Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'On the brink' - possible Stuart Olding Premiership switch imminent - reports

GettyImages-457831948

Former Ulster Rugby player Stuart Olding is continuing to be heavily linked with a move to the Premiership, with one newspaper claiming the centre is ‘on the brink’ of signing a contract.

ADVERTISEMENT

Yesterday Ulster Rugby and the IRFU revoked both Jackson and Olding’s contract with “immediate effect” as a result of the fallout over their nine week rape trial – in which both men were acquitted.

It’s also being reported that the pair are to receive a payout close to the value of their ‘revoked’ contracts.

The Irish Sunday Independent are reporting today that the players and the IRFU came to a mutual agreement of sorts that would see their contracts ended, but with much of the value of the contracts to be paid out in a settlement.

According to The Sunday World Olding is close to a deal that would see him move to English champions Exeter Chiefs. Both he and teammate Paddy Jackson have been heavily linked to the club in recent weeks.

With Stuart Olding’s Ulster contract – now revoked – being estimated as between €100,000 and €150,000 per annum, it is likely that Exeter could now pick up the international centre for significantly less than that.

ADVERTISEMENT

Jackson, on the other hand, has been linked with a move to both the Premiership and the Top 14.

One transfer rumour has Jackson moving to Montpellier. How much sense this move makes is questionable with All Black flyhalf Aaron Cruden just coming to the end of the first year of a three year, €2.1 million euro contract.

Meanwhile, writing for RugbyPass, former Ulster and Ireland flanker Neil Best, has criticised the effective sacking of the pair.

The outspoken Best wrote: “At the heart of this whole situation has been a sense of betrayal – firstly by the players of the values of their families and the club, and now by the club of young men, products of their youth system – now sacrificed – not seen to be on the altar or morals and ethics but perceived to be on the altar of sponsorship and money.”

You can read Neil Best’s full article here.

ADVERTISEMENT

Both Jackson and Olding declared their public disappointment at the cancellation of their contract and have vowed to go about the business of rebuilding their careers and reputations.

In a statement to the Press Association, Jackson said: “I am deeply disappointed about the outcome of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby’s internal review.

“However, I recognise that my behaviour has fallen far short of the values expected of me as an international player, a role model for the game of rugby and as a son and a brother. I am truly sorry.

“Since I was a young boy it was my ambition to play for Ulster and Ireland and I am extremely proud, privileged and honoured to have done so. It is therefore with great sadness and regret but with many cherished memories that I leave that behind.

“I would like to thank everyone who has supported me throughout this process. I have taken great strength from that support. I’d also like to thank Ulster and Irish rugby for the opportunities that they provided for me and I wish them, and all my former teammates, every success.

“My focus in the months and years ahead will be on rebuilding the trust placed in me by people throughout Ulster and Ireland.”

Stuart Olding said influences outside of his ‘contractual arrangement’ have made his continued employment impossible.

It said: “It is with regret that I have been informed that the IRFU have decided to revoke my contract.

“As I said outside court following my acquittal, I am and will always be fiercely proud of having played for my province and country.

“I very much wished to continue to have the opportunity to represent them.

“Regrettably, influences outside of my contractual arrangement have made it impossible for that to happen.

“I said outside court that the Stuart Olding that you read about in the trial is not the real Stuart Olding. The treatment that I have received since my acquittal, both fair and unfair, has made me even more determined to prove myself.”

“With the support of my family and friends I shall seek new challenges elsewhere. I bear no one any ill will.

“I am very sorry that this day has come to pass.

“To those who have supported me through these last 20 months and especially the fans who continue to support me, I thank you all.”

The two, who were banned from playing pending the trial, had pleaded not guilty to charges over the alleged incident on June 28, 2016.

The decision to part ways with the players comes after the IRFU and Ulster Rugby conducted an internal review following Jackson and Olding’s acquittal last month.

The review focused on a series of explicit group text conversations involving the players and their friends, which was revealed during the trial.

Two other men, Blane McIlroy, 26, and Rory Harrison, 25, were also acquitted of their respective charges in relation to the case.

The incident has sparked protests outside the club grounds, and several club sponsors have expressed concern following the case.

Yesterday, Ulster sponsor Bank of Ireland issued a statement to the Irish Independent.

“As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial. The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby,” the statement read.

“It is of paramount importance to Bank of Ireland that our sponsorship activity aligns with and supports our core values, and reflects positively on Bank of Ireland through association”.

26-year-old flyhalf Jackson has made 25 appearances for Ireland since 2013, while 25-year-old Olding has made four.

Ulster wing Craig Gilroy has been spared the axe for by the IRFU, who have instead chosen to sanction the player over the sending of a text message.

The IRFU have stated: “Following a review of a text message sent by Craig Gilroy, the Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby have sanctioned him, following a disciplinary process in accordance with the terms of his contract.

