Puja wrote:And the NZ refusing to play a day later is only from Brian Moore's twitter and appears to be unsubstantiated rumour. And even if it were true, it wouldn't mean "match forfeited for other unions", cause that was part of the participation agreement that matches wouldn't be rearranged.
Puja
NZ was out there before Moore. Has there been a denial I've missed from NZ or WR?
The participation agreement had a force majeure clause allowing WR to do whatever in extremis. Like this. And assurances that contingencies, robust ones were in place - according to WR. Now tell me what those contingencies were for if not to rearrange matches?
Of course they were only in place for some matches, some were stupid, and some did not exist. O dear its a huge storm what could we do is a cover up
Puja wrote:And the NZ refusing to play a day later is only from Brian Moore's twitter and appears to be unsubstantiated rumour. And even if it were true, it wouldn't mean "match forfeited for other unions", cause that was part of the participation agreement that matches wouldn't be rearranged.
Puja
NZ was out there before Moore. Has there been a denial I've missed from NZ or WR?
The participation agreement had a force majeure clause allowing WR to do whatever in extremis. Like this. And assurances that contingencies, robust ones were in place - according to WR. Now tell me what those contingencies were for if not to rearrange matches?
Of course they were only in place for some matches, some were stupid, and some did not exist. O dear its a huge storm what could we do is a cover up
How much salt do you need for this: World Rugby is taking disciplinary action against the SRU for their comments. There’s a chance Scotland will be docked match points, meaning It will need to qualify for RWC2023.
Lizard wrote:How much salt do you need for this: World Rugby is taking disciplinary action against the SRU for their comments. There’s a chance Scotland will be docked match points, meaning It will need to qualify for RWC2023.
The article I link to below sets them out, as opposed to what certain idiots have claimed. It is worth noting that that publication and the author have had a running battle with Dodson for a couple of seasons and its fair to say that there is mutual dislike, even loathing from The offside Line.
It is also worth noting that Gilpin is a lawyer by trade. How ironic he is trying to shut up valid criticism by threatening action.
As I predicted this will not end with the match being played. One of Dodson or Gilpin cannot survive this. This threat of disrepute could be taken to indicate which one is desperate
The article I link to below sets them out, as opposed to what certain idiots have claimed. It is worth noting that that publication and the author have had a running battle with Dodson for a couple of seasons and its fair to say that there is mutual dislike, even loathing from The offside Line.
It is also worth noting that Gilpin is a lawyer by trade. How ironic he is trying to shut up valid criticism by threatening action.
As I predicted this will not end with the match being played. One of Dodson or Gilpin cannot survive this. This threat of disrepute could be taken to indicate which one is desperate
Good link - it's interesting to see them in context, as I had been under the impression that Dodson's comments were quite vituperative from the articles they were quoted in. As whole paragraphs, they're actually quite measured.
Agree entirely that the best thing the IRB could do would be to draw a line under all of this and hope that match cancellations faded out of the public consciousness. I see no value in prolonging this.
The article I link to below sets them out, as opposed to what certain idiots have claimed. It is worth noting that that publication and the author have had a running battle with Dodson for a couple of seasons and its fair to say that there is mutual dislike, even loathing from The offside Line.
It is also worth noting that Gilpin is a lawyer by trade. How ironic he is trying to shut up valid criticism by threatening action.
As I predicted this will not end with the match being played. One of Dodson or Gilpin cannot survive this. This threat of disrepute could be taken to indicate which one is desperate
The article I link to below sets them out, as opposed to what certain idiots have claimed. It is worth noting that that publication and the author have had a running battle with Dodson for a couple of seasons and its fair to say that there is mutual dislike, even loathing from The offside Line.
It is also worth noting that Gilpin is a lawyer by trade. How ironic he is trying to shut up valid criticism by threatening action.
As I predicted this will not end with the match being played. One of Dodson or Gilpin cannot survive this. This threat of disrepute could be taken to indicate which one is desperate
Is it actually ironoc? Solicitor do conflict resolution thru the courts its their mo
Sorry Paddy, I should have said disrepute disciplinery action. my bad.
Gilpin trying to shut Dodson and SRU up by an internal behind closed doors fix, because Dodson took legal advice. Yep, quite ironic the lawyer seems worried about going to the courts and wants to avoid them
“At a series of lengthy and bad-tempered meetings, which lasted for most of Thursday and ended late into the evening, Scottish Rugby’s chief executive Mark Dodson – who was described by one insider as being “in a state of apoplexy” – and chief operating officer Dominic McKay were fighting to ensure that their final pool game goes ahead.”
So is it safe to assume from this that WR were planning on just cancelling the game? I don't think Dodson has handled this very well, but Gilpin sounds like a fucking useless prick.
Cameo wrote:You don't bring something into disrepute by your behaviour in internal meetings and those public comments are not very extreme.
The offside line is good but their coverage of Dodson and Scottish Rugby is tiresome in its our eyedness
did you read the article?
they have been at war with Dodson and Scottish Rugby. This was a superb opportunity to try to stick the boot in. But not on this one. Quite the opposite. Quite remarkable
Cameo wrote:You don't bring something into disrepute by your behaviour in internal meetings and those public comments are not very extreme.
The offside line is good but their coverage of Dodson and Scottish Rugby is tiresome in its our eyedness
did you read the article?
they have been at war with Dodson and Scottish Rugby. This was a superb opportunity to try to stick the boot in. But not on this one. Quite the opposite. Quite remarkable
Yeah, sorry that comment was a more general one (and prompted a bit by the comments on the article). The article itself was surprisingly fair.
Puja wrote:And the NZ refusing to play a day later is only from Brian Moore's twitter and appears to be unsubstantiated rumour. And even if it were true, it wouldn't mean "match forfeited for other unions", cause that was part of the participation agreement that matches wouldn't be rearranged.
Puja
NZ was out there before Moore. Has there been a denial I've missed from NZ or WR?
The participation agreement had a force majeure clause allowing WR to do whatever in extremis. Like this. And assurances that contingencies, robust ones were in place - according to WR. Now tell me what those contingencies were for if not to rearrange matches?
Of course they were only in place for some matches, some were stupid, and some did not exist. O dear its a huge storm what could we do is a cover up
Although, as you've mentioned, take anything coming out of the IRB at the moment with a pinch of salt.
Puja
But then, Brian Moore got weirdly hostile when he was asked by some guy on twitter for some clarification when World Rugby put out their denial, calling the guy a "fucking idiot" and demanding to know who this guy himself had been speaking to (which was kind of confusing). All in all, Moore didn't do himself any favours, and just made himself look like an overly aggressive, thick cunt.
I'm a god
How can you kill a god?
Shame on you, sweet Nerevar
