Australian Rugby / RA
- Thread starter Dave Beat
- Start date
Lorenzo
Colin Windon (37)
It's up to the judge.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Up their insurance cover.
Try-ranosaurus Rex
Darby Loudon (17)
Because RA are a commercial enterprise that took the path of certain economic impact. Listening to Raelene Castle in her interview this morning, it is abundantly clear they RA didn't 'step down' but rather mediated an outcome that cost them less the potential cost of a high stakes court case. Given RA were carrying Employment Practices Insurance, any adjudicated outcome in court would have been covered by insurance. Legal costs wouldn't be covered.
The opportunity to stop the case from going to court, taking up precious newspaper real-estate and the intense media coverage. Not to mention the potential for further division within key stakeholders (other Poly players etc) that would have been brought into to testify in the court.
RA certainly didn't want the circus to continue.
The settlement likely cost RA less than legal fees in court.
Benaud
Tom Lawton (22)
More likely less than the expected payout plus estimated intangible cost to the game of the court proceedings plus legal fees
S
sidelineview
Guest
Yeah, I get what you're saying but RA tried to bluff him into submission and it didn't work.
Folau wanted an apology and reinstatement. He got an apology and compensation.
Folau and his camp must have been happy to settle on that with the next step legislation of a proposed Religious Discrimination Bill.
I'm only assuming. Anyway it's settled; there must be a lot of people wiping their brows.
The Christians will be praying and giving thanks and the others might be saying ''thank f...k that's over''
And hanky head Fitz will be protesting and ranting throwing his arms around but that will be fun to watch.
James Pettifer
Jim Clark (26)
Also if there is a settlement amount and the insured doesn't want to take it, the insurer will normally not pay out any more than the settlement amount.
I think it's "ye". My faith is based on things that can be measured. Plenty has been written on the substance of his church and the reality of the property portfolio. Accumulating properties in the name of religion is a tax rort, no more or less. Pious utterings on your part will change my opinion not one whit.
Juan Cote
Syd Malcolm (24)
I'm glad this has now ended and the thirst for publicity IF seems to have developed can go on unabated without rugby being part of it.
My employer has made it very clear that if I make contrary statements to what their stated goals or values are I can expect to be subject to disciplinary action. To me that seems reasonable. I guess if I really want to disagree with my employer, the highest road I could take would be to walk away, not enter into a protracted disagreement, then take their money via a legal settlement even though I held their views in contempt in the first place.
Folau made it clear his intention was to walk away if Rugby asked him to after the initial showdown, then set about doing the exact opposite.
Both sides have lost a fair deal of paint through this process and for either to claim victory, or others to do so on each parties behalf, cannot be supported by any reasonable analysis.
This was an employment law matter which has been very successfully appropriated into a scrap about freedom of speech and even more bizarrely and assault on religious freedoms.
My employer has made it very clear that if I make contrary statements to what their stated goals or values are I can expect to be subject to disciplinary action. To me that seems reasonable. I guess if I really want to disagree with my employer, the highest road I could take would be to walk away, not enter into a protracted disagreement, then take their money via a legal settlement even though I held their views in contempt in the first place.
Folau made it clear his intention was to walk away if Rugby asked him to after the initial showdown, then set about doing the exact opposite.
Both sides have lost a fair deal of paint through this process and for either to claim victory, or others to do so on each parties behalf, cannot be supported by any reasonable analysis.
This was an employment law matter which has been very successfully appropriated into a scrap about freedom of speech and even more bizarrely and assault on religious freedoms.
"If" it is essentially an insurance claim then RA has little control over the outcome, you pay the vig and their lawyers take over, you sign off the agreement or pay it all (well that it is for PI insurance)
Aurelius
Ted Thorn (20)
At the end of the day, Folau got the apology he wanted and apparently he got his contract paid out, or close to it. Rugby Australia, even though they got a resolution, had to pay out millions of dollars in compensation and now have to face days, weeks or even months of speculation as to exactly how much they paid out (which will only renew itself when they publish their financials for this year).
You can argue that both parties won because they both got something they wanted, but I think I can guess which party feels like a bigger winner.
Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
No one fucking won. No winners. We didnt win because weve been subjected to this absolute fucking garbage when all we want is footy. Izzys career and reputation are kaput even if his bank account is reasonably intact. RA likely lost a significant sum of money, insurance not withstanding and have been thrust into the centre of a broad social issue when, presumably, they too just want to watch some fucking footy.
No winners in sight mate.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
And in the process retaining multi millions in sponsorships that would otherwise be in jeopardy.
Aurelius
Ted Thorn (20)
If RA just wanted to watch some footy they wouldn't have sacked Folau in the first place. They could have just said we don't agree with his beliefs but we respect his right to share them on his own social media, endured a couple of weeks of criticism from the Twitterverse, and weathered it out until Folau started scoring tries again.
Instead, they made a big deal of being a "values-based" organisation and decided to punt one of their most popular players for expressing his religious views, oblivious to the conflict of the values they champion with the culture of one of their biggest player demographics. The fact that a number of Pacific Wallabies were prepared to appear for Folau just shows how flat-footed - even insular - the RA board was on this issue. In short, they decided to become an active participant in the culture wars, and they got their nose bloodied as a consequence.
And, as anyone on here would tell you (because pretty much everyone has) actions have consequences.
Aurelius
Ted Thorn (20)
S
sidelineview
Guest
That's not entirely true.
He qualified that statement by saying he was later disappointed when he saw Castle being interviewed.
He thought he was being misrepresented by what she said.
So that part of the story is not black and white.
He needed legal counsel from the word go.