“Craig will be unavailable for team selection until 26th April 2018.”

Gilroy was revealed as a participant and sender of a Whats Apps message, details of which were revealed as part of the 9 week rape trial of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

It is understood Gilroy sent a message asking Olding: “Any sluts get f***ed?”.

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

f
fl 36 minutes ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"fl's idea, if I can speak for him to speed things up, was for it to be semifinalists first, Champions Cup (any that somehow didn't make a league semi), then Challenge's semi finalists (which would most certainly have been outside their league semi's you'd think), then perhaps the quarter finalists of each in the same manner. I don't think he was suggesting whoever next performed best in Europe but didn't make those knockouts (like those round of 16 losers), I doubt that would ever happen."


That's not quite my idea.

For a 20 team champions cup I'd have 4 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 4 from the previous years challenge cup. For a 16 team champions cup I'd have 3 teams qualify from the previous years champions cup, and 1 from the previous years challenge cup.


"The problem I mainly saw with his idea (much the same as you see, that league finish is a better indicator) is that you could have one of the best candidates lose in the quarters to the eventual champions, and so miss out for someone who got an easier ride, and also finished lower in the league, perhaps in their own league, and who you beat everytime."

If teams get a tough draw in the challenge cup quarters, they should have won more pool games and so got better seeding. My system is less about finding the best teams, and more about finding the teams who perform at the highest level in european competition.

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Would I'd be think"

Would I'd be think.


"Well that's one starting point for an error in your reasoning. Do you think that in regards to who should have a say in how it's setup in the future as well? Ie you would care what they think or what might be more fair for their teams (not saying your model doesn't allow them a chance)?"

Did you even read what you're replying to? I wasn't arguing for excluding south africa, I was pointing out that the idea of quantifying someone's fractional share of european rugby is entirely nonsensical. You're the one who was trying to do that.


"Yes, I was thinking about an automatic qualifier for a tier 2 side"

What proportion of european rugby are they though? Got to make sure those fractions match up! 😂


"Ultimately what I think would be better for t2 leagues would be a third comp underneath the top two tournemnts where they play a fair chunk of games, like double those two. So half a dozen euro teams along with the 2 SA and bottom bunch of premiership and top14, some Championship and div 2 sides thrown in."

I don't know if Championship sides want to be commuting to Georgia every other week.


"my thought was just to create a middle ground now which can sustain it until that time has come, were I thought yours is more likely to result in the constant change/manipulation it has been victim to"

a middle ground between the current system and a much worse system?

57 Go to comments
f
fl 1 hour ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

"Huh? You mean last in their (4 team) pools/regions? My idea was 6/5/4, 6 the max, for guarenteed spots, with a 20 team comp max, so upto 5 WCs (which you'd make/or would be theoretically impossible to go to one league (they'd likely be solely for its participants, say 'Wales', rather than URC specifically. Preferrably). I gave 3 WC ideas for a 18 team comp, so the max URC could have (with a member union or club/team, winning all of the 6N, and Champions and Challenge Cup) would be 9."


That's a lot of words to say that I was right. If (e.g.) Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.


"And the reason say another URC (for example) member would get the spot over the other team that won the Challenge Cup, would be because they were arguable better if they finished higher in the League."

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.


"It won't diminish desire to win the Challenge Cup, because that team may still be competing for that seed, and if theyre automatic qual anyway, it still might make them treat it more seriously"

This doesn't make sense. Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't. Under my system, teams will "compete for the seed" by winning the Challenge Cup, under yours they won't. If a team is automatically qualified anyway why on earth would that make them treat it more seriously?


"I'm promoting the idea of a scheme that never needs to be changed again"

So am I. I'm suggesting that places could be allocated according to a UEFA style points sytem, or according to a system where each league gets 1/4 of the spots, and the remaining 1/4 go to the best performing teams from the previous season in european competition.


"Yours will promote outcry as soon as England (or any other participant) fluctates. Were as it's hard to argue about a the basis of an equal share."

Currently there is an equal share, and you are arguing against it. My system would give each side the opportunity to achieve an equal share, but with more places given to sides and leagues that perform well. This wouldn't promote outcry, it would promote teams to take european competition more seriously. Teams that lose out because they did poorly the previous year wouldn't have any grounds to complain, they would be incentivised to try harder this time around.


"This new system should not be based on the assumption of last years results/performances continuing."

That's not the assumption I'm making. I don't think the teams that perform better should be given places in the competition because they will be the best performing teams next year, but because sport should be based on merit, and teams should be rewarded for performing well.


"I'm specifically promoting my idea because I think it will do exactly what you want, increase european rugyb's importance."

how?


"I won't say I've done anything compressive"

Compressive.

57 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Top 100: Why do the best players come from the best teams? Top 100: Why do the best players come from the best teams?
Search