ENOUGHS ENOUGH!

[Dewi Barnes]

I don't think it was cloudy until you started your usual pontificating in your normal manner.

Better to remain silent than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

[Rooster]

Well it sorts it out in my head Dewi I always thought directors had a share in a company, but this explanation leaves it that they may have no ownership at all and just work for the company. But then I'm just a daft chicken

[Cockatrice]

Rooster- If your a daft chicken then I'm a bit with a hens tail.

[Cockatrice]

shouldn't read bit should read first part of name

[dead ball]

Well it sorts it out in my head Dewi I always thought directors had a share in a company, but this explanation leaves it that they may have no ownership at all and just work for the company. But then I'm just a daft chicken

A common misconception Rooster which is why I thought I would clarify it. I am glad to see it was so well recieved. It was a case of Dew or die!?!

[ballpark]

Ballpark:
I'm not prepared to put in the time, I haven't got the time!
I also find that if a person is willing, but not necessarily able, they will realise this.

As for MR, Marl McCall and the UB I do happen to believe for an organisation who turned into a professional body overnight is doing very well after a few years. As I said nothing is perfect - I feel MMcC made an error on Saturday past.

II happen to believe that the Branch could do better when it comes to commercial sponsorship, but they are getting there.

I just don't believe they need me to constantly remind them of their current shortcomings through this medium!
HAPPY NEW YEAR BALLPARK!!!!

and A Happy New Year OAWUF.
A good post and a couple of points 'd like to take you up on.
I too don't have the time to commit to the running of the URSC though i have had an ocasional, peripheral and modest association with it over and above paying my tenner. Indeed i was honoured recently to be asked to make a further contribution but felt that I couldn't do the task the justice it deserved and declined. Here is my point, I increasingly hear people saying that the committee are only volunteers who have given up their spare time to do this job therefore stop criticising them, in other words you ungrateful b*****ds. However if you give up your spare time to do this job then at least put the effort in and do it properly.

Some committee members at least, as far as I am aware volunteered in the respect that they put forward a nomination to sit on the committee and the nominations where proposed and seconded at the AGM by members, that is my understanding. Therefore establishing a first point of contact in communication and accountability between members and committee. In that sense committee members have been appointed to represent the membership. They do not have a license to misrepresent and not take responsibility for their actions. (Stanley G take note).

You said OAWUF that McCall made an error on saturday, that is a pretty bald statement which you have not elaborated on. I for one would be interested to hear why for example or where he made an error, as in the past OAWUF, you have bawled out me in particular for making such statements.

You say that UR have turned into a profesional body and i do not disagree. As such criticism comes with the terriitory, it does not have to be negative it can be positive. Differing points of view, debate - criticism if you like are all the the tools in trade of everyone involved in professional sport from coaches to managers to players to supporters. It's what generates the column inches in the tabloids the paragraphs in the broadsheets and the pundits in business for hours on end and the supporters arguing over their pints, crucially it sells newspaper and airtime. Mark McCall speaks through the media before a match and afterwards, to whom is he speaking? Mike Reid? the players? no I believe he is adressing the supporters the people who pay through the gate to watch the game. When he says Saturday is a disappointmnet i do not imagine he's talking to himself, I believe he's talking to me the supporter. I do not have the privelege of a column in the tele or air time on TV to voice my frustrations or delight at the team performance, no I have this medium here, the messageboard forum and as such I should be allowed to exercise it without the carping that you produce in respect of that OAWUF.

I praised Mark McCall earlier in the season for his management of the team but i you failed to grace the forum with your presence to acknowledge that. Therefore I conclude OAWUF that your vocal criticism is unbalanced and aimed at the messenger rather than the message.

You said that UR could do better when it comes to commercial sponsorship. Again a fairly bald statement, but again I would be genuinely interested to hear your views on how they could do better, as it is area I'm totally unfamiliar with but having an interest in UR it would be interesting to hear friom a source who has at least some knowledge.

Once again OAWUF, a Happy New Year, I trust you will take my criticism in the constructive spirit in which it was given and respond accordingly.

[LePaul]

I have taken a few days out to cool down and re-read this thread and watch to see how it progresses from where I left it. Happily it seems to have continued, more or less, in the same direction.

