The UAFC

rumncoke wrote:The problem in trying to sign someone as I see it is ---

For how long.

6 months - two years - 10 years

A six month contract lacks any appeal to an outhalf worthy of consideration .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Until we bring on a new outhalf/D4 puts their foot down;. whichever is sooner.

D4 have approved the need but the funds available for the player could be a sticking point as well



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a question. Are our two unavailable players still on full pay until the matter is resolved? If not there must be money available for a temporary replacement

UlsterAreBrill wrote:The interview was last night

Kiwi times are fecked

They're 4 weeks ahead now having been blown into next week by Trump thinking theyre north korea

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Cracker wrote:Just a question. Are our two unavailable players still on full pay until the matter is resolved? If not there must be money available for a temporary replacement

You would imagine they are on full pay until this is concluded. Standard practice really and I assume that would be part of the support the branch and union are providing.

Russ wrote:

UlsterAreBrill wrote:The interview was last night

Kiwi times are fecked

They're 4 weeks ahead now having been blown into next week by Trump thinking theyre north korea

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

The way the Yanks have a habit of hitting the wrong target I wouldn't joke about that Russ, no man anywhere is safe when they fire one of those gizmos

big mervyn wrote:

Cracker wrote:Just a question. Are our two unavailable players still on full pay until the matter is resolved? If not there must be money available for a temporary replacement

You would imagine they are on full pay until this is concluded. Standard practice really and I assume that would be part of the support the branch and union are providing.

Would think the same Mervyn, perhaps just no match bonus payments, end of the day it is a PR thing as much as anything that prevents them from playing.

rumncoke wrote:D4 have approved the need but the funds available for the player could be a sticking point as well



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FFFS Ron'n I keep telling you, Rory can afford it.

BaggyTrousers wrote:

rumncoke wrote:D4 have approved the need but the funds available for the player could be a sticking point as well



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FFFS Ron'n I keep telling you, Rory can afford it.

Rory is married now.

The loot has all been spent on curtains and new lino for the kitchen.

BaggyTrousers wrote:

rumncoke wrote:D4 have approved the need but the funds available for the player could be a sticking point as well



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FFFS Ron'n I keep telling you, Rory can afford it.

And if Rory can't, Kingspan can (if we're still in their good graces).

BaggyTrousers wrote:

rumncoke wrote:D4 have approved the need but the funds available for the player could be a sticking point as well



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FFFS Ron'n I keep telling you, Rory can afford it.

And if Rory can't, Kingspan can (if we're still in their good graces).

Offloading CHARLES will provide all the money and NIQ spots we need to bring in the new 10.. feck he must be good to have to offload CHARLES...don't forget Logie has been working on this since last year.

You have to think this of Stephen Donald, yes he's a very good player, you don't get 22 NZ caps without being good, but is he what Ulster want, does he fulfil the main criteria given he's not Irish? Is he a Christian?

I'll guarantee you right now that whether or not the guy can play, Ulster will sign a Christian.

And another thing. Did anyone in their wildest dreams think Charless would not be off at the end of the season???????? The only surprise to me is that it's Bristol, though unless I'm talking keek, his brother is there too.

And their owner is minted!

more money than the French league has Mr. Lansdown