stan, Stand up for the Ulstermen and...

Questions for the players, the management, the UAFC, the URSC or other supporters... Someone might answer you!! (and pigs might fly)

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
ballpark
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:52 pm

Will the real Stan, Stand up for the Ulstermen and...

Post by ballpark »

Late Thursday evening a 'Stanley Graham' posted a semi detached attempt at a suicide note/ resignation from the URSC complete with 4 letter asterixs'. This post and the replies where later withdrawn but not before I answered saying that the resignation was somewhat ungracious in comparison to other resignations connected with the affair. I also said Stanley had spoken very well on the Nolan show about the Maze move and so on but that the tapes comment had been in nobody's interest.

What is clear is that:
(1) UR, if the poster Mike Reid is to be believed, is seeking legal advice on the matter. That is NOT a laughing matter and it may be aimed at another member of the committee and NOT Stanley as some believe.
(2) Two members of the committee have I understand, resigned, neither of them are Stanley G. They have resigned in a dignified manner and as I understand it in the appropriate way without prostrating themselves naked across this forum.
(3) A URSC event associated with the Boxing Day game and involving the Leinster supporters, (if my memory serves me correctly), has been cancelled. This event would have shown the URSC in an excellent light and demonstrated their ability to organise events for visiting supporters and members alike. The cancellation of the event may be connected to the resignations.

Stanley Graham, the real one that is, should take the honourable course and resign forthwith from the URSC committee whilst he has some smidgeon of honour left and do it in the appropriate manner through the chairman of the committee. I said the tapes comments where hilarious but this has gone well beyond a joke with real or imagined Stanleys posting drunken homilies or sad 'they're pointing at me posts.'

For the sake of URSC members do the honourable thing Stanley, Stand up for the Ulstermen and sit down and tender your resignation forthwith and stop this nonsense now.

End of chapter.
User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

Post by dead ball »

Great post BP.
Though I wonder is all this falling on deaf ears. I recieved a reply to my questions and like everyone else was waiting for a proper response as indicated by the powers that be before discussing it publicly. Where is it?
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.

Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie! :roll:
User avatar
Stan d'Up
Novice
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:57 pm

Post by Stan d'Up »

Now, there's a thing!
ballpark
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:52 pm

Post by ballpark »

106 views, (4 of them mine) that's an average of ONE post per 50 views. Way below the national average. Looks like i need another 44 views before there is another response :cry:
haveuheard
Novice
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 2:33 pm

Post by haveuheard »

Ballpark

If the Stanley in question had either any decency or any consideration for the URSC he would have stood down a long time ago. Instead he chose to ignore his responsibility for any part in this and it took 2 subsequent committee meetings and 2 further resignations before his apology was even made.

Had there been no mention on this board that too would have been brushed under the carpet.

The matter is now seemingly closed yet the URSC appear unwilling to make a public statement to explain to its membership rather preferring to ride out the storm until the next AGM. Then presumbely more will stand down and as such the mess can be left for those interested to pick up and take on. It is also convenient that there happens to be two Stanley's and rather than clarify any confusion they appear willing to hide behind this and allow one to be dragged into the mud.

Heard something at the match that also needs clarification.

One further question that should maybe be put to the URSC is what if any involvement did Ulster Rugby have in seeking the removal of one of its committee members? or put another way

Did the URSC discuss terms with Ulster Rugby a means whereby one of its committee members would resign? oh and does this constitute interference?
Cap'n Grumpy
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: At sea on an insignificant blue/green planet orbiting a sun in the western spiral arm of the galaxy
Contact:

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

Consider these possibilities

NONE of the posters named as Stanley (or any variants) actually are who they purport to be (or allude to).

the poster named as MR is NOT actuallyMR

Those who have resigned in a "dignified" manner may NOT otherwise be acting in a dignified manner

Those who have resigned MAY have done so because of their part in the debacle.

Not being party to all the facts, I don't know, but being party to some of the rumours, I am still prepared to keep an open mind.

YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE ALL YOU READ ON A MESSAGEBOARD!
User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

Post by dead ball »

CapN
Are you sure youre not involved CapN?

Tell us where did you here these rummors you tok about?
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.

Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie! :roll:
Cap'n Grumpy
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: At sea on an insignificant blue/green planet orbiting a sun in the western spiral arm of the galaxy
Contact:

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

Definitely NOT involved DB

And there are several sources of information/rumour - not all of them agreeing. That's why I draw NO conclusions (at least none that I'm prepared to repeat until I KNOW they are true!). I only offer other possibilities - I state them no stronger than that.

I think you do others a great disservice with you're loose tok! Not least the man himself.

End of messages on this subject.
User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

Post by dead ball »

Auhhhhhh
CapN are you taking the ball inside now?

You came on repeating rummors you have heard, have we not a right to ask where they came from?
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.

Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie! :roll:
Cap'n Grumpy
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: At sea on an insignificant blue/green planet orbiting a sun in the western spiral arm of the galaxy
Contact:

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

OK DB

My final final word (for now)

I did not repeat any rumours and therefore do not need to reveal where I heard them. I prefer not to repeat rumours - you never know what they can lead to.

Lets consider the POSSIBILITIES I wrote
NONE of the posters named as Stanley (or any variants) actually are who they purport to be (or allude to). Do you believe everyone on this or any MB is actually who they say they are? Maybe ballpark believes that the "ballpark" currently on the UR site is himself - I'm not convinced (surprise surprise)! Call me a cynic, but given the number of Stanleys that have sprung up lately, it is doubtful if all of them are him. so if we don't know which if any are him, why believe any of them? Some maybe like to believe the one that best fits their conspiracy theories though!

the poster named as MR is NOT actually MR
See above!

Those who have resigned in a "dignified" manner may NOT otherwise be acting in a dignified manner
Given what has been posted recently, the thought had crossed my mind that someone possibly had an axe to grind. Might that not be someone (or two or more) who has/have resigned. NOTE that I said POSSIBLY! As yet I am unaware of any post or message on who has actually resigned, so my apologies if I have offended whoever this may be, but remember my original post only discussed possibilities. At least these were possibilities with potential motive.


Those who have resigned MAY have done so because of their part in the debacle
In the absence of any other reason to resign (and as I said, I am unaware of any), why resign unless they felt they had some responsibility for what happened. Note I do not attach blame, but pose a possible explanation for a part in what went wrong.

None of this is based on rumour, but is speculative (I admit that) based on what anyone could think from what's in the public domain.

I have never been much in favour of lynch mobs, and am simply throwing some "reasonable doubt" into the arena. You are familiar with "reasonable doubt" are you not, DB? (That's a rhetorical question by the way, no need to respond)
ballpark
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:52 pm

Post by ballpark »

Cap'n, I'm with you on this and indeed if you read my post that started this topic you will see that i have couched much of what I've said in 'I believe', 'maybe' terms. This is because I've tried to keep this to what I know to be in the public domain.

However I think that the amount of rumour and speculation that has developed, has developed precisely because there is a vacuum of real information. For example UR could have e-mailed the Nolan show and said the tapes' information was wrong. They could have done this the day after the show. Stanley G could have apologised immediately for misleading people, he did not and instead has created a smoke screen whether by accident or design that has only served to further hype the innuendo and speculation.

That is why there is continued rumour because simply no one has admitted they did anything wrong despite the bleedin' obvious which is what was said on the Nolan show. Quite simply i'm dealing in what I know here and the fact that there has been this innuendo is a cause of further embarrassment to the URSC and it certainly is to some members who must now feel it (the URSC) is a laughing stock. Had some people been upfront about there actions i for one wouldn't be typing this now. I now feel that there is a concerted attempt by certain people to be opaque and mislead.
User avatar
dead ball
Steward
Posts: 946
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: The Pub

Post by dead ball »

CapN
Okay youre right and I was wrong(and I mean that sincerely). I must confess that is probably as good a reading between the lines as I heard on the subject.

I do think it's a shame that we as members have to deal in speculation and rummor because the guys who stand in their postions by our (accumlative) say so feel no reason to explain to us (by way of a public statement) what is going on or why certain things have been said or done.

In my experience if a vacum is left someone or something will fill it thus the comments on this board and elsewhere! :?
The trouble with referees is that they just don't care which side wins - Tom Canterbury.

Ulster proud sponsors of Comical Eddie! :roll:
User avatar
Rooster
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 40137
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Chicken coop 17

Post by Rooster »

dead ball wrote: In my experience if a vacum is left someone or something will fill it thus the comments on this board and elsewhere! :?
DB that statement sums up God knows how many posts and topics on this debate since it started. A simple statement before the end of the week that this took place would have setled the entire debate and it would have ceased to be of any interest by now.
As the old saying goes "A stitch in time saves nine"
“That made me feel very special and underlined to me that Ulster is more than a team, it is a community and a rugby family"
Rory Best
fermain
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 12929
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:09 am
Location: Beer garden

Post by fermain »

As stated on another thread an announcement was meant to be imminent.

Looks like that was a bit of nonesense then


Obviously an official announcement is not going to be made anywhere by either the URSC or Ulster Rugby anytime soon. What should we now expect then?
  • 1. Will anyone be leaving the committee?(Stanley G)
  • 2. Has the issue been swept under the carpet? (at least one member has been forced to resign because of UR's interference in the URSC)
  • 3. Will Deadball now publish the answers to the questions he posted to the URSC? :)
:red: :red: :red: :red: :red: :red: :red:
Save lives, become an organ donor!!
ballpark
Warrior Chief
Posts: 1867
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:52 pm

Post by ballpark »

Rooster an excellent summing up of my previous post.

What has shown up in sharp relief in the meantime since the Stanley comment on the radio is that the relationship between UR and the URSC is weighted too heavily towards one side (UR), despite the membership paying their fees for a relationship that involves UR but not UR control.

Resignations have occurred in the committee of the URSC and not many of the membership know about them or why. (How many of the committee listed on the UR site are actually still on it?)

The AGM is April 2006 a long way off IMHO and leaves an awful lot of time in which to bury bad news and reasons for resignations to be smoothed out and glossed over.

Clearly some people had a greater sense of responsibility for their own actions than others. Whilst the use of dubious monikers has muddied the waters and even produced a few laughs not to mention a few satirical articles on this and the other board, the fact remains that the URSC appears a complete laughing stock.

The Leinster event was cancelled and there appears no other events are on the horizon. It was one of the committments that events would take place this year as they are seen as a way of bringing supporters together socially. Instead what we now have is supporters either plugging their man for all their worth whilst others voice their dismay at the continued lack of respect of responsibility for their actions. The result being supporters starteing to split into various factions. Not at all what the URSC is about.

Before anyone has at go at me for highlighting or indeed fuelling any of this, I drew attention to the radio comments because simply I heard them uttered and could not believe anyone could be so daft in the name of the URSC. That remains my position, in the absence of a simple statement. That other things grew up around that, is not of my making except to say that I'm not alone in wondering what is going on or why some people are behaving in the manner they are. Double entendre with monikers on the board etc. serves only fuel my anxiety about the URSC and it's purpose.

To reprise Rooster's comment, "A simple statement before the end of the week that this took place would have setled the entire debate and it would have ceased to be of any interest by now.
As the old saying goes "A stitch in time saves nine"
Post Reply