I was accused of being a hypocrite by OAWUF and initially felt this was grossly inaccurate - until I took time out to read the entire thread. OAWUF - you are correct in that I cannot expect you or Gary or others not to slag me off when I in turn continue to slag Mr Michael Reid off as I had done. Fair comment - I am big enough to realise that I was out of order on that score.

As to bringing personalities and real life issues into the debating arena - again there is some semblance of accuracy in what you say OAWUF - although in truth the actual thread that you so describe was an aside - it is vital that what takes place in this Forum never reaches outside of it - unless with the approval of individual contributors.

To this end - I offer my apologies for any offence that my phraseology may have caused to any member of this Forum irrespective of their view points - but I stress that I do not, nor will not alter my views on the disgraceful direction that the URSC has been taken by Mr Michael Reid and his assistants within Ulster Rugby.

Finally, to clarify - I have never, now or in the past, nor will I in the future, ridicule or demean the work that the URSC's committee and its members have undertaken. I acknowledge their efforts and their results.

I will, however, continue to question (less aggressively) the shackling of the URSC and its functions and its autonomy by Mr Michael Reid and his assistants within Ulster Rugby.

[OAWUF]

Ballpark:

Thanks

I feel I have never 'bald' someone out for expressing critisism 'constructive critisism' and have posted in the past explaining this. As I have explained before, it's verbal abuse, name calling and showing a distinct lack of respect for player, coach and manafement alike.

Most of our 'balling' went on at a time that some contributors were calling for MMcC to be sacked after 4 or 5 games and the way in which they directed their venom, in my opinion, lacked any respect for someone trying very hard to get things moving.

Therefore I think I can deal with constructive critisism.

I also feel the general media (although I don't have much time for the tabloids) are neutral and convey their opinions without reference to anyone. I feel this medium is for supporters and to that extent we should use this medium as a channel for support (and constructive critisism). I think perhaps we can agree to disagree here.

My feelings on Saturday past are that, although we have been fortunate this season with a lack of injuries and a full 'preferred team' (minus M McCullough) available, Mark McC could have started the match with fresh legs such as Ferris, Caldwell, Boss etc. - e.g players getting an opportunity to push for places.

I feel the first team players are a litle jaded and tired and Connaught was a good opportunity to give some players a chance to raise their game and front up.

Fresh legs against a team with the attitude Connaught had coming into the game , I feel, might have countered this.

On commercial sponsorship I have some ideas how UB could tap into 'new money' in Northern Ireland'. I think we rely too much on the Banks.

This was not realy a critisism, I feel they are moving in the right direction, but if the likes of Treviso can fill their shirts with multiple sponsors, i'm sure Ulster can.

Le Paul: Thanks for your comments

[Freddie Benson]

, Mark McC could have started the match with fresh legs such as Ferris, Caldwell, Boss etc. - e.g players getting an opportunity to push for places.

I feel the first team players are a litle jaded and tired and Connaught was a good opportunity to give some players a chance to raise their game and front up.

Fresh legs against a team with the attitude Connaught had coming into the game , I feel, might have countered this.

definitely agree there OAWUF
and given the performance, I think that policy should have been persued for tomorrow's game.

re Calvisano shirts - which I think don't have any 'home colours' given that every spare inch is taken up by some logo or other - I wouldn't want to see Ulster go down that route. Yes, maximise revenue and there may be other avenues to explore as you say, but we can't lose the identity of the white shirt and the

[Cockatrice]

OAWUF I was interested in your comments about both the supporters and the team

Firstly regarding the supporters club as someone who did put sometime in I would hope that I would be allowed to make some constructive critisism regarding the club and indeed its relationship with UR should I choose to do so.

Interested if you could explain your ' if a person is willing, but not necessarily able they will realise this' comment.

As for UR I would suggest that I am not as confident as you that UR grasped professional rugby maybe as well they should have particularly now some 6 or so years down the road.

Hopefully the team do not suffer the tale of 2 halves as explained last year or we still may have to discuss how far we have come under the McCall term. Since then we have brought in two very expensive SH players and thankfully seen the early development of Trimble and to a lesser degree Ferris.

However I recall being told that UR will have probably extend the contract of some of its older backs because they do not have enough players coming through in the short term. Hopefully this is somethign that is being addressed before now rather than to be worked on in the future.

On the media front UR appear to want to choose to work through just the Belfast Telegraph (newspaper front) in a somewhat exclusive manner. It will be the same for other sponsors in the future with Ulster going the direct opposite from from any Treviso arrangement. Yes like you I feel that we rely on banks too much but maybe there isn't the interest or indeed the skills to look elsewhere.

[bogboy]

The Supporters Club is as stated a Club for Supporters it may be recognised or unrecognised but never in a month of sundays will it have influence over the Ulster Branch or IRFU since those Bodies are made up of representatives of the Clubs

What we witness is the muddy pool created by the advent of professional Rugby in Ireland upon the framework of what was previously Amateur without the formation of a seperate body for the professional

Thus the Ulster Branch has responiblity for both the professional and amateur game and like wise the staff of the Branch who are accountable to the IRFU

And the IRFU will create policies which it believes to be best for Irish Rugby

and it must be accepted that IRFU must think long term and not short term
thus the immediate concerns of supporters will not rank highly in their thinking ( other than the fact that they realise that winning Teams get better gates than losing ones thus it is in their interest to create winning teams within the budget )

So rant shout scream but remember nobody is listening they will do as they see fit not what the fans say

ie the the Ulster Branch Management is not judged solely on the basis of a successful Ulster side but the the contribution to Irish Rugby

[ballpark]

Bogboy, i think i read in programme notes by Micheal Reid, at the start of last season that gate revenue at that time accounted for 50% of UR's OWN generated income. It's probably even greater this season with the increase in gates thus i do think the supporters have some input into the successs of the club and it's ability, in Ulster's case to attract stars like Justin Harrison and in turn relative success on the field. If that success on the field isn't maintained fans will start to drift away with a resultant downturn in revenue and that could be serious for UR.

According to MR in the prog. within the next 2 years (from October 2004 the date of the prog), the Union (IRFU) would pay the player's salaries (approx. £1.5m).
Ulster rguby would be responsible for paying all other running costs (£1.55m) which are made up of admin, Development (academy, U21) and operating costs such as away travel, management costs and so on. At the the time of the prog. the gate income was approx. 50% of income generated.

Said Reid, " In essence, therefore, Ulster rugby is capable of maintaining the staus quo providing gates remain at current levels, but with the gate income effectively being 50% of the total income it is absolutely essential that this income stream is maintained and that through ground Improvements we add greater breadth to the variety of income streams for Ulster rugby." As quoted from the programme notes by Micheal Reid for Friday 8th October 2004 game between UR and Gwent Dragons at Ravers.

Seems the fans might be important after all.

[bogboy]

Of course the fans are important to the finances but my point was that that importance doesn't mean they have an input to the policy of the Irish Rugby Union or the running of the Branch

But it is in the Branches interest to ensure that the professional side is successful and the receipts are maintained

This is achiveable in a number of ways

But without doubt the biggest block on finances at this time is the lack of a contract with Sky Television which would attract further sponsors and better advertising

This might come with the reduction of football rights by Sky but this opportunity must weighted against other sports such as Cricket and Golf which can provide many more hours of television at a cheaper cost per hour

Whilst baldeagleo9 thinks it is improper to discuss the Maze v anywhere issue, given the current state of finance within Ulster Rugby and its reliance on gate receipts the venue is one of crucial importance and therefore should be of concern to each and every person who considers himself a supporter of Ulster Rugby and the game of rugby in Ulster

[Cockatrice]

On the Maze issue I would agree that any Ulster supporter has a right to discuss the matter and express their view. There are strong feelings on the Maze issue for a number of reasons from political to practical and a supporters club is the ideal vehicle to get those views across.

UR have identified that there is potential to increase revenue from increased corporate type entertainment as well as from extra seating including debentures whilst not forgetting that there is a swell of feeling for remaining a terrace dweller hence the prom type arrangement in front of the new stands at both the terrace side and the car park end.

[jamesie]

UR have identified that there is potential to increase revenue from increased corporate type entertainment as well as from extra seating including debentures whilst not forgetting that there is a swell of feeling for remaining a terrace dweller hence the prom type arrangement in front of the new stands at both the terrace side and the car park end.

UR have identified a lot of things CT, but when will they do things